The impact of ovulation induction and ovarian stimulation on the risk of pregnancy-induced hypertension and on neonatal outcomes: A case/control study.

OBJECTIVES: To study the role of ovarian stimulation procedures on the risk of pregnancy-induced hypertension, gestational diabetes mellitus and neonatal outcomes according to women's characteristics and the causes of infertility. DESIGN: Retrospective, observational, case/control study. PATIENTS: Spontaneous pregnancies (group A, n=8107), pregnancies achieved after mild ovarian ovulation induction without other Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) procedures (group B, n=44), pregnancies after mild ovarian stimulation and ART procedures (group C, n=53) or pregnancies after multi (>2) follicular stimulation with gonadotrophin therapy and ART procedures (group D, n=133); all of the groups had identical protocols for prenatal care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Pregnancy-induced hypertension (PIH), fetal macrosomia (estimated fetal weight >90th percentile), gestational diabetes mellitus, caesarean section, and neonatal outcomes. RESULTS: The incidence rates of PIH (2.7, 11.6, 4.2, and 2.5%) in groups A, B, C and D, respectively, (p=0.004), fetal macrosomia (4.7, 7.0, 20.8, and 7.6%, respectively, p<0.001), caesarean section (21.8, 37.2, 21.7, and 17.6%, respectively, p=0.048), differed among the groups. The high incidence of PIH in pregnancies following ovulation induction was driven by polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) per se. CONCLUSION: PCOS per se was associated with more PIH, and ART procedures after mild mono/bi follicular ovarian stimulation were associated with more fetal macrosomia.

Poor Reliability and Poor Adherence to Self-Monitoring of Blood Glucose Are Common in Women With Gestational Diabetes Mellitus and May Be Associated With Poor Pregnancy Outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the compliance with self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) and the reliability of diabetes logbooks in women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM), as well as the associated determinants and outcomes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We prospectively selected French-speaking women with newly diagnosed GDM who had been referred to our diabetes management program and understood SMBG principles. At the next follow-up visit, we collected SMBG results from glucose meters and logbooks. We analyzed pregnancy outcomes. RESULTS: Data were analyzed over 13 ± 3 days in 91 women. Only 61.5% had performed ≥80% of the required tests. Poor compliance was associated with a family history of diabetes, social deprivation, and non-European origin. The average time between pre- and postprandial tests was 141 ± 20 min, with 46.5% of women performing ≥80% of postprandial measurements 100-140 min after meals. Inadequate timing was associated with ethnicity and higher HbA1c at baseline. A total of 23.1% of women had <90% matched values in diary and meter memory, and a poor concordance was associated with a family history of diabetes. Poor adherence was associated with more preeclampsia (12.2 vs. 1.9%, P = 0.049), and inadequate postprandial test timing with a higher HbA1c at delivery (5.3 ± 0.4 vs. 5.0 ± 0.3% [34 ± 2 vs. 31 ± 2 mmol/mol], P < 0.01), despite more frequent insulin therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Although women with GDM are considered to be highly motivated, SMBG adherence and reliability are of concern and may be associated with poor gestational prognosis, suggesting that caregivers should systematically check the glucose meter memory to improve GDM management.

The diagnostic and prognostic performance of a selective screening strategy for gestational diabetes mellitus according to ethnicity in Europe.

CONTEXT: The performance of standard selective screening strategies for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) may vary according to ethnicity. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to evaluate the diagnostic and prognostic performance of a selective screening tool to determine whether it accurately predicts GDM and events in women of different ethnicities. The tool selectively screens based on patients having one or more of the following risk factors (RFs): body mass index ≥25 kg/m(2), age ≥35 years, family history of diabetes, and personal history of GDM or macrosomia. DESIGN AND SETTING: We conducted an observational prospective study at a university hospital. PARTICIPANTS: We included 17 344 women of European (30.9%), North African (29.6%), Sub-Saharan African (22.2%), Caribbean (8.7%), Indian-Pakistani-Sri Lankan (5.5%), and Asian (3.3%) ethnicities who were without pregravid diabetes and had singleton deliveries (2002-2010). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We universally screened GDM and GDM-related events (pre-eclampsia, birth weight ≥4000 g, or dystocia). RESULTS: Independent of confounding factors, North African (odds ratio [OR], 1.35; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.21-1.52; P < .001) and Indian-Pakistani-Sri Lankan (OR, 2.52; 95% CI, 2.13-3.00; P < .001) women had more GDM than Europeans, whereas Sub-Saharan African women had less (OR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.71-0.94; P < .01). Having one or more RFs was associated with GDM among Europeans (OR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.22-1.76), North African (OR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.13-1.55), Sub-Saharan African (OR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.20-1.83), and Caribbean (OR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.12-2.14) women. Having one or more RFs was also associated with GDM-related events only in European (P < .01) and North African (P < .05) women, with the following incidences in Europeans: no GDM/no RF, 6.9%; no GDM/RF, 9.0%; GDM/no RF, 14.7%; and GDM/RF, 12.6%. CONCLUSION: Standard selective screening criteria were not predictive of GDM in women from India-Pakistan-Sri Lanka and Asia and were associated with GDM-related events only in European and North African women. However, the women with GDM, who were routinely treated, had a poor prognosis, even for those free of RFs. These results support universal screening, irrespective of ethnicity.

Diagnostic and prognostic performances over 9 years of a selective screening strategy for gestational diabetes mellitus in a cohort of 18,775 subjects.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to evaluate a selective screening strategy for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) based on the presence of risk factors: BMI ≥25 kg/m(2), age ≥35 years, family history of diabetes, personal history of GDM, or birth of a child with macrosomia. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Of 20,630 deliveries between 2002 and 2010, we selected 18,775 deliveries in women with no known diabetes and for whom all risk factors were known. GDM was universally screened and defined as fasting plasma glucose level ≥5.3 mmol/L and/or 2-h postload (75 g) glucose level ≥7.8 mmol/L. RESULTS: The prevalence of at least one risk factor has increased since 2002 (P < 0.001) from 51.7 to 61.5%, with no change in the GDM prevalence (mean 14.4%, intention to screen). At least one risk factor was present in 58.5% of women who represented 65.3% of all those with GDM. The presence of risk factors was significantly associated with GDM (odds ratio 1.4 [95% CI 1.3-1.5], P < 0.001) and with GDM-related events (preeclampsia/large for gestational age/dystocia) (P < 0.001) with the following incidences: no GDM/no risk factor 8.8%, no GDM/risk factor 11.1%, GDM/no risk factor 16.7%, and GDM/risk factor 18.2%. CONCLUSIONS: The presence of risk factors increased during the last decade. This condition is predictive of GDM and GDM-related events. However, a selective screening would lead to missing one-third of the women with GDM who, even without risk factors, had more events than women without GDM. Therefore, these data stand against the present selective screening currently proposed in the French guidelines.