Pregnancy outcomes in women with gestational diabetes mellitus diagnosed according to the WHO-2013 and WHO-1999 diagnostic criteria: a multicentre retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO) adopted more stringent diagnostic criteria for GDM in 2013, to improve pregnancy outcomes. However, there is no global consensus on these new diagnostic criteria, because of limited evidence. The objective of the study was to evaluate maternal characteristics and pregnancy outcomes in two cohorts in the Netherlands applying different diagnostic criteria for GDM i.e. WHO-2013 and WHO-1999. METHODS: A multicenter retrospective study involving singleton GDM pregnancies in two regions, between 2011 and 2016. Women were diagnosed according to the WHO-2013 criteria in the Deventer region (WHO-2013-cohort) and according to the WHO-1999 criteria in the Groningen region (WHO-1999-cohort). After GDM diagnosis, all women were treated equally based on the national guideline. Maternal characteristics and pregnancy outcomes were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: In total 1386 women with GDM were included in the study. Women in the WHO-2013-cohort were older and had a higher pre-gestational body mass index. They were diagnosed earlier (24.9 [IQR 23.3-29.0] versus 27.7 [IQR 25.9-30.7] weeks, p = < 0.001) and less women were treated with additional insulin therapy (15.6% versus 43.4%, p = < 0.001). Rate of spontaneous delivery was higher in the WHO-2013-cohort (73.1% versus 67.4%, p = 0.032). The percentage large-for-gestational-age (LGA) neonates (birth weight > 90th percentile, corrected for sex, ethnicity, parity, and gestational age) was lower in the WHO-2013- cohort, but not statistical significant (16.5% versus 18.5%, p = 0.379). There were no differences between the cohorts regarding stillbirth, birth trauma, low Apgar score, and preeclampsia. CONCLUSIONS: Using the new WHO-2013 criteria resulted in an earlier GDM diagnosis, less women needed insulin treatment and more spontaneous deliveries occurred when compared to the cohort diagnosed with WHO-1999 criteria. No differences were found in adverse pregnancy outcomes.

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.

VEGF levels in plasma in relation to platelet activation, glycemic control, and microvascular complications in type 1 diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: Increased levels of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) in human plasma samples have suggested that circulating VEGF is a cause of endothelial dysfunction in diabetes mellitus. However, artificial release of VEGF from platelets as a source of VEGF in plasma samples, as also occurs in serum samples, has not been ruled out in these studies. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We determined VEGF levels in plasma collected in both citrate and PECT, a medium that inactivates platelets, in a cross-sectional cohort of 21 healthy subjects and 64 patients with type 1 diabetes. In addition, we evaluated whether VEGF levels in both types of plasma correlated with the presence of diabetes, glycemic control, markers of in vivo or ex vivo platelet activation, and degree of diabetic retinopathy and nephropathy. RESULTS: VEGF levels were invariably low in PECT plasma of both nondiabetic and diabetic subjects and were unrelated to any other diabetes-related variable studied. In contrast, VEGF levels in citrate plasma were 150% higher in diabetic patients than in control subjects and correlated with diabetes-related variables. Multiple linear regression analysis showed that levels of platelet factor 4, a marker for ex vivo platelet activation, and HbA1c were the independent predictors of VEGF levels in citrate plasma. Platelet activation, in vivo and ex vivo, was similar in diabetic persons and control subjects. CONCLUSIONS: Like serum, citrate plasma is not suitable for reliable measurements of circulating VEGF. The low levels of VEGF in vivo, as represented by measurements in PECT plasma in our study, do not support a role of circulating VEGF in endothelial dysfunction in type 1 diabetes. Higher levels of VEGF in citrate plasma samples of diabetic persons do not represent the in vivo situation, but mainly originate from higher artificial ex vivo release from platelets correlating with the degree of glycemic control.