Time in Range and Pregnancy Outcomes in People with Diabetes Using Continuous Glucose Monitoring.

OBJECTIVE: The international consensus on continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) recommends time in range (TIR) target of >70% for pregnant people. Our aim was to compare outcomes between pregnant people with TIR ≤ versus >70%. STUDY DESIGN: This study was a retrospective study of all people using CGM during pregnancy from January 2017 to May 2021 at a tertiary care center. All people with pregestational diabetes who used CGM and delivered at our center were included in the analysis. Primary neonatal outcome included any of the following: large for gestational age, neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission, need for intravenous (IV) glucose, or respiratory distress syndrome (RDS). Maternal outcomes included hypertensive disorders of pregnancy and delivery outcomes. Logistic regression was used to estimate unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios (aORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: Of 78 people managed with CGM, 65 (80%) met inclusion criteria. While 33 people (50.1%) had TIR ≤70%, 32 (49.2%) had TIR >70%. People with TIR ≤70% were more likely to be younger, have a lower body mass index, and have type 1 diabetes than those with TIR >70%. After multivariable regression, there was no difference in the composite neonatal outcome between the groups (aOR: 0.56, 95% CI: 0.16-1.92). However, neonates of people with TIR ≤70% were more likely to be admitted to the NICU (p = 0.035), to receive IV glucose (p = 0.005), to have RDS (p = 0.012), and had a longer hospital stay (p = 0.012) compared with people with TIR >70%. Furthermore, people with TIR ≤70% were more likely to develop hypertensive disorders (p = 0.04) than those with TIR >70%. CONCLUSION: In this cohort, the target of TIR >70% was reached in about one out of two people with diabetes using CGM, which correlated with a reduction in neonatal and maternal complications. KEY POINTS: · Among people with diabetes, 50% reached the recommended time in range using CGM.. · Time in range >70% was associated with reducing the rate of some neonatal complications.. · Time in range ≤70% was associated with increased risk for adverse maternal outcomes..

Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Primary Cesarean Birth and Adverse Outcomes Among Low-Risk Nulliparous People.

OBJECTIVE: To compare trend of primary cesarean delivery rate and composite neonatal and maternal adverse outcomes in low-risk pregnancies among racial and ethnic groups: non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic Black, and Hispanic. METHODS: This population-based cohort study used U.S. vital statistics data (2015-2019) to evaluate low-risk, nulliparous patients with nonanomalous singletons who labored and delivered at 37-41 weeks of gestation. The primary outcome was the primary cesarean delivery rate. Secondary outcomes included composite neonatal adverse outcome (Apgar score less than 5 at 5 minutes, assisted ventilation for more than 6 hours, seizure, or death), and composite maternal adverse outcome (intensive care unit admission, blood transfusion, uterine rupture, or unplanned hysterectomy), as well as infant death. Multivariable Poisson regression models were used to estimate adjusted relative risks (aRR) and 95% CIs. RESULTS: Among 4.3 million births, 60.6% identified as non-Hispanic White, 14.6% identified as non-Hispanic Black, and 24.8% identified as Hispanic. The rate of primary cesarean delivery was 18.5% (n=804,155). An increased risk for cesarean delivery was found in non-Hispanic Black (21.7%, aRR 1.24, 95% CI 1.23-1.25) and Hispanic (17.3%, aRR 1.09, 95% CI 1.09-1.10) individuals, compared with non-Hispanic White individuals (18.1%) after multivariable adjustment. There was an upward trend in the rate of primary cesarean delivery in all racial and ethnic groups ( P for linear trend<0.001 for all groups). However, the racial and ethnic disparity in the rate of primary cesarean delivery remained stable during the study period. The composite neonatal adverse outcome was lower in Hispanic individuals in all newborns (10.7 vs 8.3 per 1,000 live births, aRR 0.74, 95% CI 0.72-0.75), and in newborns delivered by primary cesarean delivery (18.5 vs 15.0 per 1,000 live births, aRR 0.73, 95% CI 0.70-0.76), compared with non-Hispanic White individuals. CONCLUSION: Using a nationally representative sample in the United States, we found racial and ethnic disparities in the primary cesarean delivery rate in low-risk nulliparous patients, which persisted throughout the study period.