Investigating the effects of treatment based on single high blood glucose in gestational diabetes screening on maternal and neonatal complications

Can Medical Nutrition Therapy Affect Feto-Maternal Outcomes in Gestational Glucose Intolerance: An Open-Label Pilot Randomized Control Trial in World's Diabetes Capital

Introduction

Gestational diabetes is defined as the carbohydrate intolerance of variable severity with onset or first recognition during pregnancy. Gestational glucose intolerance (GGI) is used to indicate pregnant women whose 2-h postprandial glucose is > 120 mg/dl and below 140 mg/dl (Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group of India, DIPSI criteria).

Aim

This study was planned to see whether intervention in GGI group helps to improve feto-maternal outcomes.

Methodology

This open-label randomized control trial was conducted in Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology of King George's Medical University, Lucknow. Inclusion criteria were all the antenatal women attending the antenatal clinic and diagnosed as GGI, and exclusion criteria were overt diabetes.

Results

Total of 1866 antenatal women were screened, and among them, 220 (11.8%) women were diagnosed as gestational diabetes; 412 (22.1%) women were diagnosed as GGI. The mean fasting blood sugars in the women with GGI who had medical nutrition therapy were much lower than the women with GGI who did not have any intervention. The present study showed the women with GGI had higher complications like polyhydramnios, PPROM, foetal growth restriction, macrosomia, preeclampsia, preterm labour and vaginal candidiasis more in the women with GGI as compared to euglycaemic women.

Conclusion

The present study of nutritional intervention in GGI group has shown trend towards lesser complication if we start medical nutrition therapy reflected by delayed development of GDM and less neonatal hypoglycaemia and hyperbilirubinemia.

The crosstalk among TLR2, TLR4 and pathogenic pathways; a treasure trove for treatment of diabetic neuropathy

Diabetes is correlated with organ failures as a consequence of microvascular diabetic complications, including neuropathy, nephropathy, and retinopathy. These difficulties come with serious clinical manifestations and high medical costs. Diabetic neuropathy (DN) is one of the most prevalent diabetes complications, affecting at least 50% of diabetic patients with long disease duration. DN has serious effects on patients' life since it interferes with their daily physical activities and causes psychological comorbidities. There are some potential risk factors for the development of neuropathic injuries. It has been shown that inflammatory mechanisms play a pivotal role in the progression of DN. Among inflammatory players, TLR2 and TLR4 have gained immense importance because of their ability in recognizing distinct molecular patterns of invading pathogens and also damage-associated molecular patterns (DAMPs) providing inflammatory context for the progression of a wide array of disorders. We, therefore, sought to explore the possible role of TLR2 and TLR4 in DN pathogenesis and if whether manipulating TLRs is likely to be successful in fighting off DN.

The biological and pharmacological connections between diabetes and various types of cancer

Diabetes and cancer incidence have risen tremendously over the years. Additionally, both cancer and diabetes share numerous risks, such as overweight, inactive lifestyles, older age, and smoking. Numerous methods have been suggested to connect obesity and diabetes to cancer advancements, such as increasing insulin/ Insulin-like growth factor I (IGF-1) signaling, lipid and glucose uptake and metabolism, shifts in the cytokine, chemokine, and adipokine profile also variations in the adipose tissue immediately adjacent to cancer spots. Diabetes has been found to have a complicated cancer-causing mechanism involving excessive reactive oxygen species (ROS) production, loss of critical macromolecules, chronic inflammation, and delayed repair, all of which contribute to carcinogenesis. Diabetes-associated epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition and endothelial-to-mesenchymal transition lead to the formation of cancer-associated fibroblasts in tumors by enabling tumor cells to extravasate via the endothelium and epithelium. This study aims to describe the correlation between diabetes and cancer, as well as summarize the molecular connections and shared pathways such as sex hormones, hyperglycemia, inflammation, insulin axis, metabolic symbiosis, and endoplasmic reticulum (ER) stress that exist between them.

An Update on Screening Strategies for Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: A Narrative Review

Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is a frequent medical complication during pregnancy. Screening and diagnostic practices for GDM are inconsistent across the world. This narrative review includes data from 87 observational studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and aims to give an overview of the current evidence on screening strategies and diagnostic criteria for GDM. Screening in early pregnancy remains controversial and studies show conflicting results on the benefit of screening and treatment of GDM in early pregnancy. Implementing the one-step "International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups" (IADPSG) screening strategy at 24-28 weeks often leads to a substantial increase in the prevalence of GDM, without conclusive evidence regarding the benefits on pregnancy outcomes compared to a two-step screening strategy with a glucose challenge test (GCT). In addition, RCTs are needed to investigate the impact of treatment of GDM diagnosed with IADPSG criteria on long-term maternal and childhood outcomes. Selective screening using a risk-factor-based approach could be helpful in simplifying the screening algorithm but carries the risk of missing significant proportions of GDM cases. A two-step screening method with a 50g GCT and subsequently a 75g oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) with IADPSG could be an alternative to reduce the need for an OGTT. However, to have an acceptable sensitivity to screen for GDM with the IADPSG criteria, the threshold of the GCT should be lowered from 7.8 to 7.2 mmol/L. A pragmatic approach to screen for GDM can be implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic, using fasting plasma glucose (FPG), HbA1c or even random plasma glucose (RPG) to reduce the number of OGTTs needed. However, usual guidelines and care should be resumed as soon as the COVID pandemic is controlled.

Screening for gestational diabetes mellitus based on different risk profiles and settings for improving maternal and infant health

BACKGROUND

Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is a form of diabetes that occurs in pregnancy. Although GDM usually resolves following birth, it is associated with significant morbidities for mothers and their infants in the short and long term. There is strong evidence to support treatment for GDM. However, there is uncertainty as to whether or not screening all pregnant women for GDM will improve maternal and infant health and if so, the most appropriate setting for screening. This review updates a Cochrane Review, first published in 2010, and subsequently updated in 2014.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of screening for gestational diabetes mellitus based on different risk profiles and settings on maternal and infant outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (31 January 2017), ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (14 June 2017), and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised and quasi-randomised trials evaluating the effects of different protocols, guidelines or programmes for screening for GDM based on different risk profiles and settings, compared with the absence of screening, or compared with other protocols, guidelines or programmes for screening. We planned to include trials published as abstracts only and cluster-randomised trials, but we did not identify any. Cross-over trials are not eligible for inclusion in this review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the included trials. We resolved disagreements through discussion or through consulting a third reviewer.

MAIN RESULTS

We included two trials that randomised 4523 women and their infants. Both trials were conducted in Ireland. One trial (which quasi-randomised 3742 women, and analysed 3152 women) compared universal screening versus risk factor-based screening, and one trial (which randomised 781 women, and analysed 690 women) compared primary care screening versus secondary care screening. We were not able to perform meta-analyses due to the different interventions and comparisons assessed.Overall, there was moderate to high risk of bias due to one trial being quasi-randomised, inadequate blinding, and incomplete outcome data in both trials. We used GRADEpro GDT software to assess the quality of the evidence for selected outcomes for the mother and her child. Evidence was downgraded for study design limitations and imprecision of effect estimates. Universal screening versus risk-factor screening (one trial) MotherMore women were diagnosed with GDM in the universal screening group than in the risk-factor screening group (risk ratio (RR) 1.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.12 to 3.04; participants = 3152; low-quality evidence). There were no data reported under this comparison for other maternal outcomes including hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, caesarean birth, perineal trauma, gestational weight gain, postnatal depression, and type 2 diabetes. ChildNeonatal outcomes: large-for-gestational age, perinatal mortality, mortality or morbidity composite, hypoglycaemia; and childhood/adulthood outcomes: adiposity, type 2 diabetes, and neurosensory disability, were not reported under this comparison. Primary care screening versus secondary care screening (one trial) MotherThere was no clear difference between the primary care and secondary care screening groups for GDM (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.66; participants = 690; low-quality evidence), hypertension (RR 1.41, 95% CI 0.77 to 2.59; participants = 690; low-quality evidence), pre-eclampsia (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.78; participants = 690;low-quality evidence), or caesarean section birth (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.27; participants = 690; low-quality evidence). There were no data reported for perineal trauma, gestational weight gain, postnatal depression, or type 2 diabetes. ChildThere was no clear difference between the primary care and secondary care screening groups for large-for-gestational age (RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.96; participants = 690; low-quality evidence), neonatal complications: composite outcome, including: hypoglycaemia, respiratory distress, need for phototherapy, birth trauma, shoulder dystocia, five minute Apgar less than seven at one or five minutes, prematurity (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.71; participants = 690; low-quality evidence), or neonatal hypoglycaemia (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.28 to 4.38; participants = 690; very low-quality evidence). There was one perinatal death in the primary care screening group and two in the secondary care screening group (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.10 to 12.12; participants = 690; very low-quality evidence). There were no data for neurosensory disability, or childhood/adulthood adiposity or type 2 diabetes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There are insufficient randomised controlled trial data evaluating the effects of screening for GDM based on different risk profiles and settings on maternal and infant outcomes. Low-quality evidence suggests universal screening compared with risk factor-based screening leads to more women being diagnosed with GDM. Low to very low-quality evidence suggests no clear differences between primary care and secondary care screening, for outcomes: GDM, hypertension, pre-eclampsia, caesarean birth, large-for-gestational age, neonatal complications composite, and hypoglycaemia.Further, high-quality randomised controlled trials are needed to assess the value of screening for GDM, which may compare different protocols, guidelines or programmes for screening (based on different risk profiles and settings), with the absence of screening, or with other protocols, guidelines or programmes. There is a need for future trials to be sufficiently powered to detect important differences in short- and long-term maternal and infant outcomes, such as those important outcomes pre-specified in this review. As only a proportion of women will be diagnosed with GDM in these trials, large sample sizes may be required.

Treatments for gestational diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effectiveness of different treatments for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM).

DESIGN

Systematic review, meta-analysis and network meta-analysis.

METHODS

Data sources were searched up to July 2016 and included MEDLINE and Embase. Randomised trials comparing treatments for GDM (packages of care (dietary and lifestyle interventions with pharmacological treatments as required), insulin, metformin, glibenclamide (glyburide)) were selected by two authors and double checked for accuracy. Outcomes included large for gestational age, shoulder dystocia, neonatal hypoglycaemia, caesarean section and pre-eclampsia. We pooled data using random-effects meta-analyses and used Bayesian network meta-analysis to compare pharmacological treatments (ie, including treatments not directly compared within a trial).

RESULTS

Forty-two trials were included, the reporting of which was generally poor with unclear or high risk of bias. Packages of care varied in their composition and reduced the risk of most adverse perinatal outcomes compared with routine care (eg, large for gestational age: relative risk0.58 (95% CI 0.49 to 0.68; I2=0%; trials 8; participants 3462). Network meta-analyses suggest that metformin had the highest probability of being the most effective treatment in reducing the risk of most outcomes compared with insulin or glibenclamide.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence shows that packages of care are effective in reducing the risk of most adverse perinatal outcomes. However, trials often include few women, are poorly reported with unclear or high risk of bias and report few outcomes. The contribution of each treatment within the packages of care remains unclear. Large well-designed and well-conducted trials are urgently needed.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

PROSPERO CRD42013004608.

Lifestyle interventions for the treatment of women with gestational diabetes

BACKGROUND

Gestational diabetes (GDM) is glucose intolerance, first recognised in pregnancy and usually resolving after birth. GDM is associated with both short- and long-term adverse effects for the mother and her infant. Lifestyle interventions are the primary therapeutic strategy for many women with GDM.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of combined lifestyle interventions with or without pharmacotherapy in treating women with gestational diabetes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (14 May 2016), ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (14th May 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only randomised controlled trials comparing a lifestyle intervention with usual care or another intervention for the treatment of pregnant women with GDM. Quasi-randomised trials were excluded. Cross-over trials were not eligible for inclusion. Women with pre-existing type 1 or type 2 diabetes were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by the Cochrane Collaboration. All selection of studies, data extraction was conducted independently by two review authors.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifteen trials (in 45 reports) are included in this review (4501 women, 3768 infants). None of the trials were funded by a conditional grant from a pharmaceutical company. The lifestyle interventions included a wide variety of components such as education, diet, exercise and self-monitoring of blood glucose. The control group included usual antenatal care or diet alone. Using GRADE methodology, the quality of the evidence ranged from high to very low quality. The main reasons for downgrading evidence were inconsistency and risk of bias. We summarised the following data from the important outcomes of this review. Lifestyle intervention versus control groupFor the mother:There was no clear evidence of a difference between lifestyle intervention and control groups for the risk of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (pre-eclampsia) (average risk ratio (RR) 0.70; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40 to 1.22; four trials, 2796 women; I2 = 79%, Tau2 = 0.23; low-quality evidence); caesarean section (average RR 0.90; 95% CI 0.78 to 1.05; 10 trials, 3545 women; I2 = 48%, Tau2 = 0.02; low-quality evidence); development of type 2 diabetes (up to a maximum of 10 years follow-up) (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.76; two trials, 486 women; I2 = 16%; low-quality evidence); perineal trauma/tearing (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.18; one trial, n = 1000 women; moderate-quality evidence) or induction of labour (average RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.46; four trials, n = 2699 women; I2 = 37%; high-quality evidence).More women in the lifestyle intervention group had met postpartum weight goals one year after birth than in the control group (RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.05 to 2.90; 156 women; one trial, low-quality evidence). Lifestyle interventions were associated with a decrease in the risk of postnatal depression compared with the control group (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.78; one trial, n = 573 women; low-quality evidence).For the infant/child/adult:Lifestyle interventions were associated with a reduction in the risk of being born large-for-gestational age (LGA) (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.71; six trials, 2994 infants; I2 = 4%; moderate-quality evidence). Birthweight and the incidence of macrosomia were lower in the lifestyle intervention group.Exposure to the lifestyle intervention was associated with decreased neonatal fat mass compared with the control group (mean difference (MD) -37.30 g, 95% CI -63.97 to -10.63; one trial, 958 infants; low-quality evidence). In childhood, there was no clear evidence of a difference between groups for body mass index (BMI) ≥ 85th percentile (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.11; three trials, 767 children; I2 = 4%; moderate-quality evidence).There was no clear evidence of a difference between lifestyle intervention and control groups for the risk of perinatal death (RR 0.09, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.70; two trials, 1988 infants; low-quality evidence). Of 1988 infants, only five events were reported in total in the control group and there were no events in the lifestyle group. There was no clear evidence of a difference between lifestyle intervention and control groups for a composite of serious infant outcome/s (average RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.55; two trials, 1930 infants; I2 = 82%, Tau2 = 0.44; very low-quality evidence) or neonatal hypoglycaemia (average RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.52; six trials, 3000 infants; I2 = 48%, Tau2 = 0.12; moderate-quality evidence). Diabetes and adiposity in adulthood and neurosensory disability in later childhoodwere not prespecified or reported as outcomes for any of the trials included in this review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Lifestyle interventions are the primary therapeutic strategy for women with GDM. Women receiving lifestyle interventions were less likely to have postnatal depression and were more likely to achieve postpartum weight goals. Exposure to lifestyle interventions was associated with a decreased risk of the baby being born LGA and decreased neonatal adiposity. Long-term maternal and childhood/adulthood outcomes were poorly reported.The value of lifestyle interventions in low-and middle-income countries or for different ethnicities remains unclear. The longer-term benefits or harms of lifestyle interventions remains unclear due to limited reporting.The contribution of individual components of lifestyle interventions could not be assessed. Ten per cent of participants also received some form of pharmacological therapy. Lifestyle interventions are useful as the primary therapeutic strategy and most commonly include healthy eating, physical activity and self-monitoring of blood glucose concentrations.Future research could focus on which specific interventions are most useful (as the sole intervention without pharmacological treatment), which health professionals should give them and the optimal format for providing the information. Evaluation of long-term outcomes for the mother and her child should be a priority when planning future trials. There has been no in-depth exploration of the costs 'saved' from reduction in risk of LGA/macrosomia and potential longer-term risks for the infants.