Search

Background: The incidence of type 2 diabetes in pregnancy is rising and rates of serious adverse maternal and fetal outcomes remain high. Metformin is a biguanide that is used as first-line treatment for non-pregnant patients with type 2 diabetes. We hypothesize that metformin use in pregnancy, as an adjunct to insulin, will decrease adverse outcomes by reducing maternal hyperglycemia, maternal insulin doses, maternal weight gain and gestational hypertension/pre-eclampsia. In addition, since metformin crosses the placenta, metformin treatment of the fetus may have a direct beneficial effect on neonatal outcomes. Our aim is to compare the effectiveness of the addition of metformin to insulin, to standard care (insulin plus placebo) in women with type 2 diabetes in pregnancy.Methods: The MiTy trial is a multi-centre randomized trial currently enrolling pregnant women with type 2 diabetes, who are on insulin, between the ages of 18-45, with a gestational age of 6 weeks 0 days to 22 weeks 6 days. In this randomized, double-masked, parallel placebo-controlled trial, after giving informed consent, women are randomized to receive either metformin 1,000 mg twice daily or placebo twice daily. A web-based block randomization system is used to assign women to metformin or placebo in a 1:1 ratio, stratified for site and body mass index. The primary outcome is a composite neonatal outcome of pregnancy loss, preterm birth, birth injury, moderate/severe respiratory distress, neonatal hypoglycemia, or neonatal intensive care unit admission longer than 24 h. Secondary outcomes are large for gestational age, cord blood gas pH < 7.0, congenital anomalies, hyperbilirubinemia, sepsis, hyperinsulinemia, shoulder dystocia, fetal fat mass, as well as maternal outcomes: maternal weight gain, maternal insulin doses, maternal glycemic control, maternal hypoglycemia, gestational hypertension, preeclampsia, cesarean section, number of hospitalizations during pregnancy, and duration of hospital stays. The trial aims to enroll 500 participants.Discussion: The results of this trial will inform endocrinologists, obstetricians, family doctors, and other healthcare professionals caring for women with type 2 diabetes in pregnancy, as to the benefits of adding metformin to insulin in this high risk population.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: no. NCT01353391 . Registered February 6, 2009. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To test the hypothesis that the risk of neonatal morbidity among late-preterm twins is similar to that of late-preterm singletons.Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of all women with twin or singleton pregnancy who gave birth during the late-preterm period in a single tertiary center between 2008 and 2015. Neonatal outcomes of low-risk, late-preterm twins were compared with those of low-risk, late-preterm singletons. The primary outcome was the same primary composite respiratory morbidity variable that was used in the randomized controlled trial of Gyamfi-Bannerman et al on the administration of antenatal corticosteroids during the late-preterm period.Results: A total of 922 singleton and 721 twin late-preterm neonates met the inclusion criteria. The rates of composite respiratory morbidity and severe composite respiratory morbidity were similar for twins and singletons (8.3% compared with 7.4%, P=.5 and 6.8% compared with 6.0%, P=.5, respectively), but were lower than the rates of the same composite respiratory morbidity variable in the randomized controlled study described previously. The odds for respiratory morbidity were similar for twins and singletons for both composite respiratory morbidity (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.73, 95% CI 0.48-1.12) and severe composite respiratory morbidity (adjusted OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.50-1.24).Conclusion: The risk of respiratory morbidity among late-preterm twins is similar to that of late-preterm singletons. Still, the low absolute rates of the composite respiratory morbidity in our population suggest that administration of antenatal corticosteroids may be mostly justified among neonates born closer to 34 weeks of gestation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Pregnant women with type 1 diabetes are a high-risk population who are recommended to strive for optimal glucose control, but neonatal outcomes attributed to maternal hyperglycaemia remain suboptimal. Our aim was to examine the effectiveness of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) on maternal glucose control and obstetric and neonatal health outcomes.Methods: In this multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial, we recruited women aged 18-40 years with type 1 diabetes for a minimum of 12 months who were receiving intensive insulin therapy. Participants were pregnant (≤13 weeks and 6 days' gestation) or planning pregnancy from 31 hospitals in Canada, England, Scotland, Spain, Italy, Ireland, and the USA. We ran two trials in parallel for pregnant participants and for participants planning pregnancy. In both trials, participants were randomly assigned to either CGM in addition to capillary glucose monitoring or capillary glucose monitoring alone. Randomisation was stratified by insulin delivery (pump or injections) and baseline glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c). The primary outcome was change in HbA1c from randomisation to 34 weeks' gestation in pregnant women and to 24 weeks or conception in women planning pregnancy, and was assessed in all randomised participants with baseline assessments. Secondary outcomes included obstetric and neonatal health outcomes, assessed with all available data without imputation. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01788527.Findings: Between March 25, 2013, and March 22, 2016, we randomly assigned 325 women (215 pregnant, 110 planning pregnancy) to capillary glucose monitoring with CGM (108 pregnant and 53 planning pregnancy) or without (107 pregnant and 57 planning pregnancy). We found a small difference in HbA1c in pregnant women using CGM (mean difference -0·19%; 95% CI -0·34 to -0·03; p=0·0207). Pregnant CGM users spent more time in target (68% vs 61%; p=0·0034) and less time hyperglycaemic (27% vs 32%; p=0·0279) than did pregnant control participants, with comparable severe hypoglycaemia episodes (18 CGM and 21 control) and time spent hypoglycaemic (3% vs 4%; p=0·10). Neonatal health outcomes were significantly improved, with lower incidence of large for gestational age (odds ratio 0·51, 95% CI 0·28 to 0·90; p=0·0210), fewer neonatal intensive care admissions lasting more than 24 h (0·48; 0·26 to 0·86; p=0·0157), fewer incidences of neonatal hypoglycaemia (0·45; 0·22 to 0·89; p=0·0250), and 1-day shorter length of hospital stay (p=0·0091). We found no apparent benefit of CGM in women planning pregnancy. Adverse events occurred in 51 (48%) of CGM participants and 43 (40%) of control participants in the pregnancy trial, and in 12 (27%) of CGM participants and 21 (37%) of control participants in the planning pregnancy trial. Serious adverse events occurred in 13 (6%) participants in the pregnancy trial (eight [7%] CGM, five [5%] control) and in three (3%) participants in the planning pregnancy trial (two [4%] CGM and one [2%] control). The most common adverse events were skin reactions occurring in 49 (48%) of 103 CGM participants and eight (8%) of 104 control participants during pregnancy and in 23 (44%) of 52 CGM participants and five (9%) of 57 control participants in the planning pregnancy trial. The most common serious adverse events were gastrointestinal (nausea and vomiting in four participants during pregnancy and three participants planning pregnancy).Interpretation: Use of CGM during pregnancy in patients with type 1 diabetes is associated with improved neonatal outcomes, which are likely to be attributed to reduced exposure to maternal hyperglycaemia. CGM should be offered to all pregnant women with type 1 diabetes using intensive insulin therapy. This study is the first to indicate potential for improvements in non-glycaemic health outcomes from CGM use.Funding: Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, Canadian Clinical Trials Network, and National Institute for Health Research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To compare women's views about blood pressure (BP) control in CHIPS (Control of Hypertension In Pregnancy Study) (NCT01192412).Design: Quantitative and qualitative analysis of questionnaire responses.Setting: International randomised trial (94 sites, 15 countries).Population/sample: 911 (92.9%) women randomised to 'tight' (target diastolic blood pressure, 85mmHg) or 'less tight' (target diastolic blood pressure, 100mmHg) who completed questionnaires.Methods: A questionnaire was administered at ∼6-12 weeks postpartum regarding post-discharge morbidity and views about trial participation. Questionnaires were administered by the site co-ordinator, and contact was made by phone, home or clinic visit; rarely, data was collected from medical records. Quantitative analyses were Chi-square or Fisher's exact test for categorical variables, mixed effects multinomial logistic regression to adjust for confounders, and p<0.001 for statistical significance. NVivo software was used for thematic analysis of women's views.Main Outcome Measures: Satisfaction, measured as willingness to have the same treatment in another pregnancy or recommend that treatment to a friend.Results: Among the 533 women in 'tight' (N=265) vs. 'less tight' (N=268) control who provided comments for qualitative analysis, women in 'tight' (vs. 'less tight') control made fewer positive comments about the amount of medication taken (5 vs. 28 women, respectively) and intensity of BP monitoring (7 vs. 17, respectively). However, this did not translate into less willingness to either have the same treatment in another pregnancy (434, 95.8% vs. 423, 92.4%, respectively; p=0.14) or recommend that treatment to a friend (435, 96.0% and 428, 93.4%, respectively; p=0.17). Importantly, although satisfaction remained high among women with an adverse outcome, those in 'tight' control who suffered an adverse outcome (vs. those who did not) were not consistently less satisfied, whereas this was not the case among women in 'less tight' control among whom satisfaction was consistently lower for the CHIPS primary outcome (p<0.001), severe hypertension (p≤0.01), and pre-eclampsia (p<0.001).Conclusions: Women in 'tight' (vs. 'less tight') control were equally satisfied with their care, and more so in the face of adverse perinatal or maternal outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]