Follow-up at 1 year and beyond of women with gestational diabetes treated with insulin and/or oral glucose-lowering agents: a core outcome set using a Delphi survey

Development of a core outcome set for treatment studies for provoked vestibulodynia

BACKGROUND

There is an inconsistency in treatment outcomes used in clinical trials for provoked vestibulodynia (PVD), which makes it impossible to compare the effects of different interventions.

AIM

In this study, we completed the first step in creating a core outcome set (COS), defining what outcomes should be measured in clinical trials for PVD.

METHODS

Identification of outcomes used in studies was done by extracting data from clinical trials in a recently published systematic review and via review of clinical trials for PVD registered on ClinicalTrials.gov. The COS process consisted of 2 rounds of Delphi surveys and a consensus meeting, during which the final COS was decided through a modified nominal group technique.

OUTCOMES

Consensus on what outcomes to include in a COS for PVD.

RESULTS

Forty scientific articles and 92 study protocols were reviewed for outcomes. Of those, 36 articles and 25 protocols were eligible, resulting in 402 outcomes, which were then categorized into 63 unique outcomes. Participants consisted of patients, relatives/partners of patients, health care professionals, and researchers. Out of 463 who registered for participation, 319 and 213 responded to the first and second surveys, respectively. The consensus meeting consisted of 18 members and resulted in 6 outcomes for the COS to be measured in all treatment trials regardless of intervention: insertional pain (nonsexual), insertional pain (sexual), provoked vulvar pain by pressure/contact, pain-related interference on one's life, pain interference on sexual life, and sexual function.

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

Critical outcomes to be measured in clinical trials will allow for accurate comparison of outcomes across treatment interventions and provide solid treatment recommendations.

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS

The major strengths of the study are the adherence to methodological recommendations and the intentional focus on aspects of diversity of participating stakeholders (eg, status such as patients with lived experience and researchers, inclusiveness with respect to sexual identity), the latter of which will allow for broader application and relevance of the COS. Among the limitations of the study are the low rate of participants outside North America and Europe and the lower response rate (about 50%) for the second Delphi survey.

CONCLUSION

In this international project, patients, health care professionals, and researchers have decided what critical outcomes are to be used in future clinical trials for PVD. Before the COS can be fully implemented, there is also a need to decide on how and preferably when the outcomes should be measured.

Comparison of glucose metabolism and anthropometry in women with previous gestational diabetes treated with metformin vs. insulin: 9-year follow-up of two randomized trials

INTRODUCTION

The main aim was to study whether the long-term incidences of type 2 diabetes, pre-diabetes and metabolic syndrome differed between women who were treated with metformin or insulin for gestational diabetes.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This 9-year follow-up study of two open-label randomized trials compares metformin and insulin treatments of gestational diabetes. In all, 165 women, 88 previously treated with insulin and 77 treated with metformin in the index pregnancy, were included in the analyses. An oral glucose tolerance test was performed, and measures of anthropometry, glucose metabolism, serum lipids and inflammatory markers were compared between the treatment groups. Disorders of glucose metabolism (pre-diabetes and type 2 diabetes) at the 9-year follow-up was the primary outcome of this study. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02417090.

RESULTS

The incidences of pre-diabetes and type 2 diabetes (40.3% vs. 46.6%, odds ratio [OR] 0.77, 95% CI 0.40-1.50, p = 0.51), type 2 diabetes (14.3% vs. 15.9%, OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.34-2.26, p = 0.94), pre-diabetes (26.0% vs. 30.7%, OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.38-1.65, p = 0.62), and metabolic syndrome (45.9% vs. 55.2%, OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.35-1.35, p = 0.31) were comparable between the metformin and insulin groups. Moreover, there were no evident differences in the individual measures of anthropometry, glucose metabolism including HOMA-insulin resistance, serum lipids or inflammatory markers between the two treatment groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment of gestational diabetes with metformin vs. insulin during pregnancy is unlikely to have diverging long-term effects on maternal anthropometry, glucose metabolism or serum lipids. From this perspective, both treatments may be considered in gestational diabetes.

Metformin for pregnancy and beyond: the pros and cons

CONTEXT AND AIM

Metformin has been used in pregnancy since the 1970s. It is cheap, widely available and is acceptable to women. Despite its increasing use, controversy remains surrounding its benefits and risks. Metformin effectively reduces hyperglycaemia for the mother during pregnancy and it reduces rates of macrosomia and neonatal hypoglycaemia. However, concern exists surrounding an increase in the rate of SGA births and obesity in childhood. We aim to review the evidence and expert opinion behind metformin in pregnancy through to the post-partum period.

METHODS

We performed a literature review of relevant studies from online databases using a combination of keywords. We also searched the references of retrieved articles for pertinent studies.

RESULTS

There is strong evidence that metformin is safe in early pregnancy with no risk of congenital malformations. If used throughout pregnancy, it is likely to lead to reduced maternal weight gain and reduced insulin dose in women with type 2 diabetes. In infants, metformin reduces hypoglycaemia and macrosomia but may increase the rate of infants born SGA. There is some evidence of an increased risk of obesity and altered fat distribution in offspring. Metformin appears well tolerated in pregnancy and is more acceptable to women than insulin therapy.

CONCLUSION

Due to increasing rates of maternal obesity, GDM and type 2 diabetes, metformin use in pregnancy is increasing. Overall, it appears safe and effective but further research is needed to examine mechanisms linking metformin to obesity reported during childhood in some follow-up studies.

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in randomised controlled trials in diabetes and pregnancy: protocol for a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Diabetes mellitus is the most common metabolic complication of pregnancy and its prevalence worldwide is rising. The number of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) being conducted in people with diabetes is also increasing. Many studies preferentially publish findings on clinical endpoints and do not report patient-reported outcomes (PROs). In studies that do include PROs, PRO reporting is often of poor quality.

METHODS

We will conduct this systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Using a combination of medical subject headings and keywords (combined using Boolean operators), we will search web-based databases (PubMed, Cochrane and EMBASE) for RCTs published in English between 2013 and 2021. Two reviewers will review titles and abstracts. We will review the full texts of any relevant abstracts and extract the following data: date of publication or recruitment period, journal of publication, country of study, multicentre or single centre, population and number of participants, type of intervention, frequency of PRO assessment and type of PRO (or PRO measurement) used. We will also record if the PRO was a primary, secondary or exploratory outcome. We will exclude reviews, observational studies, unpublished data for example, conference abstracts and trial protocols. Any published RCT that includes data on a PRO as a primary or secondary outcome will then be compared against the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials-Patient-Reported Outcome extension checklist, a structured and approved framework for the publication of results of PROs.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval to conduct this study was obtained from the ethics committee at Galway University Hospitals on 24 March 2021 (CA 2592). We aim to publish our findings in a peer-reviewed journal and present our findings at national and international conferences.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

This systematic review was registered prospectively with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO). Registration number CRD42021234917.

Core Outcome Sets (COS) related to pregnancy and childbirth: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Systematic reviews often conclude low confidence in the results due to heterogeneity in the reported outcomes. A Core Outcome Set (COS) is an agreed standardised collection of outcomes for a specific area of health. The outcomes included in a COS are to be measured and summarized in clinical trials as well as systematic reviews to counteract this heterogeneity.

AIM

The aim is to identify, compile and assess final and ongoing studies that are prioritizing outcomes in the area of pregnancy and childbirth.

METHODS

All studies which prioritized outcomes related to pregnancy and childbirth using consensus method, including Delphi surveys or consensus meetings were included. Searches were conducted in Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Academic Search Elite, CINAHL, SocINDEX and COMET databases up to June 2021. For all studies fulfilling the inclusion criteria, information regarding outcomes as well as population, method, and setting was extracted. In addition, reporting in the finalized studies was assessed using a modified version of the Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Reporting.

RESULTS

In total, 27 finalized studies and 42 ongoing studies were assessed as relevant and were included. In the finalized studies, the number of outcomes included in the COS ranged from 6 to 51 with a median of 13 outcomes. The majority of the identified COS, both finalized as well as ongoing, were relating to physical complications during pregnancy.

CONCLUSION

There is a growing number of Core Outcome Set studies related to pregnancy and childbirth. Although several of the finalized studies follow the proposed reporting, there are still some items that are not always clearly reported. Additionally, several of the identified COS contained a large number (n > 20) outcomes, something that possibly could hinder implementation. Therefore, there is a need to consider the number of outcomes which may be included in a COS to render it optimal for future research.

Screening of postpartum diabetes in women with gestational diabetes: high-risk subgroups and areas for improvements-the STRONG observational study

AIMS

To assess the proportion of women with gestational diabetes (GDM) by performing postpartum Oral Glucose Tolerance Test (OGTT) and to identify GDM phenotypes at high-risk of postpartum dysglycemia (PPD).

METHODS

Observational, retrospective, multicenter study involving consecutive GDM women. Recursive partitioning (RECPAM) analysis was used to identify distinct and homogeneous subgroups of women at different PPD risk.

RESULTS

From a sample of 2,736 women, OGTT was performed in 941 (34.4%) women, of whom 217 (23.0%) developed PPD. Insulin-treated women having family history of diabetes represented the subgroup with the highest PPD risk (OR 5.57, 95% CI 3.60-8.63) compared to the reference class (women on diet with pre-pregnancy BMI <  = 28.1 kg/m2). Insulin-treated women without family diabetes history and women on diet with pre-pregnancy BMI > 28.1 kg/m2 showed a two-fold PPD risk. Previous GDM and socioeconomic status represent additional predictors. Fasting more than post-prandial glycemia plays a predictive role, with values of 81-87 mg/dl (4.5-4.8 mmol/l) (lower than the current diagnostic GDM threshold) being associated with PPD risk.

CONCLUSIONS

Increasing compliance to postpartum OGTT to prevent/delay PPD is a priority. Easily available characteristics identify subgroups of women more likely to benefit from preventive strategies. Fasting BG values during pregnancy lower than those usually considered deserve attention.

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.

Important research outcomes for treatment studies of perinatal depression: systematic overview and development of a core outcome set

OBJECTIVE

To develop a Core Outcome Set (COS) for treatment of perinatal depression.

DESIGN

Systematic overview of outcomes reported in the literature and consensus development study.

SETTING

International.

POPULATION

Two hundred and twenty-two participants, mainly patients, healthcare professionals and researchers, representing 13 countries.

METHODS

A systematic overview of outcomes reported in recently published research, a two-round Delphi survey and a consensus meeting at which the final COS was decided using modified nominal group technique.

MAIN RESULTS

In the literature search, 1772 abstracts were identified and evaluated, and 165 studies were finally included in the review. In all, 106 outcomes were identified and included in the Delphi survey. In all, 222 participants registered for the first round of the Delphi survey and 151 (68%) responded. In the second round, 123 (55%) participants responded. Thirteen participants attended the consensus meeting, where the following nine outcomes were agreed upon for inclusion in the final COS: self-assessed symptoms of depression, diagnosis of depression by a clinician, parent to infant bonding, self-assessed symptoms of anxiety, quality of life, satisfaction with intervention, suicidal thoughts, attempted or committed suicide, thoughts of harming the baby, and adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

The relevant stakeholders prioritised outcomes and reached consensus on a COS comprising nine outcomes. We expect that this COS will contribute to the consistency and uniformity of outcome selection and reporting in future clinical trials involving treatment of perinatal depression.

TWEETABLE ABSTRACT

Development of a core outcome set regarding treatment for perinatal depression by @SBU_en. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT.

Core Outcome Sets Relevant to Maternity Service Users: A Scoping Review

INTRODUCTION

Variation in outcomes reported in maternity-related clinical trials and practice stifles data synthesis and contributes to ineffective or harmful treatments and interventions. Variation can be addressed using core outcome sets (COSs), minimum agreed sets of outcomes that should be measured and reported in all clinical trials in a specific area of health or health care. This scoping review identified studies that developed maternity-related COSs; evaluated the extent, scope, quality, and consistency of outcomes across similar COSs; and identified current gaps in evidence.

METHODS

A multifaceted search of 2 COS registers (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials, Core Outcomes in Women's and Newborn Health), the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement website, electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL), and hand search was conducted. Published, English-language studies describing maternal and neonatal COSs for any health condition and published from inception to January 2020 were included. COS development process was evaluated against recently published COS Standards for Development: scope, stakeholder involvement, and consensus process.

RESULTS

Thirty-two articles relating to 26 COSs were included (maternal: 18 articles that addressed 17 COSs; neonatal: 14 articles that addressed 9 COSs) and covered a range of obstetric and neonatal conditions. COSs were published between 2006 and 2020, 58% since 2017. Maternal COSs included more outcomes (median, 17; range, 50) than neonatal COSs (median, 8; range, 20). Overlap in COSs was seen for maternity care and gestational diabetes. Overlap in outcomes was seen across similar COSs, which were mostly inconsistent or poorly defined. No included COS met all minimum standards for development. Two COSs extended recommendations for how and when to measure outcomes.

DISCUSSION

Growth in COS development in the last 3 years signifies increasing commitment to address variation and improve data synthesis. Although the quality of the development process has improved in the last 3 years, there is a need for improvement. This article presents an urgent need to minimize overlap in outcomes and standardize outcome measurement, case definitions, and timing of measurement between COSs.

Core outcomes in gestational diabetes for treatment trials: The Gestational Metabolic Group treatment set

Aims

With the rising number of outcomes being reported following gestational diabetes (GDM), the outcomes in existing studies vary widely making it challenging to compare and contrast the effectiveness of different interventions for GDM. The purpose of this study was to develop a core outcome and measurement set (COS) for GDM treatment trials.

Materials & Methods

A Delphi study with structured consultation with stakeholders and discussion within a specialist Gestational Metabolic Group (GEM) were combined with a comprehensive systematic search across different databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase). Several Delphi rounds over 2 years were conducted culminating in this report.

Results

The process resulted in a targeted set of outcomes constituting a “GEM treatment set” aligned with expert opinion. The final COS also included a measurement set for the 11 important clinical outcomes from three major domains: maternal metabolic, fetal, and pregnancy related.

Conclusions

Based on the results of this study, it is recommended that future clinical trials on GDM report outcomes uniformly keeping to the recommended COS outcomes.

Preventing Type 2 Diabetes in Women with Previous Gestational Diabetes: Reviewing the Implementation Gaps for Health Behavior Change Programs

Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) places a woman at high risk of developing subsequent type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), particularly in the first 5 years postpartum. Engaging women in health behavior change during this period is challenging and current diabetes prevention programs were developed for middle-aged adults, all of which have limited the evidence on successful implementation for this high-risk population. In this review, we will first summarize the effects of existing diabetes prevention programs in women with a history of GDM. Second, we suggest that the programs need to be modified according to the facilitators and barriers faced by this population. Third, we propose that improving program penetration, fidelity, and participation is critical for population-level success. Finally, we outline the research priorities to improve the implementation of diabetes prevention programs for postpartum women with a history of GDM.

Core Outcome Sets for Studies of Diabetes in Pregnancy: A Review

Core Outcome Sets (COS) contain an agreed minimum set of outcomes to be measured and reported in all studies in a specific area, with the objective of standardizing outcome reporting. COS may minimize research waste by identifying outcomes important to key stakeholders, allowing for improved evidence synthesis, and facilitating translation of research findings to clinical practice. Over the past 5 years, there has been significant progress in developing COS relevant to studies of diabetes in pregnancy. This review summarizes work in this area, reviews the role of patient and public involvement in COS development, and suggests areas for future research.

Osteoprotegerin, interleukin and hepatocyte growth factor for prediction of diabetes and hypertension in the third trimester of pregnancy

BACKGROUND

Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) raises the risk of high blood pressure and may cause a series of life-threatening complications in pregnant women. Screening and management of GDM and gestational hypertension (GH) in pregnancy helps to control and reduce these risks and prevent adverse effects on mothers and their fetuses. Currently, the majority criteria used for screening of diabetes mellitus is oral glucose tolerance tests, and blood pressure test is usually used for the screening and diagnosis of hypertension. However, these criteria might not anticipate or detect all GDM or GH cases. Therefore, new specific predictive and diagnostic tools should be evaluated for this population. This study selected three biomarkers of osteoprotegerin (OPG), interleukin (IL) and hepatocyte growth factor (HGF) for GDM and GH predication and diagnosis.

AIM

To explore the feasibility of changes in placental and serum OPG, IL and HGF as tools for prediction and diagnosis of diabetes and hypertension in pregnant women.

METHODS

From January 2018 to January 2019, 44 pregnant women with GDM and GH were selected as an observation group, and 44 healthy pregnant women were selected as a control group in the same period. Serum OPG, IL and HGF were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

The levels of OPG and HGF in the observation group were lower than in the control group, and the level of IL-1β was higher in the observation group than in the control group (all P < 0.05). Furthermore, OPG and HGF were negatively associated with gestational diabetes and gestational hypertension, while IL-1β was positively associated with GDM complicated with GH (all P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The evaluation of serum OPG, HGF and IL-1β levels in patients with coexistent gestational diabetes complicated with hypertension can predict the degree of disease and play an important role in the follow-up treatment and prognosis prediction.

Systematic review of international Delphi surveys for core outcome set development: representation of international patients

OBJECTIVES

A core outcome set (COS) describes a minimum set of outcomes to be reported by all clinical trials of one healthcare condition. Delphi surveys are frequently used to achieve consensus on core outcomes. International input is important to achieve global COS uptake. We aimed to investigate participant representation in international Delphi surveys, with reference to the inclusion of patients and participants from low and middle income countries as stakeholders (LMICs).

DESIGN

Systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

EMBASE, Medline, Web of Science, COMET database and hand-searching.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Protocols and studies describing Delphi surveys used to develop an international COS for trial reporting, published between 1 January 2017 and 6 June 2019.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Delphi participants were grouped as patients or healthcare professionals (HCPs). Participants were considered international if their country of origin was different to that of the first or senior author. Data extraction included participant numbers, country of origin, country income group and whether Delphi surveys were translated. We analysed the impact these factors had on outcome prioritisation.

RESULTS

Of 90 included studies, 69% (n=62) were completed and 31% (n=28) were protocols. Studies recruited more HCPs than patients (median 60 (IQR 30-113) vs 30 (IQR 14-66) participants, respectively). A higher percentage of HCPs was international compared with patients (57% (IQR 37-78) vs 20% (IQR 0-68)). Only 31% (n=28) studies recruited participants from LMICs. Regarding recruitment from LMICs, patients were under-represented (16% studies; n=8) compared with HCPs (22%; n=28). Few (7%; n=6) studies translated Delphi surveys. Only 3% studies (n=3) analysed Delphi responses by geographical location; all found differences in outcome prioritisation.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a disproportionately lower inclusion of international patients, compared with HCPs, in COS-development Delphi surveys, particularly within LMICs. Future international Delphi surveys should consider exploring for geographical and income-based differences in outcome prioritisation.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42019138519.

Inconsistency and low transparency were found between core outcome set protocol and full text publication: a comparative study

OBJECTIVES

The objective of the study was to assess inconsistencies between individual protocols and associated full-text publications in the development of core outcome sets (COSs).

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Protocols and subsequent full-text publications were retrieved by searching the following electronic databases: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials database from inception to October 1, 2019. We summarized changes in the general and methodological characteristics by comparing the protocols with the full-text publications and reported change as information frequency and proportion.

RESULTS

A total of 24 protocols and 32 corresponding full-text publications that encompassed 14 study topics were identified from databases. In the identified initial list of outcomes, five COSs (20.8%) changed the included study type, none of which explained the reasons for these changes. In addition, eight COSs showed inconsistencies between the protocols and full-text publications in the searched databases, of which, only two studies explained the reasons for these changes. Compared with the protocols, three COSs changed the number of Delphi rounds, eight COSs changed the participants (stakeholder groups), and three COSs changed the consensus definition of the Delphi survey. Only two COSs explained the reason for changing the number of Delphi rounds, and none of the studies explained why the participants changed. For the face-to-face consensus meeting, we found that nine COSs changed the participants and none explained the reasons for these changes.

CONCLUSION

Our study found many inconsistencies between protocols and the full-text publications concerning COS development. These inconsistencies related to the included study types, databases searched, Delphi surveys, and face-to-face consensus meetings. As it is necessary to publish protocols before developing COSs, transparency regarding any changes to the methods is needed.

Core outcome set for diabetes after pregnancy prevention across the life span: international Delphi study

INTRODUCTION

Mothers with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) are at high risk of future diabetes. An active area of research examines health behavior change strategies in women within 5 years of a GDM pregnancy to prevent diabetes after pregnancy. We aimed to develop a core outcome set (COS) to facilitate synthesis and comparison across trials.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Candidate outcomes were identified through systematic review and scored for importance (1-9) by healthcare professionals, researchers, and women with prior GDM through an international two-round electronic-Delphi survey. Outcomes retained required round two scores above prespecified thresholds (≥70% scoring 7-9) or expert panel endorsement when scores were indeterminate. The panel organized the COS by domain.

RESULTS

115 stakeholders participated in the survey and 56 completed both rounds. SD of scores decreased by 0.24 (95%CI 0.21 to 0.27) by round 2, signaling convergence. The final COS includes 19 domains (50 outcomes): diabetes (n=3 outcomes), other related diseases (n=3), complications in subsequent pregnancy (n=2), offspring outcomes (n=3), adiposity (n=4), cardiometabolic measures (n=5), glycemia (n=3), physical activity (n=2), diet (n=4), breast feeding (n=2), behavior change theory (n=5), diabetes-related knowledge (n=2), health literacy (n=1), social support (n=1), sleep (n=1), quality of life (n=1), program delivery (n=4), health economic evaluation (n=2), and diabetes risk screening (n=2). The seven outcomes endorsed by ≥90% were diabetes development and GDM recurrence, attending the postpartum diabetes screening and completing oral glucose tolerance testing and/or other glycemia measures, weight and total energy intake, and health behaviors in general. Among the 15 at the 80%-90% endorsement level, approximately half were specific elements related to the top 7, while the remainder related to diabetes knowledge, personal risk perception, motivation for change, program element completion, and health service use and cost.

CONCLUSION

Researchers should collect and report outcomes from the breadth of domains in the COS.

Gestational diabetes: opportunities for improving maternal and child health

Gestational diabetes, the most common medical disorder in pregnancy, is defined as glucose intolerance resulting in hyperglycaemia that begins or is first diagnosed in pregnancy. Gestational diabetes is associated with increased pregnancy complications and long-term metabolic risks for the woman and the offspring. However, the current diagnostic and management strategies recommended by national and international guidelines are mainly focused on short-term risks during pregnancy and delivery, except the Carpenter-Coustan criteria, which were based on the risk of future incidence of type 2 diabetes post-gestational diabetes. In this Personal View, first, we summarise the evidence for long-term risk in women with gestational diabetes and their offspring. Second, we suggest that a shift is needed in the thinking about gestational diabetes; moving from the perception of a short-term condition that confers increased risks of large babies to a potentially modifiable long-term condition that contributes to the growing burden of childhood obesity and cardiometabolic disorders in women and the future generation. Third, we propose how the current clinical practice might be improved. Finally, we outline and justify priorities for future research.

A core outcome set for studies of gestational diabetes mellitus prevention and treatment

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS

The aim of this systematic review was to develop core outcome sets (COSs) for trials evaluating interventions for the prevention or treatment of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM).

METHODS

We identified previously reported outcomes through a systematic review of the literature. These outcomes were presented to key stakeholders (including patient representatives, researchers and clinicians) for prioritisation using a three-round, e-Delphi study. A priori consensus criteria informed which outcomes were brought forward for discussion at a face-to-face consensus meeting where the COS was finalised.

RESULTS

Our review identified 74 GDM prevention and 116 GDM treatment outcomes, which were presented to stakeholders in round 1 of the e-Delphi study. Round 1 was completed by 173 stakeholders, 70% (121/173) of whom went on to complete round 2; 84% (102/121) of round 2 responders completed round 3. Twenty-two GDM prevention outcomes and 30 GDM treatment outcomes were discussed at the consensus meeting. Owing to significant overlap between included prevention and treatment outcomes, consensus meeting stakeholders agreed to develop a single prevention/treatment COS. Fourteen outcomes were included in the final COS. These consisted of six maternal outcomes (GDM diagnosis, adherence to the intervention, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, requirement and type of pharmacological therapy for hyperglycaemia, gestational weight gain and mode of birth) and eight neonatal outcomes (birthweight, large for gestational age, small for gestational age, gestational age at birth, preterm birth, neonatal hypoglycaemia, neonatal death and stillbirth).

CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION

This COS will enable future GDM prevention and treatment trials to measure similar outcomes that matter to stakeholders and facilitate comparison and combination of these studies.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study was registered prospectively with the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) database: http://www.comet-initiative.org/studies/details/686/.

Protocol for a randomised controlled trial of a co-produced, complex, health promotion intervention for women with prior gestational diabetes and their families: the Face-it study

Background

Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is associated with an increased risk of future diabetes in both mother, father and offspring. More knowledge is needed about how to effectively reduce the risk of diabetes through sustained behavioural interventions in these families. The Face-it intervention is a complex health promotion intervention embedded in multi-level supportive environments. The aim of the intervention is to reduce type 2 diabetes risk and increase quality of life among families in the first year following a GDM-affected pregnancy by promoting physical activity, healthy dietary behaviours and breastfeeding through a focus on social support, motivation, self-efficacy, risk perception and health literacy.

Methods

This national multicentre study is a two-arm randomised controlled trial including 460 women with GDM in a ratio of 2 (intervention):1 (usual care). The Face-it intervention consists of three main components: 1) additional visits from municipal health visitors, 2) digital health coaching tailored to family needs and 3) a structured cross-sectoral communication system in the health care system. The intervention runs from 3 to 12 months after delivery. The primary outcome is maternal body mass index at 12 months after delivery as a proxy for diabetes risk.

The women will be examined at baseline and at follow-up, and this examination will include blood tests, oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT), anthropometrics, blood pressure, self-reported diet and physical activity, breastfeeding, quality of life, health literacy, physical and mental health status, risk perception and social support. Aside from those data collected for OGTT and breastfeeding and offspring parameters, the same data will be collected for partners. Data on offspring anthropometry will also be collected. Information on pregnancy- and birth-related outcomes will be derived from the medical records of the woman and child.

Discussion

This randomised controlled trial seeks to demonstrate whether the Face-it intervention, addressing the individual, family and health care system levels, is superior to usual care in reducing diabetes risk for mothers and their families. Coupled with a process evaluation and an economic analysis, the study will provide evidence for policymakers and health services about health promotion among families affected by GDM and the potential for reducing risk of type 2 diabetes and associated conditions.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03997773. Registered June 25, 2019 – Retrospectively registered.