Metabolic factors and perinatal outcomes among pregnant individuals with mild glucose intolerance.

AIMS: Metabolic characteristics and outcomes were compared among pregnant individuals with varying levels of glucose intolerance. METHODS: 827 participants from a randomized clinical trial comparing the IADPSG and Carpenter Coustan Criteria were grouped as follows: normal glucose tolerance, mild glucose intolerance (100 g OGTT with one abnormal value) and treated GDM (diagnosed by Carpenter Coustan or IADPSG criteria). Differences in metabolic characteristics and perinatal outcomes were assessed using inverse probability of treatment weighting. RESULTS: Mild glucose intolerance had lower insulin sensitivity and beta cell response than normal glucose tolerance, and similar findings to treated GDM. Small for gestational age (SGA) (OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.08-0.24) and neonatal composite morbidity were lower (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.38-0.74), and maternal composite morbidity higher (OR 2.03, 95% CI 1.57-2.62) when comparing mild intolerance to normal glucose tolerance. Large for gestational age (OR 3.42 95% CI 1.39-8.41) was higher while SGA (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.05-0.81) and neonatal composite morbidity (OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.17-0.57) were lower with mild glucose intolerance compared to treated GDM. CONCLUSIONS: Mild glucose intolerance has a similar metabolic profile to treated GDM, and outcome differences are likely related to knowledge of diagnosis and treatment. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRY: NCT02309138.

Mapping Lifestyle Interventions for Gestational Diabetes Prevention: A Scoping Review.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The purpose of this study was to conduct a scoping review to map intervention, sample, and physiologic measurement characteristics of lifestyle interventions for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) prevention. RECENT FINDINGS: A total of 19 studies met selection criteria from 405 articles screened (PubMed, Web of Science). No studies were US-based (47% multi-site), and all were delivered in clinical settings. The most targeted nutrition components were low carbohydrate intake (sugar rich foods/added sugars, low glycemic index), low fat intake (mainly low-fat meat, dairy, and saturated fat), and increased fruits and vegetables. Many studies promoted 150 min/week moderate-intensity physical activity. Only two studies provided supervised physical activity sessions. Dietitians and nurses were the most common implementers. Samples were characterized as adults with obesity (mean age 31 yr, BMI 31 kg/m2). Asian populations were predominantly studied. Four studies used theoretical frameworks (75% of which used Social Cognitive Theory). GDM diagnostic criteria set forth by the American Diabetes Association were the most widely used. Insulin sensitivity was commonly assessed via fasting indices. There was a lack of multi-disciplinary, multi-level, and theory-based lifestyle interventions for reducing GDM risk. Addressing these gaps and prioritizing high-risk populations in the US with measurement of traditional and novel biomarkers will advance the field.

Intensive glycaemic targets in overweight and obese individuals with gestational diabetes mellitus: clinical trial protocol for the iGDM study.

INTRODUCTION: The prevalence of both obesity and gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) has increased, and each is associated with adverse perinatal outcomes including fetal overgrowth, neonatal morbidity, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy and caesarean delivery. Women with GDM who are also overweight or obese have higher rates of pregnancy complications when compared with normal-weight women with GDM, which may occur in part due to suboptimal glycaemic control. The current recommendations for glycaemic targets in pregnant women with diabetes are based on limited evidence and exceed the mean fasting (70.9±7.8 mg/dL) and 1-hour postprandial (108.9±12.9 mg/dL) glucose values in pregnant individuals without diabetes. Our prior work demonstrated that the use of intensive (fasting <90 mg/dL and 1-hour postprandial <120 mg/dL) compared with standard (fasting <95 mg/dL and 1-hour postprandial <140 mg/dL) glycaemic targets resulted in improved glycaemic control without increasing the risk for hypoglycaemia in pregnant individuals with GDM, but the impact of intensive glycaemic targets on perinatal outcomes is unknown. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The Intensive Glycemic Targets in Overweight and Obese Women with Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: A Multicenter Randomized Trial (iGDM Trial) is a large, pragmatic randomised clinical trial designed to investigate the impact of intensive versus standard glycaemic targets on perinatal outcomes in women with GDM who are overweight and obese. During the 5-year project period, a multidisciplinary team of investigators from five medical centres representing regions of the USA with high rates of obesity will randomise 828 overweight and obese women with GDM to either intensive or standard glycaemic targets. We will test the central hypothesis that intensive glycaemic targets will result in lower rates of neonatal composite morbidity including large for gestational age birth weight, neonatal hypoglycaemia, respiratory distress syndrome and need for phototherapy when compared with standard glycaemic targets using the intention-to-treat approach to analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Institutional Review Board (IRB) at Indiana University School of Medicine approved this study (IRB# 11435; initial approval date 25 August 2021). We will submit the results of the trial for publication in peer-reviewed journals and presentations at international scientific meetings. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05124808.

Comparing population-based fetal growth standards in a US cohort.

BACKGROUND: No fetal growth standard is currently endorsed for universal use in the United States. Newer standards improve upon the methodologic limitations of older studies; however, before adopting into practice, it is important to know how recent standards perform at identifying fetal undergrowth or overgrowth and at predicting subsequent neonatal morbidity or mortality in US populations. OBJECTIVE: To compare classification of estimated fetal weight that is <5th or 10th percentile or >90th percentile by 6 population-based fetal growth standards and the ability of these standards to predict a composite of neonatal morbidity and mortality. STUDY DESIGN: We used data from the Nulliparous Pregnancy Outcomes Study: Monitoring Mothers-to-be cohort, which recruited nulliparous women in the first trimester at 8 US clinical centers (2010-2014). Estimated fetal weight was obtained from ultrasounds at 16 to 21 and 22 to 29 weeks of gestation (N=9534 women). We calculated rates of fetal growth restriction (estimated fetal weight <5th and 10th percentiles; fetal growth restriction<5 and fetal growth restriction<10) and estimated fetal weight >90th percentile (estimated fetal weight>90) from 3 large prospective fetal growth cohorts with similar rigorous methodologies: INTERGROWTH-21, World Health Organization-sex-specific and combined, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development race-ethnic-specific and unified, and the historic Hadlock reference. To determine whether differential classification of fetal growth restriction or estimated fetal weight >90 among standards was clinically meaningful, we then compared area under the curve and sensitivity of each standard to predict small for gestational age or large for gestational age at birth, composite perinatal morbidity and mortality alone, and small for gestational age or large for gestational age with composite perinatal morbidity and mortality. RESULTS: The standards classified different proportions of fetal growth restriction and estimated fetal weight>90 for ultrasounds at 16 to 21 (visit 2) and 22 to 29 (visit 3) weeks of gestation. At visit 2, the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development race-ethnic-specific, World Health Organization sex-specific and World Health Organization-combined identified similar rates of fetal growth restriction<10 (8.4%-8.5%) with the other 2 having lower rates, whereas Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development race-ethnic-specific identified the highest rate of fetal growth restriction<5 (5.0%) compared with the other references. At visit 3, World Health Organization sex-specific classified 9.2% of fetuses as fetal growth restriction<10, whereas the other 5 classified a lower proportion as follows: World Health Organization-combined (8.4%), Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development race-ethnic-specific (7.7%), INTERGROWTH (6.2%), Hadlock (6.1%), and Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development unified (5.1%). INTERGROWTH classified the highest (21.3%) as estimated fetal weight>90 whereas Hadlock classified the lowest (8.3%). When predicting composite perinatal morbidity and mortality in the setting of early-onset fetal growth restriction, World Health Organization had the highest area under the curve of 0.53 (95% confidence interval, 0.51-0.53) for fetal growth restriction<10 at 22 to 29 weeks of gestation, but the areas under the curve were similar among standards (0.52). Sensitivity was generally low across standards (22.7%-29.1%). When predicting small for gestational age birthweight with composite neonatal morbidity or mortality, for fetal growth restriction<10 at 22 to 29 weeks of gestation, World Health Organization sex-specific had the highest area under the curve (0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.67) and INTERGROWTH had the lowest (area under the curve=0.58; 95% confidence interval 0.55-0.62), though all standards had low sensitivity (7.0%-9.6%). CONCLUSION: Despite classifying different proportions of fetuses as fetal growth restriction or estimated fetal weight>90, all standards performed similarly in predicting perinatal morbidity and mortality. Classification of different percentages of fetuses as fetal growth restriction or estimated fetal weight>90 among references may have clinical implications in the management of pregnancies, such as increased antenatal monitoring for fetal growth restriction or cesarean delivery for suspected large for gestational age. Our findings highlight the importance of knowing how standards perform in local populations, but more research is needed to determine if any standard performs better at identifying the risk of morbidity or mortality.

Benefits and harms of perioperative high fraction inspired oxygen for surgical site infection prevention: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data of randomised controlled trials.

INTRODUCTION: The use of high fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) intraoperatively for the prevention of surgical site infection (SSI) remains controversial. Promising results of early randomised controlled trials (RCT) have been replicated with varying success and subsequent meta-analysis are equivocal. Recent advancements in perioperative care, including the increased use of laparoscopic surgery and pneumoperitoneum and shifts in fluid and temperature management, can affect peripheral oxygen delivery and may explain the inconsistency in reproducibility. However, the published data provides insufficient detail on the participant level to test these hypotheses. The purpose of this individual participant data meta-analysis is to assess the described benefits and harms of intraoperative high FiO2compared with regular (0.21-0.40) FiO2 and its potential effect modifiers. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers will search medical databases and online trial registries, including MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO regional databases, for randomised and quasi-RCT comparing the effect of intraoperative high FiO2 (0.60-1.00) to regular FiO2 (0.21-0.40) on SSI within 90 days after surgery in adult patients. Secondary outcome will be all-cause mortality within the longest available follow-up. Investigators of the identified trials will be invited to collaborate. Data will be analysed with the one-step approach using the generalised linear mixed model framework and the statistical model appropriate for the type of outcome being analysed (logistic and cox regression, respectively), with a random treatment effect term to account for the clustering of patients within studies. The bias will be assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials V.2 and the certainty of evidence using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology. Prespecified subgroup analyses include use of mechanical ventilation, nitrous oxide, preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis, temperature (<35°C), fluid supplementation (<15 mL/kg/hour) and procedure duration (>2.5 hour). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not required. Investigators will deidentify individual participant data before it is shared. The results will be submitted to a peer-review journal. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018090261.

Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes and Future Metabolic Syndrome.

Background: Metabolic syndrome (MetS) is associated with a history of gestational diabetes (GDM), hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP), and preterm birth (PTB), but it is unclear whether this association is due to the pregnancy complication(s) or prepregnancy/early pregnancy confounders. The study examines the association of GDM, HDP, and PTB with MetS 2-7 years later, independent of early pregnancy factors. Materials and Methods: Large, diverse cohort of nulliparous pregnant people with singleton gestations enrolled during their first trimester and who attended a follow-up study visit 2-7 years after delivery. The longitudinal cohort was recruited from eight medical centers across the United States. Using standardized protocols, anthropometry, biospecimens, and surveys were collected at study visits and pregnancy outcomes were abstracted from medical records. We estimated the relative risk of prevalent MetS at the follow-up study visit for participants with GDM, HDP, or PTB (vs. no complications), adjusting for early pregnancy age, body mass index, self-reported race/ethnicity, insurance type, and smoking status. Results: Of 4,402 participants, 738 (16.8%) had MetS at follow-up: 13.1% (441/3,365) among those with no complications, and 27.9% (290/1,002) among those with complications. MetS occurred in 39.0% of GDM (73/187, adjusted relative risk [aRR] = 1.75; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.42-2.16); 29.2% of HDP (176/603, aRR = 1.49; 95% CI 1.27-1.75); and 29.7% of PTB (113/380, aRR = 1.78; 95% CI 1.49-2.12). Those who had both HDP and PTB (n = 113) had an aRR = 1.95 (95% CI 1.50-2.54). Conclusions: People whose pregnancies were complicated by GDM, HDP, or PTB are at a higher risk of MetS within 2-7 years after delivery, independent of early pregnancy risk factors. The highest MetS risk follows pregnancies complicated by both HDP and PTB.

Mid-pregnancy sleep disturbances are not associated with mid-pregnancy maternal glycemia.

Background: In pregnancy, epidemiological data have consistently shown strong associations between sleep quality and duration and maternal glycemia. However, other sleep disturbances such as difficulty falling asleep and staying asleep are common in pregnancy. They may contribute to impaired maternal glycemia through sympathetic nervous system activity, systemic inflammation, and hormonal pathways. However, there is little research examining associations between these specific sleep disturbances and maternal glycemia. Objective: This study aimed to investigate the associations of sleep disturbances during mid-pregnancy and mid-pregnancy maternal glycemia and gestational diabetes subtypes. Study Design: This is a secondary data analysis of the Comparison of Two Screening Strategies for Gestational Diabetes trial. Participants (n = 828) self-reported the frequency of sleep disturbances (i.e., trouble falling asleep, trouble staying asleep, waking several times per night, and waking feeling tired or worn out) in mid-pregnancy. Gestational diabetes was diagnosed using either the International Associations of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups or Carpenter-Coustan approach. We defined gestational diabetes subtypes based on the degree of insulin resistance and beta-cell dysfunction. We used multinomial logistic regression to examine associations of sleep disturbances with gestational diabetes status (i.e., normal, mild glycemic dysfunction, and gestational diabetes) and gestational diabetes subtypes (i.e., neither insulin resistance or beta-cell dysfunction, insulin resistance only, beta-cell dysfunction only, and insulin resistance and beta-cell dysfunction). Results: A total of 665 participants (80%) had normal glycemia, 81 (10%) mild hyperglycemia, and 80 (10%) had gestational diabetes. Among participants with gestational diabetes, 62 (78%) had both insulin resistance and beta-cell dysfunction, 15 (19 %) had insulin resistance only, and 3 had beta-cell dysfunction only or neither insulin resistance nor beta-cell dysfunction. Sleep disturbance frequency was not associated with maternal glycemia or gestational diabetes subtypes. Conclusions: Sleep disturbances in mid-pregnancy were not associated with maternal glycemia during mid-pregnancy. Future research should collect data on sleep disturbances at multiple time points in pregnancy and in combination with other sleep disturbances to determine whether sleep plays any role in maternal glycemic control.

Perinatal Outcomes of Two Screening Strategies for Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate differences in short-term perinatal outcomes between the two prominent screening strategies for gestational diabetes mellitus, the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) and Carpenter-Coustan. METHODS: In this single-site, blinded, randomized, comparative effectiveness trial, participants received a nonfasting 50-g oral glucose tolerance test and, if less than 200 mg/dL (less than 11.1 mmol/L), were randomized to further screening with either IADPSG or Carpenter-Coustan criteria. Gestational diabetes treatment occurred per routine clinical care. The primary outcome was incidence of large-for-gestational-age (LGA) neonates. Prespecified secondary outcomes included small-for-gestational-age (SGA) neonates, cesarean birth, and neonatal and maternal composites of adverse perinatal outcomes. Assuming a 15% incidence of LGA neonates in the Carpenter-Coustan group, 782 participants provided more than 80% power to detect a 7% absolute risk reduction with the use of IADPSG; planned recruitment was 920 for anticipated attrition. RESULTS: From June 2015 to February 2019, 1,016 participants were enrolled and 921 were randomized to IADPSG (n=461) or Carpenter-Coustan (n=460) groups. Gestational diabetes incidence (14.4% vs 4.5%, P<.001) and diabetes medication use (9.3% vs 2.4%; P<.001) were more common in the IADPSG group; there were no differences in LGA neonates, either overall (risk reduction 0.90, 97.5% CI 0.53-1.52) or among women without gestational diabetes (risk reduction 0.85, 97.5% CI 0.49-1.48). Those screened with IADPSG had higher rates of neonatal morbidity but fewer study-related adverse events. Rates of SGA neonates, cesarean birth, and maternal morbidity composite did not differ significantly between study groups. CONCLUSIONS: The IADPSG screening criteria resulted in more women diagnosed and treated for gestational diabetes than Carpenter-Coustan without reducing the incidence of LGA birth weight or maternal or neonatal morbidity. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02309138.

Cochrane Review Summaries-July 2021.

In this month's issue, the journal continues to bring new insights from Cochrane systematic reviews to the readers of Obstetrics & Gynecology. This month, we highlight the use of intrauterine progestins for the treatment of endometrial hyperplasia and an overview review of interventions to prevent gestational diabetes. The summaries are published below. The complete references with hyperlinks are listed in Box 1.

Short- and Long-Term Outcomes Associated with Large for Gestational Age Birth Weight.

Large for gestational age birth weight is associated with adverse short- and long-term outcomes. Infants born with large for gestational age birth weight are at increased risk for neonatal intensive care unit admission, respiratory distress, neonatal metabolic abnormalities including hypoglycemia, birth trauma, and even stillbirth or neonatal death. The risk for many of these complications increases with higher birth weights. Individuals with large for gestational age birth weight also appear to be at subsequent increased risk for overweight/obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and even some childhood cancers. These data highlight the need for effective interventions to decrease risk across the lifespan.

Customized versus Population Growth Standards for Morbidity and Mortality Risk Stratification Using Ultrasonographic Fetal Growth Assessment at 22 to 29 Weeks' Gestation.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of study is to compare the performance of ultrasonographic customized and population fetal growth standards for prediction adverse perinatal outcomes. STUDY DESIGN: This was a secondary analysis of the Nulliparous Pregnancy Outcomes Study: Monitoring Mothers-to-Be, in which l data were collected at visits throughout pregnancy and after delivery. Percentiles were assigned to estimated fetal weights (EFWs) measured at 22 to 29 weeks using the Hadlock population standard and a customized standard (www.gestation.net). Areas under the curve were compared for the prediction of composite and severe composite perinatal morbidity using EFW percentile. RESULTS: Among 8,701 eligible study participants, the population standard diagnosed more fetuses with fetal growth restriction (FGR) than the customized standard (5.5 vs. 3.5%, p < 0.001). Neither standard performed better than chance to predict composite perinatal morbidity. Although the customized performed better than the population standard to predict severe perinatal morbidity (areas under the curve: 0.56 vs. 0.54, p = 0.003), both were poor. Fetuses considered FGR by the population standard but normal by the customized standard had morbidity rates similar to fetuses considered normally grown by both standards.The population standard diagnosed FGR among black women and Hispanic women at nearly double the rate it did among white women (p < 0.001 for both comparisons), even though morbidity was not different across racial/ethnic groups. The customized standard diagnosed FGR at similar rates across groups. Using the population standard, 77% of FGR cases were diagnosed among female fetuses even though morbidity among females was lower (p < 0.001). The customized model diagnosed FGR at similar rates in male and female fetuses. CONCLUSION: At 22 to 29 weeks' gestation, EFW percentile alone poorly predicts perinatal morbidity whether using customized or population fetal growth standards. The population standard diagnoses FGR at increased rates in subgroups not at increased risk of morbidity and at lower rates in subgroups at increased risk of morbidity, whereas the customized standard does not.

The impact of setting a pregnancy weight gain goal on total weight gain.

BACKGROUND: Expert groups recommend that women set a pregnancy weight gain goal with their care provider to optimise weight gain. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to describe the concordance between first-trimester personal and provider pregnancy weight gain goals with the Institute of Medicine (IOM) recommendations and to determine the association between these goals and total weight gain. METHODS: We used data from 9353 women in the Nulliparous Pregnancy Outcomes Study: monitoring mothers-to-be. In the first trimester, women reported their personal pregnancy weight gain goal and their provider weight gain goal, and we categorised personal and provider weight gain goals and total weight gain according to IOM recommendations. We used log-binomial or linear regression models to relate goals to total weight gain, adjusting for confounders including race/ethnicity, maternal age, education, smoking, marital status and planned pregnancy. RESULTS: Approximately 37% of women reported no weight gain goals, while 24% had personal and provider goals, 31% had only a personal goal, and 8% had only a provider goal. Personal and provider goals were outside the recommended ranges in 12%-23% of normal-weight women, 31%-41% of overweight women and 47%-63% of women with obesity. Women with both personal and provider pregnancy weight gain goals were 6%-14% more likely than their counterparts to have a goal within IOM-recommended ranges. Having any goal or a goal within the IOM-recommended ranges was unrelated to pregnancy weight gain. Excessive weight gain occurred in approximately half of normal-weight or obese women and three-quarters of overweight women, regardless of goal setting group. CONCLUSIONS: These findings do not support the effectiveness of early-pregnancy personal or provider gestational weight gain goal setting alone in optimising weight gain. Multifaceted interventions that address a number of mediators of goal setting success may assist women in achieving weight gain consistent with their goals.

The association between personal weight gain goals, provider recommendations, and appropriate gestational weight gain.

BACKGROUND: Nearly half of all women exceed the 2009 Institute of Medicine guidelines for gestational weight gain. Excess gestational weight gain is associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to determine whether having a personal gestational weight gain goal consistent with the Institute of Medicine's recommendations for appropriate gestational weight gain and whether having a discussion with one's obstetrical provider regarding that goal were associated with appropriate gestational weight gain. STUDY DESIGN: This is a secondary analysis of the Nulliparous Pregnancy Outcomes Study: Monitoring Mothers-To-Be study, a prospective cohort study of nulliparous women. We asked women at their first study visit (between 6 and 13 weeks' gestation) whether they had a gestational weight gain goal and what that goal was. Furthermore, we asked whether their provider discussed a gestational weight gain goal and what that goal was. We classified personal and provider-recommended gestational weight gain goals as consistent or inconsistent with the Institute of Medicine guidelines, taking into account a woman's initial body mass index category (underweight, normal weight, overweight, and obese). We included women with live singleton term deliveries (between 37 and 43 weeks' gestation) in this analysis. We classified the primary outcome, which was gestational weight gain (defined as the difference between first visit weight and final weight before delivery), as inadequate, appropriate, or excessive, based on the Institute of Medicine guidelines and initial body mass index category. We used Student t, Wilcoxon rank-sum, and chi-square tests for bivariable analyses, and multinomial logistic regression was performed to control for confounding variables. RESULTS: Of 6727 eligible women, 3799 (56.5% of all eligible women) stated they had a gestational weight gain goal. Of the 3799 women with a stated goal, 2589 (38.5% of all women) had a goal consistent with the Institute of Medicine's recommendations. In addition, of the 6727 eligible women, 2188 (32.5%) reported that they discussed gestational weight gain with their provider, and 1548 of these (23.0% of all women) recalled that their provider gave a gestational weight gain goal in accordance with the Institute of Medicine guidelines. Although having any gestational weight gain goal was not associated with appropriate gestational weight gain, having a gestational weight gain goal that was consistent with the Institute of Medicine's recommendations was associated with a reduced risk of excessive (adjusted relative risk ratio, 0.77; 95% confidence interval, 0.64-0.92) and inadequate weight gain (adjusted relative risk ratio, 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.53-0.82). Conversely, discussing gestational weight gain goals with a provider was not associated with either inadequate or excessive gestational weight gain even if the provider's recommendations for gestational weight gain were consistent with the guidelines. CONCLUSION: Nulliparas who delivered singleton pregnancies at term who had a personal gestational weight gain goal consistent with the Institute of Medicine's recommendations were less likely to have excessive or inadequate gestational weight gain. Further study is required to evaluate the most effective way to communicate this information to patients.

Prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled evaluation of the Pharmacokinetics, Safety and Efficacy of Recombinant Antithrombin Versus Placebo in Preterm Preeclampsia.

BACKGROUND: Despite expectant management, preeclampsia remote from term usually results in preterm delivery. Antithrombin, which displays antiinflammatory and anticoagulant properties, may have a therapeutic role in treating preterm preeclampsia, a disorder characterized by endothelial dysfunction, inflammation, and activation of the coagulation system. OBJECTIVE: This randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial aimed to evaluate whether intravenous recombinant human antithrombin could prolong gestation and therefore improve maternal and fetal outcomes. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial at 23 hospitals. Women were eligible if they had a singleton pregnancy, early-onset or superimposed preeclampsia at 23 0/7 to 30 0/7 weeks' gestation, and planned expectant management. In addition to standard therapy, patients were randomized to receive either recombinant human antithrombin 250 mg loading dose followed by a continuous infusion of 2000 mg per 24 hours or an identical saline infusion until delivery. The primary outcome was days gained from randomization until delivery. The secondary outcome was composite neonatal morbidity score. A total of 120 women were randomized. RESULTS: There was no difference in median gestational age at enrollment (27.3 weeks' gestation for the recombinant human antithrombin group [range, 23.1-30.0] and 27.6 weeks' gestation for the placebo group [range, 23.0-30.0]; P=.67). There were no differences in median increase in days gained (5.0 in the recombinant human antithrombin group [range, 0-75] and 6.0 for the placebo group [range, 0-85]; P=.95). There were no differences between groups in composite neonatal morbidity scores or in maternal complications. No safety issues related to recombinant human antithrombin were noted in this study, despite the achievement of supraphysiological antithrombin concentrations. CONCLUSION: The administration of recombinant human antithrombin in preterm preeclampsia neither prolonged pregnancy nor improved neonatal or maternal outcomes.

Perinatal Outcomes Associated with Early Diabetes Testing in Pregnancies Complicated by Obesity.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine whether early diabetes testing is associated with differences in perinatal outcomes among pregnant women with obesity (body mass index ≥30 kg/m2). STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of singleton pregnancies from 2012 to 2014 at a large academic medical center which examined the association of diabetes testing (HBA1c, 50 g glucose challenge test, or 100 g oral glucose tolerance test) before 24 weeks with perinatal outcomes using propensity score modeling and logistic regression. RESULTS: Among women with obesity, 790 out of 2,698 (29.3%) underwent early diabetes testing. Propensity score modeling demonstrated that early testing was associated with higher rates of diabetes diagnosis (odds ratio [OR]: 1.62, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.10-2.37, p = 0.01) and a trend toward small for gestational age birth weight (OR: 1.38, 95% CI: 1.00-1.90, p = 0.05) and neonatal composite morbidity (OR: 1.25, 95% CI: 1.00-1.57, p = 0.05) compared with routine testing. Women with inadequate weight gain were more likely a small for gestational age (SGA) infant if they underwent early testing compared with those with routine testing alone (19.8 vs. 11.6%, p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: Early testing targets higher risk women and yields a higher diabetes diagnosis rate, but inadequate weight gain in these women may increase risk SGA birth weight and neonatal morbidity. Randomized clinical trials are urgently needed to assess whether early diabetes testing improves outcomes in women with obesity.

Timing of Gestational Weight Gain and Adverse Perinatal Outcomes in Overweight and Obese Women.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether inadequate or excessive gestational weight gain before the third trimester is associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes, and to evaluate the association of weight gain in the third trimester with fetal growth. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of all eligible overweight and obese women with singleton pregnancies delivered at an academic institution between 2012 and 2014. Our primary exposure was inadequate or excess gestational weight gain during the first and second trimesters. Outcomes included small- (SGA) or large- (LGA) for-gestational-age birth weight as well adverse maternal outcomes and composite neonatal morbidity. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess the relationship between weight gain and perinatal outcomes, and stratified analyses evaluated the relationship between third trimester weight gain and birth weight category. RESULTS: Of the 5,814 women, 1,280 (22%) had adequate, 1,428 (24.6%) had inadequate, and 3,106 (53.4%) had excessive weight gain in the first and second trimesters. Women with inadequate early gestational weight gain were more likely to deliver an SGA neonate (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.59, 95% CI 1.23-2.06) and less likely to deliver an LGA neonate (aOR 0.73, 95% CI 0.54-0.98), whereas those with excessive early gestational weight gain were less likely to deliver an SGA neonate (aOR 0.66, 95% CI 0.52-0.85) and more likely to deliver an LGA neonate (aOR 1.66, 95% CI 1.32-2.1). Higher weight gain in the third trimester was associated with increased risk for LGA birth weight, but third trimester weight gain was not related to SGA birth weight. CONCLUSION: Early gestational weight gain is associated with birth weight category. Modifying weight gain in the third trimester may limit the risk for LGA birth weight, but higher weight gain in late gestation does not alter the association between inadequate early weight gain and the risk for SGA.

Response to Medical Nutritional Therapy and Need for Pharmacological Therapy in Women with Gestational Diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: We assessed if the initial response to medical nutritional therapy (MNT) can help predict the need for pharmacological therapy in women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). STUDY DESIGN: We identified 1,174 women with GDM who underwent standardized dietary counseling and reported glucose values from the first week of MNT. We compared women who required pharmacological therapy with those who did not use bivariate statistics, and used multivariable logistic regression modeling to assess for factors predicting the need for pharmacological therapy. RESULTS: We identified 819 women (69.8%) who needed pharmacological therapy. They had higher prepregnancy body mass index, higher rates of GDM diagnosis before 24 weeks, and higher oral glucose tolerance test values. After adjustment for covariates, age (odds ratio [OR]: 1.04; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.01-1.08), obesity (OR: 2.49; 95% CI: 1.70-3.66), and ≥33% of abnormal glucose values from the first week of MNT (OR: 13.84; 95% CI: 9.4-20.20) were associated with the need for pharmacological therapy. Area under the curve of the regression model was 0.83, with a sensitivity of 72.2%, a specificity of 86.8%, and a positive predictive value of 92.5%. CONCLUSION: Glucose values from the first week of MNT were the strongest predictor of needing pharmacological therapy. Further studies are needed to define metabolic predictors of response to MNT in women with GDM.

Intensive glycemic control in gestational diabetes mellitus: a randomized controlled clinical feasibility trial.

BACKGROUND: Overweight and obese women with gestational diabetes mellitus are at increased risk for adverse perinatal outcomes, and they are also more likely to have suboptimal glycemic control. However, there is a paucity of data evaluating whether lower glycemic targets could improve outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the feasibility of intensive glycemic control in overweight and obese women with gestational diabetes mellitus. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We randomized 60 overweight or obese women with gestational diabetes mellitus, diagnosed between 12 and 32 weeks' gestation to either intensive (fasting <90 mg/dL, 1 hour postprandial <120 mg/dL) or standard (fasting <95 mg/dL, 1 ho postprandial <140 mg/dL) glycemic targets. Maternal glucose was assessed in 2 ways: blinded continuous glucose monitors, worn for 5 days at 2 time points (at 12-32 weeks and again at 32-36 weeks), and self-monitored glucose measurement 4 times per day. All women underwent standardized dietary counseling, and medical therapy was prescribed as needed to achieve glycemic control. RESULTS: Between December 2015 and December 2017, we randomized 60 women to either intensive (n = 30) or standard (n = 30) glycemic control. Baseline characteristics including maternal age, body mass index, and gestational age at diagnosis were similar between the intensive and standard groups. Medical therapy was more common in women in the intensive group than those in the standard group (83 vs 57%, P = .02). Women in the intensive glycemic control group had lower glucose values as assessed by continuous glucose monitors at including 24-hour mean (-8.1; 95% confidence interval, -12.0 to -4.3 mg/dL; P < .0001) and 1-h postprandial (-11.8; 95% confidence interval, -19.7 to -3.9 mg/dL, P = .004) values. Hypoglycemia <60 mg/dL was uncommon and did not differ between groups. CONCLUSION: Intensive glycemic targets can be used in overweight and obese women with minimal hypoglycemia, and this approach results in improved glycemic control when compared to standard glycemic targets. Further studies are needed to determine whether intensive glycemic targets can improve maternal and neonatal outcomes in high-risk women with gestational diabetes mellitus. CLINICAL TRIAL IDENTIFIER: NCT02530866; clinicaltrials.gov.

Comparison of Birth Outcomes by Gestational Diabetes Screening Criteria.

Objectives This study is to examine the association between different diagnostic criteria for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) and adverse birth outcomes. Study Design A retrospective cohort study of 5,937 women with a singleton pregnancy was conducted, who completed GDM screening between 24 to 32 weeks gestational age. Four nonoverlapping groups of women defined as: 1) Normal: glucose challenge test (GCT) <130 mg/dL, 2) elevated GCT + normal oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT): abnormal 1 hour GCT + normal 3 hour OGTT, 3) GDM/International Association of Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group (IADPSG): abnormal 3 hour OGTT by the IADPSG criteria, and 4) GDM/Carpenter-Coustan (CC): diagnosis per CC criteria. We used logistic regression to examine the association between GDM group classification and main outcome of macrosomia and secondary birth outcomes. Results Prevalences were GDM/CC 4.6%, GDM/IADPSG 3.0, and 7.6% overall. GDM/IADPSG group was associated with increased macrosomia (adj OR [odd ratio] 1.87; 95% CI [confidence interval]: 1.08-3.25; p = 0.02), while GDM/CC group was associated with increased preterm birth (adj OR 1.75; 95% CI: 1.05-2.80; p = 0.03). Conclusion Little difference in birth outcomes was found between the two criteria, GDM/CC and GDM/IADPSG. Randomized controlled trials are needed to clarify the risks and benefits of these screening paradigms before their incorporation into clinical practice.