RESUMO
Importance: Randomized trials have not focused on neonatal complications of glyburide for women with gestational diabetes. Objective: To compare oral glyburide vs subcutaneous insulin in prevention of perinatal complications in newborns of women with gestational diabetes. Design, Settings, and Participants: The Insulin Daonil trial (INDAO), a multicenter noninferiority randomized trial conducted between May 2012 and November 2016 (end of participant follow-up) in 13 tertiary care university hospitals in France including 914 women with singleton pregnancies and gestational diabetes diagnosed between 24 and 34 weeks of gestation. Interventions: Women who required pharmacologic treatment after 10 days of dietary intervention were randomly assigned to receive glyburide (n=460) or insulin (n=454). The starting dosage for glyburide was 2.5 mg orally once per day and could be increased if necessary 4 days later by 2.5 mg and thereafter by 5 mg every 4 days in 2 morning and evening doses, up to a maximum of 20 mg/d. The starting dosage for insulin was 4 IU to 20 IU given subcutaneously 1 to 4 times per day as necessary and increased according to self-measured blood glucose concentrations. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a composite criterion including macrosomia, neonatal hypoglycemia, and hyperbilirubinemia. The noninferiority margin was set at 7% based on a 1-sided 97.5% confidence interval. Results: Among the 914 patients who were randomized (mean age, 32.8 [SD, 5.2] years), 98% completed the trial. In a per-protocol analysis, 367 and 442 women and their neonates were analyzed in the glyburide and insulin groups, respectively. The frequency of the primary outcome was 27.6% in the glyburide group and 23.4% in the insulin group, a difference of 4.2% (1-sided 97.5% CI, -∞ to 10.5%; P=.19). Conclusion and Relevance: This study of women with gestational diabetes failed to show that use of glyburide compared with subcutaneous insulin does not result in a greater frequency of perinatal complications. These findings do not justify the use of glyburide as a first-line treatment. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01731431.
Assuntos
Diabetes Gestacional/tratamento farmacológico , Macrossomia Fetal/prevenção & controle , Glibureto/uso terapêutico , Hiperbilirrubinemia/prevenção & controle , Hipoglicemia/prevenção & controle , Hipoglicemiantes/uso terapêutico , Insulina/uso terapêutico , Administração Oral , Adulto , Glicemia/análise , Diabetes Gestacional/sangue , Feminino , Macrossomia Fetal/etiologia , Glibureto/efeitos adversos , Humanos , Hiperbilirrubinemia/etiologia , Hipoglicemia/induzido quimicamente , Hipoglicemia/etiologia , Hipoglicemiantes/efeitos adversos , Recém-Nascido , Doenças do Recém-Nascido/epidemiologia , Injeções Subcutâneas , Insulina/efeitos adversos , Gravidez , Resultado da GravidezRESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To provide guidelines for the pelvic clinical exam in gynecology and obstetrics. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A multidisciplinary experts consensus committee of 45 experts was formed, including representatives of patients' associations and users of the health system. The entire guidelines process was conducted independently of any funding. The authors were advised to follow the rules of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE®) system to guide assessment of quality of evidence. The potential drawbacks of making strong recommendations in the presence of low-quality evidence were emphasized. METHODS: The committee studied 40 questions within 4 fields for symptomatic or asymptomatic women (emergency conditions, gynecological consultation, gynecological diseases, obstetrics, and pregnancy). Each question was formulated in a PICO (Patients, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome) format and the evidence profiles were produced. The literature review and recommendations were made according to the GRADE® methodology. RESULTS: The experts' synthesis work and the application of the GRADE method resulted in 27 recommendations. Among the formalized recommendations, 17 present a strong agreement, 7 a weak agreement and 3 an expert consensus agreement. Thirteen questions resulted in an absence of recommendation due to lack of evidence in the literature. CONCLUSIONS: The need to perform clinical examination in gynecological and obstetrics patients was specified in 27 pre-defined situations based on scientific evidence. More research is required to investigate the benefit in other cases.