Treatments for gestational diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

被引:108
作者
Farrar, Diane [1 ]
Simmonds, Mark [2 ]
Bryant, Maria [3 ]
Sheldon, Trevor A. [4 ]
Tuffnell, Derek [5 ]
Golder, Su [6 ]
Lawlor, Debbie A. [7 ]
机构
[1] Bradford Royal Infirm, Bradford Inst Hlth Res, Bradford, W Yorkshire, England
[2] Univ York, Ctr Reviews & Disseminat, York, N Yorkshire, England
[3] Univ Leeds, Leeds Inst Clin Trials Res, Leeds, W Yorkshire, England
[4] Univ York, Hull York Med Sch, York, N Yorkshire, England
[5] Bradford Teaching Hosp NHS Fdn, Bradford Womens & Newborn Unit, Bradford, W Yorkshire, England
[6] Univ York, Dept Hlth Sci, York, N Yorkshire, England
[7] Univ Bristol, Sch Social & Commun Med, MRC Integrat Epidemiol Unit, Bristol, Avon, England
来源
BMJ OPEN | 2017年 / 7卷 / 06期
基金
英国医学研究理事会;
关键词
RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED-TRIAL; PREGNANCY OUTCOMES; PERINATAL OUTCOMES; NETWORK METAANALYSIS; GLUCOSE-TOLERANCE; METFORMIN; MELLITUS; INSULIN; WOMEN; MANAGEMENT;
D O I
10.1136/bmjopen-2016-015557
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Objective To investigate the effectiveness of different treatments for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). Design Systematic review, meta-analysis and network meta-analysis. Methods Data sources were searched up to July 2016 and included MEDLINE and Embase. Randomised trials comparing treatments for GDM (packages of care (dietary and lifestyle interventions with pharmacological treatments as required), insulin, metformin, glibenclamide (glyburide)) were selected by two authors and double checked for accuracy. Outcomes included large for gestational age, shoulder dystocia, neonatal hypoglycaemia, caesarean section and pre-eclampsia. We pooled data using randomeffects meta-analyses and used Bayesian network meta-analysis to compare pharmacological treatments (ie, including treatments not directly compared within a trial). Results Forty-two trials were included, the reporting of which was generally poor with unclear or high risk of bias. Packages of care varied in their composition and reduced the risk of most adverse perinatal outcomes compared with routine care (eg, large for gestational age: relative risk0.58 (95% CI 0.49 to 0.68; I-2 = 0%; trials 8; participants 3462). Network meta-analyses suggest that metformin had the highest probability of being the most effective treatment in reducing the risk of most outcomes compared with insulin or glibenclamide. Conclusions Evidence shows that packages of care are effective in reducing the risk of most adverse perinatal outcomes. However, trials often include few women, are poorly reported with unclear or high risk of bias and report few outcomes. The contribution of each treatment within the packages of care remains unclear. Large well-designed and well-conducted trials are urgently needed.
引用
收藏
页数:14
相关论文
共 80 条
[1]   Metformin versus insulin treatment in gestational diabetes in pregnancy in a developing country. A randomized control trial [J].
Ainuddin, Jahanara ;
Karim, Nasim ;
Hasan, Anjum Ara ;
Naqvi, Sanower Ali .
DIABETES RESEARCH AND CLINICAL PRACTICE, 2015, 107 (02) :290-299
[2]   Treatments for gestational diabetes [J].
Alwan, N. ;
Tuffnell, D. J. ;
West, J. .
COCHRANE DATABASE OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, 2009, (03)
[3]   Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2014 [J].
不详 .
DIABETES CARE, 2014, 37 :S14-S80
[4]   Comparison of Glyburide with Metformin in Treating Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis [J].
Amin, Muhammad ;
Suksomboon, Naeti ;
Poolsup, Nalinee ;
Malik, Obaidullah .
CLINICAL DRUG INVESTIGATION, 2015, 35 (06) :343-351
[5]   A prospective study comparing insulin and glibenclamide in gestational diabetes mellitus in Asian Indian women [J].
Anjalakshi, C. ;
Balaji, V. ;
Balaji, Madhuri S. ;
Seshiah, V. .
DIABETES RESEARCH AND CLINICAL PRACTICE, 2007, 76 (03) :474-475
[6]  
[Anonymous], PREF REP IT SYST REV
[7]  
[Anonymous], COCHR COLL TOOL ASS
[8]  
[Anonymous], 1999, Definition, diagnosis, and classification of diabetes mellitus and its complications: report of a WHO consultation
[9]  
[Anonymous], 2013, OBSTET GYNECOL, V122, P406, DOI [DOI 10.1097/01.AOG.0000433006.09219.F1, 10.1097/01.AOG.0000433006.09219.f1, DOI 10.1097/01.AOG.0000433006.09219.F]
[10]  
[Anonymous], 2009, Systematic reviews: CRD's guidancefor undertaking reviews in health care