Different intensities of glycaemic control for pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes

ARCH: Australian Research Centre for Health of Women and Babies, Discipline of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, The University of Adelaide, Women's and Children's Hospital, 72 King William Road, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia, 5006.
Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) (Impact Factor: 5.94). 01/2010; DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008540.pub2
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The optimal glycaemic control target in pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes is unclear, although there is a clear link between high glucose concentrations and adverse birth outcomes.
To assess the effects of different intensities of glycaemic control in pregnant women with pre-existing type 1 or type 2 diabetes.
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (7 May 2010).
We included randomised controlled trials comparing different glycaemic control targets in pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes.
Two review authors assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias, and extracted data.
We included three trials all in women with type 1 diabetes (223 women and babies), and all with a high risk of bias. Two trials compared very tight (3.33 to 5.0 mmol/L fasting blood glucose (FBG)) with tight-moderate (4.45 to 6.38) glycaemic control targets, with one trial of 22 babies reporting no perinatal deaths or serious perinatal morbidity. In the same trial, there were two birth defects in the very tight and none in the tight-moderate group with no significant differences in caesarean section between groups (risk ratio 0.92, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 1.73). In these two trials glycaemic control was not significantly different between the very tight and tight-moderate groups by the third trimester, although one trial of 22 women found significantly less maternal hypoglycaemia in the tight-moderate group.In a trial of 60 women and babies comparing tight (</= 5.6 mmol/L FBG); moderate (5.6 to 6.7); and loose (6.7 to 8.9) glycaemic control targets, there were two neonatal deaths in the loose and none in the tight or moderate groups. There were significantly fewer women with pre-eclampsia, fewer caesareans and fewer birthweights greater than 90th centile in the combined tight-moderate compared with the loose group.
In a very limited body of evidence, few differences in outcomes were seen between very tight and tight-moderate glycaemic control targets in pregnant women with pre-existing type 1 diabetes, including actual glycaemic control achieved. There is evidence of harm (increased pre-eclampsia, caesareans and birthweights greater than 90th centile) for 'loose' control (FBG above 7 mmol/L). Future trials comparing interventions, rather than glycaemic control targets, may be more feasible particularly for pregnant women with type 2 diabetes.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Glycemic allostasis is the process by which blood glucose stabilization is achieved through the balancing of glucose consumption rate and release into the blood stream under a variety of stressors. This paper reviews findings on the dynamics of glycemic levels during mental activities on fasting in non-alcohol users and alcohol users with different periods of abstinence. Referred articles for this review were searched in the databases of PubMed, Scopus, DOAJ and AJOL. The search was conducted in 2013 between January 20 and July 31. The following keywords were used in the search: alcohol action on glycemia OR brain glucose OR cognitive functions; dynamics of glycemia, dynamics of glycemia during mental activities; dynamics of glycemia on fasting; dynamics of glycemia in non-alcohol users OR alcohol users; glycemic regulation during sobriety. Analysis of the selected articles showed that glycemic allostasis during mental activities on fasting is poorly regulated in alcohol users even after a long duration of sobriety (1-4 weeks after alcohol consumption), compared to non-alcohol users. The major contributor to the maintenance of euglycemia during mental activities after the night's rest (during continuing fast) is gluconeogenesis.
    09/2014; 4(Suppl 3):S199-207. DOI:10.4103/2141-9248.141959
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Women with diabetes, especially diabetes type 1, have worse pregnancy outcomes, as well as increased incidence of spontaneous abortions, pre-eclampsia, fetal macrosomia, preterm delivery, congenital anomalies and perinatal mortality. The aim of this study was to analyze the course and outcome of pregnancy in the patients with diabetes in relation to the group of healthy women regarding preterm delivery, perinatal morbidity and mortality. Also, the aim was to compare pregnancy outcomes in the patients with pre-existing diabetes type 1 and the patients with gestational and diabetes type 2. This retrospective study included 156 diabetic women treated at the Clinic of Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolic Diseases and Gynecology and Obstetrics Clinic of the Clinical Center of Vojvodina from 2006 to 2010. There were 94 patients with gestational diabetes, 48 with type 1 diabetes, and 14 patients with type 2 diabetes. The control group included 106 healthy women hospitalized at the Gynecology and Obstetrics Clinic. The women with type 1 diabetes presented with a statistically significantly higher incidence of cesarean section than those without diabetes, or with type 2 or gestational diabetes (p < 0.0001); the women with type 1 diabetes delivered at an earlier week of gestation (WG) in regard to women without diabetes, or with type 2 or gestational diabetes (p = 0.0017 and p = 0.02, respectively). The incidence of perinatal morbidity: hypoglycemia (p < 0.001), pathological jaundice (p = 0.0021), and other neonatal pathologies at birth (p = 0.0031), was statistically significantly higher and Apgar scores after 1 minute (p = 0.0142) and after 5 minutes (p = 0.0003) were statistically significantly lower in the patients with diabetes compared to the healthy women. The women with type 2 and gestational diabetes were statistically significantly older than those with type 1 diabetes (p = 0.001). A higher incidence of fetal macrosomia in the women with gestational and type 2 diabetes compared to those with type 1 diabetes was at the borderline of statistical significance (p = 0.07), whereas the incidence of hypoglycemia of newborn was statistically significantly higher in the patients with type 1 diabetes (p < 0.0001). Glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels were statistically significantly higher in the diabetic women giving birth during and before the week of gestation 36 (p = 0.0087), but there were no differences in HbA1lc levels in regard to fetal macrosomia (p = 0.45) and congenital abnormalities (p = 0.32). The results of our study show a higher incidence of perinatal fetal morbidity (hypoglycemia, jaundice, respiratory distress syndrome) in the patients with type 1, type 2 and gestation diabetes than in the healthy controls. Also, we found a higher incidence of cesarean section in the patients with type 1 diabetes than in those with type 2, gestation diabetes and healthy controls. Although delivery in the patients with type 1, type 2 and gestational diabetes was completed approximately one to two weeks earlier compared to the healthy controls there was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of preterm delivery (≤ 36th week of gestation) between the women with diabetes and healthy controls. Preterm delivery associated with poorer glycaemic control reflected through higher values of HbA1c in third trimester. Risks from adverse pregnancy outcomes may be reduced to minimum by adequate preconception counseling of diabetic patients and early diagnosis of diabetes in pregnancy, in order to achieve glycemic control during organogenesis and within pregnancy and through the teamwork of endocrinologists, gynecologists and pediatricians.
    Vojnosanitetski pregled. Military-medical and pharmaceutical review 10/2014; 71(10):907-14. · 0.27 Impact Factor
  • Journal de Gynécologie Obstétrique et Biologie de la Reproduction 11/2014; DOI:10.1016/j.jgyn.2014.09.017 · 0.62 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
May 31, 2014