Graham R Law1, Alia Alnaji2, Lina Alrefaii2, Del Endersby3, Sarah J Cartland2,3, Stephen G Gilbey3, Paul E Jennings4, Helen R Murphy5, Eleanor M Scott6,3. 1. School of Health and Social Care, University of Lincoln, Lincoln, U.K. 2. Division of Clinical and Population Sciences, Leeds Institute of Cardiovascular and Metabolic Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, U.K. 3. Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, U.K. 4. York NHS Foundation Trust, York, U.K. 5. Division of Maternal Health, St Thomas' Hospital, King's College London, London, U.K. 6. Division of Clinical and Population Sciences, Leeds Institute of Cardiovascular and Metabolic Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, U.K. e.m.scott@leeds.ac.uk.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) provides far greater detail about fetal exposure to maternal glucose across the 24-h day. Our aim was to examine the role of temporal glucose variation on the development of large for gestational age (LGA) infants in women with treated gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We performed a prospective observational study of 162 pregnant women with GDM in specialist multidisciplinary antenatal diabetes clinics. Participants undertook 7-day masked CGM at 30-32 weeks' gestation. Standard summary indices and glycemic variability measures of CGM were calculated. Functional data analysis was applied to determine differences in temporal glucose profiles. LGA was defined as birth weight ≥90th percentile adjusted for infant sex, gestational age, maternal BMI, ethnicity, and parity. RESULTS: Mean glucose was significantly higher in women who delivered an LGA infant (6.2 vs. 5.8 mmol/L, P = 0.025, or 111.6 mg/dL vs. 104.4 mg/dL). There were no significant differences in percentage time in, above, or below the target glucose range or in glucose variability measures (all P > 0.05). Functional data analysis revealed that the higher mean glucose was driven by a significantly higher glucose for 6 h overnight (0030-0630 h) in mothers of LGA infants (6.0 ± 1.0 mmol/L vs. 5.5 ± 0.8 mmol/L, P = 0.005, and 108.0 ± 18.0 mg/dL vs. 99.0 ± 14.4 mg/dL). CONCLUSIONS: Mothers of LGA infants run significantly higher glucose overnight compared with mothers without LGA infants. Detecting and addressing nocturnal glucose control may help to further reduce rates of LGA in women with GDM.
OBJECTIVE: Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) provides far greater detail about fetal exposure to maternal glucose across the 24-h day. Our aim was to examine the role of temporal glucose variation on the development of large for gestational age (LGA) infants in women with treated gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We performed a prospective observational study of 162 pregnant women with GDM in specialist multidisciplinary antenatal diabetes clinics. Participants undertook 7-day masked CGM at 30-32 weeks' gestation. Standard summary indices and glycemic variability measures of CGM were calculated. Functional data analysis was applied to determine differences in temporal glucose profiles. LGA was defined as birth weight ≥90th percentile adjusted for infant sex, gestational age, maternal BMI, ethnicity, and parity. RESULTS: Mean glucose was significantly higher in women who delivered an LGA infant (6.2 vs. 5.8 mmol/L, P = 0.025, or 111.6 mg/dL vs. 104.4 mg/dL). There were no significant differences in percentage time in, above, or below the target glucose range or in glucose variability measures (all P > 0.05). Functional data analysis revealed that the higher mean glucose was driven by a significantly higher glucose for 6 h overnight (0030-0630 h) in mothers of LGA infants (6.0 ± 1.0 mmol/L vs. 5.5 ± 0.8 mmol/L, P = 0.005, and 108.0 ± 18.0 mg/dL vs. 99.0 ± 14.4 mg/dL). CONCLUSIONS: Mothers of LGA infants run significantly higher glucose overnight compared with mothers without LGA infants. Detecting and addressing nocturnal glucose control may help to further reduce rates of LGA in women with GDM.
Authors: Chloe Andrews; Carmen Monthé-Drèze; David A Sacks; Ronald C W Ma; Wing Hung Tam; H David McIntyre; Julia Lowe; Patrick Catalano; Sarbattama Sen Journal: Int J Obes (Lond) Date: 2020-11-08 Impact factor: 5.095
Authors: Claire L Meek; Diana Tundidor; Denice S Feig; Jennifer M Yamamoto; Eleanor M Scott; Diane D Ma; Jose A Halperin; Helen R Murphy; Rosa Corcoy Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2021-01-25 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Tadej Battelino; Thomas Danne; Richard M Bergenstal; Stephanie A Amiel; Roy Beck; Torben Biester; Emanuele Bosi; Bruce A Buckingham; William T Cefalu; Kelly L Close; Claudio Cobelli; Eyal Dassau; J Hans DeVries; Kim C Donaghue; Klemen Dovc; Francis J Doyle; Satish Garg; George Grunberger; Simon Heller; Lutz Heinemann; Irl B Hirsch; Roman Hovorka; Weiping Jia; Olga Kordonouri; Boris Kovatchev; Aaron Kowalski; Lori Laffel; Brian Levine; Alexander Mayorov; Chantal Mathieu; Helen R Murphy; Revital Nimri; Kirsten Nørgaard; Christopher G Parkin; Eric Renard; David Rodbard; Banshi Saboo; Desmond Schatz; Keaton Stoner; Tatsuiko Urakami; Stuart A Weinzimer; Moshe Phillip Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2019-06-08 Impact factor: 19.112