OBJECTIVE -To evaluate whether there is increased maternal or neonatal morbidity in connection with impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) during pregnancy when the condition is not treated. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS-During the study period of 1997-2001, in a defined geographical area in Sweden, the diagnostic criteria for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) were limited to the criteria for diabetes. Prospectively, 213 women who were identified with IGT during pregnancy were undiagnosed and untreated. Data on maternal and fetal outcome was collected from records. For each case subject, four control subjects were taken from the same delivery department.RESULTS -The proportion of women who underwent cesarean section was significantly higher in the case subjects than in the control subjects and was independently associated with IGT. The adjusted odds ratio (OR) was 1.9 (95% CI 1.2-2.9). The proportion of infants who were large for gestational age (LGA), defined as birth weight Ͼ2 SDs greater than the mean for gestation and sex, was independently significantly associated with untreated IGT during pregnancy (OR 7.3, 95% CI 4.1-12.7). Admission to a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) for 2 days or longer was more common (adjusted OR 2.0, 95% CI 1.1-3.8). However, 71.3% of the children in the IGT group and 87.3% of the control subjects had no neonatal complications.CONCLUSIONS -There is increased independent association between cesarean section rate, prematurity, LGA, and macrosomic infants born to mothers with untreated IGT. Most of the children were healthy, but there is still increased morbidity. Therefore, to evaluate the effects of treatment, there is a need for a randomized study. Diabetes Care 26:2107-2111, 2003G estational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is defined as carbohydrate intolerance of varying degrees of severity with onset or first recognition during pregnancy (1). Originally, the purpose of identifying GDM was the prediction of diabetes later in life (2). Observations that GDM may be associated with an increased risk of fetal malformation and perinatal mortality are likely to be confined to a subgroup of patients with GDM in whom diabetes was present but unrecognized before pregnancy (3,4). Later, the main purpose was to detect women at risk for adverse perinatal outcomes, such as macrosomia, birth trauma, neonatal metabolic abnormalities, and cesarean section (5). In the past decade, however, screening for GDM has been strongly questioned because of the lack of convincing data regarding the possibility to improve these outcomes. Risks associated with GDM have also been attributed to confounding characteristics such as obesity, advanced maternal age, or other medical complications, rather than to the glucose intolerance per se. Identification of impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) during pregnancy has especially been questioned (6 -8).Maternal and fetal complications associated with GDM are often reported from observational studies in which GDM is identified and treated in different ways (9 -11). There is, howeve...

No abstract

ObjectiveTo estimate the incidence of RhD immunisation after implementation of first trimester non-invasive fetal RHD screening to select only RhD negative women carrying RHD positive fetuses for routine antenatal anti-D prophylaxis (RAADP).Materials and MethodsWe present a population-based prospective observational cohort study with historic controls including all maternity care centres and delivery hospitals in the Stockholm region, Sweden. All RhD negative pregnant women were screened for fetal RHD genotype in the first trimester of pregnancy. Anti-D immunoglobulin (250–300 µg) was administered intramuscularly in gestational week 28–30 to participants with RHD positive fetuses. Main outcome measure was the incidence of RhD immunisation developing during or after pregnancy.ResultsDuring the study period 9380 RhD negative women gave birth in Stockholm. Non-invasive fetal RHD genotyping using cell-free fetal DNA in maternal plasma was performed in 8374 pregnancies of which 5104 (61%) were RHD positive and 3270 (39%) RHD negative. In 4590 pregnancies with an RHD positive test the women received antenatal anti-D prophylaxis. The incidence of RhD immunisation in the study cohort was 0.26 percent (24/9380) (95% CI 0.15–0.36%) compared to 0.46 percent (86/18546) (95% CI 0.37 to 0.56%) in the reference cohort. The risk ratio (RR) for sensitisation was 0.55 (95% CI 0.35 to 0.87) and the risk reduction was statistically significant (p = 0.009). The absolute risk difference was 0.20 percent, corresponding to a number needed to treat (NNT) of 500.ConclusionsUsing first trimester non-invasive antenatal screening for fetal RHD to target routine antenatal anti-D prophylaxis selectively to RhD negative women with RHD positive fetuses significantly reduces the incidence of new RhD immunisation. The risk reduction is comparable to that reported in studies evaluating the outcome of non selective RAADP to all RhD negative women. The cost-effectiveness of this targeted approach remains to be studied.

Two-hundred and two pregnant women with impaired glucose tolerance were randomized to treatment with diet or diet and insulin by stratified selection. Self-monitoring of blood glucose was performed six times a day, 3 days/wk. Dietary treatment was considered inappropriate if fasting and postprandial blood glucose values exceeded 7 and 9 mmol/L, respectively, in which case insulin therapy was instituted. Insulin doses were adjusted according to blood glucose values, aiming at fasting and postprandial values below 5 and 6.5 mmol/L, respectively. There were no perinatal deaths. The two treatment regimens disclosed no differences regarding achieved degree of maternal blood glucose control, hemoglobin A1c at delivery, obstetric or neonatal complications, infant's size at birth including skin-fold thickness, or C-peptide concentration in cord serum. Routine treatment of pregnant women with mild carbohydrate intolerance with insulin seems unnecessary. However, 15 patients (14%) in the diet group needed insulin to achieve acceptable blood glucose control, underlining the importance of monitoring blood glucose to detect those who are at risk of developing overt diabetes.

No abstract