Search

Similarly, in late pregnancy, women with type 2 diabetes were more likely to have anxiety symptoms (31 vs 11%; I P i =0.002) and depressive symptoms (23 vs 4%; I P i =0.002) compared to women without diabetes. Compared to women without diabetes, those with type 2 diabetes were more likely to have both anxiety symptoms (36 vs 6%; I P i <0.001) and depressive symptoms (14 vs 2%; I P i =0.003) in early pregnancy. Conclusions While mean sensor glucose over 24 h and overnight were similar between IS-CGM and RT-CGM, time below range overnight was higher when assessed using IS-CGM compared to masked RT-CGM in early pregnancy. The manuscripts chosen for this yearbook address key controversies in the screening and detection of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM), glycemic metrics using intermittent and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in type 1 diabetes and the theory of beta-cell regeneration. [Extracted from the article]

Aims: (1) To determine the likelihood of full breastfeeding at 3 months postpartum in women with and without diabetes in pregnancy (DiP); (2) to explore the associations between diabetes management practices and infant feeding practices in those who had DiP and (3) to examine women's experiences of feeding their infants after having DiP. Methods: The quantitative study used data from Alberta Pregnancy Outcomes and Nutrition (APrON) cohort study. Participants who had DiP (n = 62) were matched 1:3 to participants without DiP for pre‐pregnancy BMI, parity, mode of delivery and pre‐term birth. Infant feeding questionnaires, prospective breastfeeding diaries and medical chart data were analysed to determine likelihood of fully breastfeeding at 3 months postpartum. For the qualitative study, interviews were conducted with postpartum women who had DiP to explore the experiences of infant feeding. Interviews were thematically analysed, and the results were compared between women who were categorized as 'full breast feeders' or 'mixed feeders'. Results: The odds of fully breastfeeding were 50% lower in women with DiP than women without DiP (OR: 0.50, 95% CI 0.25–0.99, p = 0.04). Qualitative interviews identified that although all women showed resilience in the face of infant feeding challenges, those who were fully breastfeeding reported seeking out external infant feeding supports, for example, classes or Doula's. Mixed Feeders perceived there was a lack of infant feeding information and support given to them prior to giving birth. Conclusion: Women with DiP may require additional prenatal and postnatal infant feeding support to be better prepared to overcome feeding challenges they may face. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose Of Review: To review the current evidence for the use of metformin in pregnancy for women with type 2 diabetes.Recent Findings: A large, multicenter, double-blind randomized controlled trial found that women with type 2 diabetes in pregnancy treated with metformin as an adjunct to insulin therapy had less gestational weight gain, insulin requirements, caesarian sections, macrosomia, and neonatal adiposity, but more neonates were small for gestational age (SGA) compared with insulin alone. It is unclear if the higher number of SGA infants are a direct result of metformin exposure or mediated through other effects such as less gestational weight gain and improved glycemic control. Additional follow-up studies of offspring exposed to metformin in utero are required. Metformin may be a useful adjunctive treatment for women with type 2 diabetes in pregnancy to help meet glycemic targets if there are no concerns for or indications of SGA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Results Case 1 presented at 4-weeks gestation in her second pregnancy, having had a previous miscarriage at 7-weeks gestation. They encompass improvements in our understanding of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in pregnancy, early data on the first commercially available closed-loop system used (off-license) during pregnancy, and advancements in our understanding of screening for GDM. As CGM in pregnancy continues to gain more widespread use, identifying these patterns using FDA may not only aid in the understanding of the pathophysiology of various glycemic-related complications but also help diabetes clinicians and women with diabetes identify and target patterns to reduce adverse outcomes. The manuscripts chosen for this year's article on technology and pregnancy demonstrated advances in our understanding of type 1, type 2, and gestational diabetes (GDM) in pregnant women. [Extracted from the article]

In recent years, continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) has become increasingly available with the introduction of devices that are specifically approved for use during pregnancy. Evidence in the form of randomized-controlled trials and cohort studies continues to build support for the use of CGM during pregnancy to improve measures of maternal glycemia as well as obstetric and neonatal outcomes. Based on data from the CGM in pregnant women with type 1 diabetes (CONCEPTT) trial alongside a Swedish cohort study of real-world outcomes of pregnant women with type 1 diabetes, the UK National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidelines now recommend that real-time CGM be offered to all pregnant women with type 1 diabetes. Based on these guidelines, all pregnant individuals in the United Kingdom with type 1 diabetes will receive government-funded real-time CGM for a 12-month duration. These guidelines are a game-changer and will continue to facilitate more widespread access to CGM use in the United Kingdom and beyond. This review describes the role of CGM in the management of diabetes in pregnancy, discusses contemporary maternal glucose levels and their relationship with outcomes in diabetes pregnancies, and examines the high-quality, randomized-controlled trial and the real-world clinical data evaluating the impact of CGM use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The optimal method of monitoring glycemia in pregnant women with type 1 diabetes remains controversial. This study aimed to assess the predictive performance of HbA1c, continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) metrics, and alternative biochemical markers of glycemia to predict obstetric and neonatal outcomes.Research Design and Methods: One hundred fifty-seven women from the Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Women With Type 1 Diabetes in Pregnancy Trial (CONCEPTT) were included in this prespecified secondary analysis. HbA1c, CGM data, and alternative biochemical markers (glycated CD59, 1,5-anhydroglucitol, fructosamine, glycated albumin) were compared at ∼12, 24, and 34 weeks' gestation using logistic regression and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves to predict pregnancy complications (preeclampsia, preterm delivery, large for gestational age, neonatal hypoglycemia, admission to neonatal intensive care unit).Results: HbA1c, CGM metrics, and alternative laboratory markers were all significantly associated with obstetric and neonatal outcomes at 24 weeks' gestation. More outcomes were associated with CGM metrics during the first trimester and with laboratory markers (area under the ROC curve generally <0.7) during the third trimester. Time in range (TIR) (63-140 mg/dL [3.5-7.8 mmol/L]) and time above range (TAR) (>140 mg/dL [>7.8 mmol/L]) were the most consistently predictive CGM metrics. HbA1c was also a consistent predictor of suboptimal pregnancy outcomes. Some alternative laboratory markers showed promise, but overall, they had lower predictive ability than HbA1c.Conclusions: HbA1c is still an important biomarker for obstetric and neonatal outcomes in type 1 diabetes pregnancy. Alternative biochemical markers of glycemia and other CGM metrics did not substantially increase the prediction of pregnancy outcomes compared with widely available HbA1c and increasingly available CGM metrics (TIR and TAR). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The manuscripts chosen for this year's technology and pregnancy article provide new insights into fetal exposure to maternal glucose during pregnancies complicated by gestational diabetes, and type 1 diabetes. Data relating continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in type 1 diabetes pregnancy to neonatal outcomes are scarce. Healthcare providers and women with diabetes can focus on increasing CGM time in range during the latter half of pregnancy to reduce the risk of neonatal hypoglycemia. Women with gestational diabetes were more likely to develop type 2 diabetes or prediabetes than women without gestational diabetes (adjusted OR 3.44 [95% CI 2.84, 4.14]). [Extracted from the article]

Objective: Medical nutrition therapy is a mainstay of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) treatment. However, data are limited regarding the optimal diet for achieving euglycemia and improved perinatal outcomes. This study aims to investigate whether modified dietary interventions are associated with improved glycemia and/or improved birth weight outcomes in women with GDM when compared with control dietary interventions.Research Design and Methods: Data from published randomized controlled trials that reported on dietary components, maternal glycemia, and birth weight were gathered from 12 databases. Data were extracted in duplicate using prespecified forms.Results: From 2,269 records screened, 18 randomized controlled trials involving 1,151 women were included. Pooled analysis demonstrated that for modified dietary interventions when compared with control subjects, there was a larger decrease in fasting and postprandial glucose (-4.07 mg/dL [95% CI -7.58, -0.57]; P = 0.02 and -7.78 mg/dL [95% CI -12.27, -3.29]; P = 0.0007, respectively) and a lower need for medication treatment (relative risk 0.65 [95% CI 0.47, 0.88]; P = 0.006). For neonatal outcomes, analysis of 16 randomized controlled trials including 841 participants showed that modified dietary interventions were associated with lower infant birth weight (-170.62 g [95% CI -333.64, -7.60]; P = 0.04) and less macrosomia (relative risk 0.49 [95% CI 0.27, 0.88]; P = 0.02). The quality of evidence for these outcomes was low to very low. Baseline differences between groups in postprandial glucose may have influenced glucose-related outcomes. As well, relatively small numbers of study participants limit between-diet comparison.Conclusions: Modified dietary interventions favorably influenced outcomes related to maternal glycemia and birth weight. This indicates that there is room for improvement in usual dietary advice for women with GDM. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The objective of the study is to assess the impact of maternal glycaemic control and large-for-gestational-age (LGA) infant size on the risk of developing neonatal hypoglycaemia in offspring of women with type 1 diabetes and to determine possible predictors of neonatal hypoglycaemia and LGA.Research Methods and Design: This retrospective cohort study evaluated pregnancies in 161 women with type 1 diabetes mellitus at a large urban centre between 2006 and 2010. Mean trimester A1c values were categorized into five groups. Multiple logistic regression analyses were used to examine predictors of neonatal hypoglycaemia and large-for-gestational-age (LGA).Results: Hypoglycaemia occurred in 36.6% of neonates. There was not a linear association between trimester specific A1c and LGA. After adjusting for maternal age, body mass index (BMI), smoking and premature delivery, neonatal hypoglycaemia was not linearly associated with A1c in the first, second or third trimesters. LGA was the only significant predictor for neonatal hypoglycaemia (OR, 95% CI 2.51 [1.10, 5.70]) in logistic regression analysis that adjusted for glycaemic control, maternal age, smoking, prematurity and BMI. An elevated third trimester A1c increased the odds of LGA (1.81 [1.03, 3.18]) after adjustment for smoking, parity and maternal BMI.Conclusions: Large-for-gestational-age imparts a 2.5-fold increased odds of hypoglycaemia in neonates of women with type 1 diabetes and may be a better predictor of neonatal hypoglycaemia than maternal glycaemic control. Our data suggest that LGA neonates of women with type 1 diabetes should prompt increased surveillance for neonatal hypoglycaemia and that the presence of optimum maternal glycaemic control should not reduce this surveillance. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]