Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 39
Filter
1.
Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) ; 13: 824245, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1855335

ABSTRACT

Importance: The ongoing pandemic of COVID-19 is still affecting our life, but the effects of lockdown measures on gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) in pregnant women remain unclear. Aim: To investigate the association between COVID-19 lockdown and GDM. Subjects and Methods: Medical records of 140844 pregnant women during 2015-2020 were extracted from 5 hospitals in Guangdong Province, China. Pregnant women who underwent the COVID-19 Level I lockdown (1/23 - 2/24/2020) during pregnancy were defined as the exposed group (N=20472) and pregnant women who underwent the same calendar months during 2015-2019 (1/23 - 2/24) were defined as the unexposed group (N=120372). Subgroup analyses were used to explore the potential susceptible exposure window of COVID-19 lockdown on GDM. Cumulative exposure is quantitatively estimated by assigning different weights to response periods with different exposure intensities. A logistic regression model was used to estimate the association between COVID-19 lockdown exposure and GDM. Results: The rates of GDM in the exposed and unexposed groups were 15.2% and 12.4%, respectively. The overall analyses showed positive associations (odds ratio, OR=1.22, 95%CI: 1.17, 1.27) between lockdown exposure and GDM risk in all pregnant women. More pronounced associations were found in women who underwent the COVID-19 lockdown in their first four months of pregnancy, and the adjusted OR values ranged from 1.24 (95%CI: 1.10, 1.39) in women with 5-8 gestational weeks (GWs) to 1.35 (95%CI: 1.20, 1.52) with < 5 GWs. In addition, we found a positive exposure-response association of cumulative lockdown exposure with the risk of GDM. Conclusions: The COVID-19 lockdown was associated with an increased risk of GDM, and the first four months of pregnancy may be the window for sensitive exposure.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Diabetes, Gestational , COVID-19/epidemiology , China/epidemiology , Communicable Disease Control , Diabetes, Gestational/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Pregnancy , Pregnant Women
2.
JAMA Intern Med ; 182(2): 106-114, 2022 Feb 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1838104

ABSTRACT

IMPORTANCE: Excessive gestational weight gain (GWG) is common and associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes. Antenatal lifestyle interventions limit GWG; yet benefits of different intervention types and specific maternal and neonatal outcomes are unclear. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association of different types of diet and physical activity-based antenatal lifestyle interventions with GWG and maternal and neonatal outcomes. DATA SOURCES: A 2-stage systematic literature search of MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Health Technology Assessment Database was conducted from February 1, 2017, to May 31, 2020. Search results from the present study were integrated with those from a previous systematic review from 1990 to February 2017. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized trials reporting GWG and maternal and neonatal outcomes. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Data were extracted for random-effects meta-analyses to calculate the summary effect estimates and 95% CIs. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Outcomes were clinically prioritized, with mean GWG as the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included gestational diabetes, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, cesarean section, preterm delivery, large or small for gestational age neonates, neonatal intensive care unit admission, or fetal death. RESULTS: A total of 117 randomized clinical trials of antenatal lifestyle interventions (involving 34 546 women) were included. Overall lifestyle intervention was associated with reduced GWG (-1.15 kg; 95% CI, -1.40 to -0.91), risk of gestational diabetes (odds ratio [OR], 0.79; 95% CI, 0.70-0.89), and total adverse maternal outcomes (OR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.84-0.94) vs routine care. Compared with routine care, diet was associated with less GWG (-2.63 kg; 95% CI, -3.87 to -1.40) than physical activity (-1.04 kg; 95% CI, -1.33 to -0.74) or mixed interventions (eg, unstructured lifestyle support, written information with weight monitoring, or behavioral support alone) (-0.74 kg; 95% CI, -1.06 to -0.43). Diet was associated with reduced risk of gestational diabetes (OR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.45-0.82), preterm delivery (OR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.22-0.84), large for gestational age neonate (OR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.08-0.47), neonatal intensive care admission (OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.48-0.95), and total adverse maternal (OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.61-0.92) and neonatal outcomes (OR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.26-0.72). Physical activity was associated with reduced GWG and reduced risk of gestational diabetes (OR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.47-0.75), hypertensive disorders (OR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.48-0.90), cesarean section (OR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.75-0.95), and total adverse maternal outcomes (OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.71-0.86). Diet with physical activity was associated with reduced GWG (-1.35 kg; 95% CI, -1.95 to -0.75) and reduced risk of gestational diabetes (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.54-0.96) and total adverse maternal outcomes (OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.69-0.95). Mixed interventions were associated with reduced GWG only. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This systematic review and meta-analysis found level 1 evidence that antenatal structured diet and physical activity-based lifestyle interventions were associated with reduced GWG and lower risk of adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes. The findings support the implementation of such interventions in routine antenatal care and policy around the world.


Subject(s)
Diabetes, Gestational , Gestational Weight Gain , Hypertension , Premature Birth , Cesarean Section , Diabetes, Gestational/epidemiology , Diabetes, Gestational/prevention & control , Diet , Exercise , Female , Humans , Infant, Newborn , Male , Pregnancy , Pregnancy Outcome/epidemiology , Premature Birth/epidemiology , Premature Birth/prevention & control , Weight Gain
3.
Front Public Health ; 9: 555539, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1760271

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: Several studies have evaluated the association of cadmium exposure with the risk of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). However, the findings among these studies have been inconsistent. To further investigate the relationship, we carried out a meta-analysis to clarify the relationship between cadmium exposure and GDM risk. METHODS: Five databases (Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane, and CNKI) were searched for eligible studies until September 09, 2021. The quality of eligible studies was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale (NOS). The summary odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated by random-effects models due to high heterogeneity. Sensitivity analysis was performed to explore the robustness of the results. Publication bias was evaluated by Egger's test and Begg's test. We also conducted meta-regression analysis and subgroup analysis to assess the potential sources of heterogeneity. RESULTS: A total of 10 studies with 32,000 participants related to our issue were included. Comparing the highest vs. lowest categories of cadmium exposure, no significant association was observed between cadmium exposure and the risk of GDM (OR = 1.16, 95% CI = 0.92-1.46, and P = 0.206). No publication bias was found in Begg's and Egger's tests (all P > 0.05). Meta-regression suggested that publication year was the potentially heterogeneous source (P = 0.034). Subgroup analysis of publication year showed that the OR of studies before the year of 2016 was 4.05 (95% CI = 1.87-8.76, P < 0.001), and prospective cohort studies showed a borderline increased GDM risk (OR = 1.15, 95% CI = 0.99-1.33, and P = 0.061). CONCLUSION: Our results indicated no significant association between cadmium exposure and GDM risk. Further high-quality prospective studies, especially those using standard analytic methods for cadmium exposure, are warranted to confirm the results.


Subject(s)
Diabetes, Gestational , Cadmium/adverse effects , Diabetes, Gestational/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Pregnancy , Prospective Studies
4.
J Obstet Gynaecol Res ; 48(5): 1126-1131, 2022 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1704587

ABSTRACT

AIM: To evaluate whether the first Covid-19 lockdown for Italian citizens (March to July 2021) might have altered the incidence of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). METHODS: A retrospective single-center study in a tertiary referral center. Primary outcome was the incidence of GDM among pregnant women. GDM incidence, from June 11, 2019 to December 4, 2020, was compared by dividing the study time as follows: from the beginning of the study to before Covid-19 lockdown (from June 11, 2019, to March 9, 2020) and lockdown period (from March 10, 2020, to December 4, 2020). GDM was diagnosed with a 75-g, 2-h oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) at 24-28 gestational weeks. RESULTS: Concerning 1295 women, GDM incidence increased during the lockdown period (9.3% vs. 3.4%, p < 0.001). Higher pregnancy weight gain with an increased body mass index (BMI) at the delivery was reported during the lockdown (31.3 vs. 28.4 kg/m2 , p = 0.02 and mean weight gain of 9.3 vs. 6.6 kg, p = 0.007). There was no difference in other comorbidity incidence and OGTT values between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Pregnant women during the Covid-19 lockdown might have experienced higher BMI and pregnancy weight gain with increased GDM diagnoses. This may be related to physical limitations and emotional distress experienced during the lockdown. However, evidence is limited due to restricted study duration and random variations of outcomes across time. More studies are needed to understand the dietary patterns and the physical activity changes during the Covid-19 lockdown and its impact on fetal outcomes.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Diabetes, Gestational , Gestational Weight Gain , COVID-19/epidemiology , Communicable Disease Control , Diabetes, Gestational/diagnosis , Diabetes, Gestational/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Incidence , Male , Pregnancy , Pregnancy Outcome , Retrospective Studies
5.
Int J Environ Res Public Health ; 19(3)2022 Feb 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1674643

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Due to COVID-19, many centres adopted a change to the diagnosis of GDM. METHODS: A case-control study of antenatal patients between 1 April and 30 June in 2019 and 2020 looking at detection rates of GDM, use of medication, obstetric, and fetal outcomes. RESULTS: During COVID-19, the rate of positive GDM tests approximately halved (20% (42/210) in 2020 vs. 42.2% (92/218) in 2019, (p < 0.01)) with higher rates of requirement for insulin at diagnosis (21.4% (2020) vs. 2.2% (2019); p < 0.01), and at term (31% (2020) vs. 5.4% (2019); p < 0.01). and metformin at diagnosis (4.8% (2020) vs. 1.1% (2019); p < 0.01), and at term (14.3% (2020) vs. 7.6% (2019) p < 0.01), with no differences in birth outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: There was likely an underdiagnosis of GDM while women at a higher risk of hyperglycaemia were correctly identified. The GTT should be maintained as the gold-standard test where possible, with provisions made for social distancing during testing if required.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Diabetes, Gestational , Case-Control Studies , Diabetes, Gestational/diagnosis , Diabetes, Gestational/epidemiology , Female , Glucose Tolerance Test , Humans , Pandemics , Pregnancy , Pregnancy Outcome/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2
6.
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth ; 22(1): 54, 2022 Jan 21.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1643118

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: A hospital-based retrospective study was conducted to examine the effect of initial COVID-19 outbreak during first trimester on pregnancy outcome in Wuxi, China. METHODS: Women who delivered children at our hospital during June 2020 to July 2020 (control group), and October 2020 to December 2020 (exposure group) were recruited in the present study. All of the participants were not infected with COVID-19. The last menstrual period (LMP) of the exposure group was between January 24th, 2020 and March 12th, 2020, whilst in the control group, the LMP was between May 12th and October 31st, 2019. RESULTS: There were 1,456 women in the exposure group and 1,816 women in the control group. Women in the exposure group were more susceptible to hypertension during pregnancy (HDP, P = 0.004, OR[95%CI] = 1.90[1.22-2.95]) and gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM, P = 0.008, OR[95%CI] = 1.31[1.08-1.60]) compared to those in the control group. Mothers diagnosed with HDP were more likely to deliver premature infants, leading to a higher rate of low birth weight (all P < 0.05). The other common outcomes of pregnancy showed no statistical differences between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: The initial COVID-19 outbreak might increase the incidence rates of HDP and GDM among pregnant women whose first trimesters were during that period, resulting in higher percentages of premature delivery and low birth weight. These results should be confirmed by studies from other hospitals or cities.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Maternal Exposure , Pregnancy Complications/epidemiology , Pregnancy Trimester, First , SARS-CoV-2 , Adult , China/epidemiology , Diabetes, Gestational/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Hypertension, Pregnancy-Induced/epidemiology , Incidence , Infant, Low Birth Weight , Pregnancy , Premature Birth , Retrospective Studies
7.
Obstet Gynecol ; 138(4): 603-615, 2021 10 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1591562

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To perform a literature review of key aspects of prenatal care delivery to inform new guidelines. DATA SOURCES: A comprehensive review of Ovid MEDLINE, Elsevier's Scopus, Google Scholar, and ClinicalTrials.gov. METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: We included studies addressing components of prenatal care delivery (visit frequency, routine pregnancy assessments, and telemedicine) that assessed maternal and neonatal health outcomes, patient experience, or care utilization in pregnant individuals with and without medical conditions. Quality was assessed using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Methodology approach. Articles were independently reviewed by at least two members of the study team for inclusion and data abstraction. TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS: Of the 4,105 published abstracts identified, 53 studies met inclusion criteria, totaling 140,150 participants. There were no differences in maternal and neonatal outcomes among patients without medical conditions with reduced visit frequency schedules. For patients at risk of preterm birth, increased visit frequency with enhanced prenatal services was inconsistently associated with improved outcomes. Home monitoring of blood pressure and weight was feasible, but home monitoring of fetal heart tones and fundal height were not assessed. More frequent weight measurement did not lower rates of excessive weight gain. Home monitoring of blood pressure for individuals with medical conditions was feasible, accurate, and associated with lower clinic utilization. There were no differences in health outcomes for patients without medical conditions who received telemedicine visits for routine prenatal care, and patients had decreased care utilization. Telemedicine was a successful strategy for consultations among individuals with medical conditions; resulted in improved outcomes for patients with depression, diabetes, and hypertension; and had inconsistent results for patients with obesity and those at risk of preterm birth. CONCLUSION: Existing evidence for many components of prenatal care delivery, including visit frequency, routine pregnancy assessments, and telemedicine, is limited.


Subject(s)
Delivery of Health Care/methods , Prenatal Care/methods , COVID-19/epidemiology , Diabetes, Gestational/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Hypertension, Pregnancy-Induced/epidemiology , Infant, Newborn , Michigan , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Pregnancy , Pregnancy Complications/epidemiology , Pregnancy Outcome/epidemiology , Premature Birth/epidemiology , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , SARS-CoV-2 , Telemedicine/methods
8.
Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) ; 12: 691033, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1596864

ABSTRACT

Background: Gestational Diabetes Mellitus (GDM) is defined as the type of hyperglycemia diagnosed for the first-time during pregnancy, presenting with intermediate glucose levels between normal levels for pregnancy and glucose levels diagnostic of diabetes in the non-pregnant state. We aimed to systematically review and meta-analyze studies of prevalence of GDM in European countries at regional and sub-regional levels, according to age, trimester, body weight, and GDM diagnostic criteria. Methods: Systematic search was conducted in five databases to retrieve studies from 2014 to 2019 reporting the prevalence of GDM in Europe. Two authors have independently screened titles and abstracts and full text according to eligibility using Covidence software. A random-effects model was used to quantify weighted GDM prevalence estimates. The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute criteria was used to assess the risk of bias. Results: From the searched databases, 133 research reports were deemed eligible and included in the meta-analysis. The research reports yielded 254 GDM-prevalence studies that tested 15,572,847 pregnant women between 2014 and 2019. The 133 research reports were from 24 countries in Northern Europe (44.4%), Southern Europe (27.1%), Western Europe (24.1%), and Eastern Europe (4.5%). The overall weighted GDM prevalence in the 24 European countries was estimated at 10.9% (95% CI: 10.0-11.8, I2 : 100%). The weighted GDM prevalence was highest in the Eastern Europe (31.5%, 95% CI: 19.8-44.6, I2 : 98.9%), followed by in Southern Europe (12.3%, 95% CI: 10.9-13.9, I2 : 99.6%), Western Europe (10.7%, 95% CI: 9.5-12.0, I2 : 99.9%), and Northern Europe (8.9%, 95% CI: 7.9-10.0, I2 : 100). GDM prevalence was 2.14-fold increased in pregnant women with maternal age ≥30 years (versus 15-29 years old), 1.47-fold if the diagnosis was made in the third trimester (versus second trimester), and 6.79- fold in obese and 2.29-fold in overweight women (versus normal weight). Conclusions: In Europe, GDM is significant in pregnant women, around 11%, with the highest prevalence in pregnant women of Eastern European countries (31.5%). Findings have implications to guide vigilant public health awareness campaigns about the risk factors associated with developing GDM. Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO [https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/], identifier CRD42020161857.


Subject(s)
Diabetes, Gestational/epidemiology , Adolescent , Adult , Cross-Sectional Studies , Diabetes, Gestational/etiology , Europe/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Pregnancy , Prevalence , Risk Factors , Young Adult
9.
Diabet Med ; 39(1): e14757, 2022 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1590756
10.
Diabetes Metab Syndr ; 16(1): 102362, 2022 Jan.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1560885

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Pregnant women have significant morbidity and mortality due to COVID-19 infection. Pregnancy and diabetes are known risk factors for severe COVID 19 infection. Understanding the interactions between COVID-19 and diabetes in pregnancy is crucial in developing appropriate therapeutic approaches. India, like many other countries, has a very high prevalence of diabetes and COVID-19 infected cases. Such studies are minimal worldwide and none from India to the best of our knowledge. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We did a retrospective cross-sectional study. 856 COVID-19 infected pregnant women were included in the study. We estimated the impact of diabetes on the severity of COVID-19 infected pregnant women and compared the outcomes with the non-diabetic group. RESULTS: Prevalence of diabetes in pregnancy in the present study was 15.43%(n = 132/856). Prevalence of diabetes in non-severe infection was 14%(n = 115/818), severe infection was 44.73%(n = 17/38), and in maternal deaths was 75% (n = 6/8). The age-adjusted odds ratio for diabetes for severe infection was 4.492 (95% CI = 2.277-8.865, p < 0.001). COVID-19 infected pregnant women with diabetes were at higher risk for Cesarean section (78.3%) and ICU admission for newborns (14.81%) CONCLUSION: Diabetes in pregnant women is strongly associated with the severity of COVID-19 infection. The prevalence of diabetes in pregnancy increases as the severity of COVID-19 infection increases. Diabetes is associated with more adverse outcomes in mothers and newborns. It is necessary to identify pregnant women with diabetes and prioritize them in public health interventions like vaccination.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/pathology , Diabetes, Gestational/epidemiology , Pregnancy Complications, Infectious , Pregnancy in Diabetics/epidemiology , Adolescent , Adult , COVID-19/complications , Comorbidity , Cross-Sectional Studies , Diabetes, Gestational/pathology , Female , Humans , India/epidemiology , Infant, Newborn , Male , Patient Acuity , Pregnancy , Pregnancy Complications, Infectious/epidemiology , Pregnancy Complications, Infectious/pathology , Pregnancy Outcome/epidemiology , Pregnancy in Diabetics/pathology , Prevalence , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2/physiology , Young Adult
11.
Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) ; 12: 778911, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1555758

ABSTRACT

The emergence of the COVID-19 Delta variant-of-concern (VOC), a novel variant of SARS-CoV-2, has threatened the total health systems throughout the world. This highly contagious strain is spreading at a higher exponential rate than any other variants of COVID-19 by infecting and subsequently killing hundreds of thousands of people globally. Among the most sensitive groups, pregnant women are at high risk of increased hospitalization, pneumonia, respiratory support, and admission to intensive care units during the Delta period. Pregnant people with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) are at increased chances of Delta VOC infection. GDM patients are nine and three times more likely to be infected by Delta VOC than those pregnant patients suffering from diabetes and cardiovascular diseases and hypertension, respectively. Additionally, they are more vulnerable to Delta VOC infection than wild-type and Alpha COVID-19 VOC ones. Thus, this review critically sheds light on the current scenario of the vulnerability of pregnant mothers, especially those with GDM, to Delta VOC infection.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/virology , Diabetes, Gestational/epidemiology , Diabetes, Gestational/virology , Pregnancy Complications, Infectious/epidemiology , Pregnancy Complications, Infectious/virology , SARS-CoV-2 , Adult , COVID-19/epidemiology , Female , Global Health , Humans , Pregnancy , Pregnant Women , Risk , Risk Factors , Vulnerable Populations , Young Adult
12.
PLoS Med ; 18(11): e1003857, 2021 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1542163

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: To the best of our knowledge, no study has exhaustively evaluated the association between maternal morbidities and Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) during the first wave of the pandemic in pregnant women. We investigated, in natural conceptions and assisted reproductive technique (ART) pregnancies, whether maternal morbidities were more frequent in pregnant women with COVID-19 diagnosis compared to pregnant women without COVID-19 diagnosis during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data in a national cohort of all hospitalizations for births ≥22 weeks of gestation in France from January to June 2020 using the French national hospitalization database (PMSI). Pregnant women with COVID-19 were identified if they had been recorded in the database using the ICD-10 (International Classification of Disease) code for presence of a hospitalization for COVID-19. A total of 244,645 births were included, of which 874 (0.36%) in the COVID-19 group. Maternal morbidities and adverse obstetrical outcomes among those with or without COVID-19 were analyzed with a multivariable logistic regression model adjusted on patient characteristics. Among pregnant women, older age (31.1 (±5.9) years old versus 30.5 (±5.4) years old, respectively, p < 0.001), obesity (0.7% versus 0.3%, respectively, p < 0.001), multiple pregnancy (0.7% versus 0.4%, respectively, p < 0.001), and history of hypertension (0.9% versus 0.3%, respectively, p < 0.001) were more frequent with COVID-19 diagnosis. Active smoking (0.2% versus 0.4%, respectively, p < 0.001) and primiparity (0.3% versus 0.4%, respectively, p < 0.03) were less frequent with COVID-19 diagnosis. Frequency of ART conception was not different between those with and without COVID-19 diagnosis (p = 0.28). When compared to the non-COVID-19 group, women in the COVID-19 group had a higher frequency of admission to ICU (5.9% versus 0.1%, p < 0.001), mortality (0.2% versus 0.005%, p < 0.001), preeclampsia/eclampsia (4.8% versus 2.2%, p < 0.001), gestational hypertension (2.3% versus 1.3%, p < 0.03), postpartum hemorrhage (10.0% versus 5.7%, p < 0.001), preterm birth at <37 weeks of gestation (16.7% versus 7.1%, p < 0.001), <32 weeks of gestation (2.2% versus 0.8%, p < 0.001), <28 weeks of gestation (2.4% versus 0.8%, p < 0.001), induced preterm birth (5.4% versus 1.4%, p < 0.001), spontaneous preterm birth (11.3% versus 5.7%, p < 0.001), fetal distress (33.0% versus 26.0%, p < 0.001), and cesarean section (33.0% versus 20.2%, p < 0.001). Rates of pregnancy terminations ≥22 weeks of gestation, stillbirths, gestational diabetes, placenta praevia, and placenta abruption were not significantly different between the COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 groups. The number of venous thromboembolic events was too low to perform statistical analysis. A limitation of this study relies in the possibility that asymptomatic infected women were not systematically detected. CONCLUSIONS: We observed an increased frequency of pregnant women with maternal morbidities and diagnosis of COVID-19 compared to pregnant women without COVID-19. It appears essential to be aware of this, notably in populations at known risk of developing a more severe form of infection or obstetrical morbidities and in order for obstetrical units to better inform pregnant women and provide the best care. Although causality cannot be determined from these associations, these results may be in line with recent recommendations in favor of vaccination for pregnant women.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Cesarean Section/statistics & numerical data , Pandemics , Pregnancy Complications/epidemiology , Pregnancy Outcome , Premature Birth/epidemiology , Adult , Diabetes, Gestational/epidemiology , Female , Fetal Distress/epidemiology , France/epidemiology , Humans , Hypertension, Pregnancy-Induced/epidemiology , Infant, Newborn , Intensive Care Units , Logistic Models , Maternal Mortality , Obesity/epidemiology , Postpartum Hemorrhage/epidemiology , Pre-Eclampsia/epidemiology , Pregnancy , Pregnant Women , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
13.
Diabetes Res Clin Pract ; 183: 109149, 2022 Jan.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1520814

ABSTRACT

AIM: Although an increased risk of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) has been noted in women exposed to stressful conditions and traumatic events, limited information is available about such risk in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: The study was designed as a non-concurrent case-control study on the prevalence of GDM, defined according to IADPSG 2010, in women giving birth during the COVID-19 pandemic in the hot spot of Northeast Italy from March 9th to May 18th, 2020, with an antecedent puerperae-matched group whose women had given birth in 2019. RESULTS: Analysis revealed that during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, GDM prevalence was significantly higher than in 2019 (GDM, 48/533, 9 vs 86/637, 13.5%, p = 0.01), as illustrated by a higher GDM prevalence in 5/6 months of the final semester of 2020. In addition, logistic regression analysisconfirmed a statistically significant temporal relationship between experiencing the lockdown during the first trimester of gestation and later GDM incidence (t = 2.765, P = 0.012), with an 34% increase in mean number of GDM diagnoses per month (antilog of the parameter = 1.34). CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic negatively impacted GDM prevalence in 2020 compared to 2019, especially for pregnant women in the 1st trimester of gestation.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Diabetes, Gestational , Case-Control Studies , Communicable Disease Control , Diabetes, Gestational/epidemiology , Female , Glucose Tolerance Test , Humans , Pandemics , Pregnancy , Prevalence , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2
14.
Acta Diabetol ; 59(3): 403-427, 2022 Mar.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1506064

ABSTRACT

AIMS: Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) diagnosed during the first trimester of pregnancy is called 'early pregnancy Gestational Diabetes Mellitus' (eGDM). The burden of eGDM has only been studied sporadically. This review aims to understand the global burden of eGDM in terms of prevalence, risk factors, pregnancy outcomes, treatment and postpartum dysglycemia.  METHODS: A review of epidemiologic studies reporting on early GDM screening as per Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for prevalence reviews was conducted. A customized search strategy was used to search electronic databases namely, PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Scopus, MEDLINE, Ovid, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar. Three independent reviewers reviewed studies using Covidence software. Observational studies irrespective of study design and regardless of diagnostic criteria were included. Quality of evidence was appraised, and findings were synthesized. RESULTS: Of 58 included studies, 41 reported a prevalence of eGDM, ranging from 0.7 to 36.8%. Body mass index (BMI), previous history of GDM, family history of diabetes and multiparity were reported as eGDM risk factors. Adverse pregnancy outcomes associated with eGDM were macrosomia, caesarean delivery, induction of labour, hypertension, preterm delivery, and shoulder dystocia. The incidence of postpartum dysglycemia and the need for insulin was higher in women with eGDM. The risk of bias was moderate. Heterogeneity of studies is a limitation. Meta-analysis was not performed. CONCLUSIONS: There is heterogeneity in the prevalence of eGDM and intrapartum and postpartum ill effects for the mother and the offspring. There is a need to develop a universal screening protocol for eGDM.


Subject(s)
Diabetes, Gestational , Body Mass Index , Diabetes, Gestational/diagnosis , Diabetes, Gestational/epidemiology , Diabetes, Gestational/therapy , Female , Fetal Macrosomia , Humans , Infant, Newborn , Postpartum Period , Pregnancy , Pregnancy Outcome/epidemiology
15.
BJOG ; 128(11): 1881-1887, 2021 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1429452

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that there is seasonal variation in the rates of gestational diabetes (GDM) diagnosed using a 2-hour oral glucose tolerance test. DESIGN: Monthly assessment of the percentage of women screened from 1 April 2016 to the 31 December 2020 who were diagnosed as having gestational diabetes. SETTING: London teaching hospital. POPULATION: 28 128 women receiving antenatal care between 1 April 2016 and 31 December 2020. METHODS: Retrospective study of prospectively collected data. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Proportion of women screened diagnosed as having gestational diabetes. RESULTS: The mean (SD) percentage of women diagnosed with GDM was 14.78 (2.24) in summer (June, July, August) compared with 11.23 (1.62) in winter (P < 0.001), 12.13 (1.94) in spring (P = 0.002) and 11.88 (2.67) in autumn (P = 0.003). There was a highly significant positive correlation of the percentage testing positive for GDM with the mean maximum monthly temperature (R2  = 0.248, P < 0.001). There was a statistically significant 33.8% increase in the proportion of GDM diagnoses from June 2020 onwards, possibly related to a reduction in exercise secondary to the Covid-19 pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: There is a 23.3% higher rate of GDM diagnoses in the warmer summer months. There has been a 33.8% rise in GDM diagnoses associated with the Covid-19 pandemic. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Rates of GDM are higher in summer and since the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Diabetes, Gestational/epidemiology , Seasons , Adult , Female , Glucose Tolerance Test , Humans , Incidence , London/epidemiology , Pregnancy , Prospective Studies , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
17.
J Diabetes Investig ; 12(12): 2242-2246, 2021 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1329011

ABSTRACT

During the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, the Japanese Society of Diabetes and Pregnancy proposed the use of random plasma glucose and glycated hemoglobin measured 1 month after delivery combined with pre-pregnancy body mass index to detect postpartum glucose intolerance instead of carrying out the oral glucose tolerance test in women with gestational diabetes. We retrospectively evaluated the clinical utility of this strategy to detect postpartum glucose intolerance evaluated by the oral glucose tolerance test after delivery. A total of 275 Japanese women with gestational diabetes were included in the present study. The specificity of 1-month postpartum random plasma glucose and glycated hemoglobin combined with pre-pregnancy body mass index to predict postpartum glucose intolerance was 98.0%, with a negative predictive value of 72.6%. However, sensitivity was 6.4%, with a positive predictive value of 55.6%. In conclusion, this Japanese Society of Diabetes and Pregnancy strategy showed high specificity, but low sensitivity, for detecting glucose intolerance postpartum.


Subject(s)
Blood Glucose/metabolism , Body Mass Index , Diabetes, Gestational/blood , Glucose Intolerance/blood , Glycated Hemoglobin A/metabolism , Postpartum Period/blood , Adult , Diabetes, Gestational/diagnosis , Diabetes, Gestational/epidemiology , Female , Glucose Intolerance/diagnosis , Glucose Intolerance/epidemiology , Humans , Japan/epidemiology , Pregnancy , Retrospective Studies , Time Factors
18.
Int J Environ Res Public Health ; 18(4)2021 02 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1278488

ABSTRACT

Canada's largest national obstetric and diabetology organizations have recommended various algorithms for the screening of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) over the years. Though uniformity across recommendations from clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) is desirable, historically, national guidelines from Diabetes Canada (DC) and the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada (SOGC) have differed. Lack of consensus has led to variation in screening approaches, rendering precise ascertainment of GDM prevalence challenging. To highlight the reason and level of disparity in Canada, we conducted a scoping review of CPGs released by DC and the SOGC over the last thirty years and distributed a survey on screening practices among Canadian physicians. Earlier CPGs were based on expert opinion, leading to different recommendations from these organizations. However, as a result of the Hyperglycemia and Adverse Pregnancy Outcome (HAPO) study, disparities between DC and the SOGC no longer exist and many Canadian physicians have adopted their recent recommendations. Given that Canadian guidelines now recommend two different screening programs (one step vs. two step), lack of consensus on a single diagnostic threshold continues to exist, resulting in differing estimates of GDM prevalence. Our scoping review highlights these disparities and provides a step forward towards reaching a consensus on one unified threshold.


Subject(s)
Diabetes, Gestational , Hyperglycemia , Blood Glucose , Canada , Diabetes, Gestational/diagnosis , Diabetes, Gestational/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Mass Screening , Pregnancy , Pregnancy Outcome
19.
BJOG ; 128(11): 1881-1887, 2021 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1247108

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that there is seasonal variation in the rates of gestational diabetes (GDM) diagnosed using a 2-hour oral glucose tolerance test. DESIGN: Monthly assessment of the percentage of women screened from 1 April 2016 to the 31 December 2020 who were diagnosed as having gestational diabetes. SETTING: London teaching hospital. POPULATION: 28 128 women receiving antenatal care between 1 April 2016 and 31 December 2020. METHODS: Retrospective study of prospectively collected data. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Proportion of women screened diagnosed as having gestational diabetes. RESULTS: The mean (SD) percentage of women diagnosed with GDM was 14.78 (2.24) in summer (June, July, August) compared with 11.23 (1.62) in winter (P < 0.001), 12.13 (1.94) in spring (P = 0.002) and 11.88 (2.67) in autumn (P = 0.003). There was a highly significant positive correlation of the percentage testing positive for GDM with the mean maximum monthly temperature (R2  = 0.248, P < 0.001). There was a statistically significant 33.8% increase in the proportion of GDM diagnoses from June 2020 onwards, possibly related to a reduction in exercise secondary to the Covid-19 pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: There is a 23.3% higher rate of GDM diagnoses in the warmer summer months. There has been a 33.8% rise in GDM diagnoses associated with the Covid-19 pandemic. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Rates of GDM are higher in summer and since the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Diabetes, Gestational/epidemiology , Seasons , Adult , Female , Glucose Tolerance Test , Humans , Incidence , London/epidemiology , Pregnancy , Prospective Studies , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
20.
Int J Gynaecol Obstet ; 154(2): 212-219, 2021 Aug.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1209518

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Besides reducing the quality of obstetric care, the direct impact of COVID-19 on pregnancy and postpartum is uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the characteristics of pregnant women who died due to COVID-19. SEARCH STRATEGY: Cochrane Library, Embase, MEDLINE, Scopus, and Google Scholar were searched from inception to February 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies that compared deceased and survived pregnant women with COVID-19. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Relevant data were extracted and tabulated. The primary outcome was maternal co-morbidity. MAIN RESULTS: Thirteen studies with 154 deceased patients were included. Obesity doubled the risk of death (relative risk [RR] 2.48, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.41-4.36, I2  = 0%). No differences were found for gestational diabetes (RR 5.71; 95% CI 0.77-42.44, I2  = 94%) or asthma (RR 2.05, 95% CI 0.81-5.15, I2  = 0%). Overall, at least one severe co-morbidity showed a twofold increased risk of death (RR 2.26, 95% CI 1.77-2.89, I2  = 76%). Admission to intensive care was related to a fivefold increased risk of death (RR 5.09, 95% CI 2.00-12.98, I2  = 56%), with no difference in need for respiratory support (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.23-1.48, I2  = 95%) or mechanical ventilation (RR 4.34, 95% CI 0.96-19.60, I2  = 58%). CONCLUSION: COVID-19 with at least one co-morbidity increases risk of intensive care and mortality.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/mortality , Maternal Death , Maternal Mortality , Pregnancy Complications, Infectious/mortality , Asthma/epidemiology , Comorbidity , Diabetes, Gestational/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Infant, Newborn , Obesity/epidemiology , Pandemics , Postpartum Period , Pregnancy , Pregnancy Complications, Infectious/virology , SARS-CoV-2
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL