Prolonged elimination of tolbutamide in a premature newborn with hyperinsulinaemic hypoglycaemia

Treatments for women with gestational diabetes mellitus: an overview of Cochrane systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

Successful treatments for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) have the potential to improve health outcomes for women with GDM and their babies.

OBJECTIVES

To provide a comprehensive synthesis of evidence from Cochrane systematic reviews of the benefits and harms associated with interventions for treating GDM on women and their babies.

METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (5 January 2018) for reviews of treatment/management for women with GDM. Reviews of pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes were excluded.Two overview authors independently assessed reviews for inclusion, quality (AMSTAR; ROBIS), quality of evidence (GRADE), and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 14 reviews. Of these, 10 provided relevant high-quality and low-risk of bias data (AMSTAR and ROBIS) from 128 randomised controlled trials (RCTs), 27 comparisons, 17,984 women, 16,305 babies, and 1441 children. Evidence ranged from high- to very low-quality (GRADE). Only one effective intervention was found for treating women with GDM.EffectiveLifestyle versus usual careLifestyle intervention versus usual care probably reduces large-for-gestational age (risk ratio (RR) 0.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50 to 0.71; 6 RCTs, N = 2994; GRADE moderate-quality).PromisingNo evidence for any outcome for any comparison could be classified to this category.Ineffective or possibly harmful Lifestyle versus usual careLifestyle intervention versus usual care probably increases the risk of induction of labour (IOL) suggesting possible harm (average RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.46; 4 RCTs, N = 2699; GRADE moderate-quality).Exercise versus controlExercise intervention versus control for return to pre-pregnancy weight suggested ineffectiveness (body mass index, BMI) MD 0.11 kg/m², 95% CI -1.04 to 1.26; 3 RCTs, N = 254; GRADE moderate-quality).Insulin versus oral therapyInsulin intervention versus oral therapy probably increases the risk of IOL suggesting possible harm (RR 1.3, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.75; 3 RCTs, N = 348; GRADE moderate-quality).Probably ineffective or harmful interventionsInsulin versus oral therapyFor insulin compared to oral therapy there is probably an increased risk of the hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (RR 1.89, 95% CI 1.14 to 3.12; 4 RCTs, N = 1214; GRADE moderate-quality).InconclusiveLifestyle versus usual careThe evidence for childhood adiposity kg/m² (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.11; 3 RCTs, N = 767; GRADE moderate-quality) and hypoglycaemia was inconclusive (average RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.52; 6 RCTs, N = 3000; GRADE moderate-quality).Exercise versus controlThe evidence for caesarean section (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.16; 5 RCTs, N = 316; GRADE moderate quality) and perinatal death or serious morbidity composite was inconclusive (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.12 to 2.61; 2 RCTs, N = 169; GRADE moderate-quality).Insulin versus oral therapyThe evidence for the following outcomes was inconclusive: pre-eclampsia (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.52; 10 RCTs, N = 2060), caesarean section (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.14; 17 RCTs, N = 1988), large-for-gestational age (average RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.35; 13 RCTs, N = 2352), and perinatal death or serious morbidity composite (RR 1.03; 95% CI 0.84 to 1.26; 2 RCTs, N = 760). GRADE assessment was moderate-quality for these outcomes.Insulin versus dietThe evidence for perinatal mortality was inconclusive (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.33; 4 RCTs, N = 1137; GRADE moderate-quality).Insulin versus insulinThe evidence for insulin aspart versus lispro for risk of caesarean section was inconclusive (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.09; 3 RCTs, N = 410; GRADE moderate quality).No conclusions possibleNo conclusions were possible for: lifestyle versus usual care (perineal trauma, postnatal depression, neonatal adiposity, number of antenatal visits/admissions); diet versus control (pre-eclampsia, caesarean section); myo-inositol versus placebo (hypoglycaemia); metformin versus glibenclamide (hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, pregnancy-induced hypertension, death or serious morbidity composite, insulin versus oral therapy (development of type 2 diabetes); intensive management versus routine care (IOL, large-for-gestational age); post- versus pre-prandial glucose monitoring (large-for-gestational age). The evidence ranged from moderate-, low- and very low-quality.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Currently there is insufficient high-quality evidence about the effects on health outcomes of relevance for women with GDM and their babies for many of the comparisons in this overview comparing treatment interventions for women with GDM. Lifestyle changes (including as a minimum healthy eating, physical activity and self-monitoring of blood sugar levels) was the only intervention that showed possible health improvements for women and their babies. Lifestyle interventions may result in fewer babies being large. Conversely, in terms of harms, lifestyle interventions may also increase the number of inductions. Taking insulin was also associated with an increase in hypertensive disorders, when compared to oral therapy. There was very limited information on long-term health and health services costs. Further high-quality research is needed.

Oral anti-diabetic pharmacological therapies for the treatment of women with gestational diabetes

BACKGROUND

Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is a major public health issue with rates increasing globally. Gestational diabetes, glucose intolerance first recognised during pregnancy, usually resolves after birth and is associated with short- and long-term complications for the mother and her infant. Treatment options can include oral anti-diabetic pharmacological therapies.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of oral anti-diabetic pharmacological therapies for treating women with GDM.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (14 May 2016), ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP (14 May 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included published and unpublished randomised controlled trials assessing the effects of oral anti-diabetic pharmacological therapies for treating pregnant women with GDM. We included studies comparing oral anti-diabetic pharmacological therapies with 1) placebo/standard care, 2) another oral anti-diabetic pharmacological therapy, 3) combined oral anti-diabetic pharmacological therapies. Trials using insulin as the comparator were excluded as they are the subject of a separate Cochrane systematic review.Women with pre-existing type 1 or type 2 diabetes were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and trial quality. Two review authors independently extracted data and data were checked for accuracy.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 11 studies (19 publications) (1487 women and their babies). Eight studies had data that could be included in meta-analyses. Studies were conducted in Brazil, India, Israel, UK, South Africa and USA. The studies varied in diagnostic criteria and treatment targets for glycaemic control for GDM. The overall risk of bias was 'unclear' due to inadequate reporting of methodology. Using GRADE the quality of the evidence ranged from moderate to very low quality. Evidence was downgraded for risk of bias (reporting bias, lack of blinding), inconsistency, indirectness, imprecision and for oral anti-diabetic therapy versus placebo for generalisability. Oral anti-diabetic pharmacological therapies versus placebo/standard careThere was no evidence of a difference between glibenclamide and placebo groups for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (risk ratio (RR) 1.24, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 1.90; one study, 375 women, very low-quality evidence), birth by caesarean section (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.34; one study, 375 women, very low-quality evidence), perineal trauma (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.62; one study, 375 women, very low-quality evidence) or induction of labour (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.76; one study, 375 women; very low-quality evidence). No data were reported for development of type 2 diabetes or other pre-specified GRADE maternal outcomes (return to pre-pregnancy weight, postnatal depression). For the infant, there was no evidence of a difference in the risk of being born large-for-gestational age (LGA) between infants whose mothers had been treated with glibenclamide and those in the placebo group (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.58; one study, 375, low-quality evidence). No data were reported for other infant primary or GRADE outcomes (perinatal mortality, death or serious morbidity composite, neurosensory disability in later childhood, neonatal hypoglycaemia, adiposity, diabetes). Metformin versus glibenclamideThere was no evidence of a difference between metformin- and glibenclamide-treated groups for the risk of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.30; three studies, 508 women, moderate-quality evidence), birth by caesarean section (average RR 1.20, 95% CI 1.20; 95% CI 0.83 to 1.72, four studies, 554 women, I2 = 61%, Tau2 = 0.07 low-quality evidence), induction of labour (0.81, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.07; one study, 159 women; low-quality evidence) or perineal trauma (RR 1.67, 95% CI 0.22 to 12.52; two studies, 158 women; low-quality evidence). No data were reported for development of type 2 diabetes or other pre-specified GRADE maternal outcomes (return to pre-pregnancy weight, postnatal depression). For the infant there was no evidence of a difference between the metformin- and glibenclamide-exposed groups for the risk of being born LGA (average RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.83; two studies, 246 infants, I2 = 54%, Tau2 = 0.30 low-quality evidence). Metformin was associated with a decrease in a death or serious morbidity composite (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.94; one study, 159 infants, low-quality evidence). There was no clear difference between groups for neonatal hypoglycaemia (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.77; four studies, 554 infants, low-quality evidence) or perinatal mortality (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.06 to 14.55, two studies, 359 infants). No data were reported for neurosensory disability in later childhood or for adiposity or diabetes. Glibenclamide versus acarboseThere was no evidence of a difference between glibenclamide and acarbose from one study (43 women) for any of their maternal or infant primary outcomes (caesarean section, RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.70; low-quality evidence; perinatal mortality - no events; low-quality evidence; LGA , RR 2.38, 95% CI 0.54 to 10.46; low-quality evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between glibenclamide and acarbose for neonatal hypoglycaemia (RR 6.33, 95% CI 0.87 to 46.32; low-quality evidence). There were no data reported for other pre-specified GRADE or primary maternal outcomes (hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, development of type 2 diabetes, perineal trauma, return to pre-pregnancy weight, postnatal depression, induction of labour) or neonatal outcomes (death or serious morbidity composite, adiposity or diabetes).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There were insufficient data comparing oral anti-diabetic pharmacological therapies with placebo/standard care (lifestyle advice) to inform clinical practice. There was insufficient high-quality evidence to be able to draw any meaningful conclusions as to the benefits of one oral anti-diabetic pharmacological therapy over another due to limited reporting of data for the primary and secondary outcomes in this review. Short- and long-term clinical outcomes for this review were inadequately reported or not reported. Current choice of oral anti-diabetic pharmacological therapy appears to be based on clinical preference, availability and national clinical practice guidelines.The benefits and potential harms of one oral anti-diabetic pharmacological therapy compared with another, or compared with placebo/standard care remains unclear and requires further research. Future trials should attempt to report on the core outcomes suggested in this review, in particular long-term outcomes for the woman and the infant that have been poorly reported to date, women's experiences and cost benefit.

Insulin and glucagon levels of umbilical cord blood in appropriate for gestational age - preterm infants with or without postnatal hypoglycemia

PURPOSE

To determine whether serum insulin and glucagon levels of umbilical cord blood correlate with subsequent postnatal hypoglycemia in appropriate for gestational age (AGA) - preterm infants at different gestational ages (GAs).

METHODS

The serum insulin and glucagon levels of umbilical cord blood were measured using magnetic bead based multiplex immunoassay in 69 AGA - premature infants, stratified according to GA: GA 23-30 weeks, early preterm (EP, n=31); GA 31-34 weeks, late preterm (LP, n=38). Postnatal hypoglycemia was defined as a capillary glucose level <40 mg/dL within the first 60 minutes of life, regardless of GA.

RESULTS

The capillary glucose concentration in EP infants (65.5±21.2 mg/dL) was significantly higher than that of LP infants (55.9±17.3 mg/dL) (P=0.043). The serum glucagon level in EP infants (44.3±28.7 pg/mL) was significantly higher than that in LP infants (28.1±13.6 pg/mL) (P=0.006). There was not a significant difference in serum insulin level between EP and LP infants (372.7±254.2 pg/mL vs. 372.4±209.1 pg/mL, P=0.996). There was a significant difference in the serum glucagon level between infants with and without hypoglycemia (27.7±8.9 mg/dL vs. 36.8±24.6 mg/dL, P=0.036), but not in the serum insulin level (451.9±256.9 pg/mL vs. 357.4±222.2 pg/mL, P=0.211). Postnatal glucose concentration within the first 60 minutes of life had a significant positive correlation with serum glucagon levels (r=0.256, P=0.034), but not with serum insulin levels (r=-0.020, P=0.867).

CONCLUSION

Lower glucagon levels of cord blood were seen in premature infants with higher GA, which might contribute to the occurrence of postnatal hypoglycemia.

Using oral agents to manage gestational diabetes: what have we learned?

Insulin has been the mainstay of treatment of diabetes during pregnancy for decades. Although glyburide and metformin are classified as category B during pregnancy, recent research has suggested that these oral agents alone or in conjunction with insulin may be safe for the treatment of gestational diabetes (GDM). This paper summarizes the data on the use of glyburide and metformin for treatment of GDM.

Gestational diabetes mellitus management with oral hypoglycemic agents

Oral hypoglycemic agents such as glyburide (second-generation sulfonylurea) and metformin (biguanide) are attractive alternatives to insulin due to lower cost, ease of administration, and better patient adherence. The majority of evidence from retrospective and prospective studies suggests comparable efficacy and safety of oral hypoglycemic agents such as glyburide and metformin as compared to insulin when used in the treatment of women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). Glyburide and metformin have altered pharmacokinetics during pregnancy and both agents cross the placenta. In this article, we review the efficacy, safety, and dosage of oral hypoglycemic agents for the treatment of gestational diabetes mellitus. Additional research is needed to evaluate optimal dosage for glyburide and metformin during pregnancy. Comparative studies evaluating the effects of glyburide and metformin on long-term maternal and fetal outcomes are also needed.

Management strategies for neonatal hypoglycemia

While hypoglycemia occurs commonly among neonates, treatment can be challenging if hypoglycemia persists beyond the first few days of life. This review discusses the available treatment options for both transient and persistent neonatal hypoglycemia. These treatment options include dextrose infusions, glucagon, glucocorticoids, diazoxide, octreotide, and nifedipine. A stepwise, practical approach to the management of these patients is offered.

Insulin & C-peptide levels in sulfonylurea-induced hypoglycemia: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

We will describe insulin and C-peptide levels observed in sulfonylurea-induced hypoglycemia and determine whether these levels differed if obtained before or after hypoglycemic therapy.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of the English literature to identify Medline articles containing "sets" (glucose <60 mg/dL with insulin and C-peptide levels). These "sets" were categorized as being obtained BEFORE, AFTER, or UNKNOWN with respect to hypoglycemic therapy.

RESULTS

22 articles, 76 patients, and 97 "sets" were included. Mean glucose (mg/dL), insulin (muIU/mL), and C-peptide (ng/mL) for all "sets' were 28.6 (+/-12.6; 26.1 to 31.2), 54.4 (+/-126.3; 28.3 to 80.5), 7.2 (+/-6.2; 5.9 to 8.5). The BEFORE measures were 24.3 (+/-7.3; 18.7 to 30.0), 36.6 (+/-26.2; 16.5 to 56.7), 5.4 (+/-4.6; 1.5 to 9.2). The AFTER measures were 33.1 (+/-9.8; 28.2 to 38.0), 126.7 (+/-278.1; 0 to 265.0), 10.3 (+/-10.5; 5.1 to 15.4). The UNKNOWN measures were 28.0 (+/-13.5; 24.7 to 31.3), 37.1 (+/-21.8; 31.7 to 42.5), 6.5 (+/-4.3; 5.4 to 7.6). Only one "set" (glucose 49 mg/dL) had insulin <3.9 muIU/mL and C-peptide <1.4 ng/mL.

CONCLUSIONS

Insulin > or =3.9 muIU/mL, C-peptide > or =1.4 ng/mL, and glucose <49 mg/dl are consistent with sulfonylurea-induced hypoglycemia. BEFORE levels were lower, but they were consistent with sulfonylurea-induced hypoglycemia.

Pharmacologic, pharmacodynamic, and pharmacokinetic considerations with intravenous Ibuprofen lysine

Patent ductus arteriosus (PDA) is a common complication in preterm infants. An intravenous (IV) cyclooxygenase (COX) inhibitor is the pharmacotherapy of choice. Concerns over adverse effects associated with the traditional treatment, IV indomethacin, have led to the investigation of other COX inhibitors to assist closure of PDA. IV ibuprofen lysine is a COX inhibitor that demonstrates similar efficacy to indomethacin with few adverse effects. In addition, IV ibuprofen lysine does not cause reductions in cerebral, renal, and mesenteric blood flow that can be seen with indomethacin, and thus ibuprofen therapy is not associated with reduced renal function. Ibuprofen is primarily metabolized by cytochrome P450 (CYP) 2C9. The immaturity of neonatal biotransformation pathways has a pronounced effect on the pharmacokinetic parameters of ibuprofen, particularly because CYP2C9 enzyme activity is known to be very low at birth and to increase rapidly over the first several days of life. Ibuprofen is highly bound to albumin, raising concern that ibuprofen may displace bilirubin and subsequently increase free bilirubin concentrations. However, the ibuprofen concentrations achieved with approved dosing with IV ibuprofen lysine are lower than those expected to result in displacement of bilirubin and related adverse effects. Factors such as gestational age and CYP2C9 polymorphism may affect ibuprofen metabolism and therefore optimal dosing, but further clinical investigation is needed in these areas. Other areas for future investigation include prolonged dosing regimens, prophylactic administration, and alternate indications. At the approved dose, IV ibuprofen lysine is a safe, effective pharmacologic agent to promote closure of PDAs in preterm infants.

Severe hyperinsulinaemic hypoglycaemia in a baby born to a mother taking oral ritodrine therapy for preterm labour

Hyperinsulinism of infancy is a major cause of persistent hypoglycaemia in the newborn period. Transient mild self-limiting hyperinsulinaemia and hypoglycaemia have been described in neonates born to mothers taking ritodrine therapy for premature labour. Ritodrine crosses the placental barrier and enters the fetal circulation readily but the mechanism of how it causes hyperinsulinaemia and hypoglycaemia is unclear. We report the case of severe prolonged hyperinsulinaemic hypoglycamia in a neonate born to a mother taking ritodrine therapy from 16 weeks' gestation for preterm labour. The hyperinsulinaemic hypoglycaemia was managed with oral nifedipine as diazoxide was contraindicated due to fluid overload. Possible mechanisms of ritodrine-induced hypoglycaemia and insulin secretion are discussed.

Recent advances in the treatment of gestational diabetes

Despite four decades of research there is a lack of international consensus on the screening, diagnosis, treatment and follow up of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). Currently, GDM is managed by diet modification, exercise and exogenous human insulin. During the last decade, several insulin analogues and oral antihyperglycaemic drugs have revolutionised the management of diabetes mellitus in non-pregnant women. Most of these recent drugs still remain investigational in GDM due to concerns about their safety in pregnancy. This review will focus primarily on the pharmacological treatment of GDM. It will objectively assess the value of these exciting new drugs in pregnancy as they could potentially benefit every woman with GDM.

Drugs that affect the fetus and newborn infant via the placenta or breast milk

In general, drugs that are taken by a mother during pregnancy or after birth may be transferred to the fetus or the infant (through breast milk). Many factors are involved that determine the amount of drugs that are transferred and their potential effects on the fetus or infant. A careful assessment of the risk versus benefit is necessary and should be individualized. In the breastfed infant, many measures can be undertaken further so that the amount of drug transferred to the infant is minimized.

Oral antihyperglycemic agents during pregnancy and lactation: a review

The treatment approach of diabetes mellitus during pregnancy requires a combination of diet, exercise, multiple home glucose determinations and intensive insulin regimens. During the last decade there was an increased interest in the use of oral antihyperglycemic agents (OAHAs) as an alternative to insulin in achieving good glycemic control. OAHAs are divided into four groups: derivatives of sulfonylurea, biguanides, glucosidase inhibitors and thiazolidinediones. This review describes the possible teratogenic effects of the use of OAHAs during pregnancy and the effects of these drugs during lactation. Animal and human studies assessing the teratogenic effects of OAHAs have yielded conflicting data because the risk of major malformations in infants of mothers with diabetes appears to be related to maternal glycemic control rather than the antidiabetic therapy. A major concern with the use of OAHAs during pregnancy is neonatal hypoglycemia, which may be severe and persist for days. Therefore, insulin is still the drug of choice because it has not been implicated as a teratogen in human pregnancies. In addition, because of the lack of data regarding the use of OAHAs in pregnancy, we cannot draw firm conclusions about all of the available drugs. However, OAHAs, especially glibenclamide (glyburide), may be beneficial in a situation where the proper use of insulin is problematic. Because there are very limited clinical data on the exposure of OAHAs to the infant via breast milk, and the potentially serious effect of neonatal hypoglycemia, the safest recommendation is not to breast feed while taking OAHAs. Well-conducted, prospective, controlled studies regarding the feasibility of OAHAs in pregnant women with diabetes and during lactation are needed.

Maternal and perinatal outcomes in 143 Danish women with gestational diabetes mellitus and 143 controls with a similar risk profile

AIMS

To assess maternal and fetal outcomes in pregnancies complicated by gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) compared to non-diabetic pregnancies with an otherwise similar risk profile and to study the association between different anti-diabetic treatments and fetal outcomes.

METHODS

The records of 143 consecutive GDM pregnancies and 143 non-diabetic controls matched on the basis of age, parity and pre-pregnancy body mass index (BMI) were studied. The GDM patients were treated with diet, tolbutamide and insulin. Data were collected from medical records and birth records.

RESULTS

Despite treatment, the GDM group had a statistically significant higher frequency of maternal hypertension (20% vs. 11%), induction of labour (61% vs. 24%), Caesarean section (33% vs. 21%), macrosomia (14% vs. 6%), neonatal hypoglycaemia (24% vs. 0) and admission to a neonatal unit (46% vs. 12%). The risk of complications was similar in the different treatment groups. However, in the tolbutamide-treated group, one case of long-standing severe hypoglycaemia in a premature neonate occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

Pregnancies complicated by GDM are associated with a higher frequency of adverse maternal and fetal outcomes. The outcomes seem to be unaffected by treatment modality. However, because of the potential risk of hypoglycaemia in some neonates, tolbutamide treatment cannot be recommended in pregnancy.