Body Mass Index, Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes, and Cardiovascular Disease Risk.

BACKGROUND: Obesity is a well-established risk factor for both adverse pregnancy outcomes (APOs) and cardiovascular disease (CVD). However, it is not known whether APOs are mediators or markers of the obesity-CVD relationship. This study examined the association between body mass index, APOs, and postpartum CVD risk factors. METHODS: The sample included adults from the nuMoM2b (Nulliparous Pregnancy Outcomes Study: Monitoring Mothers-To-Be) Heart Health Study who were enrolled in their first trimester (6 weeks-13 weeks 6 days gestation) from 8 United States sites. Participants had a follow-up visit at 3.7 years postpartum. APOs, which included hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, preterm birth, small-for-gestational-age birth, and gestational diabetes, were centrally adjudicated. Mediation analyses estimated the association between early pregnancy body mass index and postpartum CVD risk factors (hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes) and the proportion mediated by each APO adjusted for demographics and baseline health behaviors, psychosocial stressors, and CVD risk factor levels. RESULTS: Among 4216 participants enrolled, mean±SD maternal age was 27±6 years. Early pregnancy prevalence of overweight was 25%, and obesity was 22%. Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy occurred in 15%, preterm birth in 8%, small-for-gestational-age birth in 11%, and gestational diabetes in 4%. Early pregnancy obesity, compared with normal body mass index, was associated with significantly higher incidence of postpartum hypertension (adjusted odds ratio, 1.14 [95% CI, 1.10-1.18]), hyperlipidemia (1.11 [95% CI, 1.08-1.14]), and diabetes (1.03 [95% CI, 1.01-1.04]) even after adjustment for baseline CVD risk factor levels. APOs were associated with higher incidence of postpartum hypertension (1.97 [95% CI, 1.61-2.40]) and hyperlipidemia (1.31 [95% CI, 1.03-1.67]). Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy mediated a small proportion of the association between obesity and incident hypertension (13% [11%-15%]) and did not mediate associations with incident hyperlipidemia or diabetes. There was no significant mediation by preterm birth or small-for-gestational-age birth. CONCLUSIONS: There was heterogeneity across APO subtypes in their association with postpartum CVD risk factors and mediation of the association between early pregnancy obesity and postpartum CVD risk factors. However, only a small or nonsignificant proportion of the association between obesity and CVD risk factors was mediated by any of the APOs, suggesting APOs are a marker of prepregnancy CVD risk and not a predominant cause of postpartum CVD risk.

Mapping Lifestyle Interventions for Gestational Diabetes Prevention: A Scoping Review.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The purpose of this study was to conduct a scoping review to map intervention, sample, and physiologic measurement characteristics of lifestyle interventions for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) prevention. RECENT FINDINGS: A total of 19 studies met selection criteria from 405 articles screened (PubMed, Web of Science). No studies were US-based (47% multi-site), and all were delivered in clinical settings. The most targeted nutrition components were low carbohydrate intake (sugar rich foods/added sugars, low glycemic index), low fat intake (mainly low-fat meat, dairy, and saturated fat), and increased fruits and vegetables. Many studies promoted 150 min/week moderate-intensity physical activity. Only two studies provided supervised physical activity sessions. Dietitians and nurses were the most common implementers. Samples were characterized as adults with obesity (mean age 31 yr, BMI 31 kg/m2). Asian populations were predominantly studied. Four studies used theoretical frameworks (75% of which used Social Cognitive Theory). GDM diagnostic criteria set forth by the American Diabetes Association were the most widely used. Insulin sensitivity was commonly assessed via fasting indices. There was a lack of multi-disciplinary, multi-level, and theory-based lifestyle interventions for reducing GDM risk. Addressing these gaps and prioritizing high-risk populations in the US with measurement of traditional and novel biomarkers will advance the field.

Comparing population-based fetal growth standards in a US cohort.

BACKGROUND: No fetal growth standard is currently endorsed for universal use in the United States. Newer standards improve upon the methodologic limitations of older studies; however, before adopting into practice, it is important to know how recent standards perform at identifying fetal undergrowth or overgrowth and at predicting subsequent neonatal morbidity or mortality in US populations. OBJECTIVE: To compare classification of estimated fetal weight that is <5th or 10th percentile or >90th percentile by 6 population-based fetal growth standards and the ability of these standards to predict a composite of neonatal morbidity and mortality. STUDY DESIGN: We used data from the Nulliparous Pregnancy Outcomes Study: Monitoring Mothers-to-be cohort, which recruited nulliparous women in the first trimester at 8 US clinical centers (2010-2014). Estimated fetal weight was obtained from ultrasounds at 16 to 21 and 22 to 29 weeks of gestation (N=9534 women). We calculated rates of fetal growth restriction (estimated fetal weight <5th and 10th percentiles; fetal growth restriction<5 and fetal growth restriction<10) and estimated fetal weight >90th percentile (estimated fetal weight>90) from 3 large prospective fetal growth cohorts with similar rigorous methodologies: INTERGROWTH-21, World Health Organization-sex-specific and combined, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development race-ethnic-specific and unified, and the historic Hadlock reference. To determine whether differential classification of fetal growth restriction or estimated fetal weight >90 among standards was clinically meaningful, we then compared area under the curve and sensitivity of each standard to predict small for gestational age or large for gestational age at birth, composite perinatal morbidity and mortality alone, and small for gestational age or large for gestational age with composite perinatal morbidity and mortality. RESULTS: The standards classified different proportions of fetal growth restriction and estimated fetal weight>90 for ultrasounds at 16 to 21 (visit 2) and 22 to 29 (visit 3) weeks of gestation. At visit 2, the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development race-ethnic-specific, World Health Organization sex-specific and World Health Organization-combined identified similar rates of fetal growth restriction<10 (8.4%-8.5%) with the other 2 having lower rates, whereas Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development race-ethnic-specific identified the highest rate of fetal growth restriction<5 (5.0%) compared with the other references. At visit 3, World Health Organization sex-specific classified 9.2% of fetuses as fetal growth restriction<10, whereas the other 5 classified a lower proportion as follows: World Health Organization-combined (8.4%), Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development race-ethnic-specific (7.7%), INTERGROWTH (6.2%), Hadlock (6.1%), and Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development unified (5.1%). INTERGROWTH classified the highest (21.3%) as estimated fetal weight>90 whereas Hadlock classified the lowest (8.3%). When predicting composite perinatal morbidity and mortality in the setting of early-onset fetal growth restriction, World Health Organization had the highest area under the curve of 0.53 (95% confidence interval, 0.51-0.53) for fetal growth restriction<10 at 22 to 29 weeks of gestation, but the areas under the curve were similar among standards (0.52). Sensitivity was generally low across standards (22.7%-29.1%). When predicting small for gestational age birthweight with composite neonatal morbidity or mortality, for fetal growth restriction<10 at 22 to 29 weeks of gestation, World Health Organization sex-specific had the highest area under the curve (0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.67) and INTERGROWTH had the lowest (area under the curve=0.58; 95% confidence interval 0.55-0.62), though all standards had low sensitivity (7.0%-9.6%). CONCLUSION: Despite classifying different proportions of fetuses as fetal growth restriction or estimated fetal weight>90, all standards performed similarly in predicting perinatal morbidity and mortality. Classification of different percentages of fetuses as fetal growth restriction or estimated fetal weight>90 among references may have clinical implications in the management of pregnancies, such as increased antenatal monitoring for fetal growth restriction or cesarean delivery for suspected large for gestational age. Our findings highlight the importance of knowing how standards perform in local populations, but more research is needed to determine if any standard performs better at identifying the risk of morbidity or mortality.

Can allostatic load in pregnancy explain the association between race and subsequent cardiovascular disease risk: A cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the relationship between allostatic load, a measure of cumulative chronic stress in early pregnancy and cardiovascular disease risk, 2-7 years postpartum, and pathways contributing to racial disparities in cardiovascular disease risk. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study. SETTING MULTICENTER POPULATION: Pregnant women. METHODS: Our primary exposure was high allostatic load in the first trimester, defined as at least 4 of 12 biomarkers (systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, body mass index, cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein, high-density lipoprotein, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, triglycerides, insulin, glucose, creatinine and albumin) in the unfavourable quartile. Logistic regression was used to test the association between high allostatic load and main outcome adjusted for confounders: time from index pregnancy and follow up, age, education, smoking, gravidity, bleeding in the first trimester, index adverse pregnancy outcomes, and health insurance. Each main outcome component and allostatic load were analysed secondarily. Mediation and moderation analyses assessed the role of high allostatic load in racial disparities of cardiovascular disease risk. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Incident cardiovascular disease risk: hypertension, or metabolic disorders. RESULTS: Cardiovascular disease risk was identified in 1462/4022 individuals (hypertension: 36.6%, metabolic disorder: 15.4%). After adjustment, allostatic load was associated with cardiovascular disease risk (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.0, 95% CI 1.8-2.3), hypertension (aOR 2.1, 95% CI 1.8-2.4) and metabolic disorder (aOR 1.7, 95% CI 1.5-2.1). Allostatic load was a partial mediator between race and cardiovascular disease risk. Race did not significantly moderate this relationship. CONCLUSIONS: High allostatic load during pregnancy is associated with cardiovascular disease risk. The relationships between stress, subsequent cardiovascular risk and race warrant further study.

Metformin Plus Insulin for Preexisting Diabetes or Gestational Diabetes in Early Pregnancy: The MOMPOD Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Insulin is recommended for pregnant persons with preexisting type 2 diabetes or diabetes diagnosed early in pregnancy. The addition of metformin to insulin may improve neonatal outcomes. Objective: To estimate the effect of metformin added to insulin for preexisting type 2 or diabetes diagnosed early in pregnancy on a composite adverse neonatal outcome. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized clinical trial in 17 US centers enrolled pregnant adults aged 18 to 45 years with preexisting type 2 diabetes or diabetes diagnosed prior to 23 weeks' gestation between April 2019 and November 2021. Each participant was treated with insulin and was assigned to add either metformin or placebo. Follow-up was completed in May 2022. Intervention: Metformin 1000 mg or placebo orally twice per day from enrollment (11 weeks -<23 weeks) through delivery. Main Outcome and Measures: The primary outcome was a composite of neonatal complications including perinatal death, preterm birth, large or small for gestational age, and hyperbilirubinemia requiring phototherapy. Prespecified secondary outcomes included maternal hypoglycemia and neonatal fat mass at birth, and prespecified subgroup analyses by maternal body mass index less than 30 vs 30 or greater and those with preexisting vs diabetes early in pregnancy. Results: Of the 831 participants randomized, 794 took at least 1 dose of the study agent and were included in the primary analysis (397 in the placebo group and 397 in the metformin group). Participants' mean (SD) age was 32.9 (5.6) years; 234 (29%) were Black, and 412 (52%) were Hispanic. The composite adverse neonatal outcome occurred in 280 (71%) of the metformin group and in 292 (74%) of the placebo group (adjusted odds ratio, 0.86 [95% CI 0.63-1.19]). The most commonly occurring events in the primary outcome in both groups were preterm birth, neonatal hypoglycemia, and delivery of a large-for-gestational-age infant. The study was halted at 75% accrual for futility in detecting a significant difference in the primary outcome. Prespecified secondary outcomes and subgroup analyses were similar between groups. Of individual components of the composite adverse neonatal outcome, metformin-exposed neonates had lower odds to be large for gestational age (adjusted odds ratio, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.46-0.86]) when compared with the placebo group. Conclusions and Relevance: Using metformin plus insulin to treat preexisting type 2 or gestational diabetes diagnosed early in pregnancy did not reduce a composite neonatal adverse outcome. The effect of reduction in odds of a large-for-gestational-age infant observed after adding metformin to insulin warrants further investigation. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02932475.

The impact of setting a pregnancy weight gain goal on total weight gain.

BACKGROUND: Expert groups recommend that women set a pregnancy weight gain goal with their care provider to optimise weight gain. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to describe the concordance between first-trimester personal and provider pregnancy weight gain goals with the Institute of Medicine (IOM) recommendations and to determine the association between these goals and total weight gain. METHODS: We used data from 9353 women in the Nulliparous Pregnancy Outcomes Study: monitoring mothers-to-be. In the first trimester, women reported their personal pregnancy weight gain goal and their provider weight gain goal, and we categorised personal and provider weight gain goals and total weight gain according to IOM recommendations. We used log-binomial or linear regression models to relate goals to total weight gain, adjusting for confounders including race/ethnicity, maternal age, education, smoking, marital status and planned pregnancy. RESULTS: Approximately 37% of women reported no weight gain goals, while 24% had personal and provider goals, 31% had only a personal goal, and 8% had only a provider goal. Personal and provider goals were outside the recommended ranges in 12%-23% of normal-weight women, 31%-41% of overweight women and 47%-63% of women with obesity. Women with both personal and provider pregnancy weight gain goals were 6%-14% more likely than their counterparts to have a goal within IOM-recommended ranges. Having any goal or a goal within the IOM-recommended ranges was unrelated to pregnancy weight gain. Excessive weight gain occurred in approximately half of normal-weight or obese women and three-quarters of overweight women, regardless of goal setting group. CONCLUSIONS: These findings do not support the effectiveness of early-pregnancy personal or provider gestational weight gain goal setting alone in optimising weight gain. Multifaceted interventions that address a number of mediators of goal setting success may assist women in achieving weight gain consistent with their goals.

Insulin Dosing, Glycemic Control, and Perinatal Outcomes in Pregnancies Complicated by Type-2 Diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the prevalence of severe insulin resistance (insulin requirements ≥2 units/kg) at delivery and the relationship between severe insulin resistance, glycemic control, and adverse perinatal outcomes in pregnant women with type-2 diabetes mellitus. STUDY DESIGN: This is a retrospective cohort study of women with type-2 diabetes mellitus who delivered between January 2015 and December 2017 at a tertiary academic medical center. Maternal demographic information, self-monitored blood sugars, and insulin doses were abstracted from the medical record. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify maternal baseline characteristics associated with severe insulin resistance at delivery. RESULTS: Overall 72/160 (45%) of women had severe insulin resistance. Women in the severe insulin resistance group demonstrated evidence of suboptimal glycemic control as evidenced by higher mean hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) values (7.2 [ ± 1.1] vs. 6.6 [ ± 1.3%], p = 0.003), higher mean fasting (104.0 [ ± 17.4] vs. 95.2 [ ± 11.7 mg/dL], p < 0.001) and postprandial glucose values (132.4 [ ± 17.2] vs. 121.9 [ ± 16.9 mg/dL]), p < 0.001), and a higher percentage of total glucose values that were elevated above targets (37.7 [95% confidence interval (CI): 26.8-50] vs. 25.6 [95% CI: 13.3-41.3%], p < 0.001). Maternal HbA1c ≥6.5% and insulin use prior to pregnancy were associated with a higher prevalence of severe insulin resistance, while Hispanic ethnicity and non-White race were associated with a lower prevalence of severe insulin resistance. The rates of adverse perinatal outcomes including large for gestational age (LGA) birth weight, cesarean delivery, and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy did not differ between groups. CONCLUSION: Severe insulin resistance is common among pregnant women with type-2 diabetes, and it is associated with suboptimal glycemic control. Future studies are necessary to develop strategies to identify women with severe insulin resistance early in pregnancy and facilitate adequate insulin dosing. KEY POINTS: · Severe insulin resistance is common.. · BMI does not predict severe insulin resistance.. · Suboptimal glycemic control is common..

Customized versus Population Growth Standards for Morbidity and Mortality Risk Stratification Using Ultrasonographic Fetal Growth Assessment at 22 to 29 Weeks' Gestation.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of study is to compare the performance of ultrasonographic customized and population fetal growth standards for prediction adverse perinatal outcomes. STUDY DESIGN: This was a secondary analysis of the Nulliparous Pregnancy Outcomes Study: Monitoring Mothers-to-Be, in which l data were collected at visits throughout pregnancy and after delivery. Percentiles were assigned to estimated fetal weights (EFWs) measured at 22 to 29 weeks using the Hadlock population standard and a customized standard (www.gestation.net). Areas under the curve were compared for the prediction of composite and severe composite perinatal morbidity using EFW percentile. RESULTS: Among 8,701 eligible study participants, the population standard diagnosed more fetuses with fetal growth restriction (FGR) than the customized standard (5.5 vs. 3.5%, p < 0.001). Neither standard performed better than chance to predict composite perinatal morbidity. Although the customized performed better than the population standard to predict severe perinatal morbidity (areas under the curve: 0.56 vs. 0.54, p = 0.003), both were poor. Fetuses considered FGR by the population standard but normal by the customized standard had morbidity rates similar to fetuses considered normally grown by both standards.The population standard diagnosed FGR among black women and Hispanic women at nearly double the rate it did among white women (p < 0.001 for both comparisons), even though morbidity was not different across racial/ethnic groups. The customized standard diagnosed FGR at similar rates across groups. Using the population standard, 77% of FGR cases were diagnosed among female fetuses even though morbidity among females was lower (p < 0.001). The customized model diagnosed FGR at similar rates in male and female fetuses. CONCLUSION: At 22 to 29 weeks' gestation, EFW percentile alone poorly predicts perinatal morbidity whether using customized or population fetal growth standards. The population standard diagnoses FGR at increased rates in subgroups not at increased risk of morbidity and at lower rates in subgroups at increased risk of morbidity, whereas the customized standard does not.

Prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled evaluation of the Pharmacokinetics, Safety and Efficacy of Recombinant Antithrombin Versus Placebo in Preterm Preeclampsia.

BACKGROUND: Despite expectant management, preeclampsia remote from term usually results in preterm delivery. Antithrombin, which displays antiinflammatory and anticoagulant properties, may have a therapeutic role in treating preterm preeclampsia, a disorder characterized by endothelial dysfunction, inflammation, and activation of the coagulation system. OBJECTIVE: This randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial aimed to evaluate whether intravenous recombinant human antithrombin could prolong gestation and therefore improve maternal and fetal outcomes. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial at 23 hospitals. Women were eligible if they had a singleton pregnancy, early-onset or superimposed preeclampsia at 23 0/7 to 30 0/7 weeks' gestation, and planned expectant management. In addition to standard therapy, patients were randomized to receive either recombinant human antithrombin 250 mg loading dose followed by a continuous infusion of 2000 mg per 24 hours or an identical saline infusion until delivery. The primary outcome was days gained from randomization until delivery. The secondary outcome was composite neonatal morbidity score. A total of 120 women were randomized. RESULTS: There was no difference in median gestational age at enrollment (27.3 weeks' gestation for the recombinant human antithrombin group [range, 23.1-30.0] and 27.6 weeks' gestation for the placebo group [range, 23.0-30.0]; P=.67). There were no differences in median increase in days gained (5.0 in the recombinant human antithrombin group [range, 0-75] and 6.0 for the placebo group [range, 0-85]; P=.95). There were no differences between groups in composite neonatal morbidity scores or in maternal complications. No safety issues related to recombinant human antithrombin were noted in this study, despite the achievement of supraphysiological antithrombin concentrations. CONCLUSION: The administration of recombinant human antithrombin in preterm preeclampsia neither prolonged pregnancy nor improved neonatal or maternal outcomes.

Perinatal Outcomes Associated with Early Diabetes Testing in Pregnancies Complicated by Obesity.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine whether early diabetes testing is associated with differences in perinatal outcomes among pregnant women with obesity (body mass index ≥30 kg/m2). STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of singleton pregnancies from 2012 to 2014 at a large academic medical center which examined the association of diabetes testing (HBA1c, 50 g glucose challenge test, or 100 g oral glucose tolerance test) before 24 weeks with perinatal outcomes using propensity score modeling and logistic regression. RESULTS: Among women with obesity, 790 out of 2,698 (29.3%) underwent early diabetes testing. Propensity score modeling demonstrated that early testing was associated with higher rates of diabetes diagnosis (odds ratio [OR]: 1.62, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.10-2.37, p = 0.01) and a trend toward small for gestational age birth weight (OR: 1.38, 95% CI: 1.00-1.90, p = 0.05) and neonatal composite morbidity (OR: 1.25, 95% CI: 1.00-1.57, p = 0.05) compared with routine testing. Women with inadequate weight gain were more likely a small for gestational age (SGA) infant if they underwent early testing compared with those with routine testing alone (19.8 vs. 11.6%, p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: Early testing targets higher risk women and yields a higher diabetes diagnosis rate, but inadequate weight gain in these women may increase risk SGA birth weight and neonatal morbidity. Randomized clinical trials are urgently needed to assess whether early diabetes testing improves outcomes in women with obesity.

Antibiotic Use in Pregnancy, Abnormal Fetal Growth, and Development of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus.

OBJECTIVE: Antibiotics are commonly used in pregnancy. Prior studies have indicated that antibiotic use in pregnancy may affect birth weight, whereas data in nonpregnant individuals suggest that antibiotic exposure may increase diabetes risk. We evaluated the impact of antibiotic prescriptions during pregnancy on the prevalence of small for gestational age (SGA) and large for gestational age (LGA) birth weight and gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). STUDY DESIGN: This retrospective cohort study of 12,551 women who delivered at a large academic medical center between 2012 and 2014 assessed the number and type of antibiotic prescriptions prior to GDM testing using the electronic medical record. SGA and LGA birth weight and GDM rates were compared among women who were or were not prescribed antibiotics. RESULTS: Overall, 3,991 (31.8%) of 12,551 patients received at least one antibiotic prescription. After covariate adjustment, no differences existed in risk of SGA (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 1; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.88-1.15; p = 0.94), LGA (aOR: 1; 95% CI: 0.86-1.17; p = 0.97), or GDM (aOR: 0.90; 95% CI: 0.72-1.13; p = 0.36) between women who were or were not prescribed antibiotics. CONCLUSION: Antibiotic use does not affect the risk of SGA or LGA birth weight or GDM in pregnant women. These results provide reassurance regarding the use of antibiotics when clinically indicated in pregnancy.

Response to Medical Nutritional Therapy and Need for Pharmacological Therapy in Women with Gestational Diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: We assessed if the initial response to medical nutritional therapy (MNT) can help predict the need for pharmacological therapy in women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). STUDY DESIGN: We identified 1,174 women with GDM who underwent standardized dietary counseling and reported glucose values from the first week of MNT. We compared women who required pharmacological therapy with those who did not use bivariate statistics, and used multivariable logistic regression modeling to assess for factors predicting the need for pharmacological therapy. RESULTS: We identified 819 women (69.8%) who needed pharmacological therapy. They had higher prepregnancy body mass index, higher rates of GDM diagnosis before 24 weeks, and higher oral glucose tolerance test values. After adjustment for covariates, age (odds ratio [OR]: 1.04; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.01-1.08), obesity (OR: 2.49; 95% CI: 1.70-3.66), and ≥33% of abnormal glucose values from the first week of MNT (OR: 13.84; 95% CI: 9.4-20.20) were associated with the need for pharmacological therapy. Area under the curve of the regression model was 0.83, with a sensitivity of 72.2%, a specificity of 86.8%, and a positive predictive value of 92.5%. CONCLUSION: Glucose values from the first week of MNT were the strongest predictor of needing pharmacological therapy. Further studies are needed to define metabolic predictors of response to MNT in women with GDM.

A cautionary response to SMFM statement: pharmacological treatment of gestational diabetes.

Use of oral agents to treat gestational diabetes mellitus remains controversial. Recent recommendations from the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine assert that metformin may be a safe first-line alternative to insulin for gestational diabetes mellitus treatment and preferable to glyburide. However, several issues should give pause to the widespread adoption of metformin use during pregnancy. Fetal concentrations of metformin are equal to maternal, and metformin can inhibit growth, suppress mitochondrial respiration, have epigenetic modifications on gene expression, mimic fetal nutrient restriction, and alter postnatal gluconeogenic responses. Because both the placenta and fetus express metformin transporters and exhibit high mitochondrial activity, these properties raise important questions about developmental programming of metabolic disease in offspring. Animal studies have demonstrated that prenatal metformin exposure results in adverse long-term outcomes on body weight and metabolism. Two recent clinical randomized controlled trials in women with gestational diabetes mellitus or polycystic ovary syndrome provide evidence that metformin exposure in utero may produce a metabolic phenotype that increases childhood weight or obesity. These developmental programming effects challenge the conclusion that metformin is equivalent to insulin. Although the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine statement endorsed metformin over glyburide if oral agents are used, there are few studies directly comparing the 2 agents and it is not clear that metformin alone is superior to glyburide. Moreover, it should be noted that prior clinical studies have dosed glyburide in a manner inconsistent with its pharmacokinetic properties, resulting in poor glycemic control and high rates of maternal hypoglycemia. We concur with the American Diabetes Association and American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which recommend insulin as the preferred agent, but we believe that it is premature to embrace metformin as equivalent to insulin or superior to glyburide. Due to the uncertainty of the long-term metabolic risks of either metformin or glyburide, we call for carefully controlled studies that optimize oral medication dosing according to their pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties in pregnancy, appropriately target medications based on individual patterns of hyperglycemia, and follow the offspring long-term for metabolic risk.

Neonatal outcomes following preterm birth classified according to placental features.

BACKGROUND: Preterm birth has staggering health implications, and yet the causes of most cases are still unknown. Placental features have been understudied as an etiology for preterm birth, and the association between placental pathologic lesions and neonatal outcomes are incompletely understood. OBJECTIVE: We sought to characterize births according to placental pathology and relate these to adverse neonatal outcomes. STUDY DESIGN: We studied 20,091 births (15,710 term and 4381 preterm) with placental evaluations. Births were classified according to the presence or absence of placental lesions consistent with malperfusion (vasculopathy, infarct, advanced villous maturation, perivillous fibrin, fibrin deposition) and intrauterine inflammation/infection (chorioamnionitis, funisitis, vasculitis). Outcomes were gestational week of delivery, birthweight z-score, neonatal respiratory distress syndrome, and intraventricular hemorrhage. RESULTS: Among all preterm births, evidence of placental malperfusion was identified more often than inflammation/infection (50.6% vs 27.3%, P < .0001). Placental malperfusion was associated with reduced fetal growth (adjusted birthweight z-score, -0.83, P < .0001) and lesions of inflammation/infection were associated with earlier delivery (adjusted difference -2.08 weeks, P < .0001) than those with no lesions. When both placental lesions were present, earlier delivery (adjusted difference -2.28 weeks, P < .0001) and reduced fetal growth (adjusted birthweight z-score difference, -0.24, P = .001) were observed more often than when neither lesion was present. Findings were similar when restricted to cases of spontaneous preterm birth. Intraventricular hemorrhage was higher in preterm births with malperfusion lesions than cases with no lesions (7.6% vs 3.4%; odds ratio, 1.98; confidence interval, 1.18-3.32), accounting for gestational age and other covariates. CONCLUSION: Placental pathology provides important insight into subtypes of preterm birth with adverse neonatal outcomes. Co-occurrence of malperfusion and inflammation/infection, especially among spontaneous preterm births, may be a novel pattern of placental injury linked to severe adverse outcomes.

Maternal excess gestational weight gain and infant waist circumference: a 2-y observational study.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of gestational weight gain (GWG) and infant feeding practices on infant growth parameters in infants from 6 to 24 mo of age. METHODS: Forty mother-infant pairs were recruited after delivery and followed up to 24 mo postpartum. GWG was calculated as prepregnancy weight subtracted from weight at delivery. Infant weight velocity was calculated as the change in weight between consecutive visits divided by the intervening time. Infant feeding practices were measured by interview and infant growth and waist circumference by standard anthropometry. RESULTS: Infants born to mothers with excess GWG were heavier at birth (3,521 ± 91 vs. 3,196 ± 97 g, P = 0.02) and had an average 2.16 ± 1.1 cm (P = 0.03) larger waist circumference throughout the 24 mo compared with infants born to mothers with appropriate GWG. Waist circumference increased by 0.12 and 2.0 cm for every 1 unit increase in GWG and infant birth weight. CONCLUSION: Infants born to women who exceeded the Institute of Medicine (IOM)-recommended guidelines for GWG were heavier at birth and had a significantly higher waist circumference up to 2 y of age. Strategies to control maternal excess GWG and thus the outcome on infant birth weight and waist circumference should be pursued.

Glycemic Control and Pregnancy Outcomes in Women with Type 2 Diabetes Treated with Oral Hypoglycemic Agents.

Objective There is limited data regarding the use of oral hypoglycemic agents (OHAs) in pregnant women with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Study Design This was a retrospective cohort study of women with T2DM who were treated with OHA or insulin from the first trimester onward. Bivariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to compare pregnancy outcomes in women treated with OHA to those treated with insulin. Results One-third (67/198) of women were treated with OHA. Women treated with OHA had a shorter disease duration (4.4 vs. 6.8 years; p = 0.001), were more likely to have a normal prepregnancy body mass index, and had less gestational weight gain (GWG; 22.4 vs. 30.4 lbs; p = 0.005). A lower GWG was noted in obese women treated with OHA (19.9 ± 18.6 vs. 28.3 ± 17.7 pounds; p = 0.008). First-trimester hemoglobin A1c values were lower with OHAs, but second- and third-trimester values were similar. Among women who started pregnancy using OHA, 37/67 (55.2%) remained on OHA at delivery. Pregnancy outcomes did not differ between women who received OHA and those treated with insulin. Conclusion OHA treatment is more likely in women with T2DM who begin pregnancy with less severe disease, and use of OHA may be associated with decreased GWG.

Timing of delivery and pregnancy outcomes in women with gestational diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) commonly undergo induction of labor (IOL) at term, but the risks and benefits of IOL are incompletely understood. OBJECTIVE: We examined the relationship among gestational age, IOL, and the rate of cesarean delivery (CD) in women with GDM. STUDY DESIGN: We identified 863 women with GDM who underwent either IOL or spontaneous labor ≥37 0/7 weeks. Demographic, cervical favorability, and outcome data were abstracted from the medical record. We compared the CD rate in women undergoing IOL at each week of gestation with expectant management to a later gestational age. RESULTS: When compared to women who were expectantly managed, IOL at 37 weeks (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76-3.06; P = .23), 38 weeks (aOR, 2.07; 95% CI, 0.89-4.80; P = .09), and 39 weeks (aOR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.44-1.42; P = .43)) was associated with similar risk for CD as expectant management after adjustment for nulliparity, body mass index, baseline simplified Bishop score, and maternal age. CD rates were higher in nulliparous women, but did not differ significantly in those undergoing IOL or expectant management. In multiparous women, IOL was significantly associated with an increased risk for CD at 38 weeks (aOR, 7.47; 95% CI, 1.6-34.8; P = .01) and rates of CD (17.39% vs 2.2%, P = .001) were significantly higher in multiparous women with an unfavorable Bishop score induced <39 weeks. Neonatal morbidity was similar across gestational ages after adjustment for maternal body mass index and maternal glycemic control. CONCLUSION: IOL results in similar risk for CD as expectant management between 37-40 weeks of gestation. Rates of CD differed based on cervical exam and parity. These findings suggest that gestational age alone does not significantly impact maternal and neonatal outcomes, but that decisions regarding delivery in women with GDM should take into account cervical exam and parity.

Gestational diabetes diagnostic methods (GD2M) pilot randomized trial.

To test the feasibility of conducting a pragmatic randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing the International Association of Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) versus Carpenter-Coustan diagnostic criteria for gestational diabetes (GDM), and to examine patient and provider views on GDM screening. A single-blinded pragmatic pilot RCT. Participants with a singleton pregnancy between 24 and 28 weeks gestation received a 50 g oral glucose challenge test and if the value was <200 mg/dL were randomized to either the 2 h 75 g OGTT using the IADPSG criteria or the 3 h 100 g OGTT using the Carpenter-Coustan criteria. Primary outcome was the feasibility of randomization and screening. Secondary outcomes included patient and provider views (or preferences) on GDM testing. Sixty-eight women were recruited, 48 (71 %) enrolled and 47 (69 %) were randomized. Participants in both study arms identified the main challenges to GDM testing to be: drinking the glucola, fasting prior to testing, waiting to have blood drawn, and multiple venipuntures. Women in both study arms would prefer the 2 h 75 g OGTT or whichever test is recommended by their doctor in a future pregnancy. Physicians and nurse midwives endorsed screening and were comfortable with being blinded to the GDM testing strategy and results values. Both pregnant women and providers value GDM screening, and pregnant women can be recruited to a blinded, randomized GDM screening trial with minimal attrition and missing data.

Metabolic factors and perinatal outcomes among pregnant individuals with mild glucose intolerance.

AIMS: Metabolic characteristics and outcomes were compared among pregnant individuals with varying levels of glucose intolerance. METHODS: 827 participants from a randomized clinical trial comparing the IADPSG and Carpenter Coustan Criteria were grouped as follows: normal glucose tolerance, mild glucose intolerance (100 g OGTT with one abnormal value) and treated GDM (diagnosed by Carpenter Coustan or IADPSG criteria). Differences in metabolic characteristics and perinatal outcomes were assessed using inverse probability of treatment weighting. RESULTS: Mild glucose intolerance had lower insulin sensitivity and beta cell response than normal glucose tolerance, and similar findings to treated GDM. Small for gestational age (SGA) (OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.08-0.24) and neonatal composite morbidity were lower (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.38-0.74), and maternal composite morbidity higher (OR 2.03, 95% CI 1.57-2.62) when comparing mild intolerance to normal glucose tolerance. Large for gestational age (OR 3.42 95% CI 1.39-8.41) was higher while SGA (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.05-0.81) and neonatal composite morbidity (OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.17-0.57) were lower with mild glucose intolerance compared to treated GDM. CONCLUSIONS: Mild glucose intolerance has a similar metabolic profile to treated GDM, and outcome differences are likely related to knowledge of diagnosis and treatment. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRY: NCT02309138.

Intensive glycaemic targets in overweight and obese individuals with gestational diabetes mellitus: clinical trial protocol for the iGDM study.

INTRODUCTION: The prevalence of both obesity and gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) has increased, and each is associated with adverse perinatal outcomes including fetal overgrowth, neonatal morbidity, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy and caesarean delivery. Women with GDM who are also overweight or obese have higher rates of pregnancy complications when compared with normal-weight women with GDM, which may occur in part due to suboptimal glycaemic control. The current recommendations for glycaemic targets in pregnant women with diabetes are based on limited evidence and exceed the mean fasting (70.9±7.8 mg/dL) and 1-hour postprandial (108.9±12.9 mg/dL) glucose values in pregnant individuals without diabetes. Our prior work demonstrated that the use of intensive (fasting <90 mg/dL and 1-hour postprandial <120 mg/dL) compared with standard (fasting <95 mg/dL and 1-hour postprandial <140 mg/dL) glycaemic targets resulted in improved glycaemic control without increasing the risk for hypoglycaemia in pregnant individuals with GDM, but the impact of intensive glycaemic targets on perinatal outcomes is unknown. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The Intensive Glycemic Targets in Overweight and Obese Women with Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: A Multicenter Randomized Trial (iGDM Trial) is a large, pragmatic randomised clinical trial designed to investigate the impact of intensive versus standard glycaemic targets on perinatal outcomes in women with GDM who are overweight and obese. During the 5-year project period, a multidisciplinary team of investigators from five medical centres representing regions of the USA with high rates of obesity will randomise 828 overweight and obese women with GDM to either intensive or standard glycaemic targets. We will test the central hypothesis that intensive glycaemic targets will result in lower rates of neonatal composite morbidity including large for gestational age birth weight, neonatal hypoglycaemia, respiratory distress syndrome and need for phototherapy when compared with standard glycaemic targets using the intention-to-treat approach to analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Institutional Review Board (IRB) at Indiana University School of Medicine approved this study (IRB# 11435; initial approval date 25 August 2021). We will submit the results of the trial for publication in peer-reviewed journals and presentations at international scientific meetings. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05124808.