Search

Objective: To compare glycemic control, quality of life, and pregnancy outcomes of women using insulin pumps and multiple daily injection therapy (MDI) during the Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Women With Type 1 Diabetes in Pregnancy Trial (CONCEPTT).Research Design and Methods: This was a prespecified analysis of CONCEPTT involving 248 pregnant women from 31 centers. Randomization was stratified for pump versus MDI and HbA1c. The primary outcome was change in HbA1c from randomization to 34 weeks' gestation. Key secondary outcomes were continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) measures, maternal-infant health, and patient-reported outcomes.Results: At baseline, pump users were more often in stable relationships (P = 0.003), more likely to take preconception vitamins (P = 0.03), and less likely to smoke (P = 0.02). Pump and MDI users had comparable first-trimester glycemia: HbA1c 6.84 ± 0.71 vs. 6.95 ± 0.58% (51 ± 7.8 vs. 52 ± 6.3 mmol/mol) (P = 0.31) and CGM time in target (51 ± 14 vs. 50 ± 13%) (P = 0.40). At 34 weeks, MDI users had a greater decrease in HbA1c (-0.55 ± 0.59 vs. -0.32 ± 0.65%, P = 0.001). At 24 and 34 weeks, MDI users were more likely to achieve target HbA1c (P = 0.009 and P = 0.001, respectively). Pump users had more hypertensive disorders (P = 0.011), mainly driven by increased gestational hypertension (14.4 vs. 5.2%; P = 0.025), and more neonatal hypoglycemia (31.8 vs. 19.1%, P = 0.05) and neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admissions >24 h (44.5 vs. 29.6%; P = 0.02). Pump users had a larger reduction in hypoglycemia-related anxiety (P = 0.05) but greater decline in health/well-being (P = 0.02).Conclusions: In CONCEPTT, MDI users were more likely to have better glycemic outcomes and less likely to have gestational hypertension, neonatal hypoglycemia, and NICU admissions than pump users. These data suggest that implementation of insulin pump therapy is potentially suboptimal during pregnancy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims/hypothesis: Women with diabetes remain at increased risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes associated with poor pregnancy preparation. However, women with type 2 diabetes are less aware of and less likely to access pre-pregnancy care (PPC) compared with women with type 1 diabetes. We developed and evaluated a community-based PPC programme with the aim of improving pregnancy preparation in all women with pregestational diabetes.Methods: This was a prospective cohort study comparing pregnancy preparation measures before and during/after the PPC intervention in women with pre-existing diabetes from 1 June 2013 to 28 February 2017. The setting was 422 primary care practices and ten National Health Service specialist antenatal diabetes clinics. A multifaceted approach was taken to engage women with diabetes and community healthcare teams. This included identifying and sending PPC information leaflets to all eligible women, electronic preconception care templates, online education modules and resources, and regional meetings and educational events. Key outcomes were preconception folic acid supplementation, maternal HbA1c level, use of potentially harmful medications at conception and gestational age at first presentation, before and during/after the PPC programme.Results: A total of 306 (73%) primary care practices actively participated in the PPC programme. Primary care databases were used to identify 5075 women with diabetes aged 18-45 years. PPC leaflets were provided to 4558 (89.8%) eligible women. There were 842 consecutive pregnancies in women with diabetes: 502 before and 340 during/after the PPC intervention. During/after the PPC intervention, pregnant women with type 2 diabetes were more likely to achieve target HbA1c levels ≤48 mmol/mol (6.5%) (44.4% of women before vs 58.5% of women during/after PPC intervention; p = 0.016) and to take 5 mg folic acid daily (23.5% and 41.8%; p = 0.001). There was an almost threefold improvement in ‘optimal’ pregnancy preparation in women with type 2 diabetes (5.8% and 15.1%; p = 0.021). Women with type 1 diabetes presented for earlier antenatal care during/after PPC (54.0% vs 67.3% before 8 weeks’ gestation; p = 0.003) with no other changes.Conclusions/interpretation: A pragmatic community-based PPC programme was associated with clinically relevant improvements in pregnancy preparation in women with type 2 diabetes. To our knowledge, this is the first community-based PPC intervention to improve pregnancy preparation for women with type 2 diabetes.Data availability: Further details of the data collection methodology, individual clinic data and the full audit reports for healthcare professionals and service users are available from https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/clinical-audits-and-registries/our-clinical-audits-and-registries/national-pregnancy-in-diabetes-audit. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is defined as hyperglycaemia that is diagnosed for the first time in the second or third trimester of pregnancy. It occurs in one in seven pregnancies worldwide and is associated with increased risk of adverse perinatal outcome, in particular, infant birth weight that is large for gestational age, increased infant adiposity, preeclampsia and preterm delivery, and increased delivery by caesarean section. This review focuses on the controversy regarding screening and diagnosis of GDM following development of the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) guidelines and the National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) 2015 guidelines. It reviews the most recent research in to diet and exercise modification in prevention and management of GDM, pharmacological management and post-partum management to delay and/or prevent progression to type 2 diabetes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents the discussion on Ivanisevic and Djelmis publishing descriptions of the cohort of pregnant women with type 1 diabetes (T1D) (2). Topics include suboptimal glycemia and higher cord C-peptide, consistent with fetal hyperinsulinemia, and striking rates of neonatal morbidity; and fetal C-peptide crossing the placenta into maternal circulation in late pregnancy.

Background: Women with type 1 diabetes strive for optimal glycemic control before and during pregnancy to avoid adverse obstetric and perinatal outcomes. For most women, optimal glycemic control is challenging to achieve and maintain. The aim of this study is to determine whether the use of real-time continuous glucose monitoring (RT-CGM) will improve glycemic control in women with type 1 diabetes who are pregnant or planning pregnancy.Methods/design: A multi-center, open label, randomized, controlled trial of women with type 1 diabetes who are either planning pregnancy with an HbA1c of 7.0 % to ≤10.0 % (53 to ≤ 86 mmol/mol) or are in early pregnancy (<13 weeks 6 days) with an HbA1c of 6.5 % to ≤10.0 % (48 to ≤ 86 mmol/mol). Participants will be randomized to either RT-CGM alongside conventional intermittent home glucose monitoring (HGM), or HGM alone. Eligible women will wear a CGM which does not display the glucose result for 6 days during the run-in phase. To be eligible for randomization, a minimum of 4 HGM measurements per day and a minimum of 96 hours total with 24 hours overnight (11 pm-7 am) of CGM glucose values are required. Those meeting these criteria are randomized to RT- CGM or HGM. A total of 324 women will be recruited (110 planning pregnancy, 214 pregnant). This takes into account 15 and 20 % attrition rates for the planning pregnancy and pregnant cohorts and will detect a clinically relevant 0.5 % difference between groups at 90 % power with 5 % significance. Randomization will stratify for type of insulin treatment (pump or multiple daily injections) and baseline HbA1c. Analyses will be performed according to intention to treat. The primary outcome is the change in glycemic control as measured by HbA1c from baseline to 24 weeks or conception in women planning pregnancy, and from baseline to 34 weeks gestation during pregnancy. Secondary outcomes include maternal hypoglycemia, CGM time in, above and below target (3.5-7.8 mmol/l), glucose variability measures, maternal and neonatal outcomes.Discussion: This will be the first international multicenter randomized controlled trial to evaluate the impact of RT- CGM before and during pregnancy in women with type 1 diabetes.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01788527 Registration Date: December 19, 2012. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]