Search

The CONCEPTT trial compared real-time Continuous Glucose Monitoring (RT-CGM) to capillary glucose monitoring in pregnant women with type 1 diabetes. We analyzed CGM and glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) measures in first (n = 221), second (n = 197), and third (n = 172) trimesters, aiming to examine target glucose attainment and associations with pregnancy outcomes. CGM targets were Time-in-range (TIR) > 70%, Time-above-range (TAR)

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. Methods: 157 women from the CGM in pregnant women with type 1 diabetes trial (CONCEPTT) were included in this pre-specified secondary analysis. HbA1c, CGM data, and alternative biochemical markers (glycated CD59, 1,5 anhydroglucitol, fructosamine and glycated albumin) were compared at approximately 12, 24 and 34 weeks gestation using logistic regression and ROC curves to predict pregnancy complications (pre-eclampsia, 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 1st trimester and with laboratory markers (area under ROC generally 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 to widely available HbA1c and increasingly available CGM metrics (TIR and TAR).

Background: \ud 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.\ud \ud Methods: \ud 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.\ud \ud Findings: \ud 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).\ud \ud Interpretation: \ud 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.\ud \ud Funding: \ud Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, Canadian Clinical Trials Network, and National Institute for Health Research.