OBJECTIVETo report frequencies of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) among the 15 centers that participated in the Hyperglycemia and Adverse Pregnancy Outcome (HAPO) Study using the new International Association of the Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) criteria.RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODSAll participants underwent a 75-g oral glucose tolerance test between 24 and 32 weeks’ gestation. GDM was retrospectively classified using the IADPSG criteria (one or more fasting, 1-h, or 2-h plasma glucose concentrations equal to or greater than threshold values of 5.1, 10.0, or 8.5 mmol/L, respectively).RESULTSOverall frequency of GDM was 17.8% (range 9.3–25.5%). There was substantial center-to-center variation in which glucose measures met diagnostic thresholds.CONCLUSIONSAlthough the new diagnostic criteria for GDM apply globally, center-to-center differences occur in GDM frequency and relative diagnostic importance of fasting, 1-h, and 2-h glucose levels. This may impact strategies used for the diagnosis of GDM.

SummaryBackgroundPregnant women with type 1 diabetes are a high-risk population who are recommended to strive for optimal glucose control, but neonatal outcomes attributed to maternal hyperglycaemia remain suboptimal. Our aim was to examine the effectiveness of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) on maternal glucose control and obstetric and neonatal health outcomes.MethodsIn this multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial, we recruited women aged 18–40 years with type 1 diabetes for a minimum of 12 months who were receiving intensive insulin therapy. Participants were pregnant (≤13 weeks and 6 days' gestation) or planning pregnancy from 31 hospitals in Canada, England, Scotland, Spain, Italy, Ireland, and the USA. We ran two trials in parallel for pregnant participants and for participants planning pregnancy. In both trials, participants were randomly assigned to either CGM in addition to capillary glucose monitoring or capillary glucose monitoring alone. Randomisation was stratified by insulin delivery (pump or injections) and baseline glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c). The primary outcome was change in HbA1c from randomisation to 34 weeks' gestation in pregnant women and to 24 weeks or conception in women planning pregnancy, and was assessed in all randomised participants with baseline assessments. Secondary outcomes included obstetric and neonatal health outcomes, assessed with all available data without imputation. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01788527.FindingsBetween March 25, 2013, and March 22, 2016, we randomly assigned 325 women (215 pregnant, 110 planning pregnancy) to capillary glucose monitoring with CGM (108 pregnant and 53 planning pregnancy) or without (107 pregnant and 57 planning pregnancy). We found a small difference in HbA1c in pregnant women using CGM (mean difference −0·19%; 95% CI −0·34 to −0·03; p=0·0207). Pregnant CGM users spent more time in target (68% vs 61%; p=0·0034) and less time hyperglycaemic (27% vs 32%; p=0·0279) than did pregnant control participants, with comparable severe hypoglycaemia episodes (18 CGM and 21 control) and time spent hypoglycaemic (3% vs 4%; p=0·10). Neonatal health outcomes were significantly improved, with lower incidence of large for gestational age (odds ratio 0·51, 95% CI 0·28 to 0·90; p=0·0210), fewer neonatal intensive care admissions lasting more than 24 h (0·48; 0·26 to 0·86; p=0·0157), fewer incidences of neonatal hypoglycaemia (0·45; 0·22 to 0·89; p=0·0250), and 1-day shorter length of hospital stay (p=0·0091). We found no apparent benefit of CGM in women planning pregnancy. Adverse events occurred in 51 (48%) of CGM participants and 43 (40%) of control participants in the pregnancy trial, and in 12 (27%) of CGM participants and 21 (37%) of control participants in the planning pregnancy trial. Serious adverse events occurred in 13 (6%) participants in the pregnancy trial (eight [7%] CGM, five [5%] control) and in three (3%) participants in the planning pregnancy trial (two [4%] CGM and one [2%] control). The most...

Among women with GD identified by contemporary criteria compared with those without it, GD was significantly associated with a higher maternal risk for a disorder of glucose metabolism during long-term follow-up after pregnancy. Among children of mothers with GD vs those without it, the difference in childhood overweight or obesity defined by body mass index cutoffs was not statistically significant; however, additional measures of childhood adiposity may be relevant in interpreting the study findings.

Aims/hypothesisThe aim of this prospective nationwide study was to examine antenatal pregnancy care and pregnancy outcomes in women with type 1 and type 2 diabetes, and to describe changes since 2002/2003.MethodsThis national population-based cohort included 3036 pregnant women with diabetes from 155 maternity clinics in England and Wales who delivered during 2015. The main outcome measures were maternal glycaemic control, preterm delivery (before 37 weeks), infant large for gestational age (LGA), and rates of congenital anomaly, stillbirth and neonatal death.ResultsOf 3036 women, 1563 (51%) had type 1, 1386 (46%) had type 2 and 87 (3%) had other types of diabetes. The percentage of women achieving HbA1c < 6.5% (48 mmol/mol) in early pregnancy varied greatly between clinics (median [interquartile range] 14.3% [7.7–22.2] for type 1, 37.0% [27.3–46.2] for type 2). The number of infants born preterm (21.7% vs 39.7%) and LGA (23.9% vs 46.4%) were lower for women with type 2 compared with type 1 diabetes (both p < 0.001). The prevalence rates for congenital anomaly (46.2/1000 births for type 1, 34.6/1000 births for type 2) and neonatal death (8.1/1000 births for type 1, 11.4/1000 births for type 2) were unchanged since 2002/2003. Stillbirth rates are almost 2.5 times lower than in 2002/2003 (10.7 vs 25.8/1000 births for type 1, p = 0.0012; 10.5 vs 29.2/1000 births for type 2, p = 0.0091).Conclusions/interpretationStillbirth rates among women with type 1 and type 2 diabetes have decreased since 2002/2003. Rates of preterm delivery and LGA infants are lower in women with type 2 compared with type 1 diabetes. In women with type 1 diabetes, suboptimal glucose control and high rates of perinatal morbidity persist with substantial variations between clinics.Data availabilityFurther details of the data collection methodology, individual clinic data and the full audit reports for healthcare professionals and service users are available from http://content.digital.nhs.uk/npid.

No abstract

OBJECTIVETo assess the relationship between glycemic control, pre-eclampsia, and gestational hypertension in women with type 1 diabetes.RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODSPregnancy outcome (pre-eclampsia or gestational hypertension) was assessed prospectively in 749 women from the randomized controlled Diabetes and Pre-eclampsia Intervention Trial (DAPIT). HbA1c (A1C) values were available up to 6 months before pregnancy (n = 542), at the first antenatal visit (median 9 weeks) (n = 721), at 26 weeks’ gestation (n = 592), and at 34 weeks’ gestation (n = 519) and were categorized as optimal (<6.1%: referent), good (6.1–6.9%), moderate (7.0–7.9%), and poor (≥8.0%) glycemic control, respectively.RESULTSPre-eclampsia and gestational hypertension developed in 17 and 11% of pregnancies, respectively. Women who developed pre-eclampsia had significantly higher A1C values before and during pregnancy compared with women who did not develop pre-eclampsia (P < 0.05, respectively). In early pregnancy, A1C ≥8.0% was associated with a significantly increased risk of pre-eclampsia (odds ratio 3.68 [95% CI 1.17–11.6]) compared with optimal control. At 26 weeks’ gestation, A1C values ≥6.1% (good: 2.09 [1.03–4.21]; moderate: 3.20 [1.47–7.00]; and poor: 3.81 [1.30–11.1]) and at 34 weeks’ gestation A1C values ≥7.0% (moderate: 3.27 [1.31–8.20] and poor: 8.01 [2.04–31.5]) significantly increased the risk of pre-eclampsia compared with optimal control. The adjusted odds ratios for pre-eclampsia for each 1% decrement in A1C before pregnancy, at the first antenatal visit, at 26 weeks’ gestation, and at 34 weeks’ gestation were 0.88 (0.75–1.03), 0.75 (0.64–0.88), 0.57 (0.42–0.78), and 0.47 (0.31–0.70), respectively. Glycemic control was not significantly associated with gestational hypertension.CONCLUSIONSWomen who developed pre-eclampsia had significantly higher A1C values before and during pregnancy. These data suggest that optimal glycemic control both early and throughout pregnancy may reduce the risk of pre-eclampsia in women with type 1 diabetes.

SummaryBackgroundResults of several trials of antioxidant use during pregnancy have not shown a reduction in pre-eclampsia, but the effect in women with diabetes is unknown. We aimed to assess whether supplementation with vitamins C and E reduced incidence of pre-eclampsia in women with type 1 diabetes.MethodsWe enrolled women from 25 UK antenatal metabolic clinics in a multicentre randomised placebo-controlled trial. Eligibility criteria were type 1 diabetes preceding pregnancy, presentation between 8 weeks' and 22 weeks' gestation, singleton pregnancy, and age 16 years or older. Women were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to receive 1000 mg vitamin C and 400 IU vitamin E (α-tocopherol) or matched placebo daily until delivery. The randomisation sequence was stratified by centre with balanced blocks of eight patients. All trial personnel and participants were masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was pre-eclampsia, which we defined as gestational hypertension with proteinuria. Analysis was by modified intention to treat. This study is registered, ISRCTN27214045.FindingsBetween April, 2003, and June, 2008, 762 women were randomly allocated to treatment groups (379 vitamin supplementation, 383 placebo). The primary endpoint was assessed for 375 women allocated to receive vitamins, and 374 allocated to placebo. Rates of pre-eclampsia did not differ between vitamin (15%, n=57) and placebo (19%, 70) groups (risk ratio 0·81, 95% CI 0·59–1·12). No adverse maternal or neonatal outcomes were reported.InterpretationSupplementation with vitamins C and E did not reduce risk of pre-eclampsia in women with type 1 diabetes. However, the possibility that vitamin supplementation might be beneficial in women with a low antioxidant status at baseline needs further testing.FundingThe Wellcome Trust.

OBJECTIVETo assess the relationship between second and third trimester glycemic control and adverse outcomes in pregnant women with type 1 diabetes, as uncertainty exists about optimum glycemic targets. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODSPregnancy outcomes were assessed prospectively in 725 women with type 1 diabetes from the Diabetes and Pre-eclampsia Intervention Trial. HbA 1c (A1C) values at 26 and 34 weeks' gestation were categorized into five groups, the lowest, <6.0% (42 mmol/mol), being the reference. Average pre-and postprandial results from an eight-point capillary glucose profile the previous day were categorized into five groups, the lowest (preprandial <5.0 mmol/L and postprandial <6.0 mmol/L) being the reference. RESULTSAn A1C of 6.0-6.4% (42-47 mmol/mol) at 26 weeks' gestation was associated with a significantly increased risk of large for gestational age (LGA) (odds ratio 1.7 [95% CI 1.0-3.0]) and an A1C of 6.5-6.9% (48-52 mmol/mol) with a significantly increased risk of preterm delivery (odds ratio 2.5 [95% CI 1.3-4.8]), preeclampsia (4.3 [1.7-10.8]), need for a neonatal glucose infusion (2.9 [1.5-5.6]), and a composite adverse outcome (3.2 [1.3-8.0]). These risks increased progressively with increasing A1C. Results were similar at 34 weeks' gestation. Glucose data showed less consistent trends, although the risk of a composite adverse outcome increased with preprandial glucose levels between 6.0 and 6.9 mmol/L at 34 weeks (3.3 [1.3-8.0 ]). CONCLUSIONSLGA increased significantly with an A1C ‡6.0 (42 mmol/mol) at 26 and 34 weeks' gestation and with other adverse outcomes with an A1C ‡6.5% (48 mmol/mol). The data suggest that there is clinical utility in regular measurement of A1C during pregnancy.It is now well established that optimizing glycemic control in pregnant women with type 1 diabetes is associated with improved outcomes (1). However, achieving normoglycemia is not without risks, particularly those associated with maternal hypoglycemia (2).While there is agreement that poor periconceptual glycemic control increases the risk of congenital malformations (2), much less consensus exists as to the relation of glycemic control later in pregnancy to specific adverse maternal and neonatal