Dataset Information

Three Days Compared to One Day Per Week of Self-Monitoring of Blood Glucose in Mild Gestational Diabetes: A Randomized Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The International Diabetes Federation estimates that 16.2% of livebirths in 2017 were affected by hyperglycemia in pregnancy, with 85.1% due to gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). Daily blood glucose monitoring compared with alternate day testing in mild GDM is associated with similar pregnancy outcomes. Data are sparse on the ideal frequency for self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) in mild GDM for glycemic control. A higher HbA1c at late pregnancy is associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes. We sought to evaluate three days compared to one day per week of four-point self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) in gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) controlled by lifestyle changes for glycemic control.

Methods

This randomized trial was conducted from February-December 2018. A total of 106 women with lifestyle-controlled GDM were randomized to three days (SMBG3) or one day (SMBG1) per week of four-point (fasting and two-hours post-meal) SMBG. The primary outcome was the change in the HbA1c level at recruitment and 36-weeks gestation within and across trial arms. The student t-test was used for between-arm analyses and a paired t-test for within-arm analyses.

Results

The HbA1c level through pregnancy increased significantly in both trial arms: mean increase of 0.21% ± 0.26%, p < 0.001 (SMBG3), and 0.19% ± 0.24%, p < 0.001 (SMBG1), but the 0.02% difference across trial arms was not significant (p = 0.79). Maternal weight gain (3.1 ± 2.1 kg vs. 3.3 ± 3.0 kg, p = 0.72), cesarean delivery (24/52 (48%) vs. 23/53 (43%), RR 1.06, 95% CI: 0.69-1.62, p = 0.77), neonatal birthweight (3.1 ± 0.4 kg vs. 3.0 ± 0.4 kg, p = 0.53) and neonatal intensive care unit admission (4/52 (8%) vs. 3/53 (6%), RR 1.36, 95% CI: 0.32-5.78, p = 0.68) were not significantly different for SMBG3 vs. SMBG1, respectively. Other maternal and neonatal secondary outcomes were not significantly different.

Conclusion

In mild GDM, three days compared to one day per week showed a similar HbA1c levels change at 36-weeks gestation. Maternal and neonatal outcomes were also not significantly different. Less frequent monitoring of SMBG as a standard of care in mild GDM deserves further study and consideration.

SUBMITTER: Hong JGS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9267312 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIntermittent fasting (IF), consisting of either a one-day (IF1) or two consecutive days (IF2) per week, is commonly used for optimal body weight loss. Our laboratory has previously shown an IF1 diet combined with 6d/week of protein pacing (P; 4-5 meals/day evenly spaced, ~ 30% protein/day) significantly enhances weight loss, body composition, and cardiometabolic health in obese men and women. Whether an IF1-P or IF2-P, matched for weekly energy intake (EI) and expenditure (EE), is superior for weight loss, body composition, and cardiometabolic health is unknown.MethodsThis randomized control study directly compared an IF1-P (n = 10) versus an IF2-P (n = 10) diet on weight loss and body composition, cardiovascular (blood pressure and lipids), hormone, and hunger responses in 20 overweight men and women during a 4-week weight loss period. Participants received weekly dietary counseling and monitoring of compliance from a registered dietitian. All outcome variables were assessed pre (week 0) and post (week 5).ResultsBoth groups significantly reduced body weight, waist circumference, percent body fat, fat mass, hunger, blood pressure, lipids, glucose, and increased percent fat-free mass (p < 0.05). However, IF2-P resulted in significantly greater reductions in body weight (-29%) and waist circumference (-38%) compared to IF1-P (p < 0.05), and showed a strong tendency for greater reductions in fat mass, glucose, and hunger levels (p < 0.10) despite similar weekly total EI (IF1-P, 9058 ± 692 vs. IF2-P, 8389 ± 438 kcals/week; p = 0.90), EE (~ 300 kcals/day; p = 0.79), and hormone responses (p > 0.10).ConclusionsThese findings support short-term IF1-P and IF2-P to optimize weight loss and improve body composition, cardiometabolic health, and hunger management, with IF2-P providing enhanced benefits in overweight women and men.Trial registrationThis trial was registered March 03, 2020 at www.Clinicaltrialsgov as NCT04327141 .

Project description:In this randomized clinical trial, we aimed to determine whether increasing the frequency of in-center hemodialysis would result in beneficial changes in left ventricular mass, self-reported physical health, and other intermediate outcomes among patients undergoing maintenance hemodialysis.Patients were randomly assigned to undergo hemodialysis six times per week (frequent hemodialysis, 125 patients) or three times per week (conventional hemodialysis, 120 patients) for 12 months. The two coprimary composite outcomes were death or change (from baseline to 12 months) in left ventricular mass, as assessed by cardiac magnetic resonance imaging, and death or change in the physical-health composite score of the RAND 36-item health survey. Secondary outcomes included cognitive performance; self-reported depression; laboratory markers of nutrition, mineral metabolism, and anemia; blood pressure; and rates of hospitalization and of interventions related to vascular access.Patients in the frequent-hemodialysis group averaged 5.2 sessions per week; the weekly standard Kt/V(urea) (the product of the urea clearance and the duration of the dialysis session normalized to the volume of distribution of urea) was significantly higher in the frequent-hemodialysis group than in the conventional-hemodialysis group (3.54±0.56 vs. 2.49±0.27). Frequent hemodialysis was associated with significant benefits with respect to both coprimary composite outcomes (hazard ratio for death or increase in left ventricular mass, 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.46 to 0.82; hazard ratio for death or a decrease in the physical-health composite score, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.92). Patients randomly assigned to frequent hemodialysis were more likely to undergo interventions related to vascular access than were patients assigned to conventional hemodialysis (hazard ratio, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.08 to 2.73). Frequent hemodialysis was associated with improved control of hypertension and hyperphosphatemia. There were no significant effects of frequent hemodialysis on cognitive performance, self-reported depression, serum albumin concentration, or use of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents.Frequent hemodialysis, as compared with conventional hemodialysis, was associated with favorable results with respect to the composite outcomes of death or change in left ventricular mass and death or change in a physical-health composite score but prompted more frequent interventions related to vascular access. (Funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00264758.).

Project description:BackgroundThe harm caused by the long interdialytic interval in three-times-per-week haemodialysis regimens (3×WHD) may relate to fluid accumulation and associated high ultrafiltration rate (UFR). Four-times-per-week haemodialysis (4×WHD) may offer a solution, but its impact on mortality, hospitalization and vascular access complications is unknown.MethodsFrom the AROii cohort of incident in-centre haemodialysis patients, 3×WHD patients with a UFR >10 mL/kg/h were identified. The hazard for the outcomes of mortality, hospitalization and vascular access complications in those who switched to 4×WHD compared with staying on 3×WHD was estimated using a marginal structural Cox proportional hazards model. Adjustment included baseline patient and treatment characteristics with inverse probability weighting used to adjust for time-varying UFR and cardiovascular comorbidities.ResultsFrom 10 637 European 3×WHD patients, 3842 (36%) exceeded a UFR >10 mL/kg/h. Of these, 288 (7.5%) started 4×WHD and at baseline were more comorbid. Event rates while receiving 4×WHD compared with 3×WHD were 12.6 compared with 10.8 per 100 patient years for mortality, 0.96 compared with 0.65 per year for hospitalization and 14.7 compared with 8.0 per 100 patient years for vascular access complications. Compared with 3×WHD, the unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) for mortality on 4×WHD was 1.05 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78-1.42]. Following adjustment for baseline demographics, time-varying treatment probability and censoring risks, this HR was 0.73 (95% CI 0.50-1.05; P = 0.095). Despite these adjustments on 4×WHD, the HR for hospitalization remained elevated and vascular access complications were similar to 3×WHD.ConclusionsThis observational study was not able to demonstrate a mortality benefit in patients switched to 4×WHD. To demonstrate the true benefits of 4×WHD requires a large, well-designed clinical trial. Our data may help in the design of such a study.