Our results indicate strong, continuous associations of maternal glucose levels below those diagnostic of diabetes with increased birth weight and increased cord-blood serum C-peptide levels.

No abstract

BackgroundCirculating nucleic acids (CNAs) offer unique opportunities for early diagnosis of clinical conditions. Here we show that microRNAs, a family of small non-coding regulatory RNAs involved in human development and pathology, are present in bodily fluids and represent new effective biomarkers.Methods and ResultsAfter developing protocols for extracting and quantifying microRNAs in serum and other body fluids, the serum microRNA profiles of several healthy individuals were determined and found to be similar, validating the robustness of our methods. To address the possibility that the abundance of specific microRNAs might change during physiological or pathological conditions, serum microRNA levels in pregnant and non pregnant women were compared. In sera from pregnant women, microRNAs associated with human placenta were significantly elevated and their levels correlated with pregnancy stage.Conclusions and SignificanceConsidering the central role of microRNAs in development and disease, our results highlight the medically relevant potential of determining microRNA levels in serum and other body fluids. Thus, microRNAs are a new class of CNAs that promise to serve as useful clinical biomarkers.

OBJECTIVETo determine associations of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) and obesity with adverse pregnancy outcomes in the Hyperglycemia and Adverse Pregnancy Outcome (HAPO) Study.RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODSParticipants underwent a 75-g oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) between 24 and 32 weeks. GDM was diagnosed post hoc using International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups criteria. Neonatal anthropometrics and cord serum C-peptide were measured. Adverse pregnancy outcomes included birth weight, newborn percent body fat, and cord C-peptide >90th percentiles, primary cesarean delivery, preeclampsia, and shoulder dystocia/birth injury. BMI was determined at the OGTT. Multiple logistic regression was used to examine associations of GDM and obesity with outcomes.RESULTSMean maternal BMI was 27.7, 13.7% were obese (BMI ≥33.0 kg/m2), and GDM was diagnosed in 16.1%. Relative to non-GDM and nonobese women, odds ratio for birth weight >90th percentile for GDM alone was 2.19 (1.93–2.47), for obesity alone 1.73 (1.50–2.00), and for both GDM and obesity 3.62 (3.04–4.32). Results for primary cesarean delivery and preeclampsia and for cord C-peptide and newborn percent body fat >90th percentiles were similar. Odds for birth weight >90th percentile were progressively greater with both higher OGTT glucose and higher maternal BMI. There was a 339-g difference in birth weight for babies of obese GDM women, compared with babies of normal/underweight women (64.2% of all women) with normal glucose based on a composite OGTT measure of fasting plasma glucose and 1- and 2-h plasma glucose values (61.8% of all women).CONCLUSIONSBoth maternal GDM and obesity are independently associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes. Their combination has a greater impact than either one alone.

No abstract

No abstract

Gestational diabetes (GDM) is defined as carbohydrate intolerance that begins or is first recognized during pregnancy. Although it is a well-known cause of pregnancy complications, its epidemiology has not been studied systematically. Our aim was to review the recent data on the epidemiology of GDM, and to describe the close relationship of GDM to prediabetic states, in addition to the risk of future deterioration in insulin resistance and development of overt Type 2 diabetes. We found that differences in screening programmes and diagnostic criteria make it difficult to compare frequencies of GDM among various populations. Nevertheless, ethnicity has been proven to be an independent risk factor for GDM, which varies in prevalence in direct proportion to the prevalence of Type 2 diabetes in a given population or ethnic group. There are several identifiable predisposing factors for GDM, and in the absence of risk factors, the incidence of GDM is low. Therefore, some authors suggest that selective screening may be cost-effective. Importantly, women with an early diagnosis of GDM, in the first half of pregnancy, represent a high-risk subgroup, with an increased incidence of obstetric complications, recurrent GDM in subsequent pregnancies, and future development of Type 2 diabetes. Other factors that place women with GDM at increased risk of Type 2 diabetes are obesity and need for insulin for glycaemic control. Furthermore, hypertensive disorders in pregnancy and afterwards may be more prevalent in women with GDM. We conclude that the epidemiological data suggest an association between several high-risk prediabetic states, GDM, and Type 2 diabetes. Insulin resistance is suggested as a pathogenic linkage. It is possible that improving insulin sensitivity with diet, exercise and drugs such as metformin may reduce the risk of diabetes in individuals at high risk, such as women with polycystic ovary syndrome, impaired glucose tolerance, and a history of GDM. Large controlled studies are needed to clarify this issue and to develop appropriate diabetic prevention strategies that address the potentially modifiable risk factors.

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...