Addition of intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring to standard care in a cohort of pregnant women with type 1 diabetes: effect on glycaemic control and pregnancy outcomes.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: The aim of this study was to assess whether the addition of intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM) to standard care (self-monitoring of blood glucose [SMBG] alone) improves glycaemic control and pregnancy outcomes in women with type 1 diabetes and multiple daily injections. METHODS: This was a multicentre observational cohort study of 300 pregnant women with type 1 diabetes in Spain, including 168 women using SMBG (standard care) and 132 women using isCGM in addition to standard care. In addition to HbA1c, the time in range (TIR), time below range (TBR) and time above range (TAR) with regard to the pregnancy glucose target range (3.5-7.8 mmol/l) were also evaluated in women using isCGM. Logistic regression models were performed for adverse pregnancy outcomes adjusted for baseline maternal characteristics and centre. RESULTS: The isCGM group had a lower median HbA1c in the second trimester than the SMBG group (41.0 [IQR 35.5-46.4] vs 43.2 [IQR 37.7-47.5] mmol/mol, 5.9% [IQR 5.4-6.4%] vs 6.1% [IQR 5.6-6.5%]; p=0.034), with no differences between the groups in the other trimesters (SMBG vs isCGM: first trimester 47.5 [IQR 42.1-54.1] vs 45.9 [IQR 39.9-51.9] mmol/mol, 6.5% [IQR 6.0-7.1%] vs 6.4% [IQR 5.8-6.9%]; third trimester 43.2 [IQR 39.9-47.5] vs 43.2 [IQR 39.9-47.5] mmol/mol, 6.1% [IQR 5.8-6.5%] vs 6.1% [IQR 5.7-6.5%]). The whole cohort showed a slight increase in HbA1c from the second to the third trimester, with a significantly higher rise in the isCGM group than in the SMBG group (median difference 2.2 vs 1.1 mmol/mol [0.2% vs 0.1%]; p=0.033). Regarding neonatal outcomes, newborns of women using isCGM were more likely to have neonatal hypoglycaemia than newborns of non-sensor users (27.4% vs 19.1%; ORadjusted 2.20 [95% CI 1.14, 4.30]), whereas there were no differences between the groups in large-for-gestational-age (LGA) infants (40.6% vs 45.1%; ORadjusted 0.73 [95% CI 0.42, 1.25]), Caesarean section (57.6% vs 48.8%; ORadjusted 1.33 [95% CI 0.78, 2.27]) or prematurity (27.3% vs 24.8%; ORadjusted 1.05 [95% CI 0.55, 1.99]) in the adjusted models. A sensitivity analysis in pregnancies without LGA infants or prematurity also showed that the use of isCGM was associated with a higher risk of neonatal hypoglycaemia (non-LGA: ORadjusted 2.63 [95% CI 1.01, 6.91]; non-prematurity: ORadjusted 2.52 [95% CI 1.12, 5.67]). For isCGM users, the risk of delivering an LGA infant was associated with TIR, TAR and TBR in the second trimester in the logistic regression analysis. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: isCGM use provided an initial improvement in glycaemic control that was not sustained. Furthermore, offspring of isCGM users were more likely to have neonatal hypoglycaemia, with similar rates of macrosomia and prematurity to those of women receiving standard care.

SARS-CoV-2 in pregnancy: characteristics and outcomes of hospitalized and non-hospitalized women due to COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: There is little evidence about how novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) affects pregnant women and their newborns. Comparisons with other members of the coronavirus family responsible for severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) have been done to predict maternal and neonatal outcomes; however, more information is required to establish clinical patterns, disease evolution and pregnancy prognosis in this group of patients. METHODS: This paper is reporting a series of 91 women diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy and puerperium. The analysis showed that 40 patients developed pneumonia, bilateral in most cases, with a 46.2% rate of hospitalization and 4 patients requiring intensive care unit (ICU) admission. In confront with previous publications, we have found a higher rate of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) severe forms, even when compared to non-pregnant women with the same baseline characteristics. We have analyzed the demographic characteristics, pregnancy-related conditions and presenting symptoms to identify features that could determine which patients will need hospitalization because of COVID-19 (Group 1-G1) and those who not (Group 2-G2). We have found that obesity and Latin-American origin behave as risk factors: OR: 4.3; 95% CI: 1.4-13.2, and OR: 2.6; 95% CI: 1.1 - 6.2, respectively. Among the 23 patients that delivered with active SARS-CoV-2, the overall rate of cesarean section (CS) and preterm birth were 52.2% and 34.8%, respectively, but we observed that the rate of CS was even higher in G1 compared to G2: 81.8% versus 25%, p = .012. However, prematurity was equally distributed in both groups and only one preterm delivery was determined by poor maternal condition. There were no deaths among the patients neither their newborns. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, the results of our cohort reveal that SARSC-CoV-2 infection may not behave as mild as suggested during pregnancy, especially when factors as obesity or Latin-American origin are present. No evidence of late vertical transmission was noticed but prematurity and high CS rate were common findings, although it is difficult to establish any causality between these conditions and COVID-19. Further evidence is required to establish if pregnancy itself can lead to severe forms of COVID-19 disease and whether risk factors for the general population are applicable to obstetric patients. Until larger studies are available, pregnant women should be monitored carefully to anticipate severe complications.