Search

Objective: Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) has become available for women with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) or gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) during pregnancy. The recommended time in range (TIR, blood glucose 70-140 mg/dL) and its correlation with adverse pregnancy outcomes in this group is unknown. Our aim was to compare maternal and neonatal outcomes in pregnant people with T2DM or GDM with average CGM TIR values >70 versus ≤70%., Study Design: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of all individuals using CGM during pregnancy from January 2017 to June 2022. Individuals with type 1 diabetes mellitus, or those missing CGM or delivery data were excluded. Primary composite neonatal outcome included any of the following: large for gestational age, NICU admission, need for intravenous glucose, respiratory support, or neonatal death. Secondary outcomes included other maternal and neonatal outcomes. Regression models were used to estimate adjusted odds ratio (aOR) and 95% confidence interval (CI)., Results: During the study period, 141 individuals with diabetes utilized CGM during pregnancy, with 65 (46%) meeting inclusion criteria. Of the study population, 28 (43%) had TIR ≤70% and 37 (57%) had TIR > 70%. Compared with those with TIR > 70%, the primary composite outcome occurred more frequently in neonates of individuals TIR ≤70% (71.4 vs. 37.8%, aOR: 4.8, 95% CI: 1.6, 15.7). Furthermore, individuals with TIR ≤70% were more likely to have hypertensive disorders (42.9 vs. 16.2%, OR: 3.9, 95% CI: 1.3, 13.0), preterm delivery (54 vs. 27%, OR: 3.1, 95% CI: 1.1, 9.1): , and cesarean delivery (96.4 vs. 51.4%, OR: 4.6, 95% CI: 2.2, 15.1) compared with those with TIR >70%., Conclusion: Among people with T2DM or GDM who utilized CGM during pregnancy, 4 out 10 individuals had TIR ≤70% and, compared with those with TIR > 70%, they had a higher likelihood of adverse neonatal and maternal outcomes., Key Points: · Time in range can be utilized as a metric for pregnant patients using continuous glucose monitor.. · Time in range >70% is achievable by 6 out of 10 patients.. · Time in range below goal is associated with adverse neonatal and maternal outcomes.., Competing Interests: None declared., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

Diabetes mellitus in pregnancy is associated with adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes. Optimal glycemic control is associated with improved outcomes. Continuous glucose monitoring is a less invasive alternative to blood glucose measurements. Two types of continuous glucose monitoring are available in the market: real time and intermittently scanned. Continuous glucose monitoring is gaining popularity and is now recommended by some societies for glucose monitoring in pregnant women. In this review, we discuss the differences between the two types of continuous glucose monitoring, optimal treatment goals, and whether there is an improvement in maternal or neonatal outcomes., Competing Interests: Financial Disclosure The authors did not report any potential conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To compare the rate of neonatal hypoglycemia among newborns delivered by individuals with Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in two clinical scenarios: who attempted vaginal delivery vs. had a planned cesarean delivery (CD); who had intrapartum insulin infusion vs. who did not., Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of individuals with insulin-treated T2DM who had non-anomalous singleton pregnancy and delivered at a single tertiary center (March 2012 and May 2018). Individuals with chronic renal failure, proliferative retinopathy, or major congenital anomalies were excluded. The primary outcome was neonatal hypoglycemia (blood glucose < 40 mg/dl <24 h of age or < 50 mg/dl >24 h of age). Secondary outcomes included neonatal outcomes. Multivariable Poisson regression models with robust error variance were used to examine the association between groups and the primary outcome. Adjusted relative risk (aRR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated., Results: Of 233 individuals with T2DM, 215 (92.2%) met the inclusion criteria, of whom 95 (44%) attempted vaginal delivery and 120 (56%) had a planned CD. Individuals who labored had a higher gestational age at delivery (36.6 vs. 35.8 weeks, p  = .005), and higher blood glucose levels upon admission (125 vs 103, p  < .001) compared to those with a planned CD. After adjustment for potential confounders, there was no difference in risk of neonatal hypoglycemia between the groups (41.2 vs 44.1%, aRR 1.05, 95% CI = 0.75-1.45). Among those who attempted vaginal delivery, 34 (35.8%) required insulin infusion. There was no difference in the risk of neonatal hypoglycemia (aRR = 0.79, 95% CI = 0.45-1.37) between newborns delivered by individuals who required insulin infusion and those who did not., Conclusion: Over 40% of newborns delivered by individuals with insulin-dependent T2DM had hypoglycemia; however, there was no significant difference in the risk of hypoglycemia, irrespective of the route of delivery and the use of insulin infusion.

Background: Insulin detemir, being used increasingly during pregnancy, may have pharmacologic benefits compared with neutral protamine Hagedorn., Objective: We evaluated the probability that compared with treatment with neutral protamine Hagedorn, treatment with insulin detemir reduces the risk for adverse neonatal outcome among individuals with type 2 or overt type 2 diabetes mellitus (gestational diabetes mellitus diagnosed at <20 weeks' gestation)., Study Design: We performed a multiclinic randomized controlled trial (September 2018 to January 2020), which included women with singleton gestation with type 2 or overt type 2 diabetes mellitus who sought obstetrical care at ≤21 weeks' gestation. Participants were randomized to receive either insulin detemir or neutral protamine Hagedorn by a clinic-stratified scheme. The primary outcome was a composite of adverse neonatal outcomes, including shoulder dystocia, large for gestational age, neonatal intensive care unit admission, respiratory distress (defined as the need of at least 4 hours of respiratory support with supplemental oxygen, continuous positive airway pressure or ventilation at the first 24 hours of life), or hypoglycemia. The secondary neonatal outcomes included gestational age at delivery, small for gestational age, 5-minute Apgar score of <7, lowest glucose level, need for intravenous glucose, respiratory distress syndrome, need for mechanical ventilation or continuous positive airway pressure, neonatal jaundice requiring therapy, brachial plexus injury, and hospital length of stay. The secondary maternal outcomes included hypoglycemic events, hospital admission for glucose control, hypertensive disorder of pregnancy, maternal weight gain, cesarean delivery, and postpartum complications. We used the Bayesian statistics to estimate a sample size of 108 to have >75% probability of any reduction in the primary outcome, assuming 80% power and a hypothesized effect of 33% reduction with insulin detemir. All analyses were intent to treat under a Bayesian framework with neutral priors (a priori assumed a 50:50 likelihood of either intervention being better; National Clinical Trial identifier 03620890)., Results: There were 108 women randomized in this trial (57 in insulin detemir and 51 in neutral protamine Hagedorn), and 103 women were available for analysis of the primary outcome (n=5 for pregnancy loss before 24 weeks' gestation). Bayesian analysis indicated an 87% posterior probability of reduced primary outcome with insulin detemir compared with neutral protamine Hagedorn (posterior adjusted relative risk, 0.88; 95% credible interval, 0.61-1.12). Bayesian analyses for secondary outcomes showed consistent findings of lower adverse maternal outcomes with the use of insulin detemir vs neutral protamine Hagedorn: for example, maternal hypoglycemic events (97% probability of benefit; posterior adjusted relative risk, 0.59; 95% credible interval, 0.29-1.08) and hypertensive disorders (88% probability of benefit; posterior adjusted relative risk, 0.81; 95% credible interval, 0.54-1.16)., Conclusion: In our comparative effectiveness trial involving individuals with type 2 or overt type 2 diabetes mellitus, use of insulin detemir resulted in lower rates of adverse neonatal and maternal outcomes compared with neutral protamine Hagedorn., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Objective: To determine whether basal insulin analogs reduce the rate of composite neonatal morbidity compared with neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) in women with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM)., Study Design: This was a retrospective cohort study of women with T2DM and singleton pregnancy at a single tertiary center. Primary outcome was a composite neonatal morbidity of any of the following: shoulder dystocia, large for gestational age, neonatal intensive care unit admission, neonatal hypoglycemia, or respiratory distress syndrome. Secondary outcomes were rates of maternal hypoglycemic events, hypertensive disorders, preterm birth, and primary cesarean delivery. Adjusted relative risk (aRR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated., Results: Of 233 women with T2DM that met the inclusion criteria, 114 (49%) were treated with basal insulin analogs and 119 (51%) with NPH. The rate of composite neonatal morbidity was similar between groups (73 vs. 60%; aRR: 1.18; 95% CI: 0.92-1.51). There were no differences in the rates of maternal adverse outcomes between the groups. Basal insulin analog was associated with a lower rate of primary cesarean delivery as compared with NPH (21 vs. 36%; aRR: 0.44; 95% CI: 0.25-0.78)., Conclusion: Among pregnant women with T2DM managed with either basal or NPH insulin regimen, the rates of composite neonatal morbidity and maternal complications were similar., Competing Interests: None declared., (Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.)