A comparison of the safety and effectiveness of insulin aspart with other bolus insulins in women with pre-existing Type 1 diabetes during pregnancy: A post hoc analysis of a prospective cohort study.

AIMS: The safety and efficacy of insulin analogue insulin aspart (IAsp) have been demonstrated in a randomised clinical trial in pregnant women with Type 1 diabetes (T1D), and IAsp is widely used during pregnancy. The aim of this study was to assess glycaemic control and safety of IAsp versus other bolus insulins in Type 1 diabetic pregnancy in a real-world setting. METHODS: This was a post hoc analysis of a prospective cohort study of 1840 pregnant women with T1D, treated with IAsp (n = 1434) or other bolus insulins (n = 406) in the Diabetes Pregnancy Registry. The primary (composite) outcome was the proportion of pregnancies resulting in major congenital malformations or perinatal or neonatal death. Secondary outcomes included all HbA1c values measured immediately before and during pregnancy and major hypoglycaemia, as well as abortion, pre-eclampsia, pre-term delivery, large for gestational age at birth, stillbirth and fetal malformations. RESULTS: There were no significant differences found in any of the pregnancy outcomes between treatment with IAsp and other bolus insulins in either the crude or propensity score-adjusted analyses. However, maternal HbA1c was lower in the IAsp group at the end of the third trimester (adjusted difference, -0.16% point [95% CI -0.28;-0.05]; -1.8 mmol/mol [95% CI -3.1;-0.6]; p = 0.0046). CONCLUSIONS: No significant differences in safety or pregnancy outcomes were demonstrated when comparing treatment with IAsp versus other bolus insulins in women with T1D during pregnancy. The observed improvement in HbA1c with IAsp in late pregnancy should be confirmed in other studies.

The top 10 priorities in adults living with type 1 diabetes in Ireland and the United Kingdom - A James Lind Alliance priority setting partnership.

AIMS: To undertake a Priority Setting Partnership (PSP), identifying the most important unanswered questions in type 1 diabetes in Ireland and the United Kingdom and to compare these to priorities identified in a 2011 PSP. METHODS: A steering committee (including eight individuals with lived experience/charity representatives and six clinicians) designed a survey which asked stakeholders to list three questions about type 1 diabetes. This was disseminated through social media, direct email contact, and printed posters. Following analysis, a second survey asked participants to rank these priorities in order of importance. The top questions were then carried forward to an online, 2 days final workshop where the final top 10 were ranked. RESULTS: There were 1050 responses (64% female, 78% adults living with type 1 diabetes, 9% healthcare professionals, 9% family members) to the first survey and 2937 individual questions were submitted. Sixty-five summary questions were submitted into a second survey, completed by 497 individuals (76% adults living with type 1 diabetes, 9% healthcare professionals, and 11% family members). Nineteen questions from the interim survey progressed to a final workshop, which identified the top 10 priorities through group discussion. As in 2011, there was emphasis on psychological health, diabetes-related complications, and hypoglycaemia. New themes prioritised included artificial intelligence and women's health. CONCLUSIONS: The research priorities, which have been identified using a robust and proven methodology, highlight the key concerns of those living with type 1 diabetes, their families and representatives, as well as clinicians in Ireland and the UK.

Attendance at pre-pregnancy care clinics for women with type 1 diabetes: A scoping review.

INTRODUCTION: Type 1 diabetes mellitus occurs in one in every 275 pregnancies and can result in increased morbidity and mortality for both mother and baby. Several pregnancy complications can be reduced or prevented by attendance at pre-pregnancy care (PPC). Despite this, less than 40% of pregnant women with pre-gestational diabetes receive formal PPC. The aim of this scoping review is to identify the barriers to PPC attendance among women with type 1 diabetes. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review by searching five databases (Ebsco, Embase, Ovid and PubMed for literature and the ProQuest for any grey/unpublished literature) for studies in English between 2000 and 2022. Studies that evaluated attendance at PPC for women with type 1 diabetes were included. RESULTS: There are multiple barriers to PPC attendance, and many of these barriers have been unchanged since the 1990s. Identified barriers can be grouped under patient-centered and clinician-centered headings. Patient factors include knowledge and awareness, unplanned pregnancies, negative perceptions of healthcare and communication issues, unclear attendance pathways and logistical issues including time off work and childcare. Clinician factors include physician knowledge, time constraints and lack of comfort discussing pregnancy/contraception. CONCLUSION: This review highlights the ongoing problem of poor attendance at PPC and identifies key barriers to be addressed when developing and implementing PPC programs for women with type 1 diabetes.

The utility of plasma glycated CD59 in predicting postpartum glucose intolerance: A prospective study of women diagnosed with GDM during a period of universal GDM screening.

AIMS: Gestational diabetes (GDM) is associated with the development of postpartum (PP) glucose intolerance. Plasma glycated CD59 (pGCD59) is an emerging biomarker for the detection of hyperglycaemia. The aim of this study was to assess the ability of PP pGCD59 to predict the development of PP GI as defined by the 2 h 75 g OGTT using the ADA criteria, in a cohort of women diagnosed with prior GDM in the index pregnancy using the 2 h 75 g OGTT at 24-28 weeks of gestation according to the World Health Organization (WHO) 2013 criteria. METHODS: Of the 2017 pregnant women recruited prospectively 140 women with gestational diabetes had samples for pGCD59 taken PP at the time of the OGTT. The ability of pGCD59 to predict the results of the PP OGTT was assessed using nonparametric receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. RESULTS: Women with PP glucose intolerance had significantly higher PP pGCD59 levels compared to women with normal glucose tolerance PP (3.8 vs. 2.7 SPU). PP pGCD59 identified women who developed glucose intolerance PP with an AUC of 0.80 (95% CI: 0.70-0.91). A PP pGCD59 cut-off value of 1.9 SPU generated a sensitivity of 100% (95% CI: 83.9-100), specificity of 16.9% (95% CI: 9.8-26.3), positive predictive value of 22.1% (95% CI: 21.0-22.6), and negative predictive value of 100% (95% CI: 87.4-100). PP fasting plasma glucose generated an AUC of 0.96 (95% CI: 0.89-0.99) for the identification of PP glucose intolerance. CONCLUSION: Our study found that PP pGCD9 may be a promising biomarker to identify women not requiring PP glucose intolerance screening using the traditional OGTT. While the diagnostic accuracy of pGCD59 is good, fasting plasma glucose remains a better test for the identification of PP glucose intolerance.

Early Metformin in Gestational Diabetes: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Gestational diabetes is a common complication of pregnancy and the optimal management is uncertain. Objective: To test whether early initiation of metformin reduces insulin initiation or improves fasting hyperglycemia at gestation weeks 32 or 38. Design, Setting, and Participants: Double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted in 2 centers in Ireland (one tertiary hospital and one smaller regional hospital). Participants were enrolled from June 2017 through September 2022 and followed up until 12 weeks' postpartum. Participants comprised 510 individuals (535 pregnancies) diagnosed with gestational diabetes based on World Health Organization 2013 criteria. Interventions: Randomized 1:1 to either placebo or metformin (maximum dose, 2500 mg) in addition to usual care. Main Outcomes And Measures: The primary outcome was a composite of insulin initiation or a fasting glucose level of 5.1 mmol/L or greater at gestation weeks 32 or 38. Results: Among 510 participants (mean age, 34.3 years), 535 pregnancies were randomized. The primary composite outcome was not significantly different between groups and occurred in 150 pregnancies (56.8%) in the metformin group and 167 pregnancies (63.7%) in the placebo group (between-group difference, -6.9% [95% CI, -15.1% to 1.4%]; relative risk, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.78-1.02]; P = .13). Of 6 prespecified secondary maternal outcomes, 3 favored the metformin group, including time to insulin initiation, self-reported capillary glycemic control, and gestational weight gain. Secondary neonatal outcomes differed by group, with smaller neonates (lower mean birth weights, a lower proportion weighing >4 kg, a lower proportion in the >90% percentile, and smaller crown-heel length) in the metformin group without differences in neonatal intensive care needs, respiratory distress requiring respiratory support, jaundice requiring phototherapy, major congenital anomalies, neonatal hypoglycemia, or proportion with 5-minute Apgar scores less than 7. Conclusion and relevance: Early treatment with metformin was not superior to placebo for the composite primary outcome. Prespecified secondary outcome data support further investigation of metformin in larger clinical trials. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02980276; EudraCT: 2016-001644-19.

Metformin for pregnancy and beyond: the pros and cons.

CONTEXT AND AIM: Metformin has been used in pregnancy since the 1970s. It is cheap, widely available and is acceptable to women. Despite its increasing use, controversy remains surrounding its benefits and risks. Metformin effectively reduces hyperglycaemia for the mother during pregnancy and it reduces rates of macrosomia and neonatal hypoglycaemia. However, concern exists surrounding an increase in the rate of SGA births and obesity in childhood. We aim to review the evidence and expert opinion behind metformin in pregnancy through to the post-partum period. METHODS: We performed a literature review of relevant studies from online databases using a combination of keywords. We also searched the references of retrieved articles for pertinent studies. RESULTS: There is strong evidence that metformin is safe in early pregnancy with no risk of congenital malformations. If used throughout pregnancy, it is likely to lead to reduced maternal weight gain and reduced insulin dose in women with type 2 diabetes. In infants, metformin reduces hypoglycaemia and macrosomia but may increase the rate of infants born SGA. There is some evidence of an increased risk of obesity and altered fat distribution in offspring. Metformin appears well tolerated in pregnancy and is more acceptable to women than insulin therapy. CONCLUSION: Due to increasing rates of maternal obesity, GDM and type 2 diabetes, metformin use in pregnancy is increasing. Overall, it appears safe and effective but further research is needed to examine mechanisms linking metformin to obesity reported during childhood in some follow-up studies.

Atlantic DIP: is weight gain less than that recommended by IOM safe in obese women with gestational diabetes mellitus?

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: The Institute of Medicine (IOM) recommends gestational weight gain (GWG) of 5-9 kg in women with a body mass index (BMI) ≥ 30 kg/m2. Debate continues as to whether GWG less than that recommended is safe in women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). The study objective was to examine maternal and infant outcomes for obese women with GDM who lost weight or gained 0-5 kg during pregnancy. SUBJECTS/METHODS: A 7-year retrospective cohort study of pregnancy outcomes for obese women with GDM recorded in the Atlantic Diabetes in Pregnancy database was conducted. We examined pregnancy outcomes for mothers with GDM and a BMI ≥ 30 who either lost weight or gained 0-5 kg (Group 1, n = 237) and women who gained 5-9 kg (Group 2, n = 77). We further divided groups 1 and 2 into women treated by diet only (GDM-D) (n = 120) and those requiring additional treatment with insulin (GDM-I) (n = 194). RESULTS: GDM-D women in Group 1 were more likely to deliver earlier (38.9 vs 39.8 weeks, p < 0.01), to develop pregnancy induced hypertension (PIH) (15.4% v 0%; p = 0.02) or have a post-partum haemorrhage (PPH) (13.2% vs 0, p = 0.03) compared to women in Group 2. Rates of prematurity were higher in group 1 vs 2 (14.3% vs 0%, p = 0.03). However, further logistic regression analysis adjusted for smoking status, family history of diabetes, ethnicity and age determined no significant difference in maternal or infant outcomes for women in Group 1 compared to those in Group 2. CONCLUSION: In our population, weight gain less than IOM guideline appears safe and is not associated with any further increase in adverse outcomes. However, validation through a prospective study with a larger obese GDM cohort is required before the findings presented here could be recommended for routine clinical use.

Less sedentary time is associated with a more favourable glucose-insulin axis in obese pregnant women-a secondary analysis of the DALI study.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Obese pregnant women are at high risk of developing gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM), which might be reduced by sufficient physical activity (PA) and reduced sedentary time (ST). We assessed whether PA and ST are longitudinally associated with the glucose-insulin axis in obese pregnant women. SUBJECTS/METHODS: In this secondary analysis of the DALI (vitamin D And Lifestyle Intervention for gestational diabetes mellitus prevention) study, pregnant women, <20 weeks gestation, with a pre-pregnancy body mass index (BMI) ≥ 29 kg/m2, without GDM on entry were included. Time spent in moderate-to-vigorous PA (MVPA) and ST were measured objectively with accelerometers at <20 weeks, 24-28 weeks and 35-37 weeks of gestation. Fasting glucose (mmol/l) and insulin (mU/l), insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) and first-phase and second-phase insulin release (Stumvoll first and second phase) were assessed at the same time. Linear mixed regression models were used to calculate between-participant differences and within-participant changes over time. Analyses were adjusted for gestational age, randomisation, pre-pregnancy BMI, education and age. MVPA, Insulin, HOMA-IR and Stumvoll first and second phase were log-transformed for analyses due to skewness. RESULTS: 232 women were included in the analysis. Concerning differences between participants, more ST was associated with higher fasting glucose (Estimate: 0.008; 95% CI: 0.002, 0.014), fasting insulin (0.011; 0.002, 0.019), HOMA-IR (0.012; 0.004, 0.021) and Stumvoll first and second phase (0.008; 0.001, 0.014 and 0.007; 0.001, 0.014). Participants with more MVPA had lower Stumvoll first and second phase (-0.137; -0.210, -0.064 and -0.133; -0.202, -0.063). Concerning changes over time, an increase in ST during gestation was associated with elevated Stumvoll first and second phase (0.006; 0.000, 0.011). CONCLUSIONS: As the glucose-insulin axis is more strongly associated with ST than MVPA in our obese population, pregnant women could be advised to reduce ST in addition to increasing MVPA. Moreover, our findings suggest that behaviour change interventions aiming at GDM risk reduction should start in early or pre-pregnancy.

The importance of maternal insulin resistance throughout pregnancy on neonatal adiposity.

BACKGROUND: Although previous studies evaluated the association of maternal health parameters with neonatal adiposity, little is known regarding the complexity of the relationships among different maternal health parameters throughout pregnancy and its impact on neonatal adiposity. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the direct and indirect associations between maternal insulin resistance during pregnancy, in women with obesity, and neonatal adiposity. In addition, associations between maternal fasting glucose, triglycerides (TG), non-esterified fatty acids (NEFA), and neonatal adiposity were also assessed. METHODS: This is a longitudinal, secondary analysis of the DALI study, an international project conducted in nine European countries with pregnant women with obesity. Maternal insulin resistance (HOMA-IR), fasting glucose, TG, and NEFA were measured three times during pregnancy (<20, 24-28, and 35-37 weeks of gestation). Offspring neonatal adiposity was estimated by the sum of four skinfolds. Structural equation modelling was conducted to evaluate the direct and indirect relationships among the variables of interest. RESULTS: Data on 657 mother-infant pairs (50.7% boys) were analysed. Neonatal boys exhibited lower mean sum of skinfolds compared to girls (20.3 mm, 95% CI 19.7, 21.0 vs 21.5 mm, 95% CI 20.8, 22.2). In boys, maternal HOMA-IR at <20 weeks was directly associated with neonatal adiposity (ß = 0.35 mm, 95% CI 0.01, 0.70). In girls, maternal HOMA-IR at 24-28 weeks was only indirectly associated with neonatal adiposity, which implies that this association was mediated via maternal HOMA-IR, glucose, triglycerides, and NEFA during pregnancy (ß = 0.26 mm, 95% CI 0.08, 0.44). CONCLUSIONS: The timing of the role of maternal insulin resistance on neonatal adiposity depends on fetal sex. Although the association was time-dependent, maternal insulin resistance was associated with neonatal adiposity in both sexes.

A core outcome set for studies of gestational diabetes mellitus prevention and treatment.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: The aim of this systematic review was to develop core outcome sets (COSs) for trials evaluating interventions for the prevention or treatment of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). METHODS: We identified previously reported outcomes through a systematic review of the literature. These outcomes were presented to key stakeholders (including patient representatives, researchers and clinicians) for prioritisation using a three-round, e-Delphi study. A priori consensus criteria informed which outcomes were brought forward for discussion at a face-to-face consensus meeting where the COS was finalised. RESULTS: Our review identified 74 GDM prevention and 116 GDM treatment outcomes, which were presented to stakeholders in round 1 of the e-Delphi study. Round 1 was completed by 173 stakeholders, 70% (121/173) of whom went on to complete round 2; 84% (102/121) of round 2 responders completed round 3. Twenty-two GDM prevention outcomes and 30 GDM treatment outcomes were discussed at the consensus meeting. Owing to significant overlap between included prevention and treatment outcomes, consensus meeting stakeholders agreed to develop a single prevention/treatment COS. Fourteen outcomes were included in the final COS. These consisted of six maternal outcomes (GDM diagnosis, adherence to the intervention, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, requirement and type of pharmacological therapy for hyperglycaemia, gestational weight gain and mode of birth) and eight neonatal outcomes (birthweight, large for gestational age, small for gestational age, gestational age at birth, preterm birth, neonatal hypoglycaemia, neonatal death and stillbirth). CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: This COS will enable future GDM prevention and treatment trials to measure similar outcomes that matter to stakeholders and facilitate comparison and combination of these studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was registered prospectively with the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) database: http://www.comet-initiative.org/studies/details/686/.

Correction to: The Effects of Lifestyle and/or Vitamin D Supplementation Interventions on Pregnancy Outcomes: What Have we Learned from the DALI Studies?

The original version of this review article unfortunately contained a mistake.

Follow-up at 1 year and beyond of women with gestational diabetes treated with insulin and/or oral glucose-lowering agents: a core outcome set using a Delphi survey.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is linked with a higher lifetime risk for the development of impaired fasting glucose, impaired glucose tolerance, type 2 diabetes, the metabolic syndrome, cardiovascular disease, postpartum depression and tumours. Despite this, there is no consistency in the long-term follow-up of women with a previous diagnosis of GDM. Further, the outcomes selected and reported in the research involving this population are heterogeneous and lack standardisation. This amplifies the risk of reporting bias and diminishes the likelihood of significant comparisons between studies. The aim of this study is to develop a core outcome set (COS) for RCTs and other studies evaluating the long-term follow-up at 1 year and beyond of women with previous GDM treated with insulin and/oral glucose-lowering agents. METHODS: The study consisted of three work packages: (1) a systematic review of the outcomes reported in previous RCTs of the follow-up at 1 year and beyond of women with GDM treated with insulin and/or oral glucose-lowering agents; (2) a three-round online Delphi survey with key stakeholders to prioritise these outcomes; and (3) a consensus meeting where the final COS was decided. RESULTS: Of 3344 abstracts identified and evaluated, 62 papers were retrieved and 25/62 papers were included in this review. A total of 121 outcomes were identified and included in the Delphi survey. Delphi round 1 was emailed to 835 participants and 288 (34.5%) responded. In round 2, 190 of 288 (65.9%) participants responded and in round 3, 165 of 190 (86.8%) participants responded. In total, nine outcomes were selected and agreed for inclusion in the final COS: assessment of glycaemic status; diagnosis of type 2 diabetes since the index pregnancy; number of pregnancies since the index pregnancy; number of pregnancies with a diagnosis of GDM since the index pregnancy; diagnosis of prediabetes since the index pregnancy; BMI; post-pregnancy weight retention; resting blood pressure; and breastfeeding. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: This study identified a COS that will help bring consistency and uniformity to outcome selection and reporting in clinical trials and other studies involving the follow-up at 1 year and beyond of women diagnosed with GDM treated with insulin and/or oral glucose-lowering agents during pregnancy.

A reduction in sedentary behaviour in obese women during pregnancy reduces neonatal adiposity: the DALI randomised controlled trial.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: Offspring of obese women are at increased risk of features of the metabolic syndrome, including obesity and diabetes. Lifestyle intervention in pregnancy might reduce adverse effects of maternal obesity on neonatal adiposity. METHODS: In the Vitamin D And Lifestyle Intervention for Gestational Diabetes Mellitus (GDM) Prevention (DALI) lifestyle trial, 436 women with a BMI ≥29 kg/m2 were randomly assigned to counselling on healthy eating (HE), physical activity (PA) or HE&PA, or to usual care (UC). In secondary analyses of the lifestyle trial, intervention effects on neonatal outcomes (head, abdominal, arm and leg circumferences and skinfold thicknesses, estimated fat mass, fat percentage, fat-free mass and cord blood leptin) were assessed using multilevel regression analyses. Mediation of intervention effects by lifestyle and gestational weight gain was assessed. RESULTS: Outcomes were available from 334 neonates. A reduction in sum of skinfolds (-1.8 mm; 95% CI -3.5, -0.2; p = 0.03), fat mass (-63 g; 95% CI -124, -2; p = 0.04), fat percentage (-1.2%; 95% CI -2.4%, -0.04%; p = 0.04) and leptin (-3.80 µg/l; 95% CI -7.15, -0.45; p = 0.03) was found in the HE&PA group, and reduced leptin in female neonates in the PA group (-5.79 µg/l; 95% CI -11.43, -0.14; p = 0.05) compared with UC. Reduced sedentary time, but not gestational weight gain, mediated intervention effects on leptin in both the HE&PA and PA groups. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: The HE&PA intervention resulted in reduced adiposity in neonates. Reduced sedentary time seemed to drive the intervention effect on cord blood leptin. Implications for future adiposity and diabetes risk of the offspring need to be elucidated. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN70595832.

Optimal management of gestational diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is highly prevalent and has both short- and long-term implications for mother and infant. SOURCES OF DATA: Literature search using PubMed with keywords 'Gestational diabetes' and 'diabetes in pregnancy' together with published papers known to the authors. AREAS OF AGREEMENT: The cornerstone of management is medical nutrition therapy with regular self-monitoring of capillary blood glucose levels and intensification of therapy if glycaemic goals are not achieved. Post-partum, annual assessment for type 2 diabetes is recommended. AREAS OF CONTROVERSY: Diagnostic criteria and new biomarkers for GDM and the clinical and economic benefits of treating women with milder levels of glucose intolerance during pregnancy. GROWING POINTS: Women with GDM are a heterogeneous group with varying degrees of insulin resistance and beta cell dysfunction. AREAS TIMELY FOR DEVELOPING RESEARCH: Development of alternative diagnostic markers and application of novel technologies for GDM management.

The Effects of Lifestyle and/or Vitamin D Supplementation Interventions on Pregnancy Outcomes: What Have We Learned from the DALI Studies?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The DALI (vitamin D and lifestyle intervention in the prevention of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM)) study aimed to prevent GDM with lifestyle interventions or Vitamin D supplementation (1600 IU/day). This review summarizes the learnings from the DALI studies among pregnant women with a BMI ≥ 29 kg/m2. RECENT FINDINGS: Women diagnosed with GDM earlier in pregnancy had a worse metabolic profile than those diagnosed later. A combined physical activity (PA) and healthy eating (HE) lifestyle intervention improved both behaviours, limited gestational weight gain (GWG) and was cost-effective. Although GDM risk was unchanged, neonatal adiposity was reduced due to less sedentary time. Neither PA nor HE alone limited GWG or GDM risk. Fasting glucose was higher with HE only intervention, and lower with Vitamin D supplementation. Our combined intervention did not prevent GDM, but was cost-effective, limited GWG and reduced neonatal adiposity.

Cost-effectiveness of healthy eating and/or physical activity promotion in pregnant women at increased risk of gestational diabetes mellitus: economic evaluation alongside the DALI study, a European multicenter randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is associated with perinatal health risks to both mother and offspring, and represents a large economic burden. The DALI study is a multicenter randomized controlled trial, undertaken to add to the knowledge base on the effectiveness of interventions for pregnant women at increased risk for GDM. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the healthy eating and/or physical activity promotion intervention compared to usual care among pregnant women at increased risk of GDM from a societal perspective. METHODS: An economic evaluation was performed alongside a European multicenter-randomized controlled trial. A total of 435 pregnant women at increased risk of GDM in primary and secondary care settings in nine European countries, were recruited and randomly allocated to a healthy eating and physical activity promotion intervention (HE + PA intervention), a healthy eating promotion intervention (HE intervention), or a physical activity promotion intervention (PA intervention). Main outcome measures were gestational weight gain, fasting glucose, insulin resistance (HOMA-IR), quality adjusted life years (QALYs), and societal costs. RESULTS: Between-group total cost and effect differences were not significant, besides significantly less gestational weight gain in the HE + PA group compared with the usual care group at 35-37 weeks (-2.3;95%CI:-3.7;-0.9). Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves indicated that the HE + PA intervention was the preferred intervention strategy. At 35-37 weeks, it depends on the decision-makers' willingness to pay per kilogram reduction in gestational weight gain whether the HE + PA intervention is cost-effective for gestational weight gain, whereas it was not cost-effective for fasting glucose and HOMA-IR. After delivery, the HE + PA intervention was cost-effective for QALYs, which was predominantly caused by a large reduction in delivery-related costs. CONCLUSIONS: Healthy eating and physical activity promotion was found to be the preferred strategy for limiting gestational weight gain. As this intervention was cost-effective for QALYs after delivery, this study lends support for broad implementation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN ISRCTN70595832 . Registered 2 December 2011.

Planned birth at or near term for improving health outcomes for pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes and their infants.

BACKGROUND: Pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes (Type 1 or Type 2) have increased rates of adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes. Current clinical guidelines support elective birth, at or near term, because of increased perinatal mortality during the third trimester of pregnancy.This review replaces a review previously published in 2001 that included "diabetic pregnant women", which has now been split into two reviews. This current review focuses on pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes (Type 1 or Type 2) and a sister review focuses on women with gestational diabetes. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of planned birth (either by induction of labour or caesarean birth) at or near term gestation (37 to 40 weeks' gestation) compared with an expectant approach, for improving health outcomes for pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes and their infants. The primary outcomes relate to maternal and perinatal mortality and morbidity. SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (15 August 2017), and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We planned to include randomised trials (including those using a cluster-randomised design) and non-randomised trials (e.g. quasi-randomised trials using alternate allocation) which compared planned birth, at or near term, with an expectant approach for pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two of the review authors independently assessed study eligibility. In future updates of this review, at least two of the review authors will extract data and assess the risk of bias in included studies. We will also assess the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We identified no eligible published trials for inclusion in this review.We did identify one randomised trial which examined whether expectant management reduced the incidence of caesarean birth in uncomplicated pregnancies of women with gestational diabetes (requiring insulin) and with pre-existing diabetes. However, published data from this trial does not differentiate between pre-existing and gestational diabetes, and therefore we excluded this trial. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In the absence of evidence, we are unable to reach any conclusions about the health outcomes associated with planned birth, at or near term, compared with an expectant approach for pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes.This review demonstrates the urgent need for high-quality trials evaluating the effectiveness of planned birth at or near term gestation for pregnant women with pre-existing (Type 1 or Type 2) diabetes compared with an expectant approach.

Planned birth at or near term for improving health outcomes for pregnant women with gestational diabetes and their infants.

BACKGROUND: Gestational diabetes is a type of diabetes that occurs during pregnancy. Women with gestational diabetes are more likely to experience adverse health outcomes such as pre-eclampsia or polyhydramnios (excess amniotic fluid). Their babies are also more likely to have health complications such as macrosomia (birthweight > 4000 g) and being large-for-gestational age (birthweight above the 90th percentile for gestational age). Current clinical guidelines support elective birth, at or near term in women with gestational diabetes to minimise perinatal complications, especially those related to macrosomia.This review replaces a review previously published in 2001 that included "diabetic pregnant women", which has now been split into two reviews. This current review focuses on pregnant women with gestational diabetes and a sister review focuses on women with pre-existing diabetes (Type 1 or Type 2). OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of planned birth (either by induction of labour or caesarean birth), at or near term (37 to 40 weeks' gestation) compared with an expectant approach for improving health outcomes for women with gestational diabetes and their infants. The primary outcomes relate to maternal and perinatal mortality and morbidity. SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (15 August 2017), and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised trials comparing planned birth, at or near term (37 to 40 weeks' gestation), with an expectant approach, for women with gestational diabetes. Cluster-randomised and non-randomised trials (e.g. quasi-randomised trials using alternate allocation) were also eligible for inclusion but none were identified. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two of the review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the included study. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: The findings of this review are based on a single trial involving 425 women with gestational diabetes. The trial compared induction of labour with expectant management (waiting for the spontaneous onset of labour in the absence of any maternal or fetal issues that may necessitate birth) in pregnant women with gestational diabetes at term. We assessed the overall risk of bias as being low for most domains, apart from performance, detection and attrition bias (for outcome perineum intact), which we assessed as being at high risk. It was an open-label trial, and women and healthcare professionals were not blinded.There were no clear differences between women randomised to induction of labour and women randomised to expectant management for maternal mortality or serious maternal morbidity (risk ratio (RR) 1.48, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.25 to 8.76, one trial, 425 women); caesarean section (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.77, one trial, 425 women); or instrumental vaginal birth (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.46, one trial, 425 women). For the primary outcome of maternal mortality or serious maternal morbidity, there were no deaths in either group and serious maternal morbidity related to admissions to intensive care unit. The quality of the evidence contributing to these outcomes was assessed as very low, mainly due to the study having high risk of bias for some domains and because of the imprecision of effect estimates.In relation to primary neonatal outcomes, there were no perinatal deaths in either group. The quality of evidence for this outcome was judged as very low, mainly due to high risk of bias and imprecision of effect estimates. There were no clear differences in infant outcomes between women randomised to induction of labour and women randomised to expectant management: shoulder dystocia (RR 2.96, 95% CI 0.31 to 28.21, one trial, 425 infants, very low-quality evidence); large-for-gestational age (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.02, one trial, 425 infants, low-quality evidence).There were no clear differences between women randomised to induction of labour and women randomised to expectant management for postpartum haemorrhage (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.53 to 2.54, one trial, 425 women); admission to intensive care unit (RR 1.48, 95% CI 0.25 to 8.76, one trial, 425 women); and intact perineum (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.43, one trial, 425 women). No infant experienced a birth trauma, therefore, we could not draw conclusions about the effect of the intervention on the outcomes of brachial plexus injury and bone fracture at birth. Infants of women in the induction-of-labour group had higher incidences of neonatal hyperbilirubinaemia (jaundice) when compared to infants of women in the expectant-management group (RR 2.46, 95% CI 1.11 to 5.46, one trial, 425 women).We found no data on the following prespecified outcomes of this review: postnatal depression, maternal satisfaction, length of postnatal stay (mother), acidaemia, intracranial haemorrhage, hypoxia ischaemic encephalopathy, small-for-gestational age, length of postnatal stay (baby) and cost.The authors of this trial acknowledge that it is underpowered for their primary outcome of caesarean section. The authors of the trial and of this review note that the CIs demonstrate a wide range, therefore making it inappropriate to draw definite conclusions. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is limited evidence to inform implications for practice. The available data are not of high quality and lack power to detect possible important differences in either benefit or harm. There is an urgent need for high-quality trials evaluating the effectiveness of planned birth at or near term gestation for women with gestational diabetes compared with an expectant approach.

A core outcome set for studies evaluating the effectiveness of prepregnancy care for women with pregestational diabetes.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: The aim of this study was to develop a core outcome set (COS) for trials and other studies evaluating the effectiveness of prepregnancy care for women with pregestational (pre-existing) diabetes mellitus. METHODS: A systematic literature review was completed to identify all outcomes reported in prior studies in this area. Key stakeholders then prioritised these outcomes using a Delphi study. The list of outcomes included in the final COS were finalised at a face-to-face consensus meeting. RESULTS: In total, 17 outcomes were selected and agreed on for inclusion in the final COS. These outcomes were grouped under three domains: measures of pregnancy preparation (n = 9), neonatal outcomes (n = 6) and maternal outcomes (n = 2). CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: This study identified a COS essential for studies evaluating prepregnancy care for women with pregestational diabetes. It is advocated that all trials and other non-randomised studies and audits in this area use this COS with the aim of improving transparency and the ability to compare and combine future studies with greater ease.