Glyburide in Women With Mild Gestational Diabetes: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether the addition of glyburide to diet therapy modifies pregnancy outcomes in women with mild gestational diabetes. METHODS: Women with at least two abnormal values on a 3-hour, 100-g oral glucose tolerance test according to National Diabetes Data Group criteria and fasting values less than 105 mg/dL between 24 and 30 weeks of gestation were randomized to blinded glyburide or placebo study drug. All women were placed on a 35-kcal/kg diet and recorded four times daily capillary glucose measurements. The study drug was titrated based on weekly maternal capillary glucose values with targets of less than 95 mg/dL (5.3 mmol/L) and 120 mg/dL (6.7 mmol/L) for fasting and 2-hour postprandial glucose measurements, respectively. The primary study outcome was a 200-g birth weight decrement in neonates of women treated with glyburide. The sample size estimate for this outcome was 334 total randomized women with a one-to-one allocation. RESULTS: A total of 395 women were enrolled at a single center between September 2008 and October 2012. Women treated with glyburide had a significantly greater decline in fasting glucose values over the course of therapy. However, there was no difference in the primary study outcome. Specifically, the mean birth weight was 33 g lower in the group treated with glyburide (P=.52). Although not powered to examine all outcomes associated with gestational diabetes, treatment with glyburide did not affect need for operative delivery, shoulder dystocia, clavicular fracture, Erb's palsy, or neonatal hypoglycemia. Four women in each group required insulin. CONCLUSION: The addition of glyburide to diet therapy significantly improved maternal glycemic control over time when compared with placebo. However, adding glyburide to diet did not decrease birth weight or improve maternal or neonatal outcomes in women with mild gestational diabetes. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, www.clinicaltrials.gov, NCT00744965. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: I.

Neonatal effects of magnesium sulfate given to the mother.

OBJECTIVE: Magnesium historically has been used for treatment and/or prevention of eclampsia or preterm labor. More recently, antepartum magnesium sulfate has been suggested for prevention of cerebral palsy in preterm infants. Although adverse effects and toxicity of magnesium in pregnant women are well known, the fetal-neonatal effects of magnesium are less clear. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of magnesium on the newborn infant. STUDY DESIGN: This is a retrospective cohort analysis of women who received antepartum magnesium sulfate for prevention or treatment of eclampsia. Magnesium sulfate was given intravenously beginning with a 6-g dose, followed by 2- to 3-g/h infusion. Newborn hypotonia was diagnosed if an infant exhibited less than normal tone/activity upon admission to the nursery. RESULTS: Between January 2000 and February 2009, a total of 6654 women with preeclampsia were treated with intravenous magnesium sulfate as described; 88 (6%) of the infants were diagnosed with hypotonia. Lower 1-minute and 5-minute Apgar scores, intubation in the delivery room, admission to special care nursery, and hypotonia were all significantly increased as maternal serum magnesium concentrations increased before birth. CONCLUSION: Several neonatal complications are significantly related to increasing concentrations of magnesium in the maternal circulation.

Thyroid autoantibodies and pregnancy outcomes.

Autoimmune thyroid disease has been associated with several adverse pregnancy outcomes. Increased risk of spontaneous miscarriage and placental abruption in women with thyroid antibodies has been confirmed in multiple studies. However, benefit of intervention and treatment of autoimmune thyroid disease in otherwise euthyroid pregnant women has not been sufficiently studied. The data on the association of thyroid antibodies and recurrent pregnancy loss or preterm birth are conflicting and a statistically significant association has not been shown in large studies. At present time, routine screening and treatment of autoimmune thyroid disease in euthyroid pregnant women is not warranted.

Pregnancy outcomes in women with thyroid peroxidase antibodies.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the prevalence of antithyroid peroxidase antibodies in the general obstetric population and to compare pregnancy outcomes in women who are antithyroid peroxidase-antibody positive with those who are antithyroid peroxidase-antibody negative. METHODS: Between November 2000 and April 2003, all women who presented for prenatal care underwent thyroid screening. Serum samples from women without clinical hypothyroidism who had been screened in the first 20 weeks of gestation and delivered a singleton newborn weighing 500 g or more were analyzed for concentrations of antithyroid peroxidase antibodies. Serum thyroid peroxidase antibody levels were determined using a chemiluminescent immunoassay. Pregnancy outcomes in women with positive antithyroid peroxidase antibodies (more than 50 international units/mL) were compared with those with negative levels. RESULTS: Serum samples from 17,298 women were tested. Of these, 1,012 (6%) women were identified with positive antithyroid peroxidase antibodies. Women who were antithyroid peroxidase-antibody positive were older, heavier, and more often parous than women with negative antithyroid peroxidase antibodies. Rate of placental abruption was threefold higher in women with antithyroid peroxidase antibodies (1.0% compared with 0.3%, odds ratio 3.4, 95% confidence interval 1.7-6.7) after adjustment for differences in maternal demographics. Seven of the 10 abruptions associated with antithyroid peroxidase antibody occurred in women with normal thyroid-stimulating hormone and free thyroxine levels. CONCLUSION: Antithyroid peroxidase antibodies are present in 6% of the general obstetric population and are associated with a threefold increase in the rate of placental abruption. However, this increase in placental abruption does not currently warrant routine antithyroid antibody screening during pregnancy. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.

Diagnostic dilemmas in a pregnant woman with influenza A (H1N1) infection.

BACKGROUND: Pregnant women are at increased risk for complications from seasonal influenza. Early data suggest that influenza A (H1N1) may present an even greater risk. CASE: We present the case of a pregnant woman with severe pulmonary complications from 2009 H1N1 whose care was further complicated by delay in diagnosis and unusual laboratory abnormalities. CONCLUSION: H1N1 may pose several diagnostic challenges for obstetricians, including increased rates of serious pulmonary complications, decreased sensitivity of rapid tests with delay in initiation of antiviral therapy, and abnormal laboratory findings usually associated with other complications of pregnancy. We document these problems, urge initiation of antiviral therapy based on clinical suspicion, and recognize the potential laboratory abnormalities that may be associated with severe influenza illness.

Pregnancy and laboratory studies: a reference table for clinicians.

OBJECTIVE: To establish normal reference ranges during pregnancy for common laboratory analytes. DATA SOURCES: We conducted a comprehensive electronic database review using PUBMED and MEDLINE databases. We also reviewed textbooks of maternal laboratory studies during uncomplicated pregnancy. METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: We searched the databases for studies investigating various laboratory analytes at various times during pregnancy. All abstracts were examined by two investigators and, if they were found relevant, the full text of the article was reviewed. Articles were included if the analyte studied was measured in pregnant women without major medical problems or confounding conditions and if the laboratory marker was measured and reported for a specified gestational age. TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS: For each laboratory marker, data were extracted from as many references as possible, and these data were combined to establish normal reference ranges in pregnancy. When possible, the 2.5 and 97.5 percentiles were reported as the normal range. In some of the reference articles, however, the reported range was based on the minimum and maximum value of the laboratory constituent. In those cases, the minimum to maximum range was used and combined with the 2.5 and 97.5 percentile range. We found that there is a substantial difference in normal values in some laboratory markers in the pregnant state when compared with the nonpregnant state. CONCLUSION: It is important to consider normal reference ranges specific to pregnancy when interpreting some laboratory results that may be altered by the normal changes of pregnancy.