SUGAR-DIP trial: oral medication strategy versus insulin for diabetes in pregnancy, study protocol for a multicentre, open-label, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: In women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) requiring pharmacotherapy, insulin was the established first-line treatment. More recently, oral glucose lowering drugs (OGLDs) have gained popularity as a patient-friendly, less expensive and safe alternative. Monotherapy with metformin or glibenclamide (glyburide) is incorporated in several international guidelines. In women who do not reach sufficient glucose control with OGLD monotherapy, usually insulin is added, either with or without continuation of OGLDs. No reliable data from clinical trials, however, are available on the effectiveness of a treatment strategy using all three agents, metformin, glibenclamide and insulin, in a stepwise approach, compared with insulin-only therapy for improving pregnancy outcomes. In this trial, we aim to assess the clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and patient experience of a stepwise combined OGLD treatment protocol, compared with conventional insulin-based therapy for GDM. METHODS: The SUGAR-DIP trial is an open-label, multicentre randomised controlled non-inferiority trial. Participants are women with GDM who do not reach target glycaemic control with modification of diet, between 16 and 34 weeks of gestation. Participants will be randomised to either treatment with OGLDs, starting with metformin and supplemented as needed with glibenclamide, or randomised to treatment with insulin. In women who do not reach target glycaemic control with combined metformin and glibenclamide, glibenclamide will be substituted with insulin, while continuing metformin. The primary outcome will be the incidence of large-for-gestational-age infants (birth weight >90th percentile). Secondary outcome measures are maternal diabetes-related endpoints, obstetric complications, neonatal complications and cost-effectiveness analysis. Outcomes will be analysed according to the intention-to-treat principle. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Utrecht University Medical Centre. Approval by the boards of management for all participating hospitals will be obtained. Trial results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NTR6134; Pre-results.

Economic analysis comparing induction of labour and expectant management for intrauterine growth restriction at term (DIGITAT trial).

OBJECTIVE: Pregnancies complicated by intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR) are at increased risk for neonatal morbidity and mortality. The Dutch nationwide disproportionate intrauterine growth intervention trial at term (DIGITAT trial) showed that induction of labour and expectant monitoring were comparable with respect to composite adverse neonatal outcome and operative delivery. In this study we compare the costs of both strategies. STUDY DESIGN: A cost analysis was performed alongside the DIGITAT trial, which was a randomized controlled trial in which 650 women with a singleton pregnancy with suspected IUGR beyond 36 weeks of pregnancy were allocated to induction or expectant management. Resource utilization was documented by specific items in the case report forms. Unit costs for clinical resources were calculated from the financial reports of participating hospitals. For primary care costs Dutch standardized prices were used. All costs are presented in Euros converted to the year 2009. RESULTS: Antepartum expectant monitoring generated more costs, mainly due to longer antepartum maternal stays in hospital. During delivery and the postpartum stage, induction generated more direct medical costs, due to longer stay in the labour room and longer duration of neonatal high care/medium care admissions. From a health care perspective, both strategies generated comparable costs: on average €7106 per patient for the induction group (N=321) and €6995 for the expectant management group (N=329) with a cost difference of €111 (95%CI: €-1296 to 1641). CONCLUSION: Induction of labour and expectant monitoring in IUGR at term have comparable outcomes immediately after birth in terms of obstetrical outcomes, maternal quality of life and costs. Costs are lower, however, in the expectant monitoring group before 38 weeks of gestation and costs are lower in the induction of labour group after 38 weeks of gestation. So if induction of labour is considered to pre-empt possible stillbirth in suspected IUGR, it is reasonable to delay until 38 weeks, with watchful monitoring.

Health-related quality of life after induction of labor versus expectant monitoring in gestational hypertension or preeclampsia at term.

OBJECTIVE: Gestational hypertension (GH) and preeclampsia (PE) are major contributors to maternal and neonatal morbidity and mortality. In GH or PE, labor may be either induced or monitored expectantly. We studied maternal health-related quality of life (HR-QoL) after induction of labor versus expectant monitoring in GH or PE at term. We performed the HR-QoL study alongside a multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing induction of labor to expectant monitoring in women with GH or PE after 36 weeks. METHODS: We used written questionnaires, covering background characteristics, condition-specific issues, and validated measures: the Short-Form (SF-36), European Quality of Life (EuroQoL 6D3L), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), and Symptom Checklist (SCL-90). Measurements were at the following time points: baseline, 6 weeks postpartum, and 6 months postpartum. A multivariate mixed model with repeated measures was defined to assess the effect of the treatments on the physical component score (PCS) and mental component score (MCS) of the SF-36. Analysis was by intention to treat. RESULTS: We analyzed the data of 491 randomized and 220 nonrandomized women. We did not find treatment effect on long-term HR-QoL (PCS: p = 0.09; MCS: p = 0.82). The PCS improved over time (p < 0.001) and was better in nonrandomized patients (p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: Despite a clinical benefit of induction of labor, long-term HR-QoL is equal after the induction of labor and expectant management in women with GH or PE beyond 36 weeks of gestation.

Disproportionate Intrauterine Growth Intervention Trial At Term: DIGITAT.

BACKGROUND: Around 80% of intrauterine growth restricted (IUGR) infants are born at term. They have an increase in perinatal mortality and morbidity including behavioral problems, minor developmental delay and spastic cerebral palsy. Management is controversial, in particular the decision whether to induce labour or await spontaneous delivery with strict fetal and maternal surveillance. We propose a randomised trial to compare effectiveness, costs and maternal quality of life for induction of labour versus expectant management in women with a suspected IUGR fetus at term. METHODS/DESIGN: The proposed trial is a multi-centre randomised study in pregnant women who are suspected on clinical grounds of having an IUGR child at a gestational age between 36+0 and 41+0 weeks. After informed consent women will be randomly allocated to either induction of labour or expectant management with maternal and fetal monitoring. Randomisation will be web-based. The primary outcome measure will be a composite neonatal morbidity and mortality. Secondary outcomes will be severe maternal morbidity, maternal quality of life and costs. Moreover, we aim to assess neurodevelopmental and neurobehavioral outcome at two years as assessed by a postal enquiry (Child Behavioral Check List-CBCL and Ages and Stages Questionnaire-ASQ). Analysis will be by intention to treat. Quality of life analysis and a preference study will also be performed in the same study population. Health technology assessment with an economic analysis is part of this so called Digitat trial (Disproportionate Intrauterine Growth Intervention Trial At Term). The study aims to include 325 patients per arm. DISCUSSION: This trial will provide evidence for which strategy is superior in terms of neonatal and maternal morbidity and mortality, costs and maternal quality of life aspects. This will be the first randomised trial for IUGR at term. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch Trial Register and ISRCTN-Register: ISRCTN10363217.