Browse the corpus

Techniques of monitoring blood glucose during pregnancy for women with pre-existing diabetes. BACKGROUND: There are a number of ways of monitoring blood glucose in women with diabetes during pregnancy, with self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) recommended as a key component of the management plan. No existing systematic reviews consider the benefits/effectiveness of different techniques of blood glucose monitoring on maternal and infant outcomes among pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes. The effectiveness of the various monitoring techniques is unclear. This review is an update of a review that was first published in 2014 and subsequently updated in 2017. OBJECTIVES: To compare techniques of blood glucose monitoring and their impact on maternal and infant outcomes among pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes. SEARCH METHODS: For this update, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (1 November 2018), and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing techniques of blood glucose monitoring including SMBG, continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), automated telemedicine monitoring or clinic monitoring among pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes mellitus (type 1 or type 2). Trials investigating timing and frequency of monitoring were also eligible for inclusion. RCTs using a cluster-randomised design were eligible for inclusion but none were identified. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Data were checked for accuracy. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: This review update includes a total of 12 trials (863) women (792 women with type 1 diabetes and 152 women with type 2 diabetes). The trials took place in Europe, the USA and Canada. Three of the 12 included studies are at low risk of bias, eight studies are at moderate risk of bias, and one study is at high risk of bias. Four trials reported that they were provided with the continuous glucose monitors free of charge or at a reduced cost by the manufacturer.Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) versus intermittent glucose monitoring, (four studies, 609 women)CGM may reduce hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (pre-eclampsia and pregnancy-induced hypertension) (risk ratio (RR) 0.58, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.39 to 0.85; 2 studies, 384 women; low-quality evidence), although it should be noted that only two of the four relevant studies reported data for this composite outcome. Conversely, this did not translate into a clear reduction for pre-eclampsia (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.08; 4 studies, 609 women, moderate-quality evidence). There was also no clear reduction in caesarean section (average RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.18; 3 studies, 427 women; I2 = 41%; moderate-quality evidence) or large-for-gestational age (average RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.26; 3 studies, 421 women; I2 = 70%; low-quality evidence) with CGM. There was not enough evidence to assess perinatal mortality (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.05 to 12.61, 71 infants, 1 study; low-quality evidence), or mortality or morbidity composite (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.06; 1 study, 200 women) as the evidence was based on single studies of low quality. CGM appears to reduce neonatal hypoglycaemia (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.93; 3 studies, 428 infants). Neurosensory disability was not reported.Other methods of glucose monitoringFor the following five comparisons, self-monitoring versus a different type of self-monitoring (two studies, 43 women); self-monitoring at home versus hospitalisation (one study, 100 women), pre-prandial versus post-prandial glucose monitoring (one study, 61 women), automated telemedicine monitoring versus conventional system (three studies, 84 women), and constant CGM versus intermittent CGM (one study, 25 women), it is uncertain whether any of the interventions has any impact on any of our GRADE outcomes (hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, caesarean section, large-for-gestational age) because the quality of the evidence was found to be very low. This was due to evidence largely being derived from single trials, with design limitations and limitations with imprecision (wide CIs, small sample sizes, and few events). There was not enough evidence to assess perinatal mortality and neonatal mortality and morbidity composite. Other important outcomes, such as neurosensory disability, were not reported in any of these comparisons. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Two new studies (406 women) have been incorporated to one of the comparisons for this update. Although the evidence suggests that CGM in comparison to intermittent glucose monitoring may reduce hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, this did not translate into a clear reduction for pre-eclampsia, and so this result should be viewed with caution. No differences were observed for other primary outcomes for this comparison. The evidence base for the effectiveness of other monitoring techniques analysed in the other five comparisons is weak and based on mainly single studies with very low-quality evidence. Additional evidence from large well-designed randomised trials is required to inform choices of other glucose monitoring techniques and to confirm the effectiveness of CGM.

Techniques of monitoring blood glucose during pregnancy for women with pre-existing diabetes. BACKGROUND: Self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) is recommended as a key component of the management plan for diabetes therapy during pregnancy. No existing systematic reviews consider the benefits/effectiveness of various techniques of blood glucose monitoring on maternal and infant outcomes among pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes. The effectiveness of the various monitoring techniques is unclear. OBJECTIVES: To compare techniques of blood glucose monitoring and their impact on maternal and infant outcomes among pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 November 2016), searched reference lists of retrieved studies and contacted trial authors. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing techniques of blood glucose monitoring including SMBG, continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) or clinic monitoring among pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes mellitus (type 1 or type 2). Trials investigating timing and frequency of monitoring were also included. RCTs using a cluster-randomised design were eligible for inclusion but none were identified. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Data were checked for accuracy. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: This review update includes at total of 10 trials (538) women (468 women with type 1 diabetes and 70 women with type 2 diabetes). The trials took place in Europe and the USA. Five of the 10 included studies were at moderate risk of bias, four studies were at low to moderate risk of bias, and one study was at high risk of bias. The trials are too small to show differences in important outcomes such as macrosomia, preterm birth, miscarriage or death of baby. Almost all the reported GRADE outcomes were assessed as being very low-quality evidence. This was due to design limitations in the studies, wide confidence intervals, small sample sizes, and few events. In addition, there was high heterogeneity for some outcomes.Various methods of glucose monitoring were compared in the trials. Neither pooled analyses nor individual trial analyses showed any clear advantages of one monitoring technique over another for primary and secondary outcomes. Many important outcomes were not reported.1. Self-monitoring versus standard care (two studies, 43 women): there was no clear difference for caesarean section (risk ratio (RR) 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40 to 1.49; one study, 28 women) or glycaemic control (both very low-quality), and not enough evidence to assess perinatal mortality and neonatal mortality and morbidity composite. Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, large-for-gestational age, neurosensory disability, and preterm birth were not reported in either study.2. Self-monitoring versus hospitalisation (one study, 100 women): there was no clear difference for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (pre-eclampsia and hypertension) (RR 4.26, 95% CI 0.52 to 35.16; very low-quality: RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.08 to 2.22; very low-quality). There was no clear difference in caesarean section or preterm birth less than 37 weeks' gestation (both very low quality), and the sample size was too small to assess perinatal mortality (very low-quality). Large-for-gestational age, mortality or morbidity composite, neurosensory disability and preterm birth less than 34 weeks were not reported.3. Pre-prandial versus post-prandial glucose monitoring (one study, 61 women): there was no clear difference between groups for caesarean section (RR 1.45, 95% CI 0.92 to 2.28; very low-quality), large-for-gestational age (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.85; very low-quality) or glycaemic control (very low-quality). The results for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy: pre-eclampsia and perinatal mortality are not meaningful because these outcomes were too rare to show differences in a small sample (all very low-quality). The study did not report the outcomes mortality or morbidity composite, neurosensory disability or preterm birth.4. Automated telemedicine monitoring versus conventional system (three studies, 84 women): there was no clear difference for caesarean section (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.48; one study, 32 women; very low-quality), and mortality or morbidity composite in the one study that reported these outcomes. There were no clear differences for glycaemic control (very low-quality). No studies reported hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, large-for-gestational age, perinatal mortality (stillbirth and neonatal mortality), neurosensory disability or preterm birth.5.CGM versus intermittent monitoring (two studies, 225 women): there was no clear difference for pre-eclampsia (RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.52 to 3.59; low-quality), caesarean section (average RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.54; I² = 62%; very low-quality) and large-for-gestational age (average RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.92; I² = 82%; very low-quality). Glycaemic control indicated by mean maternal HbA1c was lower for women in the continuous monitoring group (mean difference (MD) -0.60 %, 95% CI -0.91 to -0.29; one study, 71 women; moderate-quality). There was not enough evidence to assess perinatal mortality and there were no clear differences for preterm birth less than 37 weeks' gestation (low-quality). Mortality or morbidity composite, neurosensory disability and preterm birth less than 34 weeks were not reported.6. Constant CGM versus intermittent CGM (one study, 25 women): there was no clear difference between groups for caesarean section (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.79; very low-quality), glycaemic control (mean blood glucose in the 3rd trimester) (MD -0.14 mmol/L, 95% CI -2.00 to 1.72; very low-quality) or preterm birth less than 37 weeks' gestation (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.08 to 15.46; very low-quality). Other primary (hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, large-for-gestational age, perinatal mortality (stillbirth and neonatal mortality), mortality or morbidity composite, and neurosensory disability) or GRADE outcomes (preterm birth less than 34 weeks' gestation) were not reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review found no evidence that any glucose monitoring technique is superior to any other technique among pregnant women with pre-existing type 1 or type 2 diabetes. The evidence base for the effectiveness of monitoring techniques is weak and additional evidence from large well-designed randomised trials is required to inform choices of glucose monitoring techniques.