Dataset Information

Probiotics for preventing gestational diabetes.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is associated with a range of adverse pregnancy outcomes for mother and infant. The prevention of GDM using lifestyle interventions has proven difficult. The gut microbiome (the composite of bacteria present in the intestines) influences host inflammatory pathways, glucose and lipid metabolism and, in other settings, alteration of the gut microbiome has been shown to impact on these host responses. Probiotics are one way of altering the gut microbiome but little is known about their use in influencing the metabolic environment of pregnancy.

Objectives

To assess the effects of probiotic supplementation when compared with other methods for the prevention of GDM.

Search methods

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 August 2013) and reference lists of the articles of retrieved studies.

Selection criteria

Randomised and cluster-randomised trials comparing the use of probiotic supplementation with other methods for the prevention of the development of GDM. Cluster-randomised trials were eligible for inclusion but none were identified. Quasi-randomised and cross-over design studies are not eligible for inclusion in this review. Studies presented only as abstracts with no subsequent full report of study results would also have been excluded.

Data collection and analysis

Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data and assessed risk of bias of included study. Data were checked for accuracy.

Main results

Eleven reports (relating to five possible trials) were found. We included one study (six trial reports) involving 256 women. Four other studies are ongoing.The included trial consisted of three treatment arms: probiotic with dietary intervention, placebo and dietary intervention, and dietary intervention alone; it was at a low risk of bias. The study reported primary outcomes of a reduction in the rate of gestational diabetes mellitus (risk ratio (RR) 0.38, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.20 to 0.70), with no statistical difference in the rates of miscarriage/intrauterine fetal death (IUFD)/stillbirth/neonatal death (RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.35 to 11.35). Secondary outcomes reported were a reduction in infant birthweight (mean difference (MD) -127.71 g, 95% CI -251.37 to -4.06) in the probiotic group and no clear evidence of increased risk of preterm delivery (RR 3.27, 95% CI 0.44 to 24.43), or caesarean section rate (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.32). The primary infant outcomes of rates of macrosomia and large-for-gestational age infants were not reported. The following secondary outcomes were not reported: maternal gestational weight gain, pre-eclampsia, and the long-term diagnosis of diabetes mellitus; infant body composition, shoulder dystocia, admission to neonatal intensive care, jaundice, hypoglycaemia and long-term rates of obesity and diabetes mellitus.

Authors' conclusions

One trial has shown a reduction in the rate of GDM when women are randomised to probiotics early in pregnancy but more uncertain evidence of any effect on miscarriage/IUFD/stillbirth/neonatal death. There are no data on macrosomia. At this time, there are insufficient studies to perform a quantitative meta-analysis. Further results are awaited from four ongoing studies.

SUBMITTER: Barrett HL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6885033 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundLifestyle interventions (diet, physical activity and/or behavioural) to optimise gestational weight gain can prevent adverse maternal outcomes such as gestational diabetes, pre-eclampsia and caesarean section.ObjectiveWe aimed to model the cost effectiveness of lifestyle interventions during pregnancy on reducing adverse maternal outcomes.MethodsDecision tree modelling was used to determine the cost effectiveness of lifestyle interventions compared with usual care on preventing cases of gestational diabetes and hypertensive disease in pregnancy. Participants were pregnant women receiving routine antenatal care in secondary and tertiary care hospitals. The main outcome measures were cases of gestational diabetes and/or hypertensive disease in pregnancy prevented, costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Analysis was conducted from the perspective of the Australian healthcare system, with a time horizon of early pregnancy to discharge after birth.ResultsWomen in the intervention group were 2.25% less likely to have gestational diabetes and/or hypertensive disease in pregnancy (9.53%) compared with the control group (11.78%). Intervention costs were Australian dollars (AUD) 228 per person. Costs were AUD33 per person higher in the intervention group (AUD8281) than the control group (AUD8248). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was AUD1470 per case prevented. Sensitivity analysis showed that base-case results were robust. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, 44.8% of data points fell within the north-east quadrant, and 52.2% in the south-east quadrant (cost saving), with a 95% confidence interval ranging from AUD - 50,018 to 32,779 per case prevented.ConclusionsWhile there is no formally accepted cost-effectiveness threshold for willingness-to-pay to prevent an adverse maternal event, the cost per person receiving a lifestyle intervention compared with controls was close to neutral, and therefore likely to be cost effective. Exploration of the cost effectiveness of different lifestyle delivery modes across various models of antenatal care is now required. Future cost-effectiveness studies should investigate longer time horizons, quality-adjusted life-years and productivity loss.Trial registrationNot applicable.