Undiagnosed type 2 diabetes during pregnancy is associated with increased perinatal mortality: a large population-based cohort study in Ontario, Canada

Preconception SGLT2 or DPP4 inhibitor use and adverse pregnancy outcomes

AIMS

To compare preconception use of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2i) and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP4i) inhibitors to sulfonylurea agents, and associated peri-conceptional A1c concentration, and risk of pregnancy loss and congenital anomalies.

METHODS

This population-based cohort study used administrative datasets for all of Ontario, Canada, and included women eligible for free medication coverage and who achieved a recognized pregnancy from April 2007-November 2021. Exposure was a SGLT2i, DPP4i or sulfonylurea (referent) dispensed at least 90 days preconception. Study outcomes included differences in periconceptional A1c; miscarriage, induced abortion, or stillbirth; and any congenital anomaly - the latter two outcomes assessed using propensity score overlap weighting.

RESULTS

The mean (SD) periconceptional A1c was 8.1 % (2.0) among those prescribed any sulfonylurea, compared with 8.3 % (2.0) with a DPP4i and 7.8 % (1.6) with any SGLT2i. The risk of pregnancy loss was lowest among those exclusively prescribed a SGLT2i (relative risk [RR] 0.51, 95 % CI 0.22 to 0.91). Risk of a congenital anomaly at birth did not differ significantly comparing DPP4i or SGLT2i to sulfonylurea agents.

CONCLUSIONS

Neither SGLT2i nor DPP4i use before pregnancy was associated with a difference in A1c, or a higher risk of selective adverse outcomes, compared to sulfonylureas. Future larger studies are required, including assessment of medication use after conception, during the critical period of embryogenesis.

Gestational diabetes is associated with the risk of offspring's congenital anomalies: a register-based cohort study

BACKGROUND

Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is a common pregnancy-related disorder and a well-known risk factor for adverse pregnancy outcomes. There are conflicting findings on the association of GDM with the risk of congenital anomalies (CAs) in offspring. In this study, we aimed to determine study whether maternal GDM is associated with an increased risk of major CAs in offspring.

METHODS

This Finnish Gestational Diabetes (FinnGeDi) register-based study included 6,597 women with singleton pregnancies and a diagnosis of GDM and 51,981 singleton controls with no diabetes identified from the Finnish Medical Birth Register (MBR) in 2009. Data from MBR were combined in this study with the Register of Congenital Malformations, which includes the data of CAs. We used logistic regression to calculate odds ratios (OR) for CAs, together with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs), adjusting for maternal age, parity, pre-pregnancy body mass index (BMI), and maternal smoking status.

RESULTS

The risk of major CAs was higher in the GDM-exposed (n = 336, 5.09%) than in the non-exposed group (n = 2,255, 4.33%) (OR: 1.18, 95% CI: 1.05-1.33, p = 0.005). The adjusted OR (aOR) was 1.14 (95% CI: 1.00-1.30, p = 0.047). There was a higher overall prevalence of CAs, particularly chromosomal abnormalities (0.52% vs. 0.21%), in the GDM-exposed group (OR: 2.49, 95% Cl: 1.69-3.66, p < 0.001). The aOR was 1.93 (95% Cl: 1.25-2.99, p = 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

Offspring exposed to GDM have a higher prevalence of major CAs. Of note, risk factors other than GDM, such as older maternal age and a higher pre-pregnancy BMI, diminished the between group differences in the prevalence of major CAs. Nevertheless, our findings suggest that offspring exposed to maternal GDM are more likely to be diagnosed with a chromosomal abnormality, independent of maternal age, parity, pre-pregnancy BMI, and smoking.

Risks of specific congenital anomalies in offspring of women with diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis of population-based studies including over 80 million births

BACKGROUND

Pre-gestational diabetes mellitus (PGDM) has been known to be a risk factor for congenital heart defects (CHDs) for decades. However, the associations between maternal PGDM and gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) and the risk of specific types of CHDs and congenital anomalies (CAs) in other systems remain under debate. We aimed to investigate type-specific CAs in offspring of women with diabetes and to examine the extent to which types of maternal diabetes are associated with increased risk of CAs in offspring.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We searched PubMed and Embase from database inception to 15 October 2021 for population-based studies reporting on type-specific CAs in offspring born to women with PGDM (combined type 1 and 2) or GDM, with no limitation on language. Reviewers extracted data for relevant outcomes and performed random effects meta-analyses, subgroup analyses, and multivariable meta-regression. Risk of bias appraisal was performed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. This study was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021229217). Primary outcomes were overall CAs and CHDs. Secondary outcomes were type-specific CAs. Overall, 59 population-based studies published from 1990 to 2021 with 80,437,056 participants met the inclusion criteria. Of the participants, 2,407,862 (3.0%) women had PGDM and 2,353,205 (2.9%) women had GDM. The meta-analyses showed increased risks of overall CAs/CHDs in offspring born to women with PGDM (for overall CAs, relative risk [RR] = 1.99, 95% CI 1.82 to 2.17, P < 0.001; for CHDs, RR = 3.46, 95% CI 2.77 to 4.32, P < 0.001) or GDM (for overall CAs, RR = 1.18, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.23, P < 0.001; for CHDs, RR = 1.50, 95% CI 1.38 to 1.64, P < 0.001). The results of the meta-regression analyses showed significant differences in RRs of CAs/CHDs in PGDM versus GDM (all P < 0.001). Of the 23 CA categories, excluding CHD-related categories, in offspring, maternal PGDM was associated with a significantly increased risk of CAs in 21 categories; the corresponding RRs ranged from 1.57 (for hypospadias, 95% CI 1.22 to 2.02) to 18.18 (for holoprosencephaly, 95% CI 4.03 to 82.06). Maternal GDM was associated with a small but significant increase in the risk of CAs in 9 categories; the corresponding RRs ranged from 1.14 (for limb reduction, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.23) to 5.70 (for heterotaxia, 95% CI 1.09 to 29.92). The main limitation of our analysis is that some high significant heterogeneity still persisted in both subgroup and sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, we observed an increased rate of CAs in offspring of women with diabetes and noted the differences for PGDM versus GDM. The RRs of overall CAs and CHDs in offspring of women with PGDM were higher than those in offspring of women with GDM. Screening for diabetes in pregnant women may enable better glycemic control, and may enable identification of offspring at risk for CAs.

Clinical practice recommendations for the detection and management of hyperglycemia in pregnancy from South Asia, Africa and Mexico during COVID-19 pandemic

The human coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has affected overall healthcare delivery, including prenatal, antenatal and postnatal care. Hyperglycemia in pregnancy (HIP) is the most common medical condition encountered during pregnancy. There is little guidance for primary care physicians for providing delivery of optimal perinatal care while minimizing the risk of COVID-19 infection in pregnant women. This review aims to describe pragmatic modifications in the screening, detection and management of HIP during the COVID- 19 pandemic. In this review, articles published up to June 2021 were searched on multiple databases, including PubMed, Medline, EMBASE and ScienceDirect. Direct online searches were conducted to identify national and international guidelines. Search criteria included terms to extract articles describing HIP with and/or without COVID-19 between 1^st March 2020 and 15^th June 2021. Fasting plasma glucose, glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and random plasma glucose could be alternative screening strategies for gestational diabetes mellitus screening (at 24–28 weeks of gestation), instead of the traditional 2 h oral glucose tolerance test. The use of telemedicine for the management of HIP is recommended. Hospital visits should be scheduled to coincide with obstetric and ultrasound visits. COVID-19 infected pregnant women with HIP need enhanced maternal and fetal vigilance, optimal diabetes care and psychological support in addition to supportive measures. This article presents pragmatic options and approaches for primary care physicians, diabetes care providers and obstetricians for GDM screening, diagnosis and management during the pandemic, to be used in conjunction with routine antenatal care.

Italian recommendations for the diagnosis of gestational diabetes during COVID-19 pandemic: Position statement of the Italian Association of Clinical Diabetologists (AMD) and the Italian Diabetes Society (SID), diabetes, and pregnancy study group

AIM

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, there is a need for substantial changes in the procedures for accessing healthcare services. Even in the current pandemic, we should not reduce our attention towards the diagnosis and treatment of GDM. The purpose of this document is to provide a temporary guide for GDM screening, replacing the current guidelines when it is not possible to implement standard GDM screening because of an unfavorable risk/benefit ratio for pregnant women or when usual laboratory facilities are not available.

DATA SYNTHESIS

At the first visit during pregnancy, we must exclude the presence of "Overt diabetes" in all women. The criteria for the diagnosis of overt diabetes are either fasting plasma glucose ≥126 mg/dL, or random plasma glucose ≥200 mg/dL, or glycated hemoglobin ≥6.5%. When the screening procedure (OGTT) cannot be safely performed, the diagnosis of GDM is acceptable if fasting plasma glucose is ≥ 92 mg/dL. In order to consider the impaired fasting glucose as an acceptable surrogate for the diagnosis of GDM, the fasting glucose measurement should be performed within the recommended time windows for the risk level (high or medium risk).

CONCLUSIONS

The changes to the screening procedure for GDM reported below are specifically produced in response to the health emergency of the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, these recommended changes should cease to be in effect and should be replaced by current national guidelines when the healthcare authorities declare the end of this emergency.