Nisreen Alwan1, Derek J Tuffnell, Jane West. 1. Nutritional Epidemiology Group, Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Leeds, Worsley Building, Level 8, Room 9.01, Clarendon Way, Leeds, West Yorkshire, UK, LS2 9JT.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Gestational diabetes (GDM) affects 3% to 6% of all pregnancies. Women are often intensively managed with increased obstetric monitoring, dietary regulation, and insulin. However, there has been no sound evidence base to support intensive treatment. The key issue for clinicians and consumers is whether treatment of GDM improves perinatal outcome. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effect of alternative treatment policies for GDM on both maternal and infant outcomes. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (January 2009) and bibliographies of relevant papers. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing alternative management strategies for women with GDM and impaired glucose tolerance in pregnancy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors and a member of the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's editorial team extracted and checked data independently. Disagreements were resolved through discussion with the third author. MAIN RESULTS: Eight randomised controlled trials (1418 women) were included.Caesarean section rate was not significantly different when comparing any specific treatment with routine antenatal care (ANC) including data from five trials with 1255 participants (risk ratio (RR) 0.94, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80 to 1.12). However, when comparing oral hypoglycaemics with insulin as treatment for GDM, there was a significant reduction (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.77, two trials, 90 participants). There was a reduction in the risk of pre-eclampsia with intensive treatment (including dietary advice and insulin) compared to routine ANC (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.88, one trial, 1000 participants). More women had their labours induced when given specific treatment compared to routine ANC (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.57, two trials, 1068 participants). The composite outcome of perinatal morbidity (death, shoulder dystocia, bone fracture and nerve palsy) was significantly reduced for those receiving intensive treatment for mild GDM compared to routine ANC (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.73, one trial, 1030 infants).There was a reduction in the proportion of infants weighing more than 4000 grams (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.63, one trial, 1030 infants) and the proportion of infants weighing greater than the 90th birth centile (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.99, three trials, 223 infants) of mothers receiving specific treatment for GDM compared to routine ANC. However, there was no statistically significant difference in this proportion between infants of mothers receiving oral drugs compared to insulin as treatment for GDM. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Specific treatment including dietary advice and insulin for mild GDM reduces the risk of maternal and perinatal morbidity. However, it is associated with higher risk of labour induction. More research is needed to assess the impact of different types of intensive treatment, including oral drugs and insulin, on individual short- and long-term infant outcomes.
BACKGROUND:Gestational diabetes (GDM) affects 3% to 6% of all pregnancies. Women are often intensively managed with increased obstetric monitoring, dietary regulation, and insulin. However, there has been no sound evidence base to support intensive treatment. The key issue for clinicians and consumers is whether treatment of GDM improves perinatal outcome. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effect of alternative treatment policies for GDM on both maternal and infant outcomes. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (January 2009) and bibliographies of relevant papers. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing alternative management strategies for women with GDM and impaired glucose tolerance in pregnancy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors and a member of the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's editorial team extracted and checked data independently. Disagreements were resolved through discussion with the third author. MAIN RESULTS: Eight randomised controlled trials (1418 women) were included.Caesarean section rate was not significantly different when comparing any specific treatment with routine antenatal care (ANC) including data from five trials with 1255 participants (risk ratio (RR) 0.94, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80 to 1.12). However, when comparing oral hypoglycaemics with insulin as treatment for GDM, there was a significant reduction (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.77, two trials, 90 participants). There was a reduction in the risk of pre-eclampsia with intensive treatment (including dietary advice and insulin) compared to routine ANC (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.88, one trial, 1000 participants). More women had their labours induced when given specific treatment compared to routine ANC (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.57, two trials, 1068 participants). The composite outcome of perinatal morbidity (death, shoulder dystocia, bone fracture and nerve palsy) was significantly reduced for those receiving intensive treatment for mild GDM compared to routine ANC (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.73, one trial, 1030 infants).There was a reduction in the proportion of infants weighing more than 4000 grams (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.63, one trial, 1030 infants) and the proportion of infants weighing greater than the 90th birth centile (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.99, three trials, 223 infants) of mothers receiving specific treatment for GDM compared to routine ANC. However, there was no statistically significant difference in this proportion between infants of mothers receiving oral drugs compared to insulin as treatment for GDM. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Specific treatment including dietary advice and insulin for mild GDM reduces the risk of maternal and perinatal morbidity. However, it is associated with higher risk of labour induction. More research is needed to assess the impact of different types of intensive treatment, including oral drugs and insulin, on individual short- and long-term infant outcomes.
Authors: Caroline A Crowther; Janet E Hiller; John R Moss; Andrew J McPhee; William S Jeffries; Jeffrey S Robinson Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-06-12 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: V Balaji; Madhuri S Balaji; Cynthia Alexander; S Ashalata; R Sheela Suganthi; S Suresh; V Seshiah Journal: J Assoc Physicians India Date: 2010-02
Authors: Mark B Landon; Catherine Y Spong; Elizabeth Thom; Marshall W Carpenter; Susan M Ramin; Brian Casey; Ronald J Wapner; Michael W Varner; Dwight J Rouse; John M Thorp; Anthony Sciscione; Patrick Catalano; Margaret Harper; George Saade; Kristine Y Lain; Yoram Sorokin; Alan M Peaceman; Jorge E Tolosa; Garland B Anderson Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-10-01 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Julie Brown; Nisreen A Alwan; Jane West; Stephen Brown; Christopher Jd McKinlay; Diane Farrar; Caroline A Crowther Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2017-05-04