The optimal time and target for postprandial glucose (PPG) measurement in gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) remain unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated whether targeting 1-hour PPG (1hPG) vs. 2-hour PPG (2hPG) altered fetomaternal outcomes in GDM.

Studies that compared pregnancy outcomes in women undergoing 1hPG vs. 2hPG monitoring in GDM were identified through comprehensive search of electronic databases. Primary outcomes analyzed were large-for-gestational age (LGA) and macrosomia. Secondary outcomes included low birthweight (LBW), neonatal intensive-care unit (NICU) admission, neonatal hypoglycemia, cesarean section (CS), preeclampsia, gestational age at delivery and preterm delivery.

Six articles that compared 1hPG<140mg/dL (7.8mmol/L) vs. 2hPG <120mg/dL (7.2 mmol/L) were analyzed. Additionally, three articles that assessed 1hPG<120mg/dL vs 1hPG<140mg/dL were also examined. Targeting 1hPG<140mg/dL vs. 2hPG<120mg/dL significantly lowered the risk of LGA [OR 0.54; 95%CI:0.32-0.93;P=.03] but not macrosomia [OR 0.45; 95%CI:0.19-1.06;P=.07]. There was no difference in other parameters such as birthweight [MD -61.77g; 95%CI:-152.16-28.62;P=.018], LBW [OR 0.90; 95%CI:0.30-2.68;P=0.85], neonatal hypoglycemia [OR 0.60; 95%CI:0.28-1.26;P=0.18], gestational age at delivery [MD 0.20weeks; 95%CI:-0.29-0.68;P=0.43], CS [OR 0.99; 95%CI:0.46-2.12;P=0.97], preeclampsia [OR 0.66;95% CI:.22-1.96;P=0.46], or need for insulin therapy [OR 1.39; 95%CI:.79-2.43;P=0.25;]. More intensive 1hPG target <120mg/dl vs. <140mg/dl increased the risk of preterm delivery [OR 1.62; 95%CI:1.00-2.62;P=0.05], without affecting birthweight, LGA, macrosomia, LBW, and CS.

Our findings suggest that targeting 1hPG <140mg/dL vs. 2hPG<140mg/dL lowers the risk of LGA, but does not affect other parameters. A stricter target of 1hPG<120mg/dL can increase the risk of preterm delivery. Further studies to corroborate these findings are necessary.

The aim of this study was to examine the obstetrical and neonatal outcomes in patients with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) who had postprandial glucose monitoring 1 vs. 2 h following meals.

In this prospective cohort study, we included patients with GDM who were referred to our medical center between July 2019 and June 2021. Patients chose the timing of postprandial glucose monitoring based on their own preferences. Obstetrical and neonatal outcomes, as well as patient satisfaction, were compared between patients who performed postprandial glucose monitoring 1 and 2 h after meals (PPG1 vs. PPG2). The primary outcome was birth weight. The study was powered to detect a 250 g increase in birth weight.

Overall, 99 patients were included: 50 in the PPG1 group and 49 in the PPG2 group. Baseline characteristics were comparable between the groups. Neonates in the PPG1 and PPG2 groups had similar birth weights (3319 ± 355 vs. 3319 ± 520 g, respectively, p = 0.99). Glycemic control, mode of delivery, gestational age at delivery, and satisfaction rates were also similar between the study groups.

In patients with GDM, performing1 vs. 2 h following meals resulted in similar obstetrical and neonatal outcomes and similar satisfaction rates. We therefore recommend counseling patients to choose either strategy based on their personal preference.

Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is regarded by many as maternal maladaptation to physiological insulin resistance during the second half of pregnancy. However, recent evidence indicates that alterations in carbohydrate metabolism can already be detected in early pregnancy. This observation, the increasing prevalence of GDM, and the significant short and long-term implications for the mother and offspring call for reevaluation of the conceptual paradigm of GDM as a syndrome. This review will present evidence for the syndromic nature of GDM and the controversies regarding screening, diagnosis, management, and treatment.

In the present study, we aimed to compare postprandial 90 minute measurements and postprandial 1 hour (PP1-HR) measurements for prediction of foetal growth disturbances and pregnancy complications. This was a prospective study conducted in Acıbadem Mehmet Ali Aydınlar University Altunizade Hospital in Department of Perinatology. The study group consisted of patients diagnosed with gestational diabetes. In each antepartum visit, the patients fasting plasma glucose as well as PP1-HR and 90 minute measurements were made. Perinatal and neonatal data were obtained from each patient. The rate of large for gestational age infants was increased in patients when either PP1-HR measurement above 140 mg/dl or postprandial 90 minute measurement above 165 mg/dl compared to patients with normal PP1-HR or postprandial 90 minute measurement. Preterm delivery rate was increased in patients with postprandial 90 minute measurement above 165 mg/dl but not in patients with PP1-HR measurement above 140 mg/dl. The optimal cut-off for postprandial 90 minute measurement was 165 mg/dl based on receiver operating characteristics curve. Our preliminary data show that postprandial 90 minute measurements are superior to PP1-HR measurements in predicting large for gestational age infants.Impact StatementWhat is already known on this subject? Gestational diabetes (GDM) is defined as any degree of glucose intolerance with onset or first recognition in pregnancy. Maternal hyperglycaemia has been linked to metabolic alterations in the foetus and thus brings about foetal macrosomia as well as other pregnancy complications such as preterm delivery and preeclampsia.What the results of this study add? The findings of the present study suggest that postprandial 90 minute predicted more cases of LGA infants than postprandial 1-hour (PP1-HR) measurements. In addition, the rate of preterm deliveries was found to be increased in patients with mean postprandial 90 minute measurements above 165 mg/dl compared to patients with postprandial 90 minute measurements below 165 mg/dl. However, the rate of preterm deliveries was similar in patients with elevated PP1-HR measurements and patients with normal PP1-HR measurements.What the implications are of these findings for clinical practice and/or further research? Our study is the first to investigate the usefulness of postprandial 90 minute in a prospective design. Our preliminary data show that postprandial 90 minute measurements are superior to PP 1 measurements in predicting LGA babies. It also correlates better with preterm deliveries.

The objective of the present study is to compare postprandial 90th-minute plasma glucose measurement with fasting, postprandial 60 and 120 min in gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM).

One hundred and thirty-one pregnant women with GDM were hospitalized for regulation of maternal plasma glucose levels. Plasma glucose levels were daily recorded for every patient and treatment option arranged without considering the 90th-minute plasma glucose level. All patients were followed up until birth and pregnancy results were compared.

At the admission, 69% of our patients were on diet and 31% were on insulin with diet therapy. The highest postprandial mean plasma glucose was seen at 90 min after breakfast (137.50 mg/dl), at 60 min after lunch (137.80 mg/dl), and 60 min after dinner (134.50 mg/dl). The cut-off level for postprandial glucose at 90th minute was determined as 130 mg/dl. The upper limit plasma glucose levels were most frequently exceeded at 90th minute for each meal. High plasma glucose levels and the need for neonatal intensive care unit were correlated (p < 0.05).

The highest plasma glucose level was seen at 90 min after breakfast, 60 min after lunch, and 60 min after dinner. The upper limit plasma glucose levels were most frequently exceeded at the 90 min.

Diabetes affects 6% to 9% of pregnancies, with gestational diabetes mellitus accounting for more than 90% of cases. Pregestational and gestational diabetes are associated with significant maternal and fetal risks; therefore, screening and treatment during pregnancy are recommended. Recommendations regarding the preferred treatment of diabetes in pregnancy have recently changed, with slight differences between American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM) recommendations.

Our review discusses the diagnosis, management, and treatment of pregestational and gestational diabetes with the oral hypoglycemic agents metformin and glyburide as well as insulin. We also review the evidence for the safety and efficacy of these medications in pregnancy.

Articles were obtained from PubMed, the ACOG Practice Bulletin on Gestational Diabetes Mellitus, and the SMFM statement on the pharmacological treatment of gestational diabetes.

Insulin does not cross the placenta and has an established safety profile in pregnancy and is therefore considered a first-line treatment for gestational diabetes. Metformin and glyburide have also been shown to be relatively safe in pregnancy but with more limited long-term data. Regarding maternal and fetal outcomes, metformin is superior to glyburide and similar to insulin.

Insulin is the preferred pharmacologic treatment according to ACOG. However, SMFM has stated that outcomes with metformin are similar, and it may also be considered as first-line therapy. Both agree that the available data show that metformin is safer and superior to glyburide, and glyburide is no longer recommended as a first-line therapy for the treatment of gestational diabetes.

There are a number of ways of monitoring blood glucose in women with diabetes during pregnancy, with self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) recommended as a key component of the management plan. No existing systematic reviews consider the benefits/effectiveness of different techniques of blood glucose monitoring on maternal and infant outcomes among pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes. The effectiveness of the various monitoring techniques is unclear. This review is an update of a review that was first published in 2014 and subsequently updated in 2017.

To compare techniques of blood glucose monitoring and their impact on maternal and infant outcomes among pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes.

For this update, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (1 November 2018), and reference lists of retrieved studies.

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing techniques of blood glucose monitoring including SMBG, continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), automated telemedicine monitoring or clinic monitoring among pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes mellitus (type 1 or type 2). Trials investigating timing and frequency of monitoring were also eligible for inclusion. RCTs using a cluster-randomised design were eligible for inclusion but none were identified.

Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Data were checked for accuracy. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.

This review update includes a total of 12 trials (863) women (792 women with type 1 diabetes and 152 women with type 2 diabetes). The trials took place in Europe, the USA and Canada. Three of the 12 included studies are at low risk of bias, eight studies are at moderate risk of bias, and one study is at high risk of bias. Four trials reported that they were provided with the continuous glucose monitors free of charge or at a reduced cost by the manufacturer.Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) versus intermittent glucose monitoring, (four studies, 609 women)CGM may reduce hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (pre-eclampsia and pregnancy-induced hypertension) (risk ratio (RR) 0.58, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.39 to 0.85; 2 studies, 384 women; low-quality evidence), although it should be noted that only two of the four relevant studies reported data for this composite outcome. Conversely, this did not translate into a clear reduction for pre-eclampsia (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.08; 4 studies, 609 women, moderate-quality evidence). There was also no clear reduction in caesarean section (average RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.18; 3 studies, 427 women; I2 = 41%; moderate-quality evidence) or large-for-gestational age (average RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.26; 3 studies, 421 women; I2 = 70%; low-quality evidence) with CGM. There was not enough evidence to assess perinatal mortality (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.05 to 12.61, 71 infants, 1 study; low-quality evidence), or mortality or morbidity composite (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.06; 1 study, 200 women) as the evidence was based on single studies of low quality. CGM appears to reduce neonatal hypoglycaemia (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.93; 3 studies, 428 infants). Neurosensory disability was not reported.Other methods of glucose monitoringFor the following five comparisons, self-monitoring versus a different type of self-monitoring (two studies, 43 women); self-monitoring at home versus hospitalisation (one study, 100 women), pre-prandial versus post-prandial glucose monitoring (one study, 61 women), automated telemedicine monitoring versus conventional system (three studies, 84 women), and constant CGM versus intermittent CGM (one study, 25 women), it is uncertain whether any of the interventions has any impact on any of our GRADE outcomes (hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, caesarean section, large-for-gestational age) because the quality of the evidence was found to be very low. This was due to evidence largely being derived from single trials, with design limitations and limitations with imprecision (wide CIs, small sample sizes, and few events). There was not enough evidence to assess perinatal mortality and neonatal mortality and morbidity composite. Other important outcomes, such as neurosensory disability, were not reported in any of these comparisons.

Two new studies (406 women) have been incorporated to one of the comparisons for this update. Although the evidence suggests that CGM in comparison to intermittent glucose monitoring may reduce hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, this did not translate into a clear reduction for pre-eclampsia, and so this result should be viewed with caution. No differences were observed for other primary outcomes for this comparison. The evidence base for the effectiveness of other monitoring techniques analysed in the other five comparisons is weak and based on mainly single studies with very low-quality evidence. Additional evidence from large well-designed randomised trials is required to inform choices of other glucose monitoring techniques and to confirm the effectiveness of CGM.

Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is one of the most common medical complications of pregnancy. However, debate continues to surround the diagnosis and treatment of GDM despite several recent large-scale studies addressing these issues. The purposes of this document are the following: 1) provide a brief overview of the understanding of GDM, 2) review management guidelines that have been validated by appropriately conducted clinical research, and 3) identify gaps in current knowledge toward which future research can be directed.

There is a rising prevalence of type 1 diabetes (T1DM), type 2 diabetes (T2DM), and gestational diabetes (GDM) in pregnancy. Reaching and maintaining glycemic targets during and after this time are important for both the health of the mother and her baby.

Based on recently published guidelines from various societies, we review the diagnosis of diabetes in pregnancy, types of therapies available to maintain euglycemia, important keys to management of T1DM, T2DM, and GDM, and strategies for reaching inpatient glycemic targets during the peripartum period. Care for pregnant patients with T1DM is especially challenging, and providers should be aware of the varying insulin requirements at different stages of pregnancy and how to reduce hypoglycemia and avoid diabetic ketoacidosis. Insulin sensitivity fluctuates throughout pregnancy due to physiologic changes, especially during labor and delivery and immediately post-partum. We review recommendations regarding how to manage this dynamic time and present our own institution's inpatient management protocol. Finally, we review management of diabetes post-partum, including medications, breast-feeding, and continued monitoring and screening. With the collaborative efforts of the patient and an interdisciplinary team and in-depth knowledge of the most up-to-date management principles, it is possible to achieve euglycemia during this critical time of a mother and baby's life.

Self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) is recommended as a key component of the management plan for diabetes therapy during pregnancy. No existing systematic reviews consider the benefits/effectiveness of various techniques of blood glucose monitoring on maternal and infant outcomes among pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes. The effectiveness of the various monitoring techniques is unclear.

To compare techniques of blood glucose monitoring and their impact on maternal and infant outcomes among pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes.

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 November 2016), searched reference lists of retrieved studies and contacted trial authors.

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing techniques of blood glucose monitoring including SMBG, continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) or clinic monitoring among pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes mellitus (type 1 or type 2). Trials investigating timing and frequency of monitoring were also included. RCTs using a cluster-randomised design were eligible for inclusion but none were identified.

Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Data were checked for accuracy. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.

This review update includes at total of 10 trials (538) women (468 women with type 1 diabetes and 70 women with type 2 diabetes). The trials took place in Europe and the USA. Five of the 10 included studies were at moderate risk of bias, four studies were at low to moderate risk of bias, and one study was at high risk of bias. The trials are too small to show differences in important outcomes such as macrosomia, preterm birth, miscarriage or death of baby. Almost all the reported GRADE outcomes were assessed as being very low-quality evidence. This was due to design limitations in the studies, wide confidence intervals, small sample sizes, and few events. In addition, there was high heterogeneity for some outcomes.Various methods of glucose monitoring were compared in the trials. Neither pooled analyses nor individual trial analyses showed any clear advantages of one monitoring technique over another for primary and secondary outcomes. Many important outcomes were not reported.1. Self-monitoring versus standard care (two studies, 43 women): there was no clear difference for caesarean section (risk ratio (RR) 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40 to 1.49; one study, 28 women) or glycaemic control (both very low-quality), and not enough evidence to assess perinatal mortality and neonatal mortality and morbidity composite. Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, large-for-gestational age, neurosensory disability, and preterm birth were not reported in either study.2. Self-monitoring versus hospitalisation (one study, 100 women): there was no clear difference for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (pre-eclampsia and hypertension) (RR 4.26, 95% CI 0.52 to 35.16; very low-quality: RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.08 to 2.22; very low-quality). There was no clear difference in caesarean section or preterm birth less than 37 weeks' gestation (both very low quality), and the sample size was too small to assess perinatal mortality (very low-quality). Large-for-gestational age, mortality or morbidity composite, neurosensory disability and preterm birth less than 34 weeks were not reported.3. Pre-prandial versus post-prandial glucose monitoring (one study, 61 women): there was no clear difference between groups for caesarean section (RR 1.45, 95% CI 0.92 to 2.28; very low-quality), large-for-gestational age (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.85; very low-quality) or glycaemic control (very low-quality). The results for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy: pre-eclampsia and perinatal mortality are not meaningful because these outcomes were too rare to show differences in a small sample (all very low-quality). The study did not report the outcomes mortality or morbidity composite, neurosensory disability or preterm birth.4. Automated telemedicine monitoring versus conventional system (three studies, 84 women): there was no clear difference for caesarean section (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.48; one study, 32 women; very low-quality), and mortality or morbidity composite in the one study that reported these outcomes. There were no clear differences for glycaemic control (very low-quality). No studies reported hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, large-for-gestational age, perinatal mortality (stillbirth and neonatal mortality), neurosensory disability or preterm birth.5.CGM versus intermittent monitoring (two studies, 225 women): there was no clear difference for pre-eclampsia (RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.52 to 3.59; low-quality), caesarean section (average RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.54; I² = 62%; very low-quality) and large-for-gestational age (average RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.92; I² = 82%; very low-quality). Glycaemic control indicated by mean maternal HbA1c was lower for women in the continuous monitoring group (mean difference (MD) -0.60 %, 95% CI -0.91 to -0.29; one study, 71 women; moderate-quality). There was not enough evidence to assess perinatal mortality and there were no clear differences for preterm birth less than 37 weeks' gestation (low-quality). Mortality or morbidity composite, neurosensory disability and preterm birth less than 34 weeks were not reported.6. Constant CGM versus intermittent CGM (one study, 25 women): there was no clear difference between groups for caesarean section (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.79; very low-quality), glycaemic control (mean blood glucose in the 3rd trimester) (MD -0.14 mmol/L, 95% CI -2.00 to 1.72; very low-quality) or preterm birth less than 37 weeks' gestation (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.08 to 15.46; very low-quality). Other primary (hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, large-for-gestational age, perinatal mortality (stillbirth and neonatal mortality), mortality or morbidity composite, and neurosensory disability) or GRADE outcomes (preterm birth less than 34 weeks' gestation) were not reported.

This review found no evidence that any glucose monitoring technique is superior to any other technique among pregnant women with pre-existing type 1 or type 2 diabetes. The evidence base for the effectiveness of monitoring techniques is weak and additional evidence from large well-designed randomised trials is required to inform choices of glucose monitoring techniques.

Triplet and higher-order multiple pregnancies can carry increased fetal and maternal complications. Reports of triplet pregnancies after kidney transplant are scarce and have been associated with perinatal complications. Presence of diabetes in such cases worsens both fetal and maternal outcomes. Here, we present a triplet pregnancy in a kidney transplant recipient with diabetes. We also reviewed the literature for causes, prevalence, and outcomes in association with chronic kidney disease, kidney transplant, and diabetes mellitus. The patient, a 31-year-female who received a living-donor kidney transplant, had a first-time pregnancy 6 years after transplant. Pregnancy was complicated by gestational diabetes, preeclampsia, and miscarriage. She continued to have postpartum-impaired glucose tolerance. She became pregnant again after 6 months but required insulin therapy during her third trimester. Pregnancy was terminated by cesarean section for a viable small boy. Two years later, she had triplet pregnancy after ovulation induction with clomiphene. Glycemic control was maintained using intensive insulin therapy guided by frequent home blood glucose monitoring (HbA1c was 5.8% at 22 wk). Both gynecologic care and nephrologic care were carried out through outpatient follow-up. Pregnancy was complicated by hypertension and mild renal dysfunction without proteinuria and ended in elective premature cesarean section at 32 weeks of gestation. She had 3 male babies with low birth weights (1320, 1380, 1275 g), with the largest baby developing sepsis and requiring an intensive care unit stay and then incubator for 49 days. The other 2 required incubators for 36 days. Their weights after 22 months were 9, 16, and 11 kg. The mother is now normotensive with normal renal function and impaired glucose tolerance. Care of diabetic kidney recipients with triplet pregnancy constitutes a special challenge requiring a multispecialty skilled team to ensure the best outcome.

The purpose of this study is to investigate postprandial 1-h (PP1) and 2-h (PP2) blood glucose measurements' correlation with adverse perinatal outcomes. This prospective cohort study consisted of 259 women with gestational diabetes mellitus. During each antenatal visit, HbA1c and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) as well as plasma glucose at PP1 and PP2 were analyzed. There were 144 patients on insulin therapy and 115 patients on diet therapy. A total of 531 blood glucose measurements were obtained at different gestational ages between 24 and 41 gestational weeks. PP2 plasma glucose measurements (but not PP1) were positively correlated with fetal macrosomia. But on adjusted analysis, neither PP1 nor PP2 measurements predicted perinatal complications. In addition to PP1 and PP2, neither FPG nor HbA1c were able to predict perinatal complications or fetal macrosomia when controlled for confounding factors except for a positive correlation between fetal macrosomia and HbA1c in patients on diet therapy. Postprandial 1-h and postprandial 2-h plasma glucose measurements were not superior to each other in predicting fetal macrosomia or perinatal complications. Based on our findings, it can be concluded that both methods may be suitable for follow-up as there are no clear advantages of one measurement over the other.

The definition of optimal glycemic control in pregnancies affected by diabetes remains enigmatic. Diabetes phenotypes are heterogeneous. Moreover, fetal macrosomia insidiously occurs even with excellent glycemic control. Current blood glucose (BG) targets (FBG ≤95, 1-h post-prandial <140, 2 h <120 mg/dL) have improved perinatal outcomes, but arguably they have not normalized. The conventional management approach has been to replicate a pattern of glycemia in normal pregnancy. Although these patterns are lower than previously appreciated, a randomized controlled trial (RCT) has never compared current vs. lower glucose targets powered on maternal/fetal outcomes. This paper provides historical context to the current targets by reviewing evidence supporting their evolution. Using lower targets (FBG <90, 1 h <122, 2 h <110, mean BG ≤95 mg/dL) may help normalize outcomes, but phenotypic differences (type 1 vs. type 2 vs. gestational diabetes) might require different glycemic goals. There remains a critical need for well-designed RCTs to confirm optimal glycemic control that minimizes both small for and large for gestational age across pregnancies affected by diabetes.

Self-monitoring of blood glucose is recommended as a key component of the management plan for diabetes therapy during pregnancy. No existing systematic reviews consider the benefits/effectiveness of various techniques of blood glucose monitoring on maternal and infant outcomes among pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes. The effectiveness of the various monitoring techniques is unclear.

To compare techniques of blood glucose monitoring and their impact on maternal and infant outcomes among pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes.

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (6 August 2013), searched reference lists of retrieved studies and contacted trial authors.

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing techniques of blood glucose monitoring including self blood glucose monitoring, continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) or clinic monitoring among pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes mellitus (Type 1 or Type 2). Trials investigating timing and frequency of monitoring were also included. Quasi-RCTs and RCTs using a cluster-randomised design were eligible for inclusion but none were identified.

Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Data were checked for accuracy.

The search of the Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register identified 21 trial reports. Following application of eligibility criteria, nine trials were included in this review. The included trials involved a total of 506 women (436 women with Type 1 diabetes and 70 women with Type 2 diabetes). All trials originated from European countries and the USA. None of the studies included women with gestational diabetes. Five of the nine included studies were at moderate risk of bias and four studies were at low to moderate risk of bias. Primary outcomes were maternal glycaemic control (fasting blood glucose and HbA1c) and infant birthweight or macrosomia.Various methods of glucose monitoring were compared in the trials. The following comparisons were included in the review: (1) self-monitoring versus standard care, (2) self-monitoring versus hospitalisation, (3) pre-prandial versus post-prandial glucose monitoring, (4) automated telemedicine monitoring versus conventional system, (5) CGM versus intermittent monitoring and (6) constant CGM versus intermittent CGM.Neither pooled analyses nor individual trial analyses showed any significant advantages of one monitoring technique over another for primary outcomes (maternal glycaemic control and infant birthweight) and secondary outcomes such as gestational age at birth or preterm birth, frequency of neonatal hypoglycaemia, death of baby including stillbirth, and neonatal intensive care admission. Primary outcome data on macrosomia were reported by one trial but at a different cut-off value than that pre-specified for the review. Secondary outcomes such as shoulder dystocia, major and minor anomalies were not reported by any of the trials.

This review found no evidence that any glucose monitoring technique is superior to any other technique among pregnant women with pre-existing Type 1 or Type 2 diabetes. The evidence base for the effectiveness of monitoring techniques is weak and additional evidence from large well-designed randomised trials is required to inform choices of glucose monitoring techniques.

Evaluation of adjuvant insulin therapy effects on glycemic control, perinatal outcome and postpuerperal glucose tolerance in impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) pregnant women who failed to achieve desired glycemic control by dietary regime.

A total of 280 participants were classified in two groups: Group A patients continued with dietary regime and Group B patients were treated with adjuvant insulin therapy. Glycemic control was assessed by laboratory and ultrasonograph means. Pregnancy outcomes were evaluated by prevalence of pregnancy induced hypertension (PIH), high birth weight, neonatal hypoglycemia and caesarean section rates. Postpuerperal glucose tolerance was assessed by oral glucose tolerance test (oGTT).

All laboratory and ultrasound indicators of glycemic control had significantly lower values in Group B. Group A women were more likely to develop the EPH (Edema, Proteinuria, Hypertension) syndrome, 20% versus 7.86% (p = 0.003). High birth weight occurred more frequently in Group A, but the difference was not significant (p = 0.197). Higher rate of caesarean delivery was in Group A than in Group B, 16.43% versus 26.43% (p = 0.041). The difference in neonatal hypoglycemia was not significant (p = 0.478). Pathological oGTT results were observed in 73 Group A patients and in 15 Group B patients.

Lower caesarean section rates and the EPH syndrome incidence are the benefits of adjuvant insulin therapy in IGT patients.

This review reports the literature on the safety and efficacy of insulin analogues in pregnancy and thereby enables the clinician to choose the optimal insulin treatment protocol to achieve and maintain normoglycemia throughout pregnancies complicated by diabetes. This article also reviews the literature on the insulin analog during pregnancy and presents the authors' opinion as to the safety and efficacy of insulin analog treatment for the pregnant diabetic woman.

Pregnancy is a condition in which the glycemic index (GI) may be of particular relevance because maternal glucose is the main energy substrate for intrauterine growth.

The aim was to compare the effects of low-GI and conventional dietary strategies on pregnancy outcomes in healthy women. Compliance and acceptability were also investigated.

The subjects were assigned alternately to receive dietary counseling that encouraged either low-GI (LGI) carbohydrate foods or high-fiber, moderate-to-high GI (HGI) foods and were studied 5 times between <16 wk gestation and delivery. Of the 70 women who met the inclusion criteria, 62 completed the study (32 in the LGI and 30 in the HGI groups). Primary outcomes were measures of fetal size.

The mean diet GI fell significantly in the LGI group but not in the HGI group. Compared with the LGI group, women in the HGI group gave birth to infants who were heavier (3408 +/- 78 compared with 3644 +/- 90 g; P = 0.051) and had a higher birth centile (48 +/- 5 compared with 69 +/- 5; P = 0.005), a higher ponderal index (2.62 +/- 0.04 compared with 2.74 +/- 0.04; P = 0.03), and a higher prevalence of large-for-gestational age (3.1% compared with 33.3%; P = 0.01). Women in the LGI group found the diet easier to follow.

Because birth weight and ponderal index may predict chronic disease in later life, a low-GI diet may favorably influence long-term outcomes.

To compare the rate of adverse perinatal outcomes among women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM), monitored by 1 versus 2 hour-postprandial glucose (PPG) measurements.

A total of 112 women diagnosed with GDM, by the criteria of Carpenter-Coustan, were included in the study population. Women were recruited from two different treatment settings, but were managed by the same team of health-care professionals using a standardized protocol. Allocation to treatment group was based on treatment setting. Glucose levels were measured fasting, and either 1 hour (1-hour monitoring group-target values <140 mg/dl) or 2 hours (2-hour monitoring group-target values <120 mg/dl) postprandially. Demographic data and perinatal outcomes were collected from their medical records.

In all, 66 women were assigned to 1-hour monitoring group (1 h-PPG) and 46 women to 2-hour monitoring group (2 h-PPG). There were no differences in parity, family history of diabetes, rate of GDM in previous pregnancies, weight gain, pregestational BMI and 50-g-glucose challenge test (GCT) and 100-g oral glucose challenge test (OGTT) results. As expected, there was a significant difference in mean blood glucose levels between the two groups (108.1+/-19.2 and 94.9+/-21.2 mg/dl, 1- and 2 hours, respectively, p<0.0001); however, HbA1C levels were similar in the two groups. Perinatal outcomes were defined as gestational week at delivery; fetal weight (3325+/-471 vs 3309+/-608 g, respectively) and percentile (47.2+/-27 vs 49.6+/-30, respectively), and were similar for both groups. Insulin therapy was initiated more frequently in 2-hour monitoring group (28 and 40% of women in groups 1 and 2, respectively; p<0.05). Rates of macrosomia (7.5 versus 10.6%), large for gestational age (7.4 versus 15.2%), and delivery by cesarean section (24 versus 30%) were increased in group 2 (2 h-PPG) but these differences did not reach statistical significance.

These data suggest that diet control in women with GDM managed by 1-hour PPG measurements is associated with a decreased rate of insulin therapy. However, neonatal and obstetrical outcomes are not determined by the timing of their glucose determinations.

A controversy exists regarding the time to monitor blood glucose in the diabetic pregnancy (60 or 120 minutes after meals). Using a novel approach that provides continuous measurement of blood glucose, we sought to determine postprandial glucose profile in the diabetic pregnancy.

Subjects were connected to a continuous glucose monitoring system for 72 consecutive hours. A continuous glucose monitoring system measures the interstitial glucose levels in subcutaneous tissue every 5 minutes. Women were instructed to record the time of each meal during the study period. For each meal, the first 240 minutes were analyzed.

Sixty-five women participated in the study: 26 women were treated by diet alone; 19 women received insulin therapy, and 20 women had type 1 diabetes mellitus. The time interval from meal to peak postprandial glucose levels was similar in all the evaluated types of diabetic pregnancies and in good and poor control insulin-treated patients with gestational diabetes mellitus (approximately 90 minutes). Failure to return to preprandial glucose values within a 3-hour observation period was identified in approximately 50% of the patients. A similar postprandial glucose peak time was obtained for breakfast, lunch, and dinner in all study groups. Postprandial hypoglycemia events were noted in approximately 10% of the meals and occurred about 160 minutes after mealtime.

The time interval for postprandial glucose peak in diabetic pregnancies is approximately 90 minutes after meals throughout the day and is not affected by the level of glycemic control. This information should be considered in the treatment of diabetes mellitus in pregnancy.

Diabetes is a common complication of pregnancy. Third trimester hyperglycemia has been associated in both gestational and pregestational diabetes with deviant fetal growth. Recent studies demonstrated that peak postprandial glucose levels in normal pregnancy are lower than previously thought. This finding could explain the lack of effectiveness reported by some investigators in achieving a rate of macrosomia similar to the general population. Among different possible blood glucose determinations, it appears that 1-hour postprandial as well as the overall mean blood glucose levels are the most closely correlated with fetal growth. It seems that a narrow window of glycemic levels is associated with optimal fetal growth because excessively tight glycemic control has been associated with increased incidence of small-for-gestational-age infants.

To examine pregnancy outcomes for women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) and a twin pregnancy compared with glucose tolerant women with a twin pregnancy.

Comparison of selected pregnancy outcomes.

Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia.

Women with GDM seen over a 10-year period by an endocrinologist, and women from a selected year of an obstetric database including Wollongong and Shellharbour Hospitals.

Examination of pregnancy outcome data from the two sources.

Fetal birthweights and method of delivery.

There were 28 GDM women with a twin pregnancy from 1229 consecutive referrals (2.3%) of women with GDM for medical management. For comparison there were 29 glucose tolerant women with twin pregnancies evaluable who had delivered over a 1-year period. For the women with GDM and a twin pregnancy there were no significant differences in demographics or outcomes except for a higher rate of elective Caesarean section.

The higher rate of Caesarean section appeared to be related to the combination of a twin pregnancy and GDM rather than the twin pregnancy or the GDM independently.

To assess the short-term efficacy of insulin aspart in comparison with regular human insulin in women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) during standardized meal tests.

The study included 15 women with GDM who had inadequate diabetes control with diet alone. On 3 consecutive days, breakfast meal tests were performed-the first with no exogenous insulin and the other two after the injection of either regular insulin or insulin aspart.

The peak insulin concentration was higher and the peak glucose and C-peptide concentrations were lower with both insulin preparations than with no exogenous insulin. Glucose areas under the curve above baseline were significantly lower with insulin aspart (180-min area, 7.1 mg. h. dl(-1); P = 0.018), but not with regular insulin (30.2 mg. h. dl(-1); P = 0.997), than with no insulin (29.4 mg. h. dl(-1)).

This study demonstrates that effective postprandial glycemic control in women with GDM who required insulin was brought about by insulin aspart through higher insulin peak and lower demand on endogenous insulin secretion.

Postprandial glucose has been reported to be the best predictor of neonatal macrosomia. Therefore, self-blood glucose monitoring (SBGM) protocols for diabetic pregnant women stress the importance of measuring blood glucose after meals. However, there is controversy in the literature. Traditionally, glucose monitoring has been prescribed at 2 hours after eating to coincide with the times a patient is at increased risk of hypoglycemia. Human regular insulin peaks at 2 to 3 hours after injection; thus, checking blood glucose at the 2-hour point is a relic of strategies to prevent hypoglycemia. In pregnancy, the emphasis has been on measuring during times when blood glucose levels are highest. One hour after the start of the meal has been shown to be the time of peak postprandial response in 90% of pregnant woman. Because glucose excursions may reach their maximum at varying times, based on the size and number of meals ingested, SBGM alone may not capture the full extent of total daily postprandial hyperglycemia. Because intermittent blood glucose monitoring underestimates the number of hyperglycemic events, a more accurate determination of postprandial glucose levels is necessary to decrease the risk of macrosomia in gestational diabetes mellitus. Continuous glucose monitoring may facilitate the detection of all postprandial peaks, including those due to unscheduled meals, and may provide an opportunity for better intervention by providing the complete glucose profile.