Metformin in women with type 2 diabetes in pregnancy (MiTy): a multicentre, international, randomised, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Although metformin is increasingly being used in women with type 2 diabetes during pregnancy, little data exist on the benefits and harms of metformin use on pregnancy outcomes in these women. We aimed to investigate the effects of the addition of metformin to a standard regimen of insulin on neonatal morbidity and mortality in pregnant women with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: In this prospective, multicentre, international, randomised, parallel, double-masked, placebo-controlled trial, women with type 2 diabetes during pregnancy were randomly assigned from 25 centres in Canada and four in Australia to receive either metformin 1000 mg twice daily or placebo, added to insulin. Randomisation was done via a web-based computerised randomisation service and stratified by centre and pre-pregnancy BMI (<30 kg/m2 or ≥30 kg/m2) in a ratio of 1:1 using random block sizes of 4 and 6. Women were eligible if they had type 2 diabetes, were on insulin, had a singleton viable pregnancy, and were between 6 and 22 weeks plus 6 days' gestation. Participants were asked to check their fasting blood glucose level before the first meal of the day, before the last meal of the day, and 2 h after each meal. Insulin doses were adjusted aiming for identical glucose targets (fasting glucose <5·3 mmol/L [95 mg/dL], 2-h postprandial glucose <6·7 mmol/L [120 mg/dL]). Study visits were done monthly and patients were seen every 1-4 weeks as was needed for standard clinical care. At study visits blood pressure and bodyweight were measured; patients were asked about tolerance to their pills, any hospitalisations, insulin doses, and severe hypoglycaemia events; and glucometer readings were downloaded to the central coordinating centre. Participants, caregivers, and outcome assessors were masked to the intervention. The primary outcome was a composite of fetal and neonatal outcomes, for which we calculated the relative risk and 95% CI between groups, stratifying by site and BMI using a log-binomial regression model with an intention-to-treat analysis. Secondary outcomes included several relevant maternal and neonatal outcomes. The trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01353391. FINDINGS: Between May 25, 2011, and Oct 11, 2018, we randomly assigned 502 women, 253 (50%) to metformin and 249 (50%) to placebo. Complete data were available for 233 (92%) participants in the metformin group and 240 (96%) in the placebo group for the primary outcome. We found no significant difference in the primary composite neonatal outcome between the two groups (40% vs 40%; p=0·86; relative risk [RR] 1·02 [0·83 to 1·26]). Compared with women in the placebo group, metformin-treated women achieved better glycaemic control (HbA1c at 34 weeks' gestation 41·0 mmol/mol [SD 8·5] vs 43·2 mmol/mol [-10]; 5·90% vs 6·10%; p=0·015; mean glucose 6·05 [0·93] vs 6·27 [0·90]; difference -0·2 [-0·4 to 0·0]), required less insulin (1·1 units per kg per day vs 1·5 units per kg per day; difference -0·4 [95% CI -0·5 to -0·2]; p<0·0001), gained less weight (7·2 kg vs 9·0 kg; difference -1·8 [-2·7 to -0·9]; p<0·0001) and had fewer caesarean births (125 [53%] of 234 in the metformin group vs 148 [63%] of 236 in the placebo group; relative risk [RR] 0·85 [95% CI 0·73 to 0·99]; p=0·031). We found no significant difference between the groups in hypertensive disorders (55 [23%] in the metformin group vs 56 [23%] in the placebo group; p=0·93; RR 0·99 [0·72 to 1·35]). Compared with those in the placebo group, metformin-exposed infants weighed less (mean birthweight 3156 g [SD 742] vs 3375 g [742]; difference -218 [-353 to -82]; p=0·002), fewer were above the 97th centile for birthweight (20 [9%] in the metformin group vs 34 [15%] in the placebo group; RR 0·58 [0·34 to 0·97]; p=0·041), fewer weighed 4000 g or more at birth (28 [12%] in the metformin group vs 44 [19%] in the placebo group; RR 0·65 [0·43 to 0·99]; p=0·046), and metformin-exposed infants had reduced adiposity measures (mean sum of skinfolds 16·0 mm [SD 5·0] vs 17·4 [6·2] mm; difference -1·41 [-2·6 to -0·2]; p=0·024; mean neonatal fat mass 13·2 [SD 6·2] vs 14·6 [5·0]; p=0·017). 30 (13%) infants in the metformin group and 15 (7%) in the placebo group were small for gestational age (RR 1·96 [1·10 to 3·64]; p=0·026). We found no significant difference in the cord c-peptide between groups (673 pmol/L [435] in the metformin group vs 758 pmol/L [595] in the placebo group; p=0·10; ratio of means 0·88 [0·72 to 1·02]). The most common adverse event reported was gastrointestinal (38 events in the metformin group and 38 events in the placebo group). INTERPRETATION: We found several maternal glycaemic and neonatal adiposity benefits in the metformin group. Along with reduced maternal weight gain and insulin dosage and improved glycaemic control, the lower adiposity and infant size measurements resulted in fewer large infants but a higher proportion of small-for-gestational-age infants. Understanding the implications of these effects on infants will be important to properly advise patients who are contemplating the use of metformin during pregnancy. FUNDING: Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, University of Toronto.

Canada-wide mixed methods analysis evaluating the reasons for inappropriate emergency department presentation in patients with a history of atrial fibrillation: the multicentre AF-ED trial.

OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this study was to ascertain the reasons for emergency department (ED) attendance among patients with a history of atrial fibrillation (AF). DESIGN: Appropriate ED attendance was defined by the requirement for an electrical or chemical cardioversion and/or an attendance resulting in hospitalisation or administration of intravenous medications for ventricular rate control. Quantitative and qualitative responses were recorded and analysed using descriptive statistics and content analysis, respectively. Random effects logistic regression was performed to estimate the OR of inappropriate ED attendance based on clinically relevant patient characteristics. PARTICIPANTS: Participants ≥18 years with a documented history of AF were approached in one of eight centres partaking in the study across Canada (Ontario, Nova Scotia, Alberta and British Columbia). RESULTS: Of the 356 patients enrolled (67±13, 45% female), the majority (271/356, 76%) had inappropriate reasons for presentation and did not require urgent ED treatment. Approximately 50% of patients(172/356, 48%) were driven to the ED due to symptoms, while the remainder presented on the basis of general fear or anxiety (67/356, 19%) or prior medical advice (117/356, 33%). Random effects logistic regression analysis showed that patients with a history of congestive heart failure were significantly more likely to seek urgent care for appropriate reasons (p=0.03). Likewise, symptom-related concerns for ED presentation were significantly less likely to result in inappropriate visitation (p=0.02). When patients were surveyed on alternatives to ED care, the highest proportion of responses among both groups was in favour of specialised rapid assessment outpatient clinics (186/356, 52%). Qualitative content analysis confirmed these results. CONCLUSIONS: Improved education focused on symptom management and alleviating disease-related anxiety as well as the institution of rapid access arrhythmias clinics may reduce the need for unnecessary healthcare utilisation in the ED and subsequent hospitalisation. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03127085.

Immunosuppressive Therapies for the Maintenance Treatment of Proliferative Lupus Nephritis: A Systematic Review and Network Metaanalysis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the most effective immunosuppressive therapy for the longterm management of proliferative lupus nephritis (PLN) based on the outcome of renal failure. METHODS: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCT) was conducted. MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched. RCT designed to examine the maintenance treatment effectiveness of immunosuppressive agents for PLN were included. A Bayesian network metaanalysis of 2-arm and 3-arm trials was used. A skeptical prior assumption was used in sensitivity analysis. Four immunosuppressive agents were evaluated: cyclophosphamide (CYC), azathioprine (AZA), mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), and prednisone alone. The outcome of interest was renal failure during the study period, defined by serum creatinine (sCr) > 256 µmol/l, doubling of sCr from baseline, and/or endstage renal disease. RESULTS: The OR (95% credible interval) of developing renal failure at 2-3 years was 0.72 (0.11, 4.49) for AZA versus CYC, 0.32 (0.04, 2.25) for MMF versus CYC, 2.40 (0.22, 36.94) for prednisone alone versus CYC, and 0.45 (0.11, 1.48) for MMF versus AZA. The probability (95% credible interval) of developing renal failure at 2 years as expected for each agent was 6% (0.7%, 24%) for MMF, 12% (2%, 37%) for AZA, 16% (5%, 33%) for CYC, and 31% (5%, 81%) for prednisone alone. After applying a skeptical prior in the Bayesian analysis, there was no evidence of benefit for 1 therapy over another. CONCLUSION: Although the data suggest that MMF may be superior to other treatments for the maintenance treatment of PLN, the evidence is not conclusive.

Immunosuppressive therapies for the induction treatment of proliferative lupus nephritis: a systematic review and network metaanalysis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and determine the most effective immunosuppressive therapy for the induction treatment of proliferative lupus nephritis (PLN) based on renal remission. METHODS: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials was conducted. The outcomes were renal remission at 6 months: (1) normalization of serum creatinine [(sCr), or within 15% of the normal range, i.e., sCr < 132 µmol/l - creatinine remission]; and (2) proteinuric remission (prU < 0.5 g/day/1.73m(2)). A Bayesian network metaanalysis was used. RESULTS: The OR (95% credible interval) of inducing an sCr remission at 6 months was 1.70 (0.51, 6.87) for mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) versus cyclophosphamide (CYC); 2.16 (0.38, 13.36) for tacrolimus (Tac) versus CYC; and 1.25 (0.13, 10.51) for Tac versus MMF. For proteinuric remission the OR was 1.46 (0.81, 3.04) for MMF versus CYC; 1.96 (0.80, 5.11) for Tac versus CYC; and 1.34 (0.43, 3.90) for Tac versus MMF. The probability (95% credible interval) of inducing a creatinine remission at 6 months was Tac 56% (19%, 88%); MMF 51% (23%, 79%); and CYC 37% (28%, 47%). The probability of inducing a proteinuric remission was Tac 41% (23%, 63%); MMF 34% (23%, 50%); CYC 26% (20%, 32%); azathioprine 10% (1%, 55%); prednisone 11% (2%, 38%). None of the results were conclusive when examined in a sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSION: There is currently insufficient evidence to determine which of these immunosuppressive agents is superior. The probability of renal remission is 50% or lower at 6 months.