A Student-Designed Multimodal Sex- and Gender-Based Women's Health Elective Program: Advocacy Curriculum for Medical Students.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this article is to describe the design and implementation of a multimodal, student-driven, sex- and gender-based women's health (SGBWH) elective with a curricular focus on patient and legislative advocacy. In this single arm, pre/post design, interventional study, we detail and evaluate the use of social media, newsletters, and round-table discussions in conjunction with a traditional lecture-based educational format to engage medical students in a virtual learning environment. METHODS: We developed a 22-week SGBWH curriculum for pre-clinical and clinical medical students, which included a series of lectures on multi-specialty and gender-inclusive topics related to SGBWH, small group discussions with community leaders and legislators involved in women's health advocacy, and other self-directed resources such as social media, a website, and digital newsletters. Students were surveyed before and after completing the curriculum to assess for increases in self-reported confidence in advocating for their female and gender minority patients. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: One hundred and one students completed the anonymous pre- and post-elective surveys. There was statistically significant improvement in 8 of the 12 self-reported confidence measures. Eight (8%) participants identified their sex as male. Fifty-five (55%) participants stated future interest in primary care specialties (Internal Medicine, Family Medicine, Obstetrics and Gynecology, and Pediatrics). Our curriculum improved medical students' self-reported confidence in advocating for their female and gender minority patients when controlling for sex and specialty interest of participants. The success of our multimodal approach demonstrates the value in incorporating resources such as social media as tools for education and advocacy in the evolving landscape of medical education.

Continuous glucose monitoring in individuals undergoing gestational diabetes screening.

BACKGROUND: Among guidelines on gestational diabetes mellitus, there is an incongruity about the threshold of maternal hyperglycemia to diagnose gestational diabetes mellitus. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to ascertain the association between continuous glucose monitoring metrics and adverse outcomes among individuals undergoing gestational diabetes mellitus screening. STUDY DESIGN: This was a prospective study (from June 2020 to January 2022) of individuals who underwent 2-step gestational diabetes mellitus screening at ≤30 weeks of gestation. The participants wore a blinded continuous glucose monitoring device (Dexcom G6 Pro; Dexcom, Inc, San Diego, CA) for 10 days starting when they took the 50-g glucose challenge test. The primary outcome was a composite of adverse neonatal outcomes (large for gestational age, shoulder dystocia or neonatal injury, respiratory distress, need for intravenous glucose treatment for hypoglycemia, or fetal or neonatal death). The secondary neonatal outcomes included preterm birth, neonatal intensive care unit admission, hypoglycemia, mechanical ventilation or continuous positive airway pressure, hyperbilirubinemia, and hospital length of stay. The secondary maternal outcomes included weight gain during pregnancy, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, induction of labor, cesarean delivery, and postpartum complications. Time within the target range (63-140 mg/dL), time above the target range (>140 mg/dL) expressed as a percentage of all continuous glucose monitoring readings, and mean glucose level were analyzed. The Youden index was used to choose the threshold of ≥10% for the time above the target range and association with adverse outcomes. RESULTS: Of 136 participants recruited, data were available from 92 individuals (67.6%). The 2-step method diagnosed gestational diabetes mellitus in 2 individuals (2.2%). Continuous glucose monitoring indicated that 17 individuals (18.5%) had time above the target range of ≥10%. Individuals with time above the target range of ≥10% had a significantly higher likelihood of composite adverse neonatal outcomes than individuals with time above the target range of <10% (63% vs 18%; P=.001). Furthermore, compared with neonates born to individuals with time above the target range of <10%, neonates born to individuals with time above the target range of ≥10% had an increased likelihood for hypoglycemia (14.5% vs 47%; P=.009) and had a longer length of stay (2 vs 4 days; P=.03). No difference in maternal outcomes was noted between the groups. CONCLUSION: In this prospective study of individuals undergoing gestational diabetes mellitus screening, a cutoff of the time above the target range of ≥10% using continuous glucose monitoring was associated with a higher rate of neonatal adverse outcomes. A randomized trial of continuous glucose monitoring vs 2-step screening for gestational diabetes mellitus to lower the rate of adverse outcomes is underway (identification number: NCT05430204).

Continuous Glucose Monitoring and Time in Range: Association with Adverse Outcomes among People with Type 2 or Gestational Diabetes Mellitus.

OBJECTIVE: Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) has become available for women with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) or gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) during pregnancy. The recommended time in range (TIR, blood glucose 70-140 mg/dL) and its correlation with adverse pregnancy outcomes in this group is unknown. Our aim was to compare maternal and neonatal outcomes in pregnant people with T2DM or GDM with average CGM TIR values >70 versus ≤ 70%. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of all individuals using CGM during pregnancy from January 2017 to June 2022. Individuals with type 1 diabetes mellitus, or those missing CGM or delivery data were excluded. Primary composite neonatal outcome included any of the following: large for gestational age, NICU admission, need for intravenous glucose, respiratory support, or neonatal death. Secondary outcomes included other maternal and neonatal outcomes. Regression models were used to estimate adjusted odds ratio (aOR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: During the study period, 141 individuals with diabetes utilized CGM during pregnancy, with 65 (46%) meeting inclusion criteria. Of the study population, 28 (43%) had TIR ≤70% and 37 (57%) had TIR > 70%. Compared with those with TIR > 70%, the primary composite outcome occurred more frequently in neonates of individuals TIR ≤70% (71.4 vs. 37.8%, aOR: 4.8, 95% CI: 1.6, 15.7). Furthermore, individuals with TIR ≤70% were more likely to have hypertensive disorders (42.9 vs. 16.2%, OR: 3.9, 95% CI: 1.3, 13.0), preterm delivery (54 vs. 27%, OR: 3.1, 95% CI: 1.1, 9.1): , and cesarean delivery (96.4 vs. 51.4%, OR: 4.6, 95% CI: 2.2, 15.1) compared with those with TIR >70%. CONCLUSION: Among people with T2DM or GDM who utilized CGM during pregnancy, 4 out 10 individuals had TIR ≤70% and, compared with those with TIR > 70%, they had a higher likelihood of adverse neonatal and maternal outcomes. KEY POINTS: · Time in range can be utilized as a metric for pregnant patients using continuous glucose monitor.. · Time in range >70% is achievable by 6 out of 10 patients.. · Time in range below goal is associated with adverse neonatal and maternal outcomes..

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..