Changing diagnostic criteria for gestational diabetes (CDC4G) in Sweden: A stepped wedge cluster randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organisation (WHO) 2013 diagnostic criteria for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) has been criticised due to the limited evidence of benefits on pregnancy outcomes in different populations when switching from previously higher glycemic thresholds to the lower WHO-2013 diagnostic criteria. The aim of this study was to determine whether the switch from previous Swedish (SWE-GDM) to the WHO-2013 GDM criteria in Sweden following risk factor-based screening improves pregnancy outcomes. METHODS AND FINDINGS: A stepped wedge cluster randomised trial was performed between January 1 and December 31, 2018 in 11 clusters (17 delivery units) across Sweden, including all pregnancies under care and excluding preexisting diabetes, gastric bypass surgery, or multifetal pregnancies from the analysis. After implementation of uniform clinical and laboratory guidelines, a number of clusters were randomised to intervention (switch to WHO-2013 GDM criteria) each month from February to November 2018. The primary outcome was large for gestational age (LGA, defined as birth weight >90th percentile). Other secondary and prespecified outcomes included maternal and neonatal birth complications. Primary analysis was by modified intention to treat (mITT), excluding 3 clusters that were randomised before study start but were unable to implement the intervention. Prespecified subgroup analysis was undertaken among those discordant for the definition of GDM. Multilevel mixed regression models were used to compare outcome LGA between WHO-2013 and SWE-GDM groups adjusted for clusters, time periods, and potential confounders. Multiple imputation was used for missing potential confounding variables. In the mITT analysis, 47 080 pregnancies were included with 6 882 (14.6%) oral glucose tolerance tests (OGTTs) performed. The GDM prevalence increased from 595/22 797 (2.6%) to 1 591/24 283 (6.6%) after the intervention. In the mITT population, the switch was associated with no change in primary outcome LGA (2 790/24 209 (11.5%) versus 2 584/22 707 (11.4%)) producing an adjusted risk ratio (aRR) of 0.97 (95% confidence interval 0.91 to 1.02, p = 0.26). In the subgroup, the prevalence of LGA was 273/956 (28.8%) before and 278/1 239 (22.5%) after the switch, aRR 0.87 (95% CI 0.75 to 1.01, p = 0.076). No serious events were reported. Potential limitations of this trial are mainly due to the trial design, including failure to adhere to guidelines within and between the clusters and influences of unidentified temporal variations. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, implementing the WHO-2013 criteria in Sweden with risk factor-based screening did not significantly reduce LGA prevalence defined as birth weight >90th percentile, in the total population, or in the subgroup discordant for the definition of GDM. Future studies are needed to evaluate the effects of treating different glucose thresholds during pregnancy in different populations, with different screening strategies and clinical management guidelines, to optimise women's and children's health in the short and long term. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial is registered with ISRCTN (41918550).

Mode of delivery and subsequent self-perceived sexual life satisfaction: a population-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The potential association between mode of obstetrical delivery and subsequent sexual outcomes of the birthing parent remains uncertain and has not been well investigated from the perspective of positive sexual life satisfaction. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate if there was any association between mode of delivery and subsequent sexual life satisfaction of the birthing parent. A secondary aim was to assess the extent to which this association changed when stratified by time elapsed since delivery. STUDY DESIGN: The study matched participants in the Stockholm Public Health Cohort with deliveries recorded in the Swedish Medical Birth Register. Any deliveries recorded in the registry before the participation in the Stockholm Public Health Cohort were included (n=46,078). The length of time from delivery to outcome assessment varied from 1 month to 41 years (mean, 18 years [±10.8]). Mode of delivery was retrieved from the same registry, whereas self-perceived sexual life satisfaction was retrieved from the Stockholm Public Health Cohort Questionnaires where participants had assessed their sexual life satisfaction as 1 out of 5 mutually exclusive options. Multinomial logistic regression was used to test for any association between mode of delivery (cesarean, instrumental, and spontaneous vaginal delivery) and sexual life satisfaction, both overall and stratified by time elapsed since delivery. RESULTS: After adjusting for covariates, no statistically significant (P < .05) difference in subsequent sexual life satisfaction of the birthing parent between modes of delivery was identified. Adjusted odds ratios for assessing sexual life satisfaction as the lowest level ("very unsatisfactory") were 1.11 (95% confidence interval, 0.98-1.25) for cesarean delivery and 1.16 (95% confidence interval, 0.99-1.35) for instrumental delivery, compared with spontaneous vaginal delivery. The difference in covariate-adjusted prevalence of the lowest level of sexual life satisfaction among the different groups categorized by time since delivery was small: 4.0% (95% confidence interval, 2.4%-5.6%) for cesarean delivery as opposed to 2.8% (95% confidence interval, 2.1%-3.6%) for spontaneous vaginal delivery within 2 years since delivery. CONCLUSION: These findings do not support any impact of mode of delivery on the subsequent self-perceived sexual life satisfaction among birthing people, either overall or across different time periods since delivery.

Prolonged pregnancy and stillbirth among women with overweight or obesity - a population-based study in Sweden including 64,632 women.

BACKGROUND: The proportion of overweight or obese pregnant women is increasing in many countries and babies born to a mother who is overweight or obese are at higher risk for complications. Our primary objective was to describe sociodemographic and obstetric factors across Body Mass Index (BMI) classifications, with secondary objective to investigate stillbirth and other pregnancy outcomes in relation to BMI classifications and gestational week. METHODS: This population-based cohort study with data partly based on a cluster-randomized controlled trial includes 64,632 women with singleton pregnancy, giving birth from 28 weeks' gestation. The time period was January 2016 to 30 June 2018 (2.5 years). Women were divided into five groups according to BMI: below 18.5 underweight, 18.5-24.9 normal weight, 25.0-29.9 overweight, 30.0-34.9 obesity, 35.0 and above, severe obesity. RESULTS: Data was obtained for 61,800 women. Women who were overweight/obese/severely obese had lower educational levels, were to a lesser extent employed, were more often multiparas, tobacco users and had maternal diseases to a higher extent than women with normal weight. From 40 weeks' gestation, overweight women had a double risk of stillbirth compared to women of normal weight (RR 2.06, CI 1.01-4.21); the risk increased to almost four times higher for obese women (RR 3.97, CI 1.6-9.7). Women who were obese or severely obese had a higher risk of almost all pregnancy outcomes, compared to women of normal weight, such as Apgar score < 7 at 5 min (RR1.54, CI 1.24-1.90), stillbirth (RR 2.16, CI 1.31-3.55), transfer to neonatal care (RR 1.38, CI 1.26-1.50), and instrumental delivery (RR 1.26, CI 1.21-1.31). CONCLUSIONS: Women who were obese or severely obese had a higher risk of almost all adverse pregnancy outcomes and from gestational week 40, the risk of stillbirth was doubled. The findings indicate a need for national guidelines and individualized care to prevent and reduce negative pregnancy outcomes in overweight/obese women. Preventive methods including preconception care and public health policies are needed to reduce the number of women being overweight/obese when entering pregnancy.

Changing diagnostic criteria for gestational diabetes in Sweden - a stepped wedge national cluster randomised controlled trial - the CDC4G study protocol.

BACKGROUND: The optimal criteria to diagnose gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) remain contested. The Swedish National Board of Health introduced the 2013 WHO criteria in 2015 as a recommendation for initiation of treatment for hyperglycaemia during pregnancy. With variation in GDM screening and diagnostic practice across the country, it was agreed that the shift to new guidelines should be in a scientific and structured way. The aim of the Changing Diagnostic Criteria for Gestational Diabetes (CDC4G) in Sweden ( www.cdc4g.se/en ) is to evaluate the clinical and health economic impacts of changing diagnostic criteria for GDM in Sweden and to create a prospective cohort to compare the many long-term outcomes in mother and baby under the old and new diagnostic approaches. METHODS: This is a stepped wedge cluster randomised controlled trial, comparing pregnancy outcomes before and after the switch in GDM criteria across 11 centres in a randomised manner. The trial includes all pregnant women screened for GDM across the participating centres during January-December 2018, approximately two thirds of all pregnancies in Sweden in a year. Women with pre-existing diabetes will be excluded. Data will be collected through the national Swedish Pregnancy register and for follow up studies other health registers will be included. DISCUSSION: The stepped wedge RCT was chosen to be the best study design for evaluating the shift from old to new diagnostic criteria of GDM in Sweden. The national quality registers provide data on the whole pregnant population and gives a possibility for follow up studies of both mother and child. The health economic analysis from the study will give a solid evidence base for future changes in order to improve immediate pregnancy, as well as long term, outcomes for mother and child. TRIAL REGISTRATION: CDC4G is listed on the ISRCTN registry with study ID ISRCTN41918550 (15/12/2017).