Insulin lispro therapy in pregnancies complicated by type 1 diabetes mellitus

15. Management of Diabetes in Pregnancy: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2024

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, an interprofessional expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations and a full list of Professional Practice Committee members, please refer to Introduction and Methodology. Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

Management of Individuals With Diabetes at High Risk for Hypoglycemia: An Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline

CONTEXT

Hypoglycemia in people with diabetes is common, especially in those taking medications such as insulin and sulfonylureas (SU) that place them at higher risk. Hypoglycemia is associated with distress in those with diabetes and their families, medication nonadherence, and disruption of life and work, and it leads to costly emergency department visits and hospitalizations, morbidity, and mortality.

OBJECTIVE

To review and update the diabetes-specific parts of the 2009 Evaluation and Management of Adult Hypoglycemic Disorders: Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline and to address developing issues surrounding hypoglycemia in both adults and children living with diabetes. The overriding objectives are to reduce and prevent hypoglycemia.

METHODS

A multidisciplinary panel of clinician experts, together with a patient representative, and methodologists with expertise in evidence synthesis and guideline development, identified and prioritized 10 clinical questions related to hypoglycemia in people living with diabetes. Systematic reviews were conducted to address all the questions. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make recommendations.

RESULTS

The panel agreed on 10 questions specific to hypoglycemia risk and prevention in people with diabetes for which 10 recommendations were made. The guideline includes conditional recommendations for use of real-time continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and algorithm-driven insulin pumps in people with type 1 diabetes (T1D), use of CGM for outpatients with type 2 diabetes at high risk for hypoglycemia, use of long-acting and rapid-acting insulin analogs, and initiation of and continuation of CGM for select inpatient populations at high risk for hypoglycemia. Strong recommendations were made for structured diabetes education programs for those at high risk for hypoglycemia, use of glucagon preparations that do not require reconstitution vs those that do for managing severe outpatient hypoglycemia for adults and children, use of real-time CGM for individuals with T1D receiving multiple daily injections, and the use of inpatient glycemic management programs leveraging electronic health record data to reduce the risk of hypoglycemia.

CONCLUSION

The recommendations are based on the consideration of critical outcomes as well as implementation factors such as feasibility and values and preferences of people with diabetes. These recommendations can be used to inform clinical practice and health care system improvement for this important complication for people living with diabetes.

A Systematic Review Supporting the Endocrine Society Guidelines: Management of Diabetes and High Risk of Hypoglycemia

CONTEXT

Interventions targeting hypoglycemia in people with diabetes are important for improving quality of life and reducing morbidity and mortality.

OBJECTIVE

To support development of the Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline for management of individuals with diabetes at high risk for hypoglycemia.

METHODS

We searched several databases for studies addressing 10 questions provided by a guideline panel from the Endocrine Society. Meta-analysis was conducted when feasible. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess certainty of evidence.

RESULTS

We included 149 studies reporting on 43 344 patients. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) reduced episodes of severe hypoglycemia in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and reduced the proportion of patients with hypoglycemia (blood glucose [BG] levels <54 mg/dL). There were no data on use of real-time CGM with algorithm-driven insulin pumps vs multiple daily injections with BG testing in people with T1D. CGM in outpatients with type 2 diabetes taking insulin and/or sulfonylureas reduced time spent with BG levels under 70 mg/dL. Initiation of CGM in hospitalized patients at high risk for hypoglycemia reduced episodes of hypoglycemia with BG levels lower than 54 mg/dL and time spent under 54 mg/dL. The proportion of patients with hypoglycemia with BG levels lower than 70 mg/dL and lower than 54 mg/dL detected by CGM was significantly higher than point-of-care BG testing. We found no data evaluating continuation of personal CGM in the hospital. Use of an inpatient computerized glycemic management program utilizing electronic health record data was associated with fewer patients with and episodes of hypoglycemia with BG levels lower than 70 mg/dL and fewer patients with severe hypoglycemia compared with standard care. Long-acting basal insulin analogs were associated with less hypoglycemia. Rapid-acting insulin analogs were associated with reduced severe hypoglycemia, though there were more patients with mild to moderate hypoglycemia. Structured diabetes education programs reduced episodes of severe hypoglycemia and time below 54 mg/dL in outpatients taking insulin. Glucagon formulations not requiring reconstitution were associated with longer times to recovery from hypoglycemia, although the proportion of patients who recovered completely from hypoglycemia was not different between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review summarized the best available evidence about several interventions addressing hypoglycemia in people with diabetes. This evidence base will facilitate development of clinical practice guidelines by the Endocrine Society.

15. Management of Diabetes in Pregnancy: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2023

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations and a full list of Professional Practice Committee members, please refer to Introduction and Methodology. Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

15. Management of Diabetes in Pregnancy: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2022

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc22-SPPC), are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations, please refer to the Standards of Care Introduction (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc22-SINT). Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

A systematic review on outcome reporting in randomised controlled trials assessing treatment interventions in pregnant women with pregestational diabetes

BACKGROUND

Pregestational diabetes mellitus (PGDM) is associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes. Studies assessing interventions to improve maternal and infant outcomes have increased exponentially over recent years. Several outcomes in this field of maternal diabetes are rare, making it difficult to synthesise evidence.

OBJECTIVES

To collect outcomes reported in studies assessing treatment interventions in pregnant women with PGDM.

SEARCH STRATEGY

CENTRAL, Web of Science, Medline, CINAHL, Embase and ClinicalTrials.gov from their inception until 27 January 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Any randomised controlled trial assessing treatment interventions in pregnant women with PGDM reported in English.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two independent reviewers assessed the suitability of articles and retrieved the data. Outcomes extracted from the literature were broadly categorised into maternal, fetal/infant or other outcomes by the study advisory group.

MAIN RESULTS

Sixty-seven of the 1475 studies identified fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The median number of outcomes reported per study was 15 (range 1-46). The majority of studies were from North America and Europe. Insulin and metformin were the most commonly investigated pharmacological interventions. Glucose monitoring was the most assessed technological intervention. In all, 131 unique outcomes were extracted: maternal (n = 69), fetal/infant (n = 61) and other (n = 1).

CONCLUSIONS

Outcome reporting in treatment interventions trials of pregnant women with PGDM is varied, making it difficult to synthesise evidence, especially for rare outcomes. Systems are needed to standardise outcome reporting in future clinical trials and so facilitate evidence synthesis in this area of maternal diabetes.

REGISTRATION

The systematic review was registered prospectively with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) database (Registration number CRD42020173549).

TWEETABLE ABSTRACT

Outcome reporting is heterogeneous in intervention trials of pregnant women with diabetes existing before pregnancy.

A core outcome set for the treatment of pregnant women with pregestational diabetes: an international consensus study

Objective

To develop a core outcome set (COS) for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effectiveness of interventions for the treatment of pregnant women with pregestational diabetes mellitus (PGDM).

Design

A consensus developmental study.

Setting

International.

Population

Two hundred and five stakeholders completed the first round.

Methods

The study consisted of three components. (1) A systematic review of the literature to produce a list of outcomes reported in RCTs assessing the effectiveness of interventions for the treatment of pregnant women with PGDM. (2) A three-round, online eDelphi survey to prioritise these outcomes by international stakeholders (including healthcare professionals, researchers and women with PGDM). (3) A consensus meeting where stakeholders from each group decided on the final COS.

Main outcome measures

All outcomes were extracted from the literature.

Results

We extracted 131 unique outcomes from 67 records meeting the full inclusion criteria. Of the 205 stakeholders who completed the first round, 174/205 (85%) and 165/174 (95%) completed rounds 2 and 3, respectively. Participants at the subsequent consensus meeting chose 19 outcomes for inclusion into the COS: trimester-specific haemoglobin A1c, maternal weight gain during pregnancy, severe maternal hypoglycaemia, diabetic ketoacidosis, miscarriage, pregnancy-induced hypertension, pre-eclampsia, maternal death, birthweight, large for gestational age, small for gestational age, gestational age at birth, preterm birth, mode of birth, shoulder dystocia, neonatal hypoglycaemia, congenital malformations, stillbirth and neonatal death.

Conclusions

This COS will enable better comparison between RCTs to produce robust evidence synthesis, improve trial reporting and optimise research efficiency in studies assessing treatment of pregnant women with PGDM.

165 key stakeholders have developed #Treatment #CoreOutcomes in pregnant women with #diabetes existing before pregnancy.

Changes in insulin requirements during pregnancy in Japanese women with type 1 diabetes

AIMS

We investigated the changes in insulin requirements, and other relevant factors, in pregnant Japanese women with type 1 diabetes.

METHODS

This retrospective observational study was conducted on 77 singleton pregnant women with type 1 diabetes, treated with multiple daily injections of insulin. We examined changes in daily insulin dose during pregnancy and defined the increased insulin doses as the ratio of maximum dose to the pre-pregnancy dose. The relationship between the increased insulin doses and maternal features or pregnancy outcomes was investigated.

RESULTS

The insulin dose gradually increased during pregnancy, reaching a maximum dose that was 1.6 times of that prior to pregnancy, at 35 weeks of gestation. A negative significant correlation was observed between the insulin dose increases and duration of diabetes (p = 0.008). Greater increases in insulin doses were noted in women with multiparity, compared to nulliparity (p = 0.047). Multiple regression analyses revealed that shorter duration of diabetes was independently associated with the increases in insulin dose during pregnancy.

CONCLUSIONS

Women with a longer duration of diabetes required smaller increases in insulin dose during pregnancy, suggesting that long diabetic duration may decrease placental function. Further investigations are needed to clarify the mechanisms that the duration of diabetes influences on insulin requirement during pregnancy.

Effectiveness of Insulin Analogs Compared with Human Insulins in Pregnant Women with Diabetes Mellitus: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Diabetes during pregnancy has been linked to unfavorable maternal-fetal outcomes. Human insulins are the first drug of choice because of the proven safety in their use. However, there are still questions about the use of insulin analogs during pregnancy. The objective of the present study was to determine the effectiveness of insulin analogs compared with human insulin in the treatment of pregnant women with diabetes through a systematic review with meta-analysis. The search comprised the period since the inception of each database until July 2017, and the following databases were used: MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, ISI Web of Science, LILACS, Scopus, SIGLE and Google Scholar. We have selected 29 original articles: 11 were randomized clinical trials and 18 were observational studies. We have explored data from 6,382 participants. All of the articles were classified as having an intermediate to high risk of bias. The variable that showed favorable results for the use of insulin analogs was gestational age, with a mean difference of - 0.26 (95 % confidence interval [CI]: 0.03-0.49; p = 0.02), but with significant heterogeneity (Higgins test [I2] = 38%; chi-squared test [χ2] = 16.24; degree of freedom [DF] = 10; p = 0.09). This result, in the clinical practice, does not compromise the fetal well-being, since all babies were born at term. There was publication bias in the gestational age and neonatal weight variables. To date, the evidence analyzed has a moderate-to-high risk of bias and does not allow the conclusion that insulin analogs are more effective when compared with human insulin to treat diabetic pregnant women.

Short-acting insulin analogues versus regular human insulin for adult, non-pregnant persons with type 2 diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

The use of short-acting insulin analogues (insulin lispro, insulin aspart, insulin glulisine) for adult, non-pregnant people with type 2 diabetes is still controversial, as reflected in many scientific debates.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of short-acting insulin analogues compared to regular human insulin in adult, non-pregnant people with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, the WHO ICTRP Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov to 31 October 2018. We placed no restrictions on the language of publication.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials with an intervention duration of at least 24 weeks that compared short-acting insulin analogues to regular human insulin in the treatment of people with type 2 diabetes, who were not pregnant.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. We assessed dichotomous outcomes by risk ratios (RR), and Peto odds ratios (POR), with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed continuous outcomes by mean differences (MD) with 95% CI. We assessed trials for certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 10 trials that fulfilled the inclusion criteria, randomising 2751 participants; 1388 participants were randomised to receive insulin analogues and 1363 participants to receive regular human insulin. The duration of the intervention ranged from 24 to 104 weeks, with a mean of about 41 weeks. The trial populations showed diversity in disease duration, and inclusion and exclusion criteria. None of the trials were blinded, so the risk of performance bias and detection bias, especially for subjective outcomes, such as hypoglycaemia, was high in nine of 10 trials from which we extracted data. Several trials showed inconsistencies in the reporting of methods and results.None of the included trials defined all-cause mortality as a primary outcome. Six trials provided Information on the number of participants who died during the trial, with five deaths out of 1272 participants (0.4%) in the insulin analogue groups and three deaths out of 1247 participants (0.2%) in the regular human insulin groups (Peto OR 1.66, 95% CI 0.41 to 6.64; P = 0.48; moderate-certainty evidence). Six trials, with 2509 participants, assessed severe hypoglycaemia differently, therefore, we could not summarise the results with a meta-analysis. Overall, the incidence of severe hypoglycaemic events was low, and none of the trials showed a clear difference between the two intervention arms (low-certainty evidence).The MD in glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) change was -0.03% (95% CI -0.16 to 0.09; P = 0.60; 9 trials, 2608 participants; low-certainty evidence). The 95% prediction ranged between -0.31% and 0.25%. The MD in the overall number of non-severe hypoglycaemic episodes per participant per month was 0.08 events (95% CI 0.00 to 0.16; P = 0.05; 7 trials, 2667 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The 95% prediction interval ranged between -0.03 and 0.19 events per participant per month. The results provided for nocturnal hypoglycaemic episodes were of questionable validity. Overall, there was no clear difference between the two short-acting insulin analogues and regular human insulin. Two trials assessed health-related quality of life and treatment satisfaction, but we considered the results for both outcomes to be unreliable (very low-certainty evidence).No trial was designed to investigate possible long term effects (all-cause mortality, microvascular or macrovascular complications of diabetes), especially in participants with diabetes-related complications. No trial reported on socioeconomic effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis found no clear benefits of short-acting insulin analogues over regular human insulin in people with type 2 diabetes. Overall, the certainty of the evidence was poor and results on patient-relevant outcomes, like all-cause mortality, microvascular or macrovascular complications and severe hypoglycaemic episodes were sparse. Long-term efficacy and safety data are needed to draw conclusions about the effects of short-acting insulin analogues on patient-relevant outcomes.

Pharmacotherapy for hyperglycemia in pregnancy - The new insulins

Hyperglycemia in pregnancy may lead to adverse maternal, fetal and neonatal outcomes. Tight glycemic control is prudent in order to reduce pregnancy complications. For many years, the gold standard pharmacological therapy during pregnancy was human insulin. Recently, insulin analogues were also introduced to clinical use in pregnancy. This brief review aims to summarize the information on the efficacy and safety of insulin analogue therapy during gestation. The strengths and pitfalls of insulin analogue administration during gestation, compared with human insulin, are presented. According to studies in pregnant women with type 1 diabetes, insulins lispro, aspart and detemir are efficacious and safe. Correspondingly, the FDA has reclassified them for the treatment of pregnant women with diabetes from category C to category B. Although large and prospective data on insulin glargine in gestation are still lacking, no major safety concerns were documented. No controlled trials with insulins glulisine and degludec were conducted in pregnancy. In sum, insulin analogues are practical therapeutic options for hyperglycemia in pregnancy, mainly due to their hypoglycemia risk reduction. More research for their use in pregnant women with gestational diabetes or type 2 diabetes should be conducted. Overall, their efficacy and safety is possibly comparable to human insulin.

Efficacy and Safety of Rapid-Acting Insulin Analogs in Special Populations with Type 1 Diabetes or Gestational Diabetes: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

To assess the efficacy and safety of three available rapid-acting insulin analogs (insulins lispro, aspart and glulisine, respectively) in pregnant women, children/adolescents and people using continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) with type 1 diabetes.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Reviews were searched electronically, and their bibliographies examined to identify suitable studies for review and inclusion in a meta-analysis. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials that reported data on relevant clinical outcomes. A different reviewer abstracted data for each of the three subpopulations, and one reviewer abstracted data for all three. Any differences were resolved by consensus or by consulting a fourth reviewer.

RESULTS

In people on CSII, rapid-acting insulin analogs lowered postprandial plasma glucose post-breakfast to a greater extent than did regular human insulin (RHI) (mean difference: - 1.63 mmol/L [95% confidence interval - 1.71; - 1.54]), with a comparable risk of hypoglycemia and a trend for lower glycated hemoglobin. In the pediatric population, glycemic control was similar with rapid-acting insulin analogs and RHI, with no safety concerns. Meta-analysis indicated severe hypoglycemic events were comparable for rapid-acting insulin analogs versus RHI (risk difference: 0.00 [95% confidence interval - 0.01; 0.01]). In the pregnancy group, insulin lispro and insulin aspart were safe and effective for both mother and fetus, with glycemic control being at least as good as with RHI. There were no data on insulin glulisine during pregnancy.

CONCLUSION

Rapid-acting insulin analogs appear generally safe and effective in these special populations; however, additional trials would be helpful.

FUNDING

Novo Nordisk A/S.

Different insulin types and regimens for pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes

BACKGROUND

Insulin requirements may change during pregnancy, and the optimal treatment for pre-existing diabetes is unclear. There are several insulin regimens (e.g. via syringe, pen) and types of insulin (e.g. fast-acting insulin, human insulin).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of different insulin types and different insulin regimens in pregnant women with pre-existing type 1 or type 2 diabetes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 October 2016), ClinicalTrials.gov (17 October 2016), the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP; 17 October 2016), and the reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared different insulin types and regimens in pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes.We had planned to include cluster-RCTs, but none were identified. We excluded quasi-randomised controlled trials and cross-over trials. We included studies published in abstract form and contacted the authors for further details when applicable. Conference abstracts were superseded by full publications.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, conducted data extraction, assessed risk of bias, and checked for accuracy. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

The findings in this review were based on very low-quality evidence, from single, small sample sized trial estimates, with wide confidence intervals (CI), some of which crossed the line of no effect; many of the prespecified outcomes were not reported. Therefore, they should be interpreted with caution. We included five trials that included 554 women and babies (four open-label, multi-centre, two-arm trials; one single centre, four-arm RCT). All five trials were at a high or unclear risk of bias due to lack of blinding, unclear methods of randomisation, and selective reporting of outcomes. Pooling of data from the trials was not possible, as each trial looked at a different comparison.1. One trial (N = 33 women) compared Lispro insulin with regular insulin and provided very low-quality evidence for the outcomes. There were seven episodes of pre-eclampsia in the Lispro group and nine in the regular insulin group, with no clear difference between the two groups (risk ratio (RR) 0.68, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.30). There were five caesarean sections in the Lispro group and nine in the regular insulin group, with no clear difference between the two groups (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.39). There were no cases of fetal anomaly in the Lispro group and one in the regular insulin group, with no clear difference between the groups (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.02 to 8.08). Macrosomia, perinatal deaths, episodes of birth trauma including shoulder dystocia, nerve palsy, and fracture, and the composite outcome measure of neonatal morbidity were not reported.2. One trial (N = 42 women) compared human insulin to animal insulin, and provided very low-quality evidence for the outcomes. There were no cases of macrosomia in the human insulin group and two in the animal insulin group, with no clear difference between the groups (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.30). Perinatal death, pre-eclampsia, caesarean section, fetal anomaly, birth trauma including shoulder dystocia, nerve palsy and fracture and the composite outcome measure of neonatal morbidity were not reported.3. One trial (N = 93 women) compared pre-mixed insulin (70 NPH/30 REG) to self-mixed, split-dose insulin and provided very low-quality evidence to support the outcomes. Two cases of macrosomia were reported in the pre-mixed insulin group and four in the self-mixed insulin group, with no clear difference between the two groups (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.54). There were seven cases of caesarean section (for cephalo-pelvic disproportion) in the pre-mixed insulin group and 12 in the self-mixed insulin group, with no clear difference between groups (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.32). Perinatal death, pre-eclampsia, fetal anomaly, birth trauma including shoulder dystocia, nerve palsy, or fracture and the composite outcome measure of neonatal morbidity were not reported.4. In the same trial (N = 93 women), insulin injected with a Novolin pen was compared to insulin injected with a conventional needle (syringe), which provided very low-quality evidence to support the outcomes. There was one case of macrosomia in the pen group and five in the needle group, with no clear difference between the different insulin regimens (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.03 to 1.76). There were five deliveries by caesarean section in the pen group compared with 14 in the needle group; women were less likely to deliver via caesarean section when insulin was injected with a pen compared to a conventional needle (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.97). Perinatal death, pre-eclampsia, fetal anomaly, birth trauma including shoulder dystocia, nerve palsy, or fracture, and the composite outcome measure of neonatal morbidity were not reported.5. One trial (N = 223 women) comparing insulin Aspart with human insulin reported none of the review's primary outcomes: macrosomia, perinatal death, pre-eclampsia, caesarean section, fetal anomaly, birth trauma including shoulder dystocia. nerve palsy, or fracture, or the composite outcome measure of neonatal morbidity.6. One trial (N = 162 women) compared insulin Detemir with NPH insulin, and supported the outcomes with very low-quality evidence. There were three cases of major fetal anomalies in the insulin Detemir group and one in the NPH insulin group, with no clear difference between the groups (RR 3.15, 95% CI 0.33 to 29.67). Macrosomia, perinatal death, pre-eclampsia, caesarean section, birth trauma including shoulder dystocia, nerve palsy, or fracture and the composite outcome of neonatal morbidity were not reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

With limited evidence and no meta-analyses, as each trial looked at a different comparison, no firm conclusions could be made about different insulin types and regimens in pregnant women with pre-existing type 1 or 2 diabetes. Further research is warranted to determine who has an increased risk of adverse pregnancy outcome. This would include larger trials, incorporating adequate randomisation and blinding, and key outcomes that include macrosomia, pregnancy loss, pre-eclampsia, caesarean section, fetal anomalies, and birth trauma.

Pharmacological Management of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus

Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is one of the most common morbidities complicating pregnancy, with short- and long-term consequences to the mothers, fetuses, and newborns. Management and treatment are aimed to achieve best possible glycemic control, while avoiding hypoglycemia and ensuring maternal and fetal safety. It involves behavioral modifications, nutrition and medications, if needed; concurrent with maternal and fetal surveillance for possible adverse outcomes. This review aims to elaborate on the pharmacological options for GDM therapy. We performed an extensive literature review of different available studies, published during the last 50 years, concerning pharmacological therapy for GDM, dealing with safety and efficacy, for both fetal and maternal morbidity consequences; as well as failure and success in establishing appropriate metabolic and glucose control. Oral medication therapy is a safe and effective treatment modality for GDM and in some circumstances may serve as first-line therapy when nutritional modifications fail. When oral agents fail to establish glucose control then insulin injections should be added. Determining the best oral therapy in inconclusive, although it seems that metformin is slightly superior to glyburide, in some aspects. As for parenteral therapy, all insulins listed in this article are considered both safe and effective for treatment of hyperglycemia during pregnancy. Importantly, a better safety profile, with similar efficacy is documented for most analogues. As GDM prevalence rises, there is a need for successful monitoring and treatment for patients. Caregivers should know the possible and available therapeutic options.

Short-acting insulin analogues versus regular human insulin for adults with type 1 diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

Short-acting insulin analogue use for people with diabetes is still controversial, as reflected in many scientific debates.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of short-acting insulin analogues versus regular human insulin in adults with type 1 diabetes.

SEARCH METHODS

We carried out the electronic searches through Ovid simultaneously searching the following databases: Ovid MEDLINE(R), Ovid MEDLINE(R) In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE(R) Daily and Ovid OLDMEDLINE(R) (1946 to 14 April 2015), EMBASE (1988 to 2015, week 15), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; March 2015), ClinicalTrials.gov and the European (EU) Clinical Trials register (both March 2015).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials with an intervention duration of at least 24 weeks that compared short-acting insulin analogues with regular human insulins in the treatment of adults with type 1 diabetes who were not pregnant.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed trials for risk of bias, and resolved differences by consensus. We graded overall study quality using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) instrument. We used random-effects models for the main analyses and presented the results as odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified nine trials that fulfilled the inclusion criteria including 2693 participants. The duration of interventions ranged from 24 to 52 weeks with a mean of about 37 weeks. The participants showed some diversity, mainly with regard to diabetes duration and inclusion/exclusion criteria. The majority of the trials were carried out in the 1990s and participants were recruited from Europe, North America, Africa and Asia. None of the trials was carried out in a blinded manner so that the risk of performance bias, especially for subjective outcomes such as hypoglycaemia, was present in all of the trials. Furthermore, several trials showed inconsistencies in the reporting of methods and results.The mean difference (MD) in glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) was -0.15% (95% CI -0.2% to -0.1%; P value < 0.00001; 2608 participants; 9 trials; low quality evidence) in favour of insulin analogues. The comparison of the risk of severe hypoglycaemia between the two treatment groups showed an OR of 0.89 (95% CI 0.71 to 1.12; P value = 0.31; 2459 participants; 7 trials; very low quality evidence). For overall hypoglycaemia, also taking into account mild forms of hypoglycaemia, the data were generally of low quality, but also did not indicate substantial group differences. Regarding nocturnal severe hypoglycaemic episodes, two trials reported statistically significant effects in favour of the insulin analogue, insulin aspart. However, due to inconsistent reporting in publications and trial reports, the validity of the result remains questionable.We also found no clear evidence for a substantial effect of insulin analogues on health-related quality of life. However, there were few results only based on subgroups of the trial populations. None of the trials reported substantial effects regarding weight gain or any other adverse events. No trial was designed to investigate possible long-term effects (such as all-cause mortality, diabetic complications), in particular in people with diabetes related complications.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis suggests only a minor benefit of short-acting insulin analogues on blood glucose control in people with type 1 diabetes. To make conclusions about the effect of short acting insulin analogues on long-term patient-relevant outcomes, long-term efficacy and safety data are needed.

A review of current treatment strategies for gestational diabetes mellitus

Approximately 90% of diabetes cases in pregnant women are considered gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). It is well known that uncontrolled glucose results in poor pregnancy outcomes in both the mother and fetus. Worldwide there are many guidelines with recommendations for appropriate management strategies for GDM once lifestyle modifications have been instituted and failed to achieve control. The efficacy and particularly the safety of other treatment modalities for GDM has been the source of much debate in recent years. Studies that have demonstrated the safety and efficacy of both glyburide and metformin in the management of patients with GDM will be reviewed. There is a lack of evidence with other oral and injectable non-insulin agents to control blood glucose in GDM. The role of insulin will be discussed, with emphasis on insulin analogs. Ideal patient characteristics for each treatment modality will be reviewed. In addition, recommendations for postpartum screening of patients will be described as well as recommendations for use of agents to manage subsequent type 2 diabetes in patients who are breastfeeding.

Gestational diabetes mellitus: insulinic management

Diabetic pregnancies have attendant risks. Adverse fetal, neonatal, and maternal outcomes in a diabetic pregnancy can be avoided by optimum glycemic control. Most pregnancies with GDM can be managed with non-insulinic management, which includes medical nutrition therapy. However, many necessitate concomitant insulinic management. The new insulin analogs present undoubted advantages in reducing the risk of hypoglycemia, mainly during the night, and in promoting a more physiologic glycemic profile in pregnant women with diabetes. Rapid-acting insulin analogs seem to be safe and efficient in reducing postprandial glucose levels more proficiently than regular human insulin, with less hypoglycemia. The long-acting insulin analogs do not have a pronounced peak effect as NPH insulin, and cause less hypoglycemia, mainly during the night. The review focuses on glycemic goals in pregnancy, insulinic management of GDM, and posology of insulin and its analogs. Clear understanding of the insulinic management of GDM is essential for women's health care providers to provide comprehensive care to women whose pregnancies are complicated with diabetes and rechristen the ''diabetic capital of the world'' to the ''diabetic care capital of the world.''

Diabetes and pregnancy: an endocrine society clinical practice guideline

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to formulate a clinical practice guideline for the management of the pregnant woman with diabetes.

PARTICIPANTS

The Task Force was composed of a chair, selected by the Clinical Guidelines Subcommittee of The Endocrine Society, 5 additional experts, a methodologist, and a medical writer.

EVIDENCE

This evidence-based guideline was developed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system to describe both the strength of recommendations and the quality of evidence.

CONSENSUS PROCESS

One group meeting, several conference calls, and innumerable e-mail communications enabled consensus for all recommendations save one with a majority decision being employed for this single exception.

CONCLUSIONS

Using an evidence-based approach, this Diabetes and Pregnancy Clinical Practice Guideline addresses important clinical issues in the contemporary management of women with type 1 or type 2 diabetes preconceptionally, during pregnancy, and in the postpartum setting and in the diagnosis and management of women with gestational diabetes during and after pregnancy.

The use of insulin analogues in pregnancy

Excellent glycaemic control is essential in pregnancy to optimise maternal and foetal outcomes. The aim of this review is to assess the efficacy and safety of insulin analogues in pregnancy. Insulin lispro and insulin aspart are safe in pregnancy and may improve post-prandial glycaemic control in women with type 1 diabetes. However, a lack of data indicating improved foetal outcomes would suggest that there is no imperative to switch to a short-acting analogue where the woman's diabetes is well controlled with human insulin. There are no reports of the use of insulin glulisine in pregnancy and so its use cannot be recommended. Most studies of insulin glargine in pregnancy are small, retrospective and include women with pre-existing diabetes and gestational diabetes. There appear to be no major safety concerns and so it seems reasonable to continue insulin glargine if required to achieve excellent glycaemic control. A head-to-head comparison between insulin detemir and NPH insulin in women with type 1 diabetes showed that while foetal outcomes did not differ, fasting plasma glucose improved with insulin detemir without an increased incidence of hypoglycaemia. The greater evidence base supports the use of insulin detemir as the first line long-acting analogue in pregnancy but the lack of definitive foetal benefits means that there is no strong need to switch a woman who is well controlled on NPH insulin. There seems little justification in using long acting insulin analogues in women with gestational diabetes or type 2 diabetes where the risk of hypoglycaemia is low.

Insulin analogues in the treatment of diabetes in pregnancy

Pregnancy affects both maternal and fetal metabolism, and even in non-diabetic women, it exerts a diabetogenic effect. Among pregnant women, 2% to 14% develop gestational diabetes. Pregnancy can also occur in women with preexisting diabetes, which may predispose the fetus to many alterations in organogenesis, restrict growth, and the mother, to some diabetes-related complications, such as retinopathy and nephropathy, or to acceleration of the course of these complications, if they are already present. Women with gestational diabetes generally start their treatment with diet and lifestyle changes; when these changes are not enough for optimal glycemic control, insulin therapy must then be considered. Women with type 2 diabetes using oral hypoglycemic agents are advised to change to insulin therapy. Those with preexisting type 1 diabetes should start intensive glycemic control. As basal insulin analogues have frequently been used off-label in pregnant women, there is a need to evaluate their safety and efficacy. The aim of this review is to report the use of both short- and long-acting insulin analogues during pregnancy and to enable clinicians, obstetricians, and endocrinologists to choose the best insulin treatment for their patients.

Pregnancy in diabetes and kidney disease

With appropriate multi-disciplinary team care, most women with diabetic nephropathy will have successful pregnancy outcomes; however, pregnancy complications are increased compared to non-diabetic individuals, particularly in those with poor glycaemic control. Women with more severe renal impairment, especially those with hypertension and proteinuria at are highest risk of worse pregnancy outcomes and deterioration in pre-existing renal function. Pre-pregnancy counselling should be offered to all women with diabetes in order to optimise diabetic care, and inform women of potential complications. Pregnancy is an indicator of long-term health, and may indicate important issues for the future management of women with diabetic nephropathy.

Comparison of Insulin Lispro Protamine Suspension with NPH Insulin in Pregnant Women with Type 2 and Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: Maternal and Perinatal Outcomes

Insulin therapy is still the gold standard in diabetic pregnancy. Insulin lispro protamine suspension is an available basal insulin analogue. Aim. To study pregnancy outcomes of women with type 2 and gestational diabetes mellitus when insulin lispro protamine suspension or human NPH insulin was added to medical nutrition therapy and/or short-acting insulin. Methods. In this retrospective study, for maternal outcome we recorded time and mode of delivery, hypertension, glycaemic control (fasting blood glucose and HbA1c), hypoglycemias, weight increase, and insulin need. For neonatal outcome birth weight and weight class, congenital malformations was recorded and main neonatal complications. Two-tail Student's t-test and chi-square test were performed when applicable; significant P < 0.05. Results. Eighty-nine pregnant women (25 with type 2 diabetes and 64 with gestational diabetes mellitus; 53 under insulin lispro protamine suspension and 36 under human NPH insulin) were recruited. Maternal and neonatal outcomes were quite similar between the two therapeutic approaches; however, insulin need was higher in NPH. At the end of pregnancy, eight women with gestational diabetes continued to use only basal insulin analogue. Conclusions. Pregnancy outcome in type 2 and gestational diabetes mellitus with insulin lispro protamine suspension was similar to that with NPH insulin, except for a lower insulin requirement.

Insulin therapy in pregnancy

Insulin therapy is essential for optimal glycemic control during pregnancy in women with type 1 diabetes and is frequently required to optimize control in women with type 2 diabetes. Less commonly, women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) require insulin for glycemic control. However, because of its greater prevalence, GDM is the most common reason for insulin use in pregnancy. The most frequently used insulin regimen in pregnancy is a basal/bolus combination of long- and short-acting insulin preparations. There is no evidence base to support one treatment regimen over another. Therapy should be individualized and based on local expertise.

Insulins: past, present, and future

This article highlights selected milestones in insulin discovery and its continued development as a pivotal therapy for diabetes. The last 90 years have witnessed tremendous progress in insulin therapy, from the initial crude, yet life-saving, animal insulin extracts to novel human insulin analogues. Although the complete physiologic replacement of insulin is inherently difficult to achieve with open-loop subcutaneously administered insulin, the continued development of improved injectable insulin formulations with superior pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics will enhance glucose control, and represents important clinical advances in the treatment of both type 1 and type 2 diabetes.

Basal insulin analogues in diabetic pregnancy: a literature review and baseline results of a randomised, controlled trial in type 1 diabetes

As basal insulin analogues are being used off-label, there is a need to evaluate their safety (maternal hypoglycaemia and fetal and perinatal outcomes) and efficacy [haemoglobin A1c(HbA1c), fasting plasma glucose, and maternal weight gain]. The aim of this review is to provide an overview of the current literature concerning basal insulin analogue use in diabetic pregnancy, and to present the design and preliminary, non-validated baseline characteristics of a currently ongoing randomized, controlled, open-label, multicentre, multinational trial comparing insulin detemir with neutral protamine hagedorn insulin, both with insulin aspart, in women with type 1 diabetes planning a pregnancy (n = 306) or are already pregnant (n = 164). Inclusion criteria include type 1 diabetes > 12 months' duration; screening HbA1c ≤ 9.0% (women recruited prepregnancy), or pregnant with gestational age 8-12 weeks and HbA1c ≤ 8.0% at randomization. At confirmation of pregnancy all subjects must have HbA1c ≤ 8.0%. Exclusion criteria include impaired hepatic function, cardiac problems, and uncontrolled hypertension. Subjects are randomized to either insulin detemir or neutral protamine hagedorn insulin, both with prandial insulin aspart. The results are expected mid-2011 with full publications expected later this year. Baseline characteristics show that basal insulin analogues are already frequently used in pregnant women with type 1 diabetes. This study will hopefully elucidate the safety and efficacy of the basal insulin analogue detemir in diabetic pregnancy.

Glycemic control and pregnancy outcomes in women with type 1 diabetes mellitus using lispro versus regular insulin: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

This study performed a systematic review and meta-analysis on glycemic control and pregnancy outcomes in women with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) treated with lispro (LP) versus regular insulin (RI) since before pregnancy.

METHODS

We performed a MEDLINE and EMBASE search. Abstracts (and full articles when appropriate) were reviewed by two independent researchers. Inclusion criteria were patients with T1DM, data on women treated with RI and LP since before pregnancy until delivery in the same article, at least five pregnancies in each group, and information on at least one pregnancy outcome. Quality assessment was performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale for cohort studies.

RESULTS

Outcome data were summarized with Revman version 5.0 (ims.cochrane.org/revman/download [The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen, Denmark]), applying a random effects model. Two hundred sixty-seven abstracts were identified, and four full articles fulfilled inclusion criteria, all of them corresponding to observational studies. Baseline characteristics were similar in women treated with LP or RI. Regarding outcome data, no differences between LP and RI groups were observed in hemoglobin A1c, gestational age at birth, birth weight, and rate of diabetic ketoacidosis, pregnancy-induced hypertension, pre-eclampsia, spontaneous miscarriages, interruptions, total abortions, cesarean section, preterm birth, macrosomia, small-for gestational-age newborns, stillbirth, neonatal and perinatal mortality, neonatal hypoglycemia, and major malformations. The rate of large-for-gestational age newborns was higher in the LP group (relative risk 1.38; 95% confidence interval 1.14-1.68).

CONCLUSIONS

In relation to women with T1DM treated with RI, those treated with LP display similar baseline characteristics and no differences in metabolic control or perinatal outcome with the exception of a higher rate of large-for-gestational-age newborns.

Managing diabetes during pregnancy with insulin lispro: a safe alternative to human insulin

OBJECTIVE

To assess the safety of the use of insulin lispro during pregnancy on the basis of published literature and to report on any related efficacy findings.

METHODS

The National Center for Biotechnology Information Entrez Database PubMed (http://www.ncbi. nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/) was used to search for citations from MEDLINE in the November 2009 time frame that contained safety data and efficacy results on the use of insulin lispro during pregnancy.

RESULTS

From the MEDLINE search, we identified a total of 27 publications (with 1,265 pregnancies) with relevant information, which were included in this report. No statistically significant differences in the rates of occurrence of congenital anomalies or spontaneous abortions associated with the use of insulin lispro during pregnancy, in comparison with the use of human insulin, were reported. Moreover, in comparison with human insulin, insulin lispro was reported to result in improved glycemic control, as demonstrated by lower postprandial glucose concentrations and hemoglobin A1c levels.

CONCLUSION

The current review of the published literature indicates that insulin lispro is a safe alternative to human insulin with similar perinatal outcomes and potentially improved glycemic control in the management of diabetes during pregnancy.

Effect of screening and management of diabetes during pregnancy on stillbirths

BACKGROUND

Diabetes during pregnancy is associated with significant risk of complications to the mother, fetus and newborn. We reviewed the potential impact of early detection and control of diabetes mellitus during pregnancy on stillbirths for possible inclusion in the Lives Saved Tool (LiST).

METHODS

A systematic literature search up to July 2010 was done to identify all published randomized controlled trials and observational studies. A standardized data abstraction sheet was employed and data were abstracted by two independent authors. Meta-analyses were performed with different sub-group analyses. The analyses were graded according to the CHERG rules using the adapted GRADE criteria and recommendations made after assessing the overall quality of the studies included in the meta-analyses.

RESULTS

A total of 70 studies were selected for data extraction including fourteen intervention studies and fifty six observational studies. No randomized controlled trials were identified evaluating early detection of diabetes mellitus in pregnancy versus standard screening (glucose challenge test between 24th to 28th week of gestation) in pregnancy. Intensive management of gestational diabetes (including specialized dietary advice, increased monitoring and tailored dietary therapy) during pregnancy (3 studies: 3791 participants) versus conventional management (dietary advice and insulin as required) was associated with a non-significant reduction in the risk of stillbirths (RR 0.20; 95% CI: 0.03-1.10) ('moderate' quality evidence). Optimal control of serum blood glucose versus sub-optimal control was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of perinatal mortality (2 studies, 5286 participants: RR = 0.40, 95% CI 0.25- 0.63), but not stillbirths (3 studies, 2469 participants: RR = 0.51, 95% CI 0.14-1.88). Preconception care of diabetes (information about need for optimization of glycemic control before pregnancy, assessment of diabetes complications, review of dietary habits, intensification of capillary blood glucose self-monitoring and optimization of insulin therapy) versus none (3 studies: 910 participants) was associated with a reduction in perinatal mortality (RR = 0.29, 95% CI 0.14 -0.60). Using the Delphi process for estimating effect size of optimal diabetes recognition and management yielded a median effect size of 10% reduction in stillbirths.

CONCLUSIONS

Diabetes, especially pre-gestational diabetes with its attendant vascular complications, is a significant risk factor for stillbirth and perinatal death. Our review highlights the fact that very few studies of adequate quality are available that can provide estimates of the effect of screening for aid management of diabetes in pregnancy on stillbirth risk. Using the Delphi process we recommend a conservative 10% reduction in the risk of stillbirths, as a point estimate for inclusion in the LiST.

Use of insulin lispro during pregnancy in women with pregestational diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

To assess the safety and efficacy of insulin analogues versus human insulin in pregnant women with pregestational diabetes.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We collected data on pregnant women with type 1 or type 2 diabetes who were attended at the Diabetes and Pregnancy Unit between January 1998 and April 2008 (N=351). Two hundred and forty one patients were treated with regular insulin and NPH and 110 were treated with different combinations of insulins including an insulin analogue (most of them with NPH and lispro).

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in terms of congenital malformation rate between groups (3.3% and 3.6%). The group on insulin analogue had slightly higher mean HbA1c during the first trimester than the group on human insulin (6.6 [1.0]% vs 6.9 [1.1]%; P=0,022) and needed smaller insulin doses during whole pregnancy. Severe hypoglycaemia was significantly less frequent among women treated with a rapid insulin analogue (2.3 vs 10.0%; P=0,025). Neonatal hypoglycaemia was significantly more frequent in the group treated with a rapid insulin analogue (34.9 vs 23.6%; P=0.043) due to the concomitant use of an insulin pump. Other obstetric and neonatal variables were not different between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Our study shows that insulin analogues are safe during pregnancy in women with pregestational diabetes mellitus. Overall, glycaemic control, maternal and foetal outcome were similar to those with human insulin. The main advantage with respect to human insulin was to importantly reduce maternal severe hypoglycaemia.

Insulin analogues in the management of the pregnancy complicated by diabetes mellitus

Since their introduction, insulin analogues are the preferred choice for short-acting insulin due to their superior pharmacologic profiles, leading to greater flexibility and convenience of dosing and, thus, greater patient satisfaction and improved quality of life. Over the past few years, clinical experience with insulin analogues in pregnancy has increased. The most studied, insulin lispro, has been shown to be a safe and clinically effective option in the treatment of the diabetic gravida. Studies of the other insulin analogues are limited, but promising. Further research is warranted to evaluate safety and efficacy of these analogues.

Glycemic control and perinatal outcomes of pregnancies complicated by type 1 diabetes: influence of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion and lispro insulin

AIMS

This study compared glycemic control and maternal and fetal outcomes in pregnant women with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) treated with multiple daily injections (MDI) or continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) using regular (RI) or lispro (LP) insulin.

METHODS

Three hundred fifteen consecutive singleton pregnancies of T1DM women using the same insulin program since before pregnancy (196 MDI with NPH + RI, 16 MDI with NPH + LP, 44 CSII with RI, 59 CSII with LP) were studied. Variables of glycemic control assessed included glycated hemoglobin, mean blood glucose (MBG), and insulin doses in each trimester, diabetic ketoacidosis, and hypoglycemic comas. Variables of pregnancy outcome included miscarriage, preterm birth, large or small for gestational age (LGA or SGA, respectively) newborns, and perinatal mortality. Multiple linear regression and logistic regression analysis were used.

RESULTS

Groups differed in baseline and glycemic control but not in maternal or fetal outcomes. In multivariate analysis, LP was associated with higher second trimester MBG and lower rate of hypoglycemic coma, CSII with higher third trimester MBG, and CSII + LP with lower insulin requirements and lower rate of hypoglycemic coma. As to pregnancy outcomes, LP was associated with lower risk of preterm birth and higher risk of SGA, CSII with lower risk of SGA and higher risk of LGA and perinatal mortality, and CSII + LP with higher risk of miscarriage.

CONCLUSIONS

Pregnant women with T1DM using LP and/or CSII had different characteristics. LP with or without CSII was independently associated with fewer hypoglycemic comas, whereas impact of LP/CSII on the fetus had a favorable or an unfavorable influence depending on the specific outcome.

Management of gestational diabetes by physicians in Turkey

AIMS

We sought to investigate the practice patterns of clinicians (family physicians, internists and obstetricians) in Turkey in screening for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM), management and monitoring of hyperglycaemia in pregnant women with GDM, and assessment of glucose tolerance in the postpartum state.

METHODS

Between January and December 2007, current practices of Turkish physicians (n=434) were assessed by a questionnaire which was concerned with physician demographics and clinical practice including screening and diagnostic methods for GDM, management of GDM during pregnancy and postpartum assessment of glucose tolerance. The questionnaire was developed in respect to the recommendation of the Fifth International Workshop-Conference on GDM and the standards of the American Diabetes Association (ADA).

RESULTS

Although most of the physicians stated that they performed screening for GDM and postpartum screening for glucose intolerance in women with GDM, their screening practices vary. The proportion of women who were provided with a nutrition counselling by a registered dietician and a patient education by a trained nurse was low, especially in women treated by the family physicians. Home glucose monitoring was widely used in the management of GDM, however, postprandial glucose assays were used occasionally. Regular and NPH insulin preparations were the most preferred drugs to treat GDM. Internists were more likely to use insulin analogues. On the other hand, a significant number of physicians stated that they used oral antidiabetics (OADs). A considerable number of family physicians used OADs which have not been proved to be safe in pregnancy.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that there is considerable variation in the clinical practice patterns of physicians. An education program to enhance the clinical aptitude of physicians, particularly family physicians, in the medical management of GDM should be designed throughout the country.

Gestational diabetes: risk factors and recent advances in its genetics and treatment

The Hyperglycemia and Adverse Pregnancy Outcome (HAPO) study of over 23000 diabetes-free pregnancies has shown that at a population level an unequivocal linear relationship exists between maternal glucose concentrations around the beginning of the third trimester of pregnancy and the risk of their baby being born above the ninetieth centile for weight. With the rising incidence of gestational diabetes (GDM) across the developed world, largely paralleling the increased prevalence of obesity, there has been a sharp increase in the risk of pregnancy complications developing related to the birth of macrosomic babies. The associated additional long-term complications of GDM pregnancies means that in the future there is likely to be a large increase in the incidence of type 2 diabetes and associated conditions in both the mothers and their affected offspring. The present review seeks to highlight recent advances and remaining gaps in knowledge about GDM in terms of its genetics (where some of the recently discovered polymorphic risk factors for type 2 diabetes have also proved to be risk factors for GDM) and its treatment by diet, exercise and drugs.

Insulin analogs and pregnancy: an update

It is well known that good metabolic control maintained throughout pregnancy reduces maternal and fetal complications in diabetes. Before conception and throughout pregnancy, insulin therapy needs to be optimized and, in this context, the insulin analogs currently available in the market may help to achieve good metabolic control. We therefore review here what is known about the potential benefits and risks related to the use of these new insulins in pregnancy. Clinical and experimental data on insulin aspart and lispro strongly suggest that they have no adverse maternal or fetal effects during pregnancy in women with pregestational and gestational diabetes, and that their use results in improved glycemic control, fewer hypoglycemic episodes, and improved patient satisfaction. At present there are no published data on the use of glulisine in pregnancy. Insulin glargine during pregnancy is not recommended but, in the last years, larger surveys (retrospective and case-control studies) have been published on this field and, to date, results of about 335 pregnancies with type 1 diabetes are available showing an incidence of congenital malformation similar to that obtained with human insulin. There are no published data concerning the use of detemir in pregnancy but the results of a prospective study are expected in 2010.

The management of gestational diabetes

The incidence of gestational diabetes is increasing. As gestational diabetes is associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes, and has long-term implications for both mother and child, it is important that it is recognized and appropriately managed. This review will examine the pharmacological options for the management of gestational diabetes, as well as the evidence for blood glucose monitoring, dietary and exercise therapy. The medical management of gestational diabetes is still evolving, and recent randomized controlled trials have added considerably to our knowledge in this area. As insulin therapy is effective and safe, it is considered the gold standard of pharmacotherapy for gestational diabetes, against which other treatments have been compared. The current experience is that the short acting insulin analogs lispro and aspart are safe, but there are only limited data to support the use of long acting insulin analogs. There are randomized controlled trials which have demonstrated efficacy of the oral agents glyburide and metformin. Whilst short-term data have not demonstrated adverse effects of glyburide and metformin on the fetus, and they are increasingly being used in pregnancy, there remain long-term concerns regarding their potential for harm.

Efficacy and safety of insulin analogues for the management of diabetes mellitus: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Although insulin analogues are commonly prescribed for the management of diabetes mellitus, there is uncertainty regarding their optimal use. We conducted meta-analyses to compare the outcomes of insulin analogues with conventional insulins in the treatment of type 1, type 2 and gestational diabetes.

METHODS

We updated 2 earlier systematic reviews of the efficacy and safety of rapid-and long-acting insulin analogues. We searched electronic databases, conference proceedings and "grey literature" up to April 2007 to identify randomized controlled trials that compared insulin analogues with conventional insulins. Study populations of interest were people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes (adult and pediatric) and women with gestational diabetes.

RESULTS

We included 68 randomized controlled trials in the analysis of rapid-acting insulin analogues and 49 in the analysis of long-acting insulin analogues. Most of the studies were of short to medium duration and of low quality. In terms of hemoglobin A1c, we found minimal differences between rapid-acting insulin analogues and regular human insulin in adults with type 1 diabetes (weighted mean difference for insulin lispro: -0.09%, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.16% to -0.02%; for insulin aspart: -0.13%, 95% CI -0.20% to -0.07%). We observed similar outcomes among patients with type 2 diabetes (weighted mean difference for insulin lispro: -0.03%, 95% CI -0.12% to -0.06%; for insulin aspart: -0.09%, 95% CI -0.21% to 0.04%). Differences between long-acting insulin analogues and neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin in terms of hemoglobin A1c were marginal among adults with type 1 diabetes (weighted mean difference for insulin glargine: -0.11%, 95% CI -0.21% to -0.02%; for insulin detemir: -0.06%, 95% CI -0.13% to 0.02%) and among adults with type 2 diabetes (weighted mean difference for insulin glargine: -0.05%, 95% CI -0.13% to 0.04%; for insulin detemir: 0.13%, 95% CI 0.03% to 0.22%). Benefits in terms of reduced hypoglycemia were inconsistent. There were insufficient data to determine whether insulin analogues are better than conventional insulins in reducing long-term diabetes-related complications or death.

INTERPRETATION

Rapid-and long-acting insulin analogues offer little benefit relative to conventional insulins in terms of glycemic control or reduced hypoglycemia. Long-term, high-quality studies are needed to determine whether insulin analogues reduce the risk of long-term complications of diabetes.

A comparison of lispro and regular insulin for the management of type 1 and type 2 diabetes in pregnancy

OBJECTIVE

To describe perinatal outcomes of women with pregestational diabetes treated with short-acting, regular insulin and the short-acting insulin analogue, lispro.

STUDY DESIGN

This was a prospective observational study of women with pregestational diabetes maintained on short-acting insulin regimens over a 3-year period. Clinical characteristics, aspects of diabetic therapy, and perinatal/neonatal outcomes were collected.

RESULTS

Of 107 women, 49 were maintained on regular insulin and 58 utilized the insulin analogue, lispro. Frequency of type 1 diabetes, maternal age, overweight/obese pregravid body mass index (> or =25 kg/m2), preexisting hypertension, and presence of vascular disease were similar between groups. Women treated with lispro had a longer duration of diabetes (11.4 vs. 8.3 years, p = 0.04). Glycemic control was improved in women managed with lispro compared to regular insulin (HgbA1c 5.9 vs. 6.7, p = 0.009). Total insulin requirements were lower in the lispro group in the first (0.58 vs. 0.79 units/kg, p = 0.02), second (0.75 vs. 1.10 units/kg, p = 0.002), and third (0.98 vs. 1.25 units/kg, p = 0.03) trimesters of pregnancy. Mean infant birth weight was greater in the lispro group, whereas the rate of large for gestational age infants and ponderal indices were similar between groups. Malformation rate, gestational age at delivery, neonatal intensive care unit admission, neonatal length of stay, rates of respiratory distress syndrome, and hypoglycemia were similar.

CONCLUSIONS

Women treated with lispro demonstrated improved glycemic control and lower total insulin requirements during pregnancy compared to those receiving regular insulin. Perinatal outcomes were similar between women treated with both types of insulin.

Insulin Aspart in Diabetic Pregnancy: State of the Art

Pregnancy in women with diabetes is associated with an increased risk of obstetric complications and perinatal mortality. Maintenance of near-normal glycemia during pregnancy can bring the prevalence of fetal, neonatal and maternal complications closer to that of the nondiabetic population. Changes in insulin requirements during pregnancy necessitate short-acting insulins for postprandial control of hyperglycemia. The fast-acting insulin analogue insulin aspart has been tested in a large, randomized trial of pregnant women with Type 1 diabetes and offers benefits in control of postprandial hyperglycemia with a tendency towards fewer episodes of severe hypoglycemia compared with human insulin. Treatment with insulin aspart was associated with a tendency toward fewer fetal losses and preterm deliveries than treatment with human insulin. Insulin aspart could not be detected in the fetal circulation and no increase in insulin antibodies was found. Thus, the use of insulin aspart in pregnancy is regarded safe.

Insulin, insulin analogues and diabetic retinopathy

Insulin is absolutely vital for living beings. It is not only involved in metabolism, but also in the regulation of growth factors, e.g. IGF-1. In this review we address the role insulin has in the natural evolution of diabetic retinopathy. On the one hand, chronic deficiency of insulin and IGF-1 at the retina is thought to cause capillary degeneration, with subsequent ischaemia. On the other hand, acute abundance of (exogenously administered) insulin and IGF-1 enhances ischaemia-induced VEGF expression. A critical ratio of tissue VEGF-susceptibility: VEGF-availability triggers vascular proliferation (i.e. of micro-aneurysms and/or abnormal vessels). The patent-protected insulin analogues Lispro, Glulisine, Aspart, Glargine and Detemir are artificial insulin derivatives with altered biological responses compared to natural insulin (e.g. divergent insulin and /or IGF-1 receptor-binding characteristics, signalling patterns, and mitogenicity). Their safety profiles concerning diabetic retinopathy remain to be established by randomised controlled trials. Anecdotal reports and circumstantial evidence suggest that Lispro and Glargine might worsen diabetic retinopathy.

Insulin analogues in the treatment of diabetes in pregnancy

This review reports the literature on the safety and efficacy of insulin analogues in pregnancy and thereby enables the clinician to choose the optimal insulin treatment protocol to achieve and maintain normoglycemia throughout pregnancies complicated by diabetes. This article also reviews the literature on the insulin analog during pregnancy and presents the authors' opinion as to the safety and efficacy of insulin analog treatment for the pregnant diabetic woman.

Maternal glycemic control and hypoglycemia in type 1 diabetic pregnancy: a randomized trial of insulin aspart versus human insulin in 322 pregnant women

OBJECTIVE

To assess the safety and efficacy of insulin aspart (IAsp) versus regular human insulin (HI) in basal-bolus therapy with NPH insulin in pregnant women with type 1 diabetes.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Subjects (n = 322) who were pregnant or planning pregnancy were randomized to IAsp or HI as meal-time insulin in an open-label, parallel-group, multicenter study. Subjects had A1C < or =8% at confirmation of pregnancy. Insulin doses were titrated toward predefined glucose targets and A1C <6.5%. Outcomes assessed included risk of major maternal hypoglycemia, A1C, plasma glucose profiles, and maternal safety outcomes.

RESULTS

Major hypoglycemia occurred at a rate of 1.4 vs. 2.1 episodes/year exposure with IAsp and HI, respectively (relative risk 0.720 [95% CI 0.36-1.46]). Risk of major/major nocturnal hypoglycemia was 52% (RR 0.48 [0.20-1.143]; P = NS) lower with IAsp compared with HI. A1C was comparable with human insulin in second (IAsp-HI -0.04 [-0.18 to 0.11]) and third (-0.08 [-0.23 to 0.06]) trimesters. A total of 80% of subjects achieved an A1C < or =6.5%. At the end of first and third trimesters, average postprandial plasma glucose increments were significantly lower with IAsp than HI (P = 0.003 and P = 0.044, respectively), as were mean plasma glucose levels 90 min after breakfast (P = 0.044 and P = 0.001, respectively). Maternal safety profiles and pregnancy outcomes were similar between treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

IAsp is at least as safe and effective as HI when used in basal-bolus therapy with NPH insulin in pregnant women with type 1 diabetes and may potentially offer some benefits in terms of postprandial glucose control and preventing severe hypoglycemia.