Different methods and settings for glucose monitoring for gestational diabetes during pregnancy

被引:44
|
作者
Raman, Puvaneswary [1 ]
Shepherd, Emily [2 ]
Dowswell, Therese [3 ]
Middleton, Philippa [4 ]
Crowther, Caroline A. [2 ,5 ]
机构
[1] King Edward Mem Hosp, Perth, WA, Australia
[2] Univ Adelaide, Robinson Res Inst, ARCH Australian Res Ctr Hlth Women & Babies, Discipline Obstet & Gynaecol, Adelaide, SA 5006, Australia
[3] Univ Liverpool, Dept Womens & Childrens Hlth, Cochrane Pregnancy & Childbirth Grp, Liverpool, Merseyside, England
[4] South Australian Hlth & Med Res Inst, Hlth Mothers Babies & Children, Adelaide, SA, Australia
[5] Univ Auckland, Liggins Inst, Auckland, New Zealand
来源
COCHRANE DATABASE OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS | 2017年 / 10期
基金
英国医学研究理事会;
关键词
RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED-TRIAL; BLOOD-GLUCOSE; GLYCEMIC CONTROL; INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION; TELEMEDICINE SYSTEM; TELE-MUM; MELLITUS; MANAGEMENT; WOMEN; OUTCOMES;
D O I
10.1002/14651858.CD011069.pub2
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Background Incidence of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is increasing worldwide. Blood glucose monitoring plays a crucial part in maintaining glycaemic control in women with GDM and is generally recommended by healthcare professionals. There are several different methods for monitoring blood glucose which can be carried out in different settings (e.g. at home versus in hospital). Objectives The objective of this review is to compare the effects of different methods and settings for glucose monitoring for women with GDM on maternal and fetal, neonatal, child and adult outcomes, and use and costs of health care. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group Trials Register (30 September 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies. Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-randomised controlled trials (qRCTs) comparing different methods (such as timings and frequencies) or settings, or both, for blood glucose monitoring for women with GDM. Data collection and analysis Two authors independently assessed study eligibility, risk of bias, and extracted data. Data were checked for accuracy. We assessed the quality of the evidence for the main comparisons using GRADE, for: -primary outcomes for mothers: that is, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy; caesarean section; type 2 diabetes; and -primary outcomes for children: that is, large-for-gestational age; perinatal mortality; death or serious morbidity composite; childhood/adulthood neurosensory disability; -secondary outcomes for mothers: that is, induction of labour; perineal trauma; postnatal depression; postnatal weight retention or return to pre-pregnancy weight; and -secondary outcomes for children: that is, neonatal hypoglycaemia; childhood/adulthood adiposity; childhood/adulthood type 2 diabetes. Main results We included 11 RCTs (10 RCTs; one qRCT) that randomised 1272 women with GDM in upper-middle or high-income countries; we considered these to be at a moderate to high risk of bias. We assessed the RCTs under five comparisons. For outcomes assessed using GRADE, we downgraded for study design limitations, imprecision and inconsistency. Three trials received some support from commercial partners who provided glucose meters or financial support, or both. Main comparisons Telemedicine versus standard care for glucose monitoring (five RCTs): we observed no clear differences between the telemedicine and standard care groups for the mother, for: -pre-eclampsia or pregnancy-induced hypertension (risk ratio (RR) 1.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.69 to 3.20; 275 participants; four RCTs; very low quality evidence); -caesarean section (average RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.53; 478 participants; 5 RCTs; very low quality evidence); and -induction of labour (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.77; 47 participants; 1 RCT; very low quality evidence); or for the child, for: -large-for-gestational age (RR 1.41, 95% CI 0.76 to 2.64; 228 participants; 3 RCTs; very low quality evidence); -death or serious morbidity composite (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.66; 57 participants; 1 RCT; very low quality evidence); and -neonatal hypoglycaemia (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.48 to 2.72; 198 participants; 3 RCTs; very low quality evidence). There were no perinatal deaths in two RCTs (131 participants; very low quality evidence). Self-monitoring versus periodic glucose monitoring (two RCTs): we observed no clear differences between the self-monitoring and periodic glucose monitoring groups for the mother, for: -pre-eclampsia (RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.01 to 3.49; 58 participants; 1 RCT; very low quality evidence); and -caesarean section (average RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.61 to 2.27; 400 participants; 2 RCTs; low quality evidence); or for the child, for: -perinatal mortality (RR 1.54, 95% CI 0.21 to 11.24; 400 participants; 2 RCTs; very low quality evidence); -large-for-gestational age (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.37; 400 participants; 2 RCTs; low quality evidence); and -neonatal hypoglycaemia (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.06; 391 participants; 2 RCTs; low quality evidence). Continuous glucose monitoring system (CGMS) versus self-monitoring of glucose (two RCTs): we observed no clear differences between the CGMS and self-monitoring groups for the mother, for: -caesarean section (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.20; 179 participants; 2 RCTs; very low quality evidence); or for the child, for: -large-for-gestational age (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.05; 106 participants; 1 RCT; very low quality evidence) and -neonatal hypoglycaemia (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.78; 179 participants; 2 RCTs; very low quality evidence. There were no perinatal deaths in the two RCTs (179 participants; very low quality evidence). Other comparisons Modem versus telephone transmission for glucose monitoring (one RCT): none of the review's primary outcomes were reported in this trial Postprandial versus preprandial glucose monitoring (one RCT): we observed no clear differences between the postprandial and preprandial glucose monitoring groups for the mother, for: -pre-eclampsia (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.15 to 6.68; 66 participants; 1 RCT); -caesarean section (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.29; 66 participants; 1 RCT); and -perineal trauma (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.29; 66 participants; 1 RCT); or for the child, for: -neonatal hypoglycaemia (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.10; 66 participants; 1 RCT). Therewere fewer large-for-gestational-age infants born tomothers in the postprandial comparedwith the preprandial glucosemonitoring group (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.78; 66 participants; 1 RCT). Authors' conclusions Evidence from 11 RCTs assessing different methods or settings for glucose monitoring for GDM suggests no clear differences for the primary outcomes or other secondary outcomes assessed in this review. However, current evidence is limited by the small number of RCTs for the comparisons assessed, small sample sizes, and the variable methodological quality of the RCTs. More evidence is needed to assess the effects of different methods and settings for glucose monitoring for GDM on outcomes for mothers and their children, including use and costs of health care. Future RCTs may consider collecting and reporting on the standard outcomes suggested in this review.
引用
收藏
页数:158
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Basal Glucose on Tolerance Test During Pregnancy Predicts Impaired Fasting Glucose and Type 2 Diabetes Within 2 Months After Gestational Diabetes
    Olmos, Pablo
    Borzone, Gisella
    Poblete, Andres
    CANADIAN JOURNAL OF DIABETES, 2021, 45 (02) : 122 - 128
  • [32] Impaired early-phase suppression of glucagon secretion after glucose load is associated with insulin requirement during pregnancy in gestational diabetes
    Horie, Ichiro
    Haraguchi, Ai
    Ito, Ayako
    Nozaki, Aya
    Natsuda, Shoko
    Akazawa, Satoru
    Mori, Yoshitaka
    Ando, Takao
    Higashijima, Ai
    Hasegawa, Yuri
    Yoshida, Atsushi
    Miura, Kiyonori
    Masuzaki, Hideaki
    Kawakami, Atsushi
    Abiru, Norio
    JOURNAL OF DIABETES INVESTIGATION, 2020, 11 (01) : 232 - 240
  • [33] Continuous Glucose Monitoring Profiles in Pregnancies With and Without Gestational Diabetes Mellitus
    Durnwald, Celeste
    Beck, Roy W.
    Li, Zoey
    Norton, Elizabeth
    Bergenstal, Richard M.
    Johnson, Mary
    Dunnigan, Sean
    Banfield, Matthew
    Krumwiede, Katie
    Sibayan, Judy
    Calhoun, Peter
    Carlson, Anders L.
    DIABETES CARE, 2024, 47 (08) : 1333 - 1341
  • [34] Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Pregnancy
    Horgan, Rebecca
    Diab, Yara Hage
    Bartal, Michal Fishel
    Sibai, Baha M.
    Saade, George
    OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2024, 143 (02) : 195 - 203
  • [35] Gestational diabetes: weight gain during pregnancy and its relationship to pregnancy outcomes
    Gou, Bao-Hua
    Guan, Hui-Min
    Bi, Yan-Xia
    Ding, Bing-Jie
    CHINESE MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2019, 132 (02) : 154 - 160
  • [36] Prevalence of pre-eclampsia, pregnancy hypertension and gestational diabetes in population-based data: Impact of different ascertainment methods on outcomes
    Chen, Jian Sheng
    Roberts, Christine L.
    Simpson, Judy M.
    Ford, Jane B.
    AUSTRALIAN & NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS & GYNAECOLOGY, 2012, 52 (01) : 91 - 95
  • [37] Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Type 1 Diabetes, Type 2 Diabetes, and Diabetes During Pregnancy: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
    Rizos, Evangelos C.
    Markozannes, Georgios
    Charitakis, Nikolaos
    Filis, Panagiotis
    Stoimeni, Anastasia E.
    Norgaard, Kirsten
    Ntzani, Evangelia E.
    Tsilidis, Konstantinos K.
    DIABETES TECHNOLOGY & THERAPEUTICS, 2025,
  • [38] Flash glucose monitoring system in gestational diabetes: a study of accuracy and usability
    Lopes, Sara Campos
    Brito, Ana Isabel
    Barbosa, Mariana
    Matos, Ana Catarina
    Pereira, Maria Lopes
    Monteiro, Ana Margarida
    Fernandes, Vera
    HORMONES-INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENDOCRINOLOGY AND METABOLISM, 2023, 22 (04): : 703 - 713
  • [39] Maternal urinary phthalate metabolites in relation to gestational diabetes and glucose intolerance during pregnancy
    Shaffer, Rachel M.
    Ferguson, Kelly K.
    Sheppard, Lianne
    James-Todd, Tamarra
    Butts, Samantha
    Chandrasekaran, Suchitra
    Swan, Shanna H.
    Barrett, Emily S.
    Nguyen, Ruby
    Bush, Nicole
    McElrath, Thomas F.
    Sathyanarayana, Sheela
    ENVIRONMENT INTERNATIONAL, 2019, 123 : 588 - 596
  • [40] Continuous glucose monitoring in type 1 diabetes
    Mauras, Nelly
    Fox, Larry
    Englert, Kimberly
    Beck, Roy W.
    ENDOCRINE, 2013, 43 (01) : 41 - 50