Mortality estimates and excess mortality in rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVES: To determine long-term (20 year) survival in RA patients enrolled in the Australian Rheumatology Association Database (ARAD). METHODS: ARAD patients with RA and data linkage consent who were diagnosed from 1995 onwards were included. Death data were obtained through linkage to the Australian National Death Index. Results were compared with age-, gender- and calendar year-matched Australian population mortality rates. Analysis included both the standardized mortality ratio (SMR) and relative survival models. Restricted mean survival time (RMST) at 20 years was calculated as a measure of life lost. Cause-specific SMRs (CS-SMRs) were estimated for International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision cause of death classifications. RESULTS: A total of 1895 RA patients were included; 74% were female, baseline median age 50 years (interquartile range 41-58), with 204 deaths. There was no increase in mortality over the first 10 years of follow up, but at 20 years the SMR was 1.49 (95% CI 1.30, 1.71) and the relative survival was 94% (95% CI 91, 97). The difference between observed (18.41 years) and expected (18.68 years) RMST was 4 months. Respiratory conditions were an important underlying cause of death in RA, primarily attributable to pneumonia [CS-SMR 5.2 (95% CI 2.3, 10.3)] and interstitial lung disease [CS-SMR 7.6 (95% CI 3.0, 14.7)], however, coronary heart disease [CS-SMR 0.82 (95% CI 0.42, 1.4)] and neoplasms [CS-SMR 1.2 (95% CI 0.89, 1.5)] were not. CONCLUSION: Mortality risk in this RA cohort accrues over time and is moderately increased at 20 years of follow-up. Respiratory diseases may have supplanted cardiovascular diseases as a major contributor to this mortality gap.

Measuring the impact of steroid therapy on health-related quality of life in patients with rheumatic diseases: international development of a glucocorticoid treatment-specific patient-reported outcome measure.

OBJECTIVES: Glucocorticoids (GCs) ('steroids') are used to treat rheumatic diseases but adverse effects are common. We aimed to explore the impact of GC therapy on health-related quality of life (HRQoL), to inform the development of a treatment-specific patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) for use in clinical trials and practice. METHODS: Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with patients from the UK, USA and Australia, treated for a rheumatic condition with GCs in the last 2 years. Purposive sampling was used to select participants with a range of demographic and disease features. An initial conceptual framework informed interview prompts and cues. Interviews elicited GC-related physical and psychological symptoms and salient aspects of HRQoL in relation to GC therapy. Interview data were analysed inductively to develop initial individual themes and domains. Candidate questionnaire items were developed and refined. RESULTS: Sixty semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted (UK n = 34, USA n = 10, Australia n = 16). The mean age was 58 years; 39/60 were female; and 18 rheumatic diseases were represented. Some 126 individual themes were identified and organized into six domains: physical symptoms; psychological symptoms; psychological impact of steroids; impact of steroids on participation; impact of steroids on relationships; and benefits of steroids. Candidate questionnaire items were tested and refined by piloting with patient research partners, iterative rounds of cognitive interviews and linguistic translatability assessment, informing a draft questionnaire. CONCLUSION: We describe an international qualitative study to develop candidate items for a treatment-specific PROM for patients with rheumatic diseases. A future survey will enable the validation of a final version of the PROM.

Mortality and cause of death in patients with ANCA-associated vasculitis and polyarteritis nodosa in Australia-a population-based study.

OBJECTIVES: We compared survival and causes of death in Western Australian (WA) ANCA-associated vasculitis (AAV) and PAN patients with controls and the WA population. METHODS: In this data linkage study, we identified patients with incident AAV/PAN and age, sex and temporally matched controls 1980-2014 from the WA Rheumatic Disease Epidemiological Registry. Survival analyses and time-varying analyses were performed. RESULTS: Six hundred and fourteen patients with incident AAV/PAN were compared with 6672 controls; 229 AAV/PAN patients died over 5277 person-years of follow-up and 1009 controls died over 73835 person-years. Survival was reduced in patients with AAV/PAN compared with matched controls [hazard ratio (HR) 3.5 (95% CI: 3.1, 4.1)], and matched WA population rates [standardized mortality ratio 3.3 (95% CI: 2.9, 3.8)]. Greatest excess mortality in AAV/PAN patients was observed in the first year after diagnosis and remained higher than controls throughout follow-up. Greater excess mortality was observed in patients >60 years at diagnosis. In cause-specific analyses, mortality HR for vasculitis, infection and non-infective respiratory disease were greatest early after diagnosis and remained persistently elevated. The HRs for malignancy and cerebrovascular disease related deaths increased during follow-up, and were constant for ischaemic heart disease related deaths. CONCLUSION: Mortality was increased in AAV/PAN patients compared with controls, with patients older at diagnosis at greater risk. These findings provide mortality risk for AAV/PAN in an Australian population, highlighting key contributors to mortality at different time periods over follow-up and potential areas of focus for reducing mortality.

Long-term maintenance rituximab for ANCA-associated vasculitis: relapse and infection prediction models.

OBJECTIVES: Following a maintenance course of rituximab (RTX) for ANCA-associated vasculitis (AAV), relapses occur on cessation of therapy, and further dosing is considered. This study aimed to develop relapse and infection risk prediction models to help guide decision making regarding extended RTX maintenance therapy. METHODS: Patients with a diagnosis of AAV who received 4-8 grams of RTX as maintenance treatment between 2002 and 2018 were included. Both induction and maintenance doses were included; most patients received standard departmental protocol consisting of 2× 1000 mg 2 weeks apart, followed by 1000 mg every 6 months for 2 years. Patients who continued on repeat RTX dosing long-term were excluded. Separate risk prediction models were derived for the outcomes of relapse and infection. RESULTS: A total of 147 patients were included in this study with a median follow-up of 63 months [interquartile range (IQR): 34-93]. Relapse: At time of last RTX, the model comprised seven predictors, with a corresponding C-index of 0.54. Discrimination between individuals using this model was not possible; however, discrimination could be achieved by grouping patients into low- and high-risk groups. When the model was applied 12 months post last RTX, the ability to discriminate relapse risk between individuals improved (C-index 0.65), and once again, clear discrimination was observed between patients from low- and high-risk groups. Infection: At time of last RTX, five predictors were retained in the model. The C-index was 0.64 allowing discrimination between low and high risk of infection groups. At 12 months post RTX, the C-index for the model was 0.63. Again, clear separation of patients from two risk groups was observed. CONCLUSION: While our models had insufficient power to discriminate risk between individual patients they were able to assign patients into risk groups for both relapse and infection. The ability to identify risk groups may help in decisions regarding the potential benefit of ongoing RTX treatment. However, we caution the use of these prediction models until prospective multi-centre validation studies have been performed.

Evaluation of PR3-ANCA Status After Rituximab for ANCA-Associated Vasculitis.

INTRODUCTION: The value of antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA) measurements among patients with an established diagnosis of ANCA-associated vasculitis (AAV) to assess disease activity or predict relapse remains controversial, but recent evidence suggests a possible role for rituximab-treated patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All patients with active vasculitis and positive proteinase 3 (PR3)-ANCA who were starting a 2-year treatment course of rituximab for induction of remission at Addenbrooke's Hospital between January 2011 and January 2016 were included in this study. Common department practice consists of 6 g of rituximab given over 2 years, concomitant corticosteroids (0.5-1.0 mg/kg) with rapid taper over 3 months, and cessation of oral maintenance immunosuppressive agents at time of first rituximab dose. Clinical and laboratory data were collected retrospectively using electronic patient records. RESULTS: Fifty-seven patients with current PR3-ANCA positivity were included in the analysis. Median follow-up was 59 months. PR3-ANCA negativity was achieved in 25 patients (44%) with a median time of 14 months. Clinical remission was achieved in 53 patients (93%) with a median time of 3 months. Among the 53 patients who achieved remission during follow-up, 24 (45%) relapsed with a median time to relapse of 36 months from remission. Both PR3-ANCA-negative status and 50% reduction in PR3-ANCA from baseline (as time-varying covariates) were significantly associated with a longer time to relapse (PR3-ANCA-negative status: hazards ratio, 0.08 [95% confidence interval, 0.01-0.63, p = 0.016]; 50% reduction in PR3-ANCA: hazards ratio, 0.25 [95% confidence interval, 0.18-0.99, p = 0.046]). CONCLUSIONS: Achieving and maintaining PR3-ANCA negativity after rituximab was associated with longer-lasting remission.

Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole prophylaxis prevents severe/life-threatening infections following rituximab in antineutrophil cytoplasm antibody-associated vasculitis.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess risk factors for the development of severe infection in patients with antineutrophil cytoplasm antibody-associated vasculitis (AAV) receiving rituximab. METHODS: 192 patients with AAV were identified. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify risk factors for severe infection following rituximab. Severe infections were classified as grade ≥3 as proposed by the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events V.4.0. RESULTS: 95 severe infections were recorded in 49 (25.52%) patients, corresponding to an event rate of 26.06 per 100 person-years. The prophylactic use of trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole was associated with a lower frequency of severe infections (HR 0.30, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.69), while older age (HR 1.03, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.05), endobronchial involvement (HR 2.21, 95% CI 1.14 to 4.26), presence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (HR 6.30, 95% CI 1.08 to 36.75) and previous alemtuzumab use (HR 3.97, 95% CI 1.50 to 10.54) increased the risk. When analysis was restricted to respiratory tract infections (66.3% of all infections), endobronchial involvement (HR 4.27, 95% CI 1.81 to 10.06), severe bronchiectasis (HR 6.14, 95% CI 1.18 to 31.91), higher neutrophil count (HR 1.19, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.33) and major relapse (HR 3.07, 95% CI 1.30 to 7.23) as indication for rituximab use conferred a higher risk, while refractory disease (HR 0.25, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.90) as indication had a lower frequency of severe infections. CONCLUSIONS: We found severe infections in one quarter of patients with AAV receiving rituximab. Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole prophylaxis reduced the risk, while especially bronchiectasis and endobronchial involvement are risk factors for severe respiratory infections.

The role of nailfold capillary dropout on mortality in systemic sclerosis.

BACKGROUND: Semi-quantitative wide-field nailfold capillaroscopy (NFC) is a simple technique with proven utility in the early diagnosis of systemic sclerosis (SSc). Its role in prognosis, however, remains uncertain. AIM: To investigate the possible utility of NFC in predicting survival. METHODS: Patients with SSc listed on the South Australian Scleroderma Register (SASR) with prior NFC performed at Flinders Medical Centre from 1991 to 2015 were included in this study. Baseline demographic data, diagnosis, scleroderma antibody status and mortality status were also collected for each patient. RESULTS: The cohort consisted of 99 patients with limited cutaneous SSc, 30 patients with diffuse cutaneous SSc and 23 with an overlap scleroderma syndrome. Fifty-six patients died during the period of study (censured end June 2015). Patients with diffuse scleroderma had significantly greater capillary dropout compared with limited and overlap scleroderma (P < 0.001). In univariate analysis, both capillary dropout scores (log-rank χ2 = 8.75, P = 0.003) and antibody status (log-rank χ2 = 13.94, P = 0.003) were associated with mortality. ANOVA showed a significant association between antibody status and capillary dropout (P < 0.001). In Cox regression, adjustment for capillary dropout attenuated the impact of autoantibody group on survival. CONCLUSIONS: Nailfold capillary dropout was significantly associated with mortality and the severity of dropout attenuates survival dictated by antibody status. Together these observations support the hypothesis that capillary dropout is on the causal pathway between induction of scleroderma associated autoantibodies and mortality.

Interconception care for women with a history of gestational diabetes for improving maternal and infant outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is associated with adverse health outcomes for mothers and their infants both perinatally and long term. Women with a history of GDM are at risk of recurrence in subsequent pregnancies and may benefit from intervention in the interconception period to improve maternal and infant health outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of interconception care for women with a history of GDM on maternal and infant health outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (7 April 2017) and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials, including quasi-randomised controlled trials and cluster-randomised trials evaluating any protocol of interconception care with standard care or other forms of interconception care for women with a history of GDM on maternal and infant health outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility. In future updates of this review, at least two review authors will extract data and assess the risk of bias of included studies; the quality of the evidence will be assessed using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: No eligible published trials were identified. We identified a completed randomised controlled trial that was designed to evaluate the effects of a diet and exercise intervention compared with standard care in women with a history of GDM, however to date, it has only published results on women who were pregnant at randomisation (and not women in the interconception period). We also identified an ongoing trial, in obese women with a history of GDM planning a subsequent pregnancy, which is assessing the effects of an intensive lifestyle intervention, supported with liraglutide treatment, compared with usual care. We also identified a trial that was designed to evaluate the effects of a weight loss and exercise intervention compared with lifestyle education also in obese women with a history of GDM planning a subsequent pregnancy, however it has not yet been published. These trials will be re-considered for inclusion in the next review update. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The role of interconception care for women with a history of GDM remains unclear. Randomised controlled trials are required evaluating different forms and protocols of interconception care for these women on perinatal and long-term maternal and infant health outcomes, acceptability of such interventions and cost-effectiveness.

Preconception care for diabetic women for improving maternal and infant health.

BACKGROUND: Infants born to mothers with pre-existing type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus are at greater risk of congenital anomalies, perinatal mortality and significant morbidity in the short and long term. Pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes are at greater risk of perinatal morbidity and diabetic complications. The relationship between glycaemic control and health outcomes for both mothers and infants indicates the potential for preconception care for these women to be of benefit. This is an update of the original review, which was first published in 2010. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of preconception care in women with diabetes on health outcomes for mothers and their infants. SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (31 January 2017) and reference lists of retrieved articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of preconception care for diabetic women. Cluster-RCTs and quasi-RCTs were eligible for inclusion but none were identified. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. We checked data for accuracy and assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included three trials involving 254 adolescent girls with type 1 or type 2 diabetes, with an overall unclear to high risk of bias. The three trials were conducted at diabetes clinics in the USA, and assessed the READY-Girls (Reproductive-health Education and Awareness of Diabetes in Youth for Girls) programme versus standard care.Considering primary outcomes, one trial reported no pregnancies in the trial period (12 months) (very low-quality evidence, with downgrading based on study limitations (risk of bias) and imprecision); in the other two trials, pregnancy was an exclusion criterion, or was not clearly reported on. None of the trials reported on the other primary maternal outcomes, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy and caesarean section; or primary infant outcomes, large-for-gestational age, perinatal mortality, death or morbidity composite, or congenital malformations. Similarly, none of the trials reported on the secondary outcomes, for which we had planned to assess the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach (maternal: induction of labour; perineal trauma; gestational weight gain; long-term cardiovascular health; infant: adiposity; type 1 or 2 diabetes; neurosensory disability).The majority of secondary maternal and infant outcomes, and outcomes relating to the use and costs of health services were not reported by the three included trials. Regarding behaviour changes associated with the intervention, in one trial, participants in the preconception care group had a slightly higher score for the actual initiation of discussion regarding preconception care with healthcare providers at follow-up (nine months), compared with those in the standard care group (mean difference 0.40, 95% confidence interval -0.02 to 0.82 (on a scale of 0 to 4 points); participants = 87) (a summation of four dichotomous items; possible range 0 to 4, with 0 being no discussion). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There are insufficient RCT data available to assess the effects of preconception care for diabetic women on health outcomes for mothers and their infants.More high-quality evidence is needed to determine the effects of different protocols of preconception care for diabetic women. Future trials should be powered to evaluate effects on short- and long-term maternal and infant outcomes, and outcomes relating to the use and costs of health services. We have identified three ongoing studies that we will consider in the next review update.

Oral anti-diabetic agents for women with established diabetes/impaired glucose tolerance or previous gestational diabetes planning pregnancy, or pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes.

BACKGROUND: While most guidance recommends the use of insulin in women whose pregnancies are affected by pre-existing diabetes, oral anti-diabetic agents may be more acceptable to women. The effects of these oral anti-diabetic agents on maternal and infant health outcomes need to be established in pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes or impaired glucose tolerance, as well as in women with previous gestational diabetes mellitus preconceptionally or during a subsequent pregnancy. This review is an update of a review that was first published in 2010. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the effects of oral anti-diabetic agents in women with established diabetes, impaired glucose tolerance or previous gestational diabetes who are planning a pregnancy, or pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes, on maternal and infant health. The use of oral anti-diabetic agents for the management of gestational diabetes in a current pregnancy is evaluated in a separate Cochrane Review. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 October 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs assessing the effects of oral anti-diabetic agents in women with established diabetes, impaired glucose tolerance or previous gestational diabetes who were planning a pregnancy, or pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes. Cluster-RCTs were eligible for inclusion, but none were identified. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the included RCTs. Review authors checked the data for accuracy, and assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We identified six RCTs (707 women), eligible for inclusion in this updated review, however, three RCTs had mixed populations (that is, they included pregnant women with gestational diabetes) and did not report data separately for the relevant subset of women for this review. Therefore we have only included outcome data from three RCTs; data were available for 241 women and their infants. The three RCTs all compared an oral anti-diabetic agent (metformin) with insulin. The women in the RCTs that contributed data had type 2 diabetes diagnosed before or during their pregnancy. Overall, the RCTs were judged to be at varying risk of bias. We assessed the quality of the evidence for selected important outcomes using GRADE; the evidence was low- or very low-quality, due to downgrading because of design limitations (risk of bias) and imprecise effect estimates (for many outcomes only one or two RCTs contributed data).For our primary outcomes there was no clear difference between metformin and insulin groups for pre-eclampsia (risk ratio (RR) 0.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.33 to 1.20; RCTs = 2; participants = 227; very low-quality evidence) although in one RCT women receiving metformin were less likely to have pregnancy-induced hypertension (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.91; RCTs = 1; participants = 206; low-quality evidence). Women receiving metformin were less likely to have a caesarean section compared with those receiving insulin (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.88; RCTs = 3; participants = 241; low-quality evidence). In one RCT there was no clear difference between groups for large-for-gestational-age infants (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.72; RCTs = 1; participants = 206; very low-quality evidence). There were no perinatal deaths in two RCTs (very low-quality evidence). Neonatal mortality or morbidity composite outcome and childhood/adulthood neurosensory disability were not reported.For other secondary outcomes we assessed using GRADE, there were no clear differences between metformin and insulin groups for induction of labour (RR 1.42, 95% CI 0.62 to 3.28; RCTs = 2; participants = 35; very low-quality evidence), though infant hypoglycaemia was reduced in the metformin group (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.62; RCTs = 3; infants = 241; very low-quality evidence). Perineal trauma, maternal postnatal depression and postnatal weight retention, and childhood/adulthood adiposity and diabetes were not reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There are insufficient RCT data to evaluate the use of oral anti-diabetic agents in women with established diabetes, impaired glucose tolerance or previous gestational diabetes who are planning a pregnancy, or in pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes. Low to very low-quality evidence suggests possible reductions in pregnancy-induced hypertension, caesarean section birth and neonatal hypoglycaemia with metformin compared with insulin for women with type 2 diabetes diagnosed before or during their pregnancy, and no clear differences in pre-eclampsia, induction of labour and babies that are large-for-gestational age. Further high-quality RCTs that compare any combination of oral anti-diabetic agent, insulin and dietary and lifestyle advice for these women are needed. Future RCTs could be powered to evaluate effects on short- and long-term clinical outcomes; such RCTs could attempt to collect and report on the standard outcomes suggested in this review. We have identified three ongoing studies and four are awaiting classification. We will consider these when this review is updated.

Dietary advice interventions in pregnancy for preventing gestational diabetes mellitus.

BACKGROUND: Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is a form of diabetes occurring during pregnancy which can result in short- and long-term adverse outcomes for women and babies. With an increasing prevalence worldwide, there is a need to assess strategies, including dietary advice interventions, that might prevent GDM. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of dietary advice interventions for preventing GDM and associated adverse health outcomes for women and their babies. SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (3 January 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs assessing the effects of dietary advice interventions compared with no intervention (standard care), or to different dietary advice interventions. Cluster-RCTs were eligible for inclusion but none were identified. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. Data were checked for accuracy. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included 11 trials involving 2786 women and their babies, with an overall unclear to moderate risk of bias. Six trials compared dietary advice interventions with standard care; four compared low glycaemic index (GI) with moderate- to high-GI dietary advice; one compared specific (high-fibre focused) with standard dietary advice. Dietary advice interventions versus standard care (six trials) Considering primary outcomes, a trend towards a reduction in GDM was observed for women receiving dietary advice compared with standard care (average risk ratio (RR) 0.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.35 to 1.04; five trials, 1279 women; Tau² = 0.20; I² = 56%; P = 0.07; GRADE: very low-quality evidence); subgroup analysis suggested a greater treatment effect for overweight and obese women receiving dietary advice. While no clear difference was observed for pre-eclampsia (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.46; two trials, 282 women; GRADE: low-quality evidence) a reduction in pregnancy-induced hypertension was observed for women receiving dietary advice (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.88; two trials, 282 women; GRADE: low-quality evidence). One trial reported on perinatal mortality, and no deaths were observed (GRADE: very low-quality evidence). None of the trials reported on large-for-gestational age or neonatal mortality and morbidity.For secondary outcomes, no clear differences were seen for caesarean section (average RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.24; four trials, 1194 women; Tau² = 0.02; I² = 36%; GRADE: low-quality evidence) or perineal trauma (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.23 to 3.08; one trial, 759 women; GRADE: very low-quality evidence). Women who received dietary advice gained less weight during pregnancy (mean difference (MD) -4.70 kg, 95% CI -8.07 to -1.34; five trials, 1336 women; Tau² = 13.64; I² = 96%; GRADE: low-quality evidence); the result should be interpreted with some caution due to considerable heterogeneity. No clear differences were seen for the majority of secondary outcomes reported, including childhood/adulthood adiposity (skin-fold thickness at six months) (MD -0.10 mm, 95% CI -0.71 to 0.51; one trial, 132 children; GRADE: low-quality evidence). Women receiving dietary advice had a lower well-being score between 14 and 28 weeks, more weight loss at three months, and were less likely to have glucose intolerance (one trial).The trials did not report on other secondary outcomes, particularly those related to long-term health and health service use and costs. We were not able to assess the following outcomes using GRADE: postnatal depression; maternal type 2 diabetes; neonatal hypoglycaemia; childhood/adulthood type 2 diabetes; and neurosensory disability. Low-GI dietary advice versus moderate- to high-GI dietary advice (four trials) Considering primary outcomes, no clear differences were shown in the risks of GDM (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.31; four trials, 912 women; GRADE: low-quality evidence) or large-for-gestational age (average RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.86; three trials, 777 babies; Tau² = 0.61; P = 0.07; I² = 62%; GRADE: very low-quality evidence) between the low-GI and moderate- to high-GI dietary advice groups. The trials did not report on: hypertensive disorders of pregnancy; perinatal mortality; neonatal mortality and morbidity.No clear differences were shown for caesarean birth (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.04; two trials, 201 women; GRADE: very low-quality evidence) and gestational weight gain (MD -1.23 kg, 95% CI -4.08 to 1.61; four trials, 787 women; Tau² = 7.31; I² = 90%; GRADE: very low-quality evidence), or for other reported secondary outcomes.The trials did not report the majority of secondary outcomes including those related to long-term health and health service use and costs. We were not able to assess the following outcomes using GRADE: perineal trauma; postnatal depression; maternal type 2 diabetes; neonatal hypoglycaemia; childhood/adulthood adiposity; type 2 diabetes; and neurosensory disability. High-fibre dietary advice versus standard dietary advice (one trial) The one trial in this comparison reported on two secondary outcomes. No clear difference between the high-fibre and standard dietary advice groups observed for mean blood glucose (following an oral glucose tolerance test at 35 weeks), and birthweight. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Very low-quality evidence from five trials suggests a possible reduction in GDM risk for women receiving dietary advice versus standard care, and low-quality evidence from four trials suggests no clear difference for women receiving low- versus moderate- to high-GI dietary advice. A possible reduction in pregnancy-induced hypertension for women receiving dietary advice was observed and no clear differences were seen for other reported primary outcomes. There were few outcome data for secondary outcomes.For outcomes assessed using GRADE, evidence was considered to be low to very low quality, with downgrading based on study limitations (risk of bias), imprecision, and inconsistency.More high-quality evidence is needed to determine the effects of dietary advice interventions in pregnancy. Future trials should be designed to monitor adherence, women's views and preferences, and powered to evaluate effects on short- and long-term outcomes; there is a need for such trials to collect and report on core outcomes for GDM research. We have identified five ongoing studies and four are awaiting classification. We will consider these in the next review update.

Screening for gestational diabetes mellitus based on different risk profiles and settings for improving maternal and infant health.

BACKGROUND: Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is a form of diabetes that occurs in pregnancy. Although GDM usually resolves following birth, it is associated with significant morbidities for mothers and their infants in the short and long term. There is strong evidence to support treatment for GDM. However, there is uncertainty as to whether or not screening all pregnant women for GDM will improve maternal and infant health and if so, the most appropriate setting for screening. This review updates a Cochrane Review, first published in 2010, and subsequently updated in 2014. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of screening for gestational diabetes mellitus based on different risk profiles and settings on maternal and infant outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (31 January 2017), ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (14 June 2017), and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised and quasi-randomised trials evaluating the effects of different protocols, guidelines or programmes for screening for GDM based on different risk profiles and settings, compared with the absence of screening, or compared with other protocols, guidelines or programmes for screening. We planned to include trials published as abstracts only and cluster-randomised trials, but we did not identify any. Cross-over trials are not eligible for inclusion in this review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the included trials. We resolved disagreements through discussion or through consulting a third reviewer. MAIN RESULTS: We included two trials that randomised 4523 women and their infants. Both trials were conducted in Ireland. One trial (which quasi-randomised 3742 women, and analysed 3152 women) compared universal screening versus risk factor-based screening, and one trial (which randomised 781 women, and analysed 690 women) compared primary care screening versus secondary care screening. We were not able to perform meta-analyses due to the different interventions and comparisons assessed.Overall, there was moderate to high risk of bias due to one trial being quasi-randomised, inadequate blinding, and incomplete outcome data in both trials. We used GRADEpro GDT software to assess the quality of the evidence for selected outcomes for the mother and her child. Evidence was downgraded for study design limitations and imprecision of effect estimates. Universal screening versus risk-factor screening (one trial) MotherMore women were diagnosed with GDM in the universal screening group than in the risk-factor screening group (risk ratio (RR) 1.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.12 to 3.04; participants = 3152; low-quality evidence). There were no data reported under this comparison for other maternal outcomes including hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, caesarean birth, perineal trauma, gestational weight gain, postnatal depression, and type 2 diabetes. ChildNeonatal outcomes: large-for-gestational age, perinatal mortality, mortality or morbidity composite, hypoglycaemia; and childhood/adulthood outcomes: adiposity, type 2 diabetes, and neurosensory disability, were not reported under this comparison. Primary care screening versus secondary care screening (one trial) MotherThere was no clear difference between the primary care and secondary care screening groups for GDM (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.66; participants = 690; low-quality evidence), hypertension (RR 1.41, 95% CI 0.77 to 2.59; participants = 690; low-quality evidence), pre-eclampsia (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.78; participants = 690;low-quality evidence), or caesarean section birth (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.27; participants = 690; low-quality evidence). There were no data reported for perineal trauma, gestational weight gain, postnatal depression, or type 2 diabetes. ChildThere was no clear difference between the primary care and secondary care screening groups for large-for-gestational age (RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.96; participants = 690; low-quality evidence), neonatal complications: composite outcome, including: hypoglycaemia, respiratory distress, need for phototherapy, birth trauma, shoulder dystocia, five minute Apgar less than seven at one or five minutes, prematurity (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.71; participants = 690; low-quality evidence), or neonatal hypoglycaemia (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.28 to 4.38; participants = 690; very low-quality evidence). There was one perinatal death in the primary care screening group and two in the secondary care screening group (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.10 to 12.12; participants = 690; very low-quality evidence). There were no data for neurosensory disability, or childhood/adulthood adiposity or type 2 diabetes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There are insufficient randomised controlled trial data evaluating the effects of screening for GDM based on different risk profiles and settings on maternal and infant outcomes. Low-quality evidence suggests universal screening compared with risk factor-based screening leads to more women being diagnosed with GDM. Low to very low-quality evidence suggests no clear differences between primary care and secondary care screening, for outcomes: GDM, hypertension, pre-eclampsia, caesarean birth, large-for-gestational age, neonatal complications composite, and hypoglycaemia.Further, high-quality randomised controlled trials are needed to assess the value of screening for GDM, which may compare different protocols, guidelines or programmes for screening (based on different risk profiles and settings), with the absence of screening, or with other protocols, guidelines or programmes. There is a need for future trials to be sufficiently powered to detect important differences in short- and long-term maternal and infant outcomes, such as those important outcomes pre-specified in this review. As only a proportion of women will be diagnosed with GDM in these trials, large sample sizes may be required.

Combined diet and exercise interventions for preventing gestational diabetes mellitus.

BACKGROUND: Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is associated with a wide range of adverse health consequences for women and their infants in the short and long term. With an increasing prevalence of GDM worldwide, there is an urgent need to assess strategies for GDM prevention, such as combined diet and exercise interventions. This is an update of a Cochrane review that was first published in 2015. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of diet interventions in combination with exercise interventions for pregnant women for preventing GDM, and associated adverse health consequences for the mother and her infant/child. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (27 November 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs, comparing combined diet and exercise interventions with no intervention (i.e. standard care), that reported on GDM diagnosis as an outcome. Quasi-RCTs were excluded. Cross-over trials were not eligible for inclusion. We planned to include RCTs comparing two or more different diet/exercise interventions, however none were identified. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data, assessed the risk of bias of the included trials and assessed quality of evidence for selected maternal and infant/child outcomes using the GRADE approach. We checked data for accuracy. MAIN RESULTS: In this update, we included 23 RCTs (involving 8918 women and 8709 infants) that compared combined diet and exercise interventions with no intervention (standard care). The studies varied in the diet and exercise programs evaluated and health outcomes reported. None reported receiving funding from a drug manufacturer or agency with interests in the results. Overall risk of bias was judged to be unclear due to the lack of methodological detail reported. Most studies were undertaken in high-income countries.For our primary review outcomes, there was a possible reduced risk of GDM in the diet and exercise intervention group compared with the standard care group (average risk ratio (RR) 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71 to 1.01; 6633 women; 19 RCTs; Tau² = 0.05; I² = 42%; P = 0.07; moderate-quality evidence). There was also a possible reduced risk of caesarean section (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.02; 6089 women; 14 RCTs; moderate-quality evidence). No clear differences were seen between groups for pre-eclampsia (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.22; 5366 participants; 8 RCTs; low-quality evidence), pregnancy-induced hypertension and/or hypertension (average RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.27; 3073 participants; 6 RCTs; Tau² = 0.19; I² = 62%; very low-quality evidence), perinatal mortality (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.63; 3757 participants; 2 RCTs; low-quality evidence) or large-for-gestational age (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.07; 5353 participants; 11 RCTs; low-quality evidence). No data were reported for infant mortality or morbidity composite.Subgroup analyses (based on trial design, maternal body mass index (BMI) and ethnicity) revealed no clear differential treatment effects. We were unable to assess the impact of maternal age, parity and specific features of the diet and exercise interventions. Findings from sensitivity analyses (based on RCT quality) generally supported those observed in the main analyses. We were not able to perform subgroup analyses based on maternal age, parity or nature of the exercise/dietary interventions due to the paucity of information/data on these characteristics and the inability to meaningfully group intervention characteristics.For most of the secondary review outcomes assessed using GRADE, there were no clear differences between groups, including for perineal trauma (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.78 to 2.05; 2733 participants; 2 RCTs; moderate-quality evidence), neonatal hypoglycaemia (average RR 1.42, 95% CI 0.67 to 2.98; 3653 participants; 2 RCTs; Tau² = 0.23; I² = 77%; low quality evidence); and childhood adiposity (BMI z score) (MD 0.05, 95% CI -0.29 to 0.40; 794 participants; 2 RCTs; Tau² = 0.04; I² = 59%; low-quality evidence). However, there was evidence of less gestational weight gain in the diet and exercise intervention group compared with the control group (mean difference (MD) -0.89 kg, 95% CI -1.39 to -0.40; 5052 women; 16 RCTs; Tau² = 0.37; I² = 43%;moderate-quality evidence). No data were reported for maternal postnatal depression or type 2 diabetes; childhood/adulthood type 2 diabetes, or neurosensory disability. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Moderate-quality evidence suggests reduced risks of GDM and caesarean section with combined diet and exercise interventions during pregnancy as well as reductions in gestational weight gain, compared with standard care. There were no clear differences in hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, perinatal mortality, large-for-gestational age, perineal trauma, neonatal hypoglycaemia, and childhood adiposity (moderate- tovery low-quality evidence).Using GRADE methodology, the evidence was assessed as moderate to very low quality. Downgrading decisions were predominantly due to design limitations (risk of bias), and imprecision (uncertain effect estimates, and at times, small sample sizes and low event rates), however two outcomes (pregnancy-induced hypertension/hypertension and neonatal hypoglycaemia), were also downgraded for unexplained inconsistency (statistical heterogeneity).Due to the variability of the diet and exercise components tested in the included studies, the evidence in this review has limited ability to inform practice. Future studies could describe the interventions used in more detail, if and how these influenced behaviour change and ideally be standardised between studies. Studies could also consider using existing core outcome sets to facilitate more standardised reporting.

Diet and exercise interventions for preventing gestational diabetes mellitus.

BACKGROUND: Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is associated with a wide range of adverse health consequences for women and their babies in the short and long term. With an increasing prevalence of GDM worldwide, there is an urgent need to assess strategies for GDM prevention, such as combined diet and exercise interventions. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of combined diet and exercise interventions for preventing GDM and associated adverse health consequences for women and their babies. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (11 February 2014) and reference lists of retrieved studies. We updated the search in February 2015 but these results have not yet been incorporated and are awaiting classification. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs assessing the effects of interventions that included diet and exercise components. We included studies where combined diet and exercise interventions were compared with no intervention (i.e. standard care).We planned to also compare diet and exercise interventions with alternative diet and/or exercise interventions but no trials were identified for this comparison. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. Data were checked for accuracy. MAIN RESULTS: We included 13 randomised controlled trials (involving 4983 women and their babies). We assessed the included trials as being of moderate risk of bias overall.When comparing women receiving a diet and exercise intervention with those receiving no intervention, there was no clear difference in the risk of developing GDM (average risk ratio (RR) 0.92, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.68 to 1.23; 11 trials, 3744 women), caesarean section (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.01; seven trials, 3246 women), or large-for-gestational age (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.05; 2950 infants). Only one trial reported on perinatal mortality, and found no clear difference in the risk of stillbirth (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.29 to 3.42; 2202 fetuses) or neonatal death (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.85; 2202 neonates).Very few differences were shown between groups for the review's secondary outcomes, including for induction of labour, perineal trauma, pre-eclampsia, postpartum haemorrhage and infection, macrosomia, birthweight, small-for-gestational age, ponderal index, neonatal hypoglycaemia requiring treatment, hyperbilirubinaemia requiring treatment, shoulder dystocia, bone fracture or nerve palsy. Women receiving a combined diet and exercise intervention were, however, found to have a reduced risk of preterm birth compared with women receiving no intervention (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.93; five trials, 2713 women).A trend towards reduced weight gain during pregnancy was shown for women receiving the combined diet and exercise intervention (mean difference (MD) -0.76 kg, 95% CI -1.55 to 0.03; eight trials, 2707 women; P = 0.06, random-effects); but no clear difference in postnatal weight retention was observed overall.In relation to adherence to the interventions, a number of trials that reported on behaviour modifications showed benefits in diet- (5/8 trials) and physical activity- (4/8 trials) related behaviours for women receiving the combined diet and exercise intervention, compared with women receiving no intervention; however there was notable variation across trials in outcomes measured and results observed. Only two trials reported on well-being and quality of life of women, and did not observe differences between groups for these outcomes.Very few trials reported on outcomes relating to the use of health services, although one trial suggested a reduced length of antenatal hospital stay for women receiving a combined diet and exercise intervention (MD -0.27 days, 95% CI -0.49 to -0.05; 2153 women).No information was available on outcomes for the infant as a child or adult, or for most longer-term outcomes for the mother. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There are limitations associated with the available RCT evidence on the effects of combined diet and exercise interventions during pregnancy for preventing GDM. Results from 13 RCTs (of moderate quality) suggest no clear difference in the risk of developing GDM for women receiving a combined diet and exercise intervention compared with women receiving no intervention. However, the ability to draw firm conclusions was limited by variations in the quality of trials, characteristics of the interventions and populations assessed, and outcome definitions between trials.Based on the data currently available, conclusive evidence is not available to guide practice. Further large, well-designed RCTs, addressing the limitations of previous studies, are needed to assess the effects of combined interventions on preventing GDM and other relevant pregnancy outcomes including caesarean birth, large-for-gestational age and perinatal mortality. Health service utilisation and costs, and longer-term outcomes for mothers and their babies should be included. We identified another 16 trials which are ongoing and we will consider these for inclusion in the next update of this review.

Screening and subsequent management for gestational diabetes for improving maternal and infant health.

BACKGROUND: Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is a form of diabetes that occurs in pregnancy. Although GDM usually resolves following birth, it is associated with significant morbidities for mother and baby both perinatally and in the long term. There is strong evidence to support treatment for GDM. However, there is little consensus on whether or not screening for GDM will improve maternal and infant health and if so, the most appropriate protocol to follow. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of different methods of screening for GDM and maternal and infant outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (1 December 2013). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised trials evaluating the effects of different methods of screening for GDM. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently conducted data extraction and quality assessment. We resolved disagreements through discussion or through a third author. MAIN RESULTS: We included four trials involving 3972 women in the review. One quasi-randomised trial compared risk factor screening with universal or routine screening by 50 g oral glucose challenge testing. Women in the universal screening group were more likely to be diagnosed with GDM (one trial, 3152 women, risk ratio (RR) 0.44, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26 to 0.75). This trial did not report on the other primary outcomes of the review (positive screen for GDM, mode of birth, large-for-gestational age, or macrosomia). Considering secondary outcomes, infants of mothers in the risk factor screening group were born marginally earlier than infants of mothers in the routine screening group (one trial, 3152 women, mean difference (MD) -0.15 weeks, 95% CI -0.27 to -0.03).The remaining three trials evaluated different methods of administering a 50 g glucose load. Two small trials compared glucose monomer with glucose polymer testing, with one of these trials including a candy bar group. One trial compared a glucose solution with food. No differences in diagnosis of GDM were found between each comparison. However, in one trial significantly more women in the glucose monomer group screened positive for GDM than women in the candy bar group (80 women, RR 3.49, 95% CI 1.05 to 11.57). The three trials did not report on the primary review outcomes of mode of birth, large-for-gestational age or macrosomia. Overall, women drinking the glucose monomer experienced fewer side effects from testing than women drinking the glucose polymer (two trials, 151 women, RR 2.80, 95% CI 1.10 to 7.13). However, we observed substantial heterogeneity between the trials for this result (I² = 61%). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There was insufficient evidence to determine if screening for gestational diabetes, or what types of screening, can improve maternal and infant health outcomes.

Consensus of the definitions of the OMERACT glucocorticoid impact core domain set for people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases.

BACKGROUND: The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Glucocorticoid (GC) Impact Working Group has been working to develop a core domain set to measure the impact of GCs on patients living with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases. The mandatory domains previously identified for inclusion in all clinical trials measuring the GC effects include infection, bone fragility, mood disturbance, hypertension, diabetes, weight, fatigue, and mortality. Before progressing to instrument selection, the Working Group sought to establish precise definitions of all mandatory domains within the core domain set. METHODS: OMERACT methodology was applied with the use of evidence and consensus-based decision making of all stakeholder groups (patient research partners, health care professionals, clinician researchers, industry members and methodologists) to develop detailed definitions for the broad domain, target domain and domain components, taking into consideration sources of variability that could affect measurement of the domain.  The working group synthesized prior qualitative studies, quantitative work, and results from Delphi rounds, to develop a rich definition of 'what' is to be measured. RESULTS: Between 2021 and 2023, the OMERACT Working Group on GC Impact conducted virtual meetings to establish domain definitions. First, we mapped each domain onto an OMERACT Core Area. All domains were primarily represented within the Pathophysiological Manifestations Core Area, except from Fatigue which was primarily Life Impact and Weight which spanned both Core Areas. Sources of variability included cultural factors, age, gender, education level, socioeconomic status, personal experiences, emotional state, and language barriers. The domain definitions will form the foundation for instrument selection and the initial step of domain / concept match and content validity in the OMERACT pillar of 'truth' before moving on to feasibility and discrimination. CONCLUSION: The OMERACT GC Impact Working Group has developed and agreed upon detailed domain definitions for core domains. Future steps of the working group are to select instruments and develop the core outcome measurement set for clinical trials measuring the impact of GC on patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases.