Search

BackgroundTreatment of hyperglycemia in women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is associated with improved maternal and neonatal outcomes and requires intensive clinical input. This is currently achieved by hospital clinic attendance every 2 to 4 weeks with limited opportunity for intervention between these visits. ObjectiveWe conducted a randomized controlled trial to determine whether the use of a mobile phone-based real-time blood glucose management system to manage women with GDM remotely was as effective in controlling blood glucose as standard care through clinic attendance. MethodsWomen with an abnormal oral glucose tolerance test before 34 completed weeks of gestation were individually randomized to a mobile phone-based blood glucose management solution (GDm-health, the intervention) or routine clinic care. The primary outcome was change in mean blood glucose in each group from recruitment to delivery, calculated with adjustments made for number of blood glucose measurements, proportion of preprandial and postprandial readings, baseline characteristics, and length of time in the study. ResultsA total of 203 women were randomized. Blood glucose data were available for 98 intervention and 85 control women. There was no significant difference in rate of change of blood glucose (–0.16 mmol/L in the intervention and –0.14 mmol/L in the control group per 28 days, P=.78). Women using the intervention had higher satisfaction with care (P=.049). Preterm birth was less common in the intervention group (5/101, 5.0% vs 13/102, 12.7%; OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.12-1.01). There were fewer cesarean deliveries compared with vaginal deliveries in the intervention group (27/101, 26.7% vs 47/102, 46.1%, P=.005). Other glycemic, maternal, and neonatal outcomes were similar in both groups. The median time from recruitment to delivery was similar (intervention: 54 days; control: 49 days; P=.23). However, there were significantly more blood glucose readings in the intervention group (mean 3.80 [SD 1.80] and mean 2.63 [SD 1.71] readings per day in the intervention and control groups, respectively; P

Background Tongue-tie can be diagnosed in 3–11% of babies, with some studies reporting almost universal breastfeeding difficulties, and others reporting very few feeding difficulties that relate to the tongue-tie itself, instead noting that incorrect positioning and attachment are the primary reasons behind the observed breastfeeding difficulties and not the tongue-tie itself. The only existing trials of frenotomy are small and underpowered and/or include only very short-term or subjective outcomes. Objective To investigate whether frenotomy is clinically and cost-effective to promote continuation of breastfeeding at 3 months in infants with breastfeeding difficulties diagnosed with tongue-tie. Design A multicentre, unblinded, randomised, parallel group controlled trial. Setting Twelve infant feeding services in the UK. Participants Infants aged up to 10 weeks referred to an infant feeding service (by a parent, midwife or other breastfeeding support service) with breastfeeding difficulties and judged to have tongue-tie. Interventions Infants were randomly allocated to frenotomy with standard breastfeeding support or standard breastfeeding support without frenotomy. Main outcome measures Primary outcome was any breastmilk feeding at 3 months according to maternal self-report. Secondary outcomes included mother’s pain, exclusive breastmilk feeding, exclusive direct breastfeeding, frenotomy, adverse events, maternal anxiety and depression, maternal and infant NHS health-care resource use, cost-effectiveness, and any breastmilk feeding at 6 months of age. Results Between March 2019 and November 2020, 169 infants were randomised, 80 to the frenotomy with breastfeeding support arm and 89 to the breastfeeding support arm from a planned sample size of 870 infants. The trial was stopped in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic due to withdrawal of breastfeeding support services, slow recruitment and crossover between arms. In the frenotomy with breastfeeding support arm 74/80 infants (93%) received their allocated intervention, compared to 23/89 (26%) in the breastfeeding support arm. Primary outcome data were available for 163/169 infants (96%). There was no evidence of a difference between the arms in the rate of breastmilk feeding at 3 months, which was high in both groups (67/76, 88% vs. 75/87, 86%; adjusted risk ratio 1.02, 95% confidence interval 0.90 to 1.16). Adverse events were reported for three infants after surgery [bleeding (n = 1), salivary duct damage (n = 1), accidental cut to the tongue and salivary duct damage (n = 1)]. Cost-effectiveness could not be determined with the information available. Limitations The statistical power of the analysis was extremely limited due to not achieving the target sample size and the high proportion of infants in the breastfeeding support arm who underwent frenotomy. Conclusions This trial does not provide sufficient information to assess whether frenotomy in addition to breastfeeding support improves breastfeeding rates in infants diagnosed with tongue-tie. Future work There is a clear lack of equipoise in the UK concerning the use of frenotomy, however, the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the procedure still need to be established. Other study designs will need to be considered to address this objective. Trial registration This trial is registered as ISRCTN 10268851. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment Programme (project number 16/143/01) and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 11. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. The funder had no role in study design or data collection, analysis and interpretation. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. Plain language summary Many mothers and babies experience difficulties in establishing breastfeeding. In some babies it is thought that their difficulties may be linked to a condition called tongue-tie, in which a piece of skin tightly joins the middle part of the underside of the tongue to the base of the baby’s mouth. This can be treated by an operation to divide the tight part/skin in the middle of the underneath of the tongue. We planned to carry out a trial of 870 babies to find out whether an operation together with breastfeeding support helps more mothers and babies with tongue-tie to continue breastfeeding until the baby is 3 months old compared to breastfeeding support on its own and whether the costs were different between the two groups of mothers and babies. We were only able to recruit 169 babies as the trial was stopped because of slow recruitment, changes to services in the COVID-19 pandemic and a high proportion of the babies in the breastfeeding support group going on to have an operation. There were no differences in the rate of breastfeeding at 3 months between the babies in the group who had an operation straightaway and those in the group that had breastfeeding support alone, or had an operation later. More than four in every five babies in both groups were still breastmilk feeding at 3 months. Three babies who had an operation, around 1 in 50 babies, had a complication of the operation (bleeding, scarring or a cut to the tube that makes saliva). Because of the small size of the study, we cannot say whether an operation to divide a tongue-tie along with breastfeeding support helps babies with tongue-tie and breastfeeding difficulties or has different costs. We will need to try different types of research to answer the question. Scientific summary Background Breastfeeding difficulties have been associated with many factors, from a societal to an individual level. Tongue-tie can be diagnosed in 3–11% of babies, with the variation in reported prevalence thought to relate to the use of different diagnostic or severity criteria. Up to half of babies with tongue-tie are reported to have breastfeeding difficulties, but the reported proportion is highly variable. Some studies report almost universal difficulties, and others report very few feeding difficulties that relate to the tongue-tie itself, instead noting that incorrect positioning and attachment are the primary reasons behind the observed breastfeeding difficulties and not the tongue-tie itself. In a UK survey, it was noted that management of tongue-tie in infants with breastfeeding difficulties was therefore highly variable across the country. This is coupled with highly variable provision of breastfeeding support, which can range from minimal to expert and intensive, and using a variety of different models including peer supporter, midwife and health visitor. A Cochrane review identified five prior randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of frenotomy including a total of only 302 infants. The trials are small and underpowered and/or include only very short-term or subjective outcomes, suggesting further robust evidence is needed. Hence there is considerable controversy regarding, not only the diagnosis and clinical significance, but also the management of tongue-tie. Current National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance allows for the procedure, based on lack of safety concerns, but notes very limited evidence of efficacy. There is therefore a clear need for an assessment of the clinical- and cost-effectiveness of frenotomy for babies diagnosed with tongue-tie in the form of an adequately powered, pragmatic RCT, taking into account the diagnostic controversy and variation in practice. Objective To investigate whether frenotomy is clinically- and cost-effective to promote continuation of breastfeeding at 3 months in infants with breastfeeding difficulties diagnosed with tongue-tie. Methods Study design The FROSTTIE trial was a multicentre, RCT conducted in 12 infant feeding services in England. Participants Inclusion criteria Any infant aged

Objectives: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of two‐dimensional ultrasound at 11–14 weeks' gestation as a screening test for individual fetal anomalies and to identify factors impacting on screening performance. Methods: This was a systematic review and meta‐analysis that was developed and registered with PROSPERO (CRD42018111781). MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science Core Collection and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of screening for 16 predefined, non‐cardiac, congenital anomalies considered to be of interest to the early anomaly scan. We included prospective and retrospective studies from any healthcare setting conducted in low‐risk, mixed‐risk and unselected populations. The reference standard was the detection of an anomaly on postnatal or postmortem examination. Data were extracted to populate 2 × 2 tables and a random‐effects model was used to determine the diagnostic accuracy of screening for the predefined anomalies (individually and as a composite). Secondary analyses were performed to determine the impact on detection rates of imaging protocol, type of ultrasound modality, publication year and index of sonographer suspicion at the time of scanning. Post‐hoc secondary analysis was conducted to assess performance among studies published during or after 2010. Risk of bias assessment and quality assessment were undertaken for included studies using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies‐2 tool. Results: From 5684 citations, 202 papers underwent full‐text review, resulting in the inclusion of 52 studies comprising 527 837 fetuses, of which 2399 were affected by one or more of the 16 predefined anomalies. Individual anomalies were not equally amenable to detection on first‐trimester ultrasound: a high (> 80%) detection rate was reported for severe conditions, including acrania (98%), gastroschisis (96%), exomphalos (95%) and holoprosencephaly (88%); the detection rate was lower for open spina bifida (69%), lower urinary tract obstruction (66%), lethal skeletal dysplasias (57%) and limb‐reduction defects (50%); and the detection rate was below 50% for facial clefts (43%), polydactyly (40%) and congenital diaphragmatic hernia (38%). Conditions with a low (< 30%) detection rate included bilateral renal agenesis (25%), closed spina bifida (21%), isolated cleft lip (14%) and talipes (11%). Specificity was > 99% for all anomalies. Secondary analysis showed that detection improved with advancing publication year, and that the use of imaging protocols had a statistically significant impact on screening performance (P < 0.0001). Conclusions: The accurate detection of congenital anomalies using first‐trimester ultrasound is feasible, although detection rates and false‐positive rates depend on the type of anomaly. The use of a standardized protocol allows for diagnostic performance to be maximized, particularly for the detection of spina bifida, facial clefts and limb‐reduction defects. Highlighting the types of anomalies amenable to diagnosis and determining factors enhancing screening performance can support the development of first‐trimester anomaly screening programs. © 2024 The Authors. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]