Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Diferentes intensidades para el control de la glucemia en embarazadas con diabetes preexistente

Contraer todo Desplegar todo

Referencias

References to studies included in this review

Demarini 1994 {published data only}

Demarini S, Mimouni F, Tsang RC, Khoury J, Hertzberg V. Impact of metabolic control of diabetes during pregnancy on neonatal hypocalcemia: a randomized study. Obstetrics and Gynecology 1994;83(6):918‐22.
Mimouni F, Miodovnik M, Whitsett JA, Holyroyde JC, Siddiqi TA, Tsang RC. Respiratory distress syndrome in infants of diabetic mothers in the 1980s: no direct adverse effect of maternal diabetes with modern management. Obstetrics and Gynecology 1987;69:191‐5.

Farrag 1987 {published data only}

Farrag OAM. Prospective study of 3 metabolic regimens in pregnant diabetes. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 1987;27:6‐9.

Sacks 2006 {published data only}

Sacks DA, Feig DS, Liu Ai‐L, Wolde‐Tsadik G. Managing type 1 diabetes in pregnancy: how near normal is necessary?. Journal of Perinatology 2006;26:458‐62.

References to studies excluded from this review

DCCT 1996a {published data only}

The Diabetes Control and Complications Trial Research Group. Effect of pregnancy on microvascular complications in the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial. Diabetes Care 2000;23(8):1084‐91.
The Diabetes Control and Complications Trial Research Group. Pregnancy outcomes in the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1996;174(4):1343‐53.

ACOG 2005

ACOG. Pregestational diabetes mellitus: ACOG Practice Bulletin Number 60. Obstetrics & Gynecology 2005;105(3):675‐85.

ADA 2016

American Diabetes Association. Management of Diabetes in Pregnancy (12). Diabetes Care 2016;39:S94‐S98.

ADIPS 2005

The Australasian Diabetes in Pregnancy Society consensus guidelines for the management of patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes in relation to pregnancy. adips_pregdm_guidelines.pdf (accessed 2016)2005.

Albrecht 2010

Albrecht SS, Kuklina EV, Bansil P, Jamieson DJ, Whiteman MK, Kourtis AP, et al. Diabetes trends among delivery hospitalizations in the U.S., 1994‐2004. Diabetes Care 2010;33:768‐73.

Balsells 2009

Balsells M, Garcia‐Patterson A, Gich I, Corcoy R. Maternal and fetal outcome in women with type 2 versus type 1 diabetes: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism 2009;94(11):4284‐91.

Bell 2008

Bell R, Bailey K, Cresswell T, Hawthorne G, Critchley J, Lewis‐Barned N, on behalf of the Northern Diabetic Pregnancy Survey Steering Group. Trends in prevalence and outcomes of pregnancy in women with pre‐existing type I and type II diabetes. BJOG: an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology 2008;115(4):445‐52.

Casele 1998

Casele HD, Laifer SA. Factors influencing preconception control of glycemia in diabetic women. Archives of Internal Medicine 1998;158(12):1321‐4.

CEMACH 2007

Modder J, Fleming K, Acolet D. Diabetes in pregnancy: are we providing the best possible care? Findings of a National Enquiry. http://www.cmace.org.uk/getdoc/f4ec2aca‐963b‐4997‐be80‐ac17a4492ea4/Diabetes‐in‐Pregnancy.aspx (accessed 2009)2007.

Colman 1997

Colman PG, Goodall IG, Garcia‐Webb P, Williams PF, Dunlop ME. Glycohaemoglobin: a crucial measurement in modern diabetes management. Progress towards standardization and improved precision of measurement. Medical Journal of Australia 1997;167(2):96‐8.

Correa 2015

Correa A, Bardenheier B, Elixhauser A, Geiss LS, Gregg E. Trends in prevalence of diabetes among delivery hospitalizations, United States, 1993–2009. Maternal and Child Health Journal 2015;19:635‐42.

Dabelea 2000

Dabelea D, Knowler WC, Pettitt DJ. Effect of diabetes in pregnancy on offspring: follow‐up research in the Pima Indians. Journal of Maternal‐Fetal Medicine 2000;9(1):83‐8.

DCCT 1993

Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT) Research Group. The effect of intensive treatment of diabetes on the development and progression of long‐term complications in insulin‐dependent diabetes. New England Journal of Medicine 1993;329(14):977‐86.

DCCT 1996b

The Diabetes Control and Complications Trial Research Group. Pregnancy outcomes in the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1996;174(4):1343‐53.

De Veciana 1995

De Veciana M, Major CA, Morgan MA, Asrat T, Toohey JS, Lien JM, et al. Postprandial versus preprandial blood glucose monitoring in women with gestational diabetes mellitus requiring insulin therapy. New England Journal of Medicine 1995;333(19):1237‐41.

Dunne 2005

Dunne F. Type 2 diabetes and pregnancy. Seminars in Fetal and Neonatal Medicine 2005;10(4):333‐9.

Farrar 2007

Farrar D, Tuffnell DJ, West J. Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion versus multiple daily injections of insulin for pregnant women with diabetes. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2007, Issue 3. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005542.pub2]

Fullerton 2014

Fullerton B, Jeitler K, Seitz M, Horvath K, Berghold A, Siebenhofer A. Intensive glucose control versus conventional glucose control for type 1 diabetes mellitus. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2014, Issue 2. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009122.pub2]

Galerneau 2004

Galerneau F, Inzucchi SE. Diabetes mellitus in pregnancy. Obstetrics and Gynecology Clinics of North America 2004;31(4):907‐33.

Griffith 2004

Griffith J, Conway DL. Care of diabetes in pregnancy. Obstetrics and Gynecology Clinics of North America 2004;31(2):243‐56.

Higgins 2011

Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.cochrane‐handbook.org.

Home 2008

Home P. Safety of very tight blood glucose control in type 2 diabetes. BMJ 2008;336(7642):458‐9.

Inkster 2006

Inkster ME, Fahey TP, Donnan PT, Leese GP, Mires GJ, Murphy DJ. Poor glycated haemoglobin control and adverse pregnancy outcomes in type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus: systematic review of observational studies. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 2006;6:30.

Jensen 2004

Jensen DM, Dam P, Moelsted‐Pedersen L, Ovesen P, Westergaard JG, Moeller M, et al. Outcomes in type 1 diabetic pregnancies. Diabetes Care 2004;27(12):2819‐23.

Jones 2011

Jones G, Barker G, Goodall I, Schneider HG, Shephard M, Twigg S. Change of HbA1C reporting to the new SI units. Medical Journal of Australia 2011;195(1):45‐6.

Kelly 2009

Kelly TN, Bazzano LA, Fonseca VA, Thethi TK, Reynolds K, He J. Systematic review: glucose control and cardiovascular disease in type 2 diabetes. Annals of Internal Medicine 2009;151:394‐403.

Khambalia 2013

Khambalia AZ, Ford JB, Nassar N, Shand AW, McElduff A, Roberts CL. Occurrence and recurrence of diabetes in pregnancy. Diabetic Medicine 2013;30:452‐6.

King 2009

King R, Wellard S. Juggling type 1 diabetes and pregnancy in rural Australia. Midwifery 2009;25(2):126‐33.

Kinsley 2007

Kinsley B. Achieving better outcomes in pregnancies complicated by type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus. Clinical Therapeutics 2007;29 Suppl D:S153‐S160.

Langer 1994

Langer O, Rodriguez DA, Xenakis EM, McFarland MB, Berkus MD, Arrendondo F. Intensified versus conventional management of gestational diabetes. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1994;172(5):1642‐3.

Langer 2008

Langer O. Type 2 diabetes in pregnancy: exposing deceptive appearances. Journal of Maternal‐Fetal Medicine 2008;21(3):181‐9.

Macintosh 2006

Macintosh MC, Fleming KM, Bailey JA, Doyle P, Modder J, Acolet D, et al. Perinatal mortality and congenital anomalies in babies of women with type 1 and type 2 diabetes in England, Wales and Northern Ireland: population based study. BMJ 2006;333(7560):177.

Manderson 2003

Manderson JG, Patterson CC, Hadden DR, Traub AI, Ennis C, McCance DR. Preprandial versus postprandial blood glucose monitoring in type 1 diabetic pregnancy: a randomized controlled clinical trial. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2003;189:507‐12.

Mimouni 1987

Mimouni F, Miodovnik M, Whitsett JA, Holyroyde JC, Siddiqi TA, Tsang RC. Respiratory distress syndrome in infants of diabetic mothers in the 1980s: no direct adverse effect of maternal diabetes with modern management. Obstetrics and Gynecology 1987;69:191‐5.

Modder 2008

Modder J. Diabetes in pregnancy: can we make a difference?. BJOG: an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology 2008;115(4):419‐20.

Montori 2009

Montori VM, Fernández‐Balsells M. Glycemic control in type 2 diabetes: time for an evidence‐based about‐face?. Annals of Internal Medicine 2009;150(11):803‐8.

Moy 2014

Moy FM, Ray A, Buckley BS. Techniques of monitoring blood glucose during pregnancy for women with pre‐existing diabetes. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2014, Issue 4. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009613.pub2]

Murphy 2009

Murphy HR. Integrating educational and technological interventions to improve pregnancy outcomes in women with diabetes. Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism 2009;12(2):97‐104.

NICE 2015

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Diabetes in Pregnancy: Management of Diabetes and its Complications from Preconception to the Postnatal Period. London: NICE, 2015.

Owens 2015

Owens LA, Sedar J, Carmody L, Dunne F. Comparing type 1 and type 2 diabetes in pregnancy‐ similar conditions or is a separate approach required?. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 2015;15:69.

Platt 2002

Platt MJ, Stanisstreet M, Casson IF, Howard CV, Walkinshaw S, Pennycook S, et al. St Vincent's Declaration 10 years on: outcomes of diabetic pregnancies. Diabetic Medicine 2002;19(3):216‐20.

Ray 2001

Ray JG, Vermeulen MJ, Shapiro JL, Kenshole AB. Maternal and neonatal outcomes in pregestational and gestational diabetes mellitus, and the influence of maternal obesity and weight gain: the DEPOSIT study. QJM: an international journal of medicine 2001;94(7):347‐56.

RevMan 2014 [Computer program]

The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration. Review Manager (RevMan). Version 5.3. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014.

Sacks 1997

Sacks DA, Chen W, Greenspoon JS, Wolde‐Tsadik G. Should the same glucose values be targeted for type 1 as for type 2 diabetics in pregnancy?. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1997;177:1113‐9.

Sardar 2015

Sardar P, Udell JA, Chatterjee S, Bansilal S, Mukherjee D, Farkouh ME. Effect of intensive versus standard blood glucose control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus in different regions of the world: systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials. Journal of the American Heart Association 2015;4(5):e001577.

Schneider 2007

Schneider HG, Goodall I, Colman PG, McLean M, Barker G, for the Australian Working Party for HbA1c standardization. New haemoglobin A1c: the way it is reported is about to change.... Internal Medicine Journal 2007;37(4):213‐5.

Steel 1990

Steel JM, Johnstone FD, Hepburn DA, Smith AF. Can prepregnancy care of diabetic women reduce the risk of abnormal babies?. BMJ 1990;301(6760):1070‐4.

Tieu 2010

Tieu J, Coat S, Hague W, Middleton P. Oral anti‐diabetic agents for women with pre‐existing diabetes mellitus/impaired glucose tolerance or previous gestational diabetes mellitus. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2010, Issue 10. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007724.pub2]

Walkinshaw 2005

Walkinshaw SA. Pregnancy in women with pre‐existing diabetes: management issues. Seminars in Fetal & Neonatal Medicine 2005;10(4):307‐15.

Weintrob 1996

Weintrob N, Karp M, Hod M. Short‐ and long‐range complications in offspring of diabetic mothers. Journal of Diabetes and its Complications 1996;10(5):294‐301.

Willhoite 2007

Willhoite MB, Bennert HW, Palomaki GE, Zaremba MM, Herman WH, Williams JR, et al. The impact of preconception counselling on pregnancy outcomes. The experience of the Maine Diabetes in Pregnancy Program. Diabetes Care 1993;16(2):450‐5.

Zhu 2016

Zhu Y, Zhang C. Prevalence of gestational diabetes and risk of progression to type 2 diabetes: a global perspective. Current Diabetes Reports 2016;6:7.

References to other published versions of this review

Middleton 2010

Middleton P, Crowther CA, Simmonds L, Muller P. Different intensities of glycaemic control for pregnant women with pre‐existing diabetes. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2010, Issue 9. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008540.pub2]

Middleton 2012

Middleton P, Crowther CA, Simmonds L. Different intensities of glycaemic control for pregnant women with pre‐existing diabetes. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2012, Issue 8. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008540.pub3]

Characteristics of studies

Characteristics of included studies [ordered by study ID]

Demarini 1994

Methods

RCT.

Participants

137 pregnant women and their infants.

Recruited: July 1978 to June 1989.

Setting: Perinatal Treatment Center, University of Cincinnati, Ohio, USA.

Inclusion criteria: women with type 1 diabetes enrolled in the trial before 9 weeks' gestation.

Exclusion criteria: infants whose birth dates were discrepant by 2 weeks or more from the estimated GA.

Severity of diabetes:

Very tight glycaemic control target: 31 White classification B‐C; 37 White classification D‐RT.

Tight‐moderate glycaemic control target: 38 White classification B‐C; 31 White classification D‐RT.

Duration of diabetes (years):

Very tight glycaemic control target: 11.9 (6.1).

Tight glycaemic control target: 11.3 (7.1).

Interventions

Very tight glycaemic control target (n = 68):

Target of FBG < 80 mg/dL (< 4.44 mmol/L); 1.5 hour postprandial BG < 120 mg/dL (< 6.66 mmol/L).

Admitted to hospital immediately on trial entry to achieve strict control; seen weekly throughout pregnancy.

Tight glycaemic control target (standard management) (n = 69):

Target of FBG < 100 mg/dL (< 5.55 mmol/L); postprandial BG < 140 mg/dL (< 7.77 mmol/L).

Only admitted to hospital if, after 1 week of outpatient management, the criteria for control of BG were not met; seen biweekly in the first trimester, and weekly thereafter.

ALL WOMEN: all women received a twice‐daily insulin dose including both a short‐acting and an intermediate‐acting insulin, with dietary regulation; BG was monitored with a reflectance meter (Ames dextrometer).

All women were admitted to hospital for the 28th week of gestation and again at 1 to 4 weeks before anticipated birth to evaluate and optimise serum glucose control.

Outcomes

HbA1c (first, second, third trimester).

Mean preprandial glucose (first, second, third trimester).

Mean postprandial glucose (first, second, third trimester).

Pregnancy‐induced hypertension.

Maternal length of hospital stay.

Infant serum calcium concentrations ‐ hypocalcaemia defined as serum total of < 8.0 mg/dL (2.00 mmol/L) in term infants (at least 37 weeks GA); and < 7.0 mg/dL (1.75 mmol/L) in preterm infants.

Infant serum magnesium concentrations ‐ hypomagnesaemia defined as serum magnesium concentration < 1.6 mg/dL (0.66 mmol/L).

Perinatal asphyxia (defined as presence of late decelerations in fetal heart rate or prolonged fetal bradycardia (fetal distress) and/or 1 minute Apgar scores < 7).

Birthweight.

GA.

Apgar score.

Fetal distress.

Notes

Mimouni 1987 appears to be an interim report of the trial.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

"randomly assigned" ‐ no further information.

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

"randomly assigned" ‐ no further information.

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Not feasible to blind the intervention.

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Blinding of outcome assessment was not reported.

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

No losses to follow‐up reported.

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

High risk

None of the primary review outcomes of perinatal mortality or serious perinatal morbidity, pre‐eclampsia, hyperglycaemia requiring treatment and caesarean birth were reported; many secondary review outcomes also not reported (e.g. large‐for‐GA).

Other bias

Low risk

No apparent evidence of other bias.

Farrag 1987

Methods

RCT.

Participants

60 pregnant women with type 1 diabetes; aged between 24 and 40 years; parity between 3 to 8.

Setting: King Fahad Hospital, Alkhobar, Saudi Arabia.

Inclusion criteria:

White classification B and C for type 1 diabetes.

Exclusion criteria:

Women with any other medical complications; women who presented after the first trimester.

Interventions

Tight glycaemic control target (n = 16):

Target of 5.6 mmol/L or below*.

Moderate glycaemic control target (n = 29):

Target between 5.6 and 6.7 mmol/L*.

Loose glycaemic control (n = 15):

Target between 6.7 and 8.9 mmol/L*.

*paper does not specify if this was FBG, but we have assumed that it is

ALL WOMEN: were admitted to hospital during the first trimester to regulate their diet and insulin requirements (average stay of 8 days); had insulin doses of 1 unit for each 0.6 mmol/L above the set target and adjusted as required; were reviewed every 2 weeks in the clinic for routine antenatal care, glycosuria and bacteriuria; were readmitted to hospital at 20 and 28 weeks' GA to readjust insulin dose, ultrasound follow‐up of biparietal diameter; were asked to count up to 10 fetal movements every day from 28 weeks' GA; were readmitted to hospital at 36 weeks' GA for insulin dose readjustment, ultrasonography, fetal movement count, biweekly oestriol estimation and electronic fetal monitoring.

At 38 weeks' GA, women with no contraindication for vaginal birth had their cervix evaluated and PGE2 sublingual tablets were administered to women who had an unfavourable cervix.

Outcomes

Fasting, 2‐hour postprandial and midnight BG concentrations.

Length of hospital stay.

Ultrasound follow‐up of fetal biparietal diameter, head and abdominal circumferences; and femoral length at 30 and 28 weeks' GA.

Weekly serum oestriol estimation and electronic fetal monitoring (biochemical and physical tests) from 28 weeks' GA.

Perinatal mortality.

Pre‐eclampsia.

Caesarean section.

Maternal hypoglycaemia in first half of pregnancy.

Transient maternal hypotension.

Respiratory distress syndrome.

Birthweight > 90th centile.

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

"allocated at random" ‐ no further details.

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

"allocated at random" ‐ no further details.

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Not feasible to blind the intervention.

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Blinding of outcome assessment was not reported.

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

No losses to follow‐up reported.

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

High risk

Primary review outcomes of congenital anomalies and maternal hyperglycaemia requiring treatment not reported; many secondary review outcomes not reported.

Other bias

Unclear risk

Numbers randomised per group are imbalanced (16:29:15). This may have been due to 1:2:1 randomisation but this was not mentioned in the paper.

Sacks 2006

Methods

RCT.

Participants

26 pregnant women with type 1 diabetes who presented for antenatal care before 13 weeks' GA.

Recruited from 1 April 2000 to 31 March 2003.

Type 1 diabetes was identified on clinical grounds, including requirement for insulin and/or a history of abrupt onset of diabetes, diabetic ketoacidosis or both.

Setting: Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Kaiser Permanente Hospital, Bellflower, CA, USA.

Interventions

Very tight glycaemic control target (n = 13 women and babies):

Fasting and pre‐meal glucose targets of 60 to 90 mg/dL (3.33 to 5.0 mmol/L); and 1 hour post‐meal targets of 120 to 140 mg/dL (6.66 to 7.77 mmol/L).

Tight glycaemic control target (n = 9 women and babies):

Fasting and pre‐meal glucose targets of 95 to 115 mg/dL (5.27 to 6.38 mmol/L); and 1‐hour post‐meal targets of 155 to 175 mg/dL (8.6 to 9.71 mmol/L).

ALL WOMEN: were instructed in diet, insulin administration and glucose self‐monitoring; diet caloric content was based on ideal prepregnancy weight (40% carbohydrates, 20% fat and 40% protein).

For women using multiple injections, combinations of intermediate acting (NPH) and either regular insulin or insulin lispro were used to control maternal glycaemia. Women using continuous insulin infusion (insulin pumps) were trained to adjust their basal and bolus doses of insulin lispro to achieve the target values for their respective group.

Women were given written and verbal instructions in the daily adjustment of their insulin doses to achieve target glucose values for their assigned group.

Outcomes

Perinatal mortality.

Serious perinatal morbidity.

Capillary plasma glucose (self‐monitored 7 times a day with a memory‐based portable glucose meter).

Hypoglycaemic symptoms (self‐reported nervousness, tremulousness and peri‐oral numbness).

HbA1c measured each trimester.

BMI.

Maternal weight gain.

Chronic hypertension.

GA (weeks).

Caesarean.

Birth defects.

Birthweight.

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

"computer‐generated block randomization."

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

"computer‐generated block randomization."

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

High risk

"Open label"; Not feasible to blind the intervention.

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Blinding of outcome assessment was not reported.

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

4/26 (15.4%) ‐ all 4 were from the very tight glycaemic control target group (2 women had first trimester abortions, 1 was excluded because she had participated in an earlier pregnancy and 1 left the study because of not attending appointments).

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

High risk

Primary review outcomes of pre‐eclampsia and maternal hyperglycaemia requiring treatment and serious perinatal morbidity not reported; many secondary review outcomes not reported.

Other bias

Low risk

No apparent evidence of other bias.

BG: blood glucose
BMI: body mass index
FBG: fasting blood glucose
GA: gestational age
HbA1c: glycated haemoglobin
mg/dL: milligrams/decilitre
mmol/L: millimol/litre
NPH: neutral protamine hagedorn
PGE2: prostaglandin E2
RCT: randomised controlled trial

Characteristics of excluded studies [ordered by study ID]

Study

Reason for exclusion

DCCT 1996a

All pregnant women received intensive therapy ("the protocol required that women in the conventional treatment group change to intensive therapy while attempting to become pregnant and during pregnancy").

Data and analyses

Open in table viewer
Comparison 1. Very tight versus tight‐moderate glycaemic control

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Caesarean section Show forest plot

1

22

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.92 [0.49, 1.73]

Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Very tight versus tight‐moderate glycaemic control, Outcome 1 Caesarean section.

Comparison 1 Very tight versus tight‐moderate glycaemic control, Outcome 1 Caesarean section.

1.1 FBG target 3.33 to 5.0 vs 5.27 to 6.38 mmol/L

1

22

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.92 [0.49, 1.73]

2 Perinatal mortality Show forest plot

1

22

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 Very tight versus tight‐moderate glycaemic control, Outcome 2 Perinatal mortality.

Comparison 1 Very tight versus tight‐moderate glycaemic control, Outcome 2 Perinatal mortality.

2.1 FBG target 3.33 to 5.0 vs 5.27 to 6.38 mmol/L

1

22

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

3 Serious perinatal morbidity Show forest plot

1

22

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1 Very tight versus tight‐moderate glycaemic control, Outcome 3 Serious perinatal morbidity.

Comparison 1 Very tight versus tight‐moderate glycaemic control, Outcome 3 Serious perinatal morbidity.

3.1 FBG target 3.33 to 5.0 vs 5.27 to 6.38 mmol/L

1

22

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

4 Congenital fetal anomaly Show forest plot

1

22

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

3.57 [0.19, 66.61]

Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1 Very tight versus tight‐moderate glycaemic control, Outcome 4 Congenital fetal anomaly.

Comparison 1 Very tight versus tight‐moderate glycaemic control, Outcome 4 Congenital fetal anomaly.

4.1 FBG target 3.33 to 5.0 vs 5.27 to 6.38 mmol/L

1

22

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

3.57 [0.19, 66.61]

5 Pregnancy‐induced hypertension Show forest plot

1

137

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.40 [0.60, 3.25]

Analysis 1.5

Comparison 1 Very tight versus tight‐moderate glycaemic control, Outcome 5 Pregnancy‐induced hypertension.

Comparison 1 Very tight versus tight‐moderate glycaemic control, Outcome 5 Pregnancy‐induced hypertension.

5.1 FBG target < 4.44 vs < 5.55 mmol/L

1

137

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.40 [0.60, 3.25]

6 Chronic hypertension: not prespecified Show forest plot

1

22

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

Analysis 1.6

Comparison 1 Very tight versus tight‐moderate glycaemic control, Outcome 6 Chronic hypertension: not prespecified.

Comparison 1 Very tight versus tight‐moderate glycaemic control, Outcome 6 Chronic hypertension: not prespecified.

6.1 FBG target 3.33 to 5.0 mmol/L vs 5.27 to 6.38 mmol/L

1

22

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

7 Glycaemic control ‐ Self‐monitored blood glucose (mean, mmol/L) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 1.7

Comparison 1 Very tight versus tight‐moderate glycaemic control, Outcome 7 Glycaemic control ‐ Self‐monitored blood glucose (mean, mmol/L).

Comparison 1 Very tight versus tight‐moderate glycaemic control, Outcome 7 Glycaemic control ‐ Self‐monitored blood glucose (mean, mmol/L).

7.1 FBG target 3.33 to 5.0 vs 5.27 to 6.38 mmol/L: first trimester

1

22

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐1.23 [‐2.19, ‐0.27]

7.2 FBG target 3.33 to 5.0 vs 5.27 to 6.38 mmol/L: second trimester

1

22

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.99 [‐1.64, ‐0.34]

7.3 FBG target 3.33 to 5.0 vs 5.27 to 6.38 mmol/L: third trimester

1

22

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.66 [‐1.60, 0.28]

8 Glycaemic control ‐ Self‐monitored blood glucose tests/day Show forest plot

1

22

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.60 [‐0.15, 3.35]

Analysis 1.8

Comparison 1 Very tight versus tight‐moderate glycaemic control, Outcome 8 Glycaemic control ‐ Self‐monitored blood glucose tests/day.

Comparison 1 Very tight versus tight‐moderate glycaemic control, Outcome 8 Glycaemic control ‐ Self‐monitored blood glucose tests/day.

8.1 FBG target 3.33 to 5.0 vs 5.27 to 6.39 mmol/L

1

22

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.60 [‐0.15, 3.35]

9 Glycaemic control ‐ HbA1c (%): first trimester Show forest plot

2

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 1.9

Comparison 1 Very tight versus tight‐moderate glycaemic control, Outcome 9 Glycaemic control ‐ HbA1c (%): first trimester.

Comparison 1 Very tight versus tight‐moderate glycaemic control, Outcome 9 Glycaemic control ‐ HbA1c (%): first trimester.

9.1 FBG target 3.33 to 5.0 vs 5.27 to 6.38 mmol/L

1

22

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐1.20 [‐2.25, ‐0.15]

9.2 FBG target < 4.44 vs < 5.55 mmol/L

1

137

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [‐0.62, 0.62]

10 Glycaemic control ‐ HbA1c (%): second trimester Show forest plot

2

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 1.10

Comparison 1 Very tight versus tight‐moderate glycaemic control, Outcome 10 Glycaemic control ‐ HbA1c (%): second trimester.

Comparison 1 Very tight versus tight‐moderate glycaemic control, Outcome 10 Glycaemic control ‐ HbA1c (%): second trimester.

10.1 FBG target 3.33 to 5.0 vs 5.27 to 6.38 mmol/L

1

22

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.5 [‐1.09, 0.09]

10.2 FBG target < 4.44 vs < 5.55 mmol/L

1

137

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.10 [‐0.37, 0.57]

11 Glycaemic control ‐ HbA1c (%): third trimester Show forest plot

2

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 1.11

Comparison 1 Very tight versus tight‐moderate glycaemic control, Outcome 11 Glycaemic control ‐ HbA1c (%): third trimester.

Comparison 1 Very tight versus tight‐moderate glycaemic control, Outcome 11 Glycaemic control ‐ HbA1c (%): third trimester.

11.1 FBG target 3.33 to 5.0 vs 5.27 to 6.38 mmol/L

1

22

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.30 [‐0.92, 0.32]

11.2 FBG target < 4.44 vs < 5.55 mmol/L

1

137

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.10 [‐0.49, 0.29]

12 Glycaemic control ‐ Mean preprandial glucose (mmol/L) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 1.12

Comparison 1 Very tight versus tight‐moderate glycaemic control, Outcome 12 Glycaemic control ‐ Mean preprandial glucose (mmol/L).

Comparison 1 Very tight versus tight‐moderate glycaemic control, Outcome 12 Glycaemic control ‐ Mean preprandial glucose (mmol/L).

12.1 FBG target < 4.44 vs < 5.55 mmol/L: first trimester

1

137

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.39 [‐1.33, 0.55]

12.2 FBG target < 4.44 vs < 5.55 mmol/L: second trimester

1

137

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.27 [‐1.19, 0.65]

12.3 FBG target < 4.44 vs < 5.55 mmol/L: third trimester

1

137

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.34 [‐1.40, 0.72]

13 Glycaemic control ‐ Mean postprandial glucose (mmol/L) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 1.13

Comparison 1 Very tight versus tight‐moderate glycaemic control, Outcome 13 Glycaemic control ‐ Mean postprandial glucose (mmol/L).

Comparison 1 Very tight versus tight‐moderate glycaemic control, Outcome 13 Glycaemic control ‐ Mean postprandial glucose (mmol/L).

13.1 FBG target < 4.44 vs < 5.55 mmol/L: first trimester

1

137

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.94 [‐2.05, 0.17]

13.2 FBG target < 4.44 vs < 5.55 mmol/L: second trimester

1

137

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.56 [‐1.38, 0.26]

13.3 FBG target < 4.44 vs < 5.55 mmol/L: third trimester

1

137

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.11 [‐1.26, 1.04]

14 Glycaemic control ‐ Below FBG threshold (% days) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 1.14

Comparison 1 Very tight versus tight‐moderate glycaemic control, Outcome 14 Glycaemic control ‐ Below FBG threshold (% days).

Comparison 1 Very tight versus tight‐moderate glycaemic control, Outcome 14 Glycaemic control ‐ Below FBG threshold (% days).

14.1 < 3.33 mmol/L

1

22

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

20.0 [7.00, 33.00]

14.2 < 2.78 mmol/L

1

22

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

17.0 [4.04, 29.96]

14.3 < 2.22 mmol/L

1

22

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

8.0 [‐3.56, 19.56]

15 Hypoglycaemic episodes ‐ > 1 subjective (% of days): not prespecified Show forest plot

1

22

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

22.0 [11.07, 32.93]

Analysis 1.15

Comparison 1 Very tight versus tight‐moderate glycaemic control, Outcome 15 Hypoglycaemic episodes ‐ > 1 subjective (% of days): not prespecified.

Comparison 1 Very tight versus tight‐moderate glycaemic control, Outcome 15 Hypoglycaemic episodes ‐ > 1 subjective (% of days): not prespecified.

15.1 FBG target 3.33 to 5.0 vs 5.27 to 6.38 mmol/L

1

22

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

22.0 [11.07, 32.93]

16 Gestational weight gain (kg/week) Show forest plot

1

22

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.02 [‐0.23, 0.27]

Analysis 1.16

Comparison 1 Very tight versus tight‐moderate glycaemic control, Outcome 16 Gestational weight gain (kg/week).

Comparison 1 Very tight versus tight‐moderate glycaemic control, Outcome 16 Gestational weight gain (kg/week).

16.1 FBG target 3.3 to 5.0 vs 5.27 to 6.38 mmol/L

1

22

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.02 [‐0.23, 0.27]

17 Fetal distress: not prespecified Show forest plot

1

137

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.15 [0.63, 2.11]

Analysis 1.17

Comparison 1 Very tight versus tight‐moderate glycaemic control, Outcome 17 Fetal distress: not prespecified.

Comparison 1 Very tight versus tight‐moderate glycaemic control, Outcome 17 Fetal distress: not prespecified.

17.1 FBG target < 4.44 vs < 5.55 mmol/L

1

137

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.15 [0.63, 2.11]

18 Gestational age at birth (weeks) Show forest plot

2

159

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.43 [‐0.23, 1.08]

Analysis 1.18

Comparison 1 Very tight versus tight‐moderate glycaemic control, Outcome 18 Gestational age at birth (weeks).

Comparison 1 Very tight versus tight‐moderate glycaemic control, Outcome 18 Gestational age at birth (weeks).

18.1 FBG target 3.33 to 5.0 vs 5.27 to 6.38 mmol/L

1

22

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.30 [‐2.44, 1.84]

18.2 FBG target < 4.44 vs < 5.55 mmol/L

1

137

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.5 [‐0.19, 1.19]

19 Birthweight (g) Show forest plot

2

159

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐2.62 [‐179.83, 174.59]

Analysis 1.19

Comparison 1 Very tight versus tight‐moderate glycaemic control, Outcome 19 Birthweight (g).

Comparison 1 Very tight versus tight‐moderate glycaemic control, Outcome 19 Birthweight (g).

19.1 FBG target 3.33 to 5.0 vs 5.27 to 6.38 mmol/L

1

22

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐272.0 [‐803.99, 259.99]

19.2 FBG target < 4.44 vs < 5.55 mmol/L

1

137

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

31.0 [‐156.95, 218.95]

20 Apgar score Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 1.20

Comparison 1 Very tight versus tight‐moderate glycaemic control, Outcome 20 Apgar score.

Comparison 1 Very tight versus tight‐moderate glycaemic control, Outcome 20 Apgar score.

20.1 < 7 at 1 minute: FBG target < 4.44 vs < 5.55 mmol/L

1

137

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.01 [0.40, 2.55]

20.2 < 7 at 5 minutes: FBG target < 4.44 vs < 5.55 mmol/L

1

137

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

21 Asphyxia: not prespecified Show forest plot

1

137

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.01 [0.58, 1.78]

Analysis 1.21

Comparison 1 Very tight versus tight‐moderate glycaemic control, Outcome 21 Asphyxia: not prespecified.

Comparison 1 Very tight versus tight‐moderate glycaemic control, Outcome 21 Asphyxia: not prespecified.

21.1 FBG target < 4.44 vs < 5.55 mmol/L

1

137

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.01 [0.58, 1.78]

22 Neonatal hypocalcaemia Show forest plot

1

137

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.55 [0.30, 1.03]

Analysis 1.22

Comparison 1 Very tight versus tight‐moderate glycaemic control, Outcome 22 Neonatal hypocalcaemia.

Comparison 1 Very tight versus tight‐moderate glycaemic control, Outcome 22 Neonatal hypocalcaemia.

22.1 FBG target < 4.44 vs < 5.55 mmol/L

1

137

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.55 [0.30, 1.03]

23 Neonatal hypomagnesaemia: not prespecified Show forest plot

1

127

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.65 [0.25, 1.68]

Analysis 1.23

Comparison 1 Very tight versus tight‐moderate glycaemic control, Outcome 23 Neonatal hypomagnesaemia: not prespecified.

Comparison 1 Very tight versus tight‐moderate glycaemic control, Outcome 23 Neonatal hypomagnesaemia: not prespecified.

23.1 FBG target < 4.44 vs < 5.55 mmol/L

1

127

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.65 [0.25, 1.68]

24 Maternal hospitalisation (days) Show forest plot

1

137

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

10.60 [9.53, 11.67]

Analysis 1.24

Comparison 1 Very tight versus tight‐moderate glycaemic control, Outcome 24 Maternal hospitalisation (days).

Comparison 1 Very tight versus tight‐moderate glycaemic control, Outcome 24 Maternal hospitalisation (days).

24.1 FBG target < 4.44 vs < 5.55 mmol/L

1

137

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

10.60 [9.53, 11.67]

Open in table viewer
Comparison 2. Tight versus moderate glycaemic control

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Pre‐eclampsia Show forest plot

1

45

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

5.29 [0.23, 122.91]

Analysis 2.1

Comparison 2 Tight versus moderate glycaemic control, Outcome 1 Pre‐eclampsia.

Comparison 2 Tight versus moderate glycaemic control, Outcome 1 Pre‐eclampsia.

1.1 FBG target ≤ 5.6 mmol/L vs 5.6 to 6.7 mmol/L

1

45

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

5.29 [0.23, 122.91]

2 Caesarean section Show forest plot

1

45

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.21 [0.22, 6.50]

Analysis 2.2

Comparison 2 Tight versus moderate glycaemic control, Outcome 2 Caesarean section.

Comparison 2 Tight versus moderate glycaemic control, Outcome 2 Caesarean section.

2.1 FBG target ≤ 5.6 vs 5.6 to 6.7 mmol/L

1

45

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.21 [0.22, 6.50]

3 Perinatal mortality Show forest plot

1

45

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

Analysis 2.3

Comparison 2 Tight versus moderate glycaemic control, Outcome 3 Perinatal mortality.

Comparison 2 Tight versus moderate glycaemic control, Outcome 3 Perinatal mortality.

3.1 FBG target ≤ 5.6 vs 5.6 to 6.7 mmol/L

1

45

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

4 Transient maternal hypertension Show forest plot

1

45

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.59 [0.03, 13.66]

Analysis 2.4

Comparison 2 Tight versus moderate glycaemic control, Outcome 4 Transient maternal hypertension.

Comparison 2 Tight versus moderate glycaemic control, Outcome 4 Transient maternal hypertension.

4.1 FBG target ≤ 5.6 vs 5.6 to 6.7 mmol/L

1

45

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.59 [0.03, 13.66]

5 Hypoglycaemic epispodes ‐ first half of pregnancy: not prespecified Show forest plot

1

45

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

26.47 [1.61, 435.38]

Analysis 2.5

Comparison 2 Tight versus moderate glycaemic control, Outcome 5 Hypoglycaemic epispodes ‐ first half of pregnancy: not prespecified.

Comparison 2 Tight versus moderate glycaemic control, Outcome 5 Hypoglycaemic epispodes ‐ first half of pregnancy: not prespecified.

5.1 FBG target ≤ 5.6 vs 5.6 to 6.7 mmol/L

1

45

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

26.47 [1.61, 435.38]

6 Large‐for‐gestational age (birthweight > 90th centile) Show forest plot

1

45

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

Analysis 2.6

Comparison 2 Tight versus moderate glycaemic control, Outcome 6 Large‐for‐gestational age (birthweight > 90th centile).

Comparison 2 Tight versus moderate glycaemic control, Outcome 6 Large‐for‐gestational age (birthweight > 90th centile).

6.1 FBG target ≤ 5.6 vs 5.6 to 6.7 mmol/L

1

45

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

7 Respiratory distress syndrome Show forest plot

1

45

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.91 [0.09, 9.24]

Analysis 2.7

Comparison 2 Tight versus moderate glycaemic control, Outcome 7 Respiratory distress syndrome.

Comparison 2 Tight versus moderate glycaemic control, Outcome 7 Respiratory distress syndrome.

7.1 FBG target ≤ 5.6 v 5.6 to 6.7 mmol/L

1

45

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.91 [0.09, 9.24]

Open in table viewer
Comparison 3. Tight‐moderate versus loose glycaemic control

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Pre‐eclampsia Show forest plot

1

60

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.11 [0.01, 0.99]

Analysis 3.1

Comparison 3 Tight‐moderate versus loose glycaemic control, Outcome 1 Pre‐eclampsia.

Comparison 3 Tight‐moderate versus loose glycaemic control, Outcome 1 Pre‐eclampsia.

1.1 FBG ≤ 6.7 mmol/L vs 6.7 to 8.9 mmol/L

1

60

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.11 [0.01, 0.99]

2 Caesarean section Show forest plot

1

60

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.28 [0.10, 0.78]

Analysis 3.2

Comparison 3 Tight‐moderate versus loose glycaemic control, Outcome 2 Caesarean section.

Comparison 3 Tight‐moderate versus loose glycaemic control, Outcome 2 Caesarean section.

2.1 FBG target ≤ 6.7 vs 6.7 to 8.9 mmol/L

1

60

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.28 [0.10, 0.78]

3 Perinatal mortality Show forest plot

1

60

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.07 [0.00, 1.37]

Analysis 3.3

Comparison 3 Tight‐moderate versus loose glycaemic control, Outcome 3 Perinatal mortality.

Comparison 3 Tight‐moderate versus loose glycaemic control, Outcome 3 Perinatal mortality.

3.1 FBG target ≤ 6.7 vs 6.7 to 8.9 mmol/L

1

60

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.07 [0.00, 1.37]

4 Transient maternal hypertension Show forest plot

1

45

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.81 [0.12, 27.07]

Analysis 3.4

Comparison 3 Tight‐moderate versus loose glycaemic control, Outcome 4 Transient maternal hypertension.

Comparison 3 Tight‐moderate versus loose glycaemic control, Outcome 4 Transient maternal hypertension.

4.1 FBG target ≤ 6.7 vs 6.7 to 8.9 mmol/L

1

45

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.81 [0.12, 27.07]

5 Hypoglycaemic episodes ‐ in first half of pregnancy: not prespecified Show forest plot

1

60

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

5.22 [0.32, 86.28]

Analysis 3.5

Comparison 3 Tight‐moderate versus loose glycaemic control, Outcome 5 Hypoglycaemic episodes ‐ in first half of pregnancy: not prespecified.

Comparison 3 Tight‐moderate versus loose glycaemic control, Outcome 5 Hypoglycaemic episodes ‐ in first half of pregnancy: not prespecified.

5.1 FBG target ≤ 6.7 vs 6.7 to 8.9 mmol/L

1

60

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

5.22 [0.32, 86.28]

6 Large‐for‐gestational age (birthweight > 90th centile) Show forest plot

1

60

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.01 [0.00, 0.20]

Analysis 3.6

Comparison 3 Tight‐moderate versus loose glycaemic control, Outcome 6 Large‐for‐gestational age (birthweight > 90th centile).

Comparison 3 Tight‐moderate versus loose glycaemic control, Outcome 6 Large‐for‐gestational age (birthweight > 90th centile).

6.1 FBG target ≤ 6.7 vs 6.7 to 8.9 mmol/L

1

60

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.01 [0.00, 0.20]

7 Respiratory distress syndrome Show forest plot

1

60

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.17 [0.05, 0.59]

Analysis 3.7

Comparison 3 Tight‐moderate versus loose glycaemic control, Outcome 7 Respiratory distress syndrome.

Comparison 3 Tight‐moderate versus loose glycaemic control, Outcome 7 Respiratory distress syndrome.

7.1 FBG target ≤ 6.7 vs 6.7 to 8.9 mmol/L

1

60

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.17 [0.05, 0.59]

Study flow diagram.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 1

Study flow diagram.

Methodological quality graph: review authors' judgements about each methodological quality item presented as percentages across all included studies.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 2

Methodological quality graph: review authors' judgements about each methodological quality item presented as percentages across all included studies.

Methodological quality summary: review authors' judgements about each methodological quality item for each included study.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 3

Methodological quality summary: review authors' judgements about each methodological quality item for each included study.

Comparison 1 Very tight versus tight‐moderate glycaemic control, Outcome 1 Caesarean section.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Very tight versus tight‐moderate glycaemic control, Outcome 1 Caesarean section.

Comparison 1 Very tight versus tight‐moderate glycaemic control, Outcome 2 Perinatal mortality.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 Very tight versus tight‐moderate glycaemic control, Outcome 2 Perinatal mortality.

Comparison 1 Very tight versus tight‐moderate glycaemic control, Outcome 3 Serious perinatal morbidity.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1 Very tight versus tight‐moderate glycaemic control, Outcome 3 Serious perinatal morbidity.

Comparison 1 Very tight versus tight‐moderate glycaemic control, Outcome 4 Congenital fetal anomaly.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1 Very tight versus tight‐moderate glycaemic control, Outcome 4 Congenital fetal anomaly.

Comparison 1 Very tight versus tight‐moderate glycaemic control, Outcome 5 Pregnancy‐induced hypertension.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.5

Comparison 1 Very tight versus tight‐moderate glycaemic control, Outcome 5 Pregnancy‐induced hypertension.

Comparison 1 Very tight versus tight‐moderate glycaemic control, Outcome 6 Chronic hypertension: not prespecified.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.6

Comparison 1 Very tight versus tight‐moderate glycaemic control, Outcome 6 Chronic hypertension: not prespecified.

Comparison 1 Very tight versus tight‐moderate glycaemic control, Outcome 7 Glycaemic control ‐ Self‐monitored blood glucose (mean, mmol/L).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.7

Comparison 1 Very tight versus tight‐moderate glycaemic control, Outcome 7 Glycaemic control ‐ Self‐monitored blood glucose (mean, mmol/L).

Comparison 1 Very tight versus tight‐moderate glycaemic control, Outcome 8 Glycaemic control ‐ Self‐monitored blood glucose tests/day.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.8

Comparison 1 Very tight versus tight‐moderate glycaemic control, Outcome 8 Glycaemic control ‐ Self‐monitored blood glucose tests/day.

Comparison 1 Very tight versus tight‐moderate glycaemic control, Outcome 9 Glycaemic control ‐ HbA1c (%): first trimester.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.9

Comparison 1 Very tight versus tight‐moderate glycaemic control, Outcome 9 Glycaemic control ‐ HbA1c (%): first trimester.

Comparison 1 Very tight versus tight‐moderate glycaemic control, Outcome 10 Glycaemic control ‐ HbA1c (%): second trimester.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.10

Comparison 1 Very tight versus tight‐moderate glycaemic control, Outcome 10 Glycaemic control ‐ HbA1c (%): second trimester.

Comparison 1 Very tight versus tight‐moderate glycaemic control, Outcome 11 Glycaemic control ‐ HbA1c (%): third trimester.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.11

Comparison 1 Very tight versus tight‐moderate glycaemic control, Outcome 11 Glycaemic control ‐ HbA1c (%): third trimester.

Comparison 1 Very tight versus tight‐moderate glycaemic control, Outcome 12 Glycaemic control ‐ Mean preprandial glucose (mmol/L).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.12

Comparison 1 Very tight versus tight‐moderate glycaemic control, Outcome 12 Glycaemic control ‐ Mean preprandial glucose (mmol/L).

Comparison 1 Very tight versus tight‐moderate glycaemic control, Outcome 13 Glycaemic control ‐ Mean postprandial glucose (mmol/L).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.13

Comparison 1 Very tight versus tight‐moderate glycaemic control, Outcome 13 Glycaemic control ‐ Mean postprandial glucose (mmol/L).

Comparison 1 Very tight versus tight‐moderate glycaemic control, Outcome 14 Glycaemic control ‐ Below FBG threshold (% days).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.14

Comparison 1 Very tight versus tight‐moderate glycaemic control, Outcome 14 Glycaemic control ‐ Below FBG threshold (% days).

Comparison 1 Very tight versus tight‐moderate glycaemic control, Outcome 15 Hypoglycaemic episodes ‐ > 1 subjective (% of days): not prespecified.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.15

Comparison 1 Very tight versus tight‐moderate glycaemic control, Outcome 15 Hypoglycaemic episodes ‐ > 1 subjective (% of days): not prespecified.

Comparison 1 Very tight versus tight‐moderate glycaemic control, Outcome 16 Gestational weight gain (kg/week).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.16

Comparison 1 Very tight versus tight‐moderate glycaemic control, Outcome 16 Gestational weight gain (kg/week).

Comparison 1 Very tight versus tight‐moderate glycaemic control, Outcome 17 Fetal distress: not prespecified.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.17

Comparison 1 Very tight versus tight‐moderate glycaemic control, Outcome 17 Fetal distress: not prespecified.

Comparison 1 Very tight versus tight‐moderate glycaemic control, Outcome 18 Gestational age at birth (weeks).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.18

Comparison 1 Very tight versus tight‐moderate glycaemic control, Outcome 18 Gestational age at birth (weeks).

Comparison 1 Very tight versus tight‐moderate glycaemic control, Outcome 19 Birthweight (g).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.19

Comparison 1 Very tight versus tight‐moderate glycaemic control, Outcome 19 Birthweight (g).

Comparison 1 Very tight versus tight‐moderate glycaemic control, Outcome 20 Apgar score.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.20

Comparison 1 Very tight versus tight‐moderate glycaemic control, Outcome 20 Apgar score.

Comparison 1 Very tight versus tight‐moderate glycaemic control, Outcome 21 Asphyxia: not prespecified.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.21

Comparison 1 Very tight versus tight‐moderate glycaemic control, Outcome 21 Asphyxia: not prespecified.

Comparison 1 Very tight versus tight‐moderate glycaemic control, Outcome 22 Neonatal hypocalcaemia.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.22

Comparison 1 Very tight versus tight‐moderate glycaemic control, Outcome 22 Neonatal hypocalcaemia.

Comparison 1 Very tight versus tight‐moderate glycaemic control, Outcome 23 Neonatal hypomagnesaemia: not prespecified.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.23

Comparison 1 Very tight versus tight‐moderate glycaemic control, Outcome 23 Neonatal hypomagnesaemia: not prespecified.

Comparison 1 Very tight versus tight‐moderate glycaemic control, Outcome 24 Maternal hospitalisation (days).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.24

Comparison 1 Very tight versus tight‐moderate glycaemic control, Outcome 24 Maternal hospitalisation (days).

Comparison 2 Tight versus moderate glycaemic control, Outcome 1 Pre‐eclampsia.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.1

Comparison 2 Tight versus moderate glycaemic control, Outcome 1 Pre‐eclampsia.

Comparison 2 Tight versus moderate glycaemic control, Outcome 2 Caesarean section.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.2

Comparison 2 Tight versus moderate glycaemic control, Outcome 2 Caesarean section.

Comparison 2 Tight versus moderate glycaemic control, Outcome 3 Perinatal mortality.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.3

Comparison 2 Tight versus moderate glycaemic control, Outcome 3 Perinatal mortality.

Comparison 2 Tight versus moderate glycaemic control, Outcome 4 Transient maternal hypertension.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.4

Comparison 2 Tight versus moderate glycaemic control, Outcome 4 Transient maternal hypertension.

Comparison 2 Tight versus moderate glycaemic control, Outcome 5 Hypoglycaemic epispodes ‐ first half of pregnancy: not prespecified.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.5

Comparison 2 Tight versus moderate glycaemic control, Outcome 5 Hypoglycaemic epispodes ‐ first half of pregnancy: not prespecified.

Comparison 2 Tight versus moderate glycaemic control, Outcome 6 Large‐for‐gestational age (birthweight > 90th centile).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.6

Comparison 2 Tight versus moderate glycaemic control, Outcome 6 Large‐for‐gestational age (birthweight > 90th centile).

Comparison 2 Tight versus moderate glycaemic control, Outcome 7 Respiratory distress syndrome.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.7

Comparison 2 Tight versus moderate glycaemic control, Outcome 7 Respiratory distress syndrome.

Comparison 3 Tight‐moderate versus loose glycaemic control, Outcome 1 Pre‐eclampsia.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.1

Comparison 3 Tight‐moderate versus loose glycaemic control, Outcome 1 Pre‐eclampsia.

Comparison 3 Tight‐moderate versus loose glycaemic control, Outcome 2 Caesarean section.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.2

Comparison 3 Tight‐moderate versus loose glycaemic control, Outcome 2 Caesarean section.

Comparison 3 Tight‐moderate versus loose glycaemic control, Outcome 3 Perinatal mortality.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.3

Comparison 3 Tight‐moderate versus loose glycaemic control, Outcome 3 Perinatal mortality.

Comparison 3 Tight‐moderate versus loose glycaemic control, Outcome 4 Transient maternal hypertension.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.4

Comparison 3 Tight‐moderate versus loose glycaemic control, Outcome 4 Transient maternal hypertension.

Comparison 3 Tight‐moderate versus loose glycaemic control, Outcome 5 Hypoglycaemic episodes ‐ in first half of pregnancy: not prespecified.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.5

Comparison 3 Tight‐moderate versus loose glycaemic control, Outcome 5 Hypoglycaemic episodes ‐ in first half of pregnancy: not prespecified.

Comparison 3 Tight‐moderate versus loose glycaemic control, Outcome 6 Large‐for‐gestational age (birthweight > 90th centile).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.6

Comparison 3 Tight‐moderate versus loose glycaemic control, Outcome 6 Large‐for‐gestational age (birthweight > 90th centile).

Comparison 3 Tight‐moderate versus loose glycaemic control, Outcome 7 Respiratory distress syndrome.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.7

Comparison 3 Tight‐moderate versus loose glycaemic control, Outcome 7 Respiratory distress syndrome.

Summary of findings for the main comparison. Very tight versus tight‐moderate glycaemic control (maternal outcomes)

Very tight versus tight‐moderate glycaemic control (FBG target 3.33 to 5.0 versus 5.27 to 6.38 mmol/L)

Patient or population: pregnant women with pre‐existing type 1 diabetes
Setting: one study, USA
Intervention: very tight
Comparison: tight‐moderate glycaemic control

Outcomes

Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI)

Relative effect
(95% CI)

No. of participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Risk with tight‐moderate glycaemic control

Risk with very tight glycaemic control

Pre‐eclampsia

not reported

Caesarean section

Study population

RR 0.92
(0.49 to 1.73)

22
(1 RCT)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
VERY LOW 1 2

FBG target 3.3 to 5.0 versus 5.27 to 6.38 mmol/L

667 per 1000

613 per 1000
(327 to 1000)

Perineal trauma

not reported

Gestational weight gain

The mean difference in gestational weight gain (kg/week) was 0

The mean difference in gestational weight gain (kg/week) was 0.02 kg/week more (0.23 fewer to 0.27 more)

22
(1 RCT)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
VERY LOW 1 2

FBG target 3.3 to 5.0 versus 5.27 to 6.38 mmol/L

Postnatal depression

not reported

Induction of labour

not reported

Later development of cardiovascular disease

not reported

*The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).

CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk ratio

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect
Moderate quality: We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different
Low quality: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect
Very low quality: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect

1 One study with design limitations.

2 Wide confidence interval crossing the line of no effect, and small sample size.

Figuras y tablas -
Summary of findings for the main comparison. Very tight versus tight‐moderate glycaemic control (maternal outcomes)
Summary of findings 2. Very tight versus tight‐moderate glycaemic control (infant outcomes)

Very tight versus tight‐moderate glycaemic control (FBG target 3.33 to 5.0 versus 5.27 to 6.38 mmol/L or FBG target < 4.44 versus < 5.55 mmol/L)

Patient or population: pregnant women with pre‐existing type 1 diabetes
Setting: 2 studies, both USA
Intervention: very tight
Comparison: tight‐moderate glycaemic control

Outcomes

Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI)

Relative effect
(95% CI)

No. of participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Risk with tight‐moderate glycaemic control

Risk with very tight glycaemic control

Large‐for‐gestational age

not reported

Perinatal mortality

Study population

not estimable

22
(1 RCT)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
LOW 1 2

FBG target 3.33 to 5.0 versus 5.27 to 6.38 mmol/L

0 per 1000

0 per 1000
(0 to 0)

Serious perinatal morbidity

Study population

not estimable

22
(1 RCT)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
LOW 1 2

FBG target 3.33 to 5.0 versus 5.27 to 6.38 mmol/L

0 per 1000

0 per 1000
(0 to 0)

Neonatal hypoglycaemia

not reported

Childhood/adulthood adiposity

not reported

Childhood/adulthood diabetes

not reported

Childhood/adulthood neurosensory disability

not reported

*The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).

CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk ratio;

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect
Moderate quality: We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different
Low quality: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect
Very low quality: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect

1 One study with design limitations.

2 Small sample size, no events.

Figuras y tablas -
Summary of findings 2. Very tight versus tight‐moderate glycaemic control (infant outcomes)
Summary of findings 3. Tight versus moderate glycaemic control (maternal outcomes)

Tight versus moderate glycaemic control (FBG target ≤ 5.6 mmol/L versus 5.6 to 6.7 mmol/L) ‐ Maternal outcomes

Patient or population: pregnant women with pre‐existing type 1 diabetes
Setting: 1 study, Saudi Arabia
Intervention: tight
Comparison: moderate glycaemic control

Outcomes

Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI)

Relative effect
(95% CI)

No. of participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Risk with moderate glycaemic control

Risk with tight glycaemic control

Pre‐eclampsia

Study population

RR 5.29
(0.23 to 122.91)

45
(1 RCT)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
VERY LOW 1 2

FBG target ≤ 5.6 versus 5.6 to 6.7 mmol/L

Moderate: 0 out of 29 women, Tight: 1 out of 16 women.

not estimable

not estimable

Caesarean section

Study population

RR 1.21
(0.22 to 6.50)

45
(1 RCT)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
VERY LOW 1 2

FBG target ≤ 5.6 versus 5.6 to 6.7 mmol/L

103 per 1000

125 per 1000
(23 to 672)

Perineal trauma

not reported

Gestational weight gain

not reported

Postnatal depression

not reported

Induction of labour

not reported

Later development of cardiovascular disease

not reported

1 One study with design limitations.

2 Wide confidence interval crossing the line of no effect, few events and small sample size.

Figuras y tablas -
Summary of findings 3. Tight versus moderate glycaemic control (maternal outcomes)
Summary of findings 4. Tight versus moderate glycaemic control (infant outcomes)

Tight versus moderate glycaemic control (FBG target ≤ 5.6 mmol/L versus 5.6 to 6.7 mmol/L) ‐ Infant outcomes

Patient or population: pregnant women with pre‐existing type 1 diabetes
Setting: 1 study, Saudi Arabia
Intervention: tight
Comparison: moderate glycaemic control

Outcomes

Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI)

Relative effect
(95% CI)

No. of participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Risk with moderate glycaemic control

Risk with tight glycaemic control

Large‐for‐gestational age (birthweight > 90th centile)

Study population

not estimable

45
(1 RCT)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
VERY LOW 1 2

FBG target ≤ 5.6 versus 5.6 to 6.7 mmol/L

0 per 1000

0 per 1000
(0 to 0)

Perinatal mortality

Study population

not estimable

45
(1 RCT)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
VERY LOW 1 2

FBG target ≤ 5.6 versus 5.6 to 6.7 mmol/L

0 per 1000

0 per 1000
(0 to 0)

Serious perinatal morbidity

not reported

Neonatal hypoglycaemia

not reported

Childhood/adulthood adiposity

not reported

Childhood/adulthood diabetes

not reported

Childhood/adulthood neurosensory disability

not reported

*The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).

CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk ratio

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect
Moderate quality: We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different
Low quality: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect
Very low quality: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect

1 One study with design limitations.

2 No events & small sample size.

Figuras y tablas -
Summary of findings 4. Tight versus moderate glycaemic control (infant outcomes)
Summary of findings 5. Tight‐moderate versus loose glycaemic control (maternal outcomes)

Tight‐moderate versus loose glycaemic control (FBG ≤ 6.7 mmol/L versus 6.7 to 8.9 mmol/L) ‐ Maternal outcomes

Patient or population: pregnant women with pre‐existing type 1 diabetes
Setting: 1 study, Saudi Arabia
Intervention: tight‐moderate
Comparison: loose glycaemic control (mother)

Outcomes

Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI)

Relative effect
(95% CI)

No. of participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Risk with loose glycaemic control (mother)

Risk with Tight‐moderate

Pre‐eclampsia

Study population

RR 0.11
(0.01 to 0.99)

60
(1 RCT)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
LOW 1 2

FBG target ≤ 6.7 mmol/L versus 6.7 to 8.9 mmol/L

200 per 1000

22 per 1000
(2 to 198)

Caesarean section

Study population

RR 0.28
(0.10 to 0.78)

60
(1 RCT)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
LOW 1 3

FBG target ≤ 6.7 versus 6.7 to 8.9 mmol/L

400 per 1000

112 per 1000
(40 to 312)

Perineal trauma

not reported

Gestational weight gain

not reported

Postnatal depression

not reported

Induction of labour

not reported

Later development of cardiovascular disease

not reported

*The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).

CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk ratio; OR: Odds ratio;

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect
Moderate quality: We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different
Low quality: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect
Very low quality: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect

1 One study with design limitations.

2 Few events and small sample size.

3 Small sample size.

Figuras y tablas -
Summary of findings 5. Tight‐moderate versus loose glycaemic control (maternal outcomes)
Summary of findings 6. Tight‐moderate versus loose glycaemic control (infant outcomes)

Tight‐moderate versus loose glycaemic control (FBG ≤ 6.7 mmol/L versus 6.7 to 8.9 mmol/L) ‐ Infant outcomes

Patient or population: pregnant women with pre‐existing type 1 diabetes
Setting: 1 study, Saudi Arabia
Intervention: tight‐moderate
Comparison: loose glycaemic control

Outcomes

Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI)

Relative effect
(95% CI)

No. of participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Risk with loose glycaemic control

Risk with tight‐moderate glycaemic control

Large‐for‐gestational age (birthweight > 90th centile)

Study population

RR 0.01
(0.00 to 0.20)

60
(1 RCT)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
LOW 1 2

FBG target ≤ 6.7 versus 6.7 to 8.9 mmol/L

867 per 1000

9 per 1000
(0 to 173)

Perinatal mortality

Study population

RR 0.07
(0.00 to 1.37)

60
(1 RCT)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
VERY LOW 1 3

FBG target ≤ 6.7 versus 6.7 to 8.9 mmol/L

133 per 1000

9 per 1000
(0 to 183)

Serious perinatal morbidity

not reported

Neonatal hypoglycaemia

not reported

Childhood/adulthood adiposity

not reported

Childhood/adulthood diabetes

not reported

Childhood/adulthood neurosensory disability

not reported

*The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).

CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk ratio

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect
Moderate quality: We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different
Low quality: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect
Very low quality: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect

1 One study with design limitations.

2 Small sample size.

3 Wide confidence interval crossing the line of no effect, few events and small sample size.

Figuras y tablas -
Summary of findings 6. Tight‐moderate versus loose glycaemic control (infant outcomes)
Comparison 1. Very tight versus tight‐moderate glycaemic control

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Caesarean section Show forest plot

1

22

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.92 [0.49, 1.73]

1.1 FBG target 3.33 to 5.0 vs 5.27 to 6.38 mmol/L

1

22

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.92 [0.49, 1.73]

2 Perinatal mortality Show forest plot

1

22

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

2.1 FBG target 3.33 to 5.0 vs 5.27 to 6.38 mmol/L

1

22

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

3 Serious perinatal morbidity Show forest plot

1

22

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

3.1 FBG target 3.33 to 5.0 vs 5.27 to 6.38 mmol/L

1

22

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

4 Congenital fetal anomaly Show forest plot

1

22

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

3.57 [0.19, 66.61]

4.1 FBG target 3.33 to 5.0 vs 5.27 to 6.38 mmol/L

1

22

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

3.57 [0.19, 66.61]

5 Pregnancy‐induced hypertension Show forest plot

1

137

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.40 [0.60, 3.25]

5.1 FBG target < 4.44 vs < 5.55 mmol/L

1

137

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.40 [0.60, 3.25]

6 Chronic hypertension: not prespecified Show forest plot

1

22

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

6.1 FBG target 3.33 to 5.0 mmol/L vs 5.27 to 6.38 mmol/L

1

22

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

7 Glycaemic control ‐ Self‐monitored blood glucose (mean, mmol/L) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

7.1 FBG target 3.33 to 5.0 vs 5.27 to 6.38 mmol/L: first trimester

1

22

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐1.23 [‐2.19, ‐0.27]

7.2 FBG target 3.33 to 5.0 vs 5.27 to 6.38 mmol/L: second trimester

1

22

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.99 [‐1.64, ‐0.34]

7.3 FBG target 3.33 to 5.0 vs 5.27 to 6.38 mmol/L: third trimester

1

22

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.66 [‐1.60, 0.28]

8 Glycaemic control ‐ Self‐monitored blood glucose tests/day Show forest plot

1

22

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.60 [‐0.15, 3.35]

8.1 FBG target 3.33 to 5.0 vs 5.27 to 6.39 mmol/L

1

22

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.60 [‐0.15, 3.35]

9 Glycaemic control ‐ HbA1c (%): first trimester Show forest plot

2

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

9.1 FBG target 3.33 to 5.0 vs 5.27 to 6.38 mmol/L

1

22

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐1.20 [‐2.25, ‐0.15]

9.2 FBG target < 4.44 vs < 5.55 mmol/L

1

137

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [‐0.62, 0.62]

10 Glycaemic control ‐ HbA1c (%): second trimester Show forest plot

2

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

10.1 FBG target 3.33 to 5.0 vs 5.27 to 6.38 mmol/L

1

22

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.5 [‐1.09, 0.09]

10.2 FBG target < 4.44 vs < 5.55 mmol/L

1

137

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.10 [‐0.37, 0.57]

11 Glycaemic control ‐ HbA1c (%): third trimester Show forest plot

2

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

11.1 FBG target 3.33 to 5.0 vs 5.27 to 6.38 mmol/L

1

22

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.30 [‐0.92, 0.32]

11.2 FBG target < 4.44 vs < 5.55 mmol/L

1

137

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.10 [‐0.49, 0.29]

12 Glycaemic control ‐ Mean preprandial glucose (mmol/L) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

12.1 FBG target < 4.44 vs < 5.55 mmol/L: first trimester

1

137

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.39 [‐1.33, 0.55]

12.2 FBG target < 4.44 vs < 5.55 mmol/L: second trimester

1

137

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.27 [‐1.19, 0.65]

12.3 FBG target < 4.44 vs < 5.55 mmol/L: third trimester

1

137

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.34 [‐1.40, 0.72]

13 Glycaemic control ‐ Mean postprandial glucose (mmol/L) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

13.1 FBG target < 4.44 vs < 5.55 mmol/L: first trimester

1

137

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.94 [‐2.05, 0.17]

13.2 FBG target < 4.44 vs < 5.55 mmol/L: second trimester

1

137

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.56 [‐1.38, 0.26]

13.3 FBG target < 4.44 vs < 5.55 mmol/L: third trimester

1

137

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.11 [‐1.26, 1.04]

14 Glycaemic control ‐ Below FBG threshold (% days) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

14.1 < 3.33 mmol/L

1

22

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

20.0 [7.00, 33.00]

14.2 < 2.78 mmol/L

1

22

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

17.0 [4.04, 29.96]

14.3 < 2.22 mmol/L

1

22

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

8.0 [‐3.56, 19.56]

15 Hypoglycaemic episodes ‐ > 1 subjective (% of days): not prespecified Show forest plot

1

22

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

22.0 [11.07, 32.93]

15.1 FBG target 3.33 to 5.0 vs 5.27 to 6.38 mmol/L

1

22

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

22.0 [11.07, 32.93]

16 Gestational weight gain (kg/week) Show forest plot

1

22

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.02 [‐0.23, 0.27]

16.1 FBG target 3.3 to 5.0 vs 5.27 to 6.38 mmol/L

1

22

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.02 [‐0.23, 0.27]

17 Fetal distress: not prespecified Show forest plot

1

137

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.15 [0.63, 2.11]

17.1 FBG target < 4.44 vs < 5.55 mmol/L

1

137

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.15 [0.63, 2.11]

18 Gestational age at birth (weeks) Show forest plot

2

159

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.43 [‐0.23, 1.08]

18.1 FBG target 3.33 to 5.0 vs 5.27 to 6.38 mmol/L

1

22

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.30 [‐2.44, 1.84]

18.2 FBG target < 4.44 vs < 5.55 mmol/L

1

137

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.5 [‐0.19, 1.19]

19 Birthweight (g) Show forest plot

2

159

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐2.62 [‐179.83, 174.59]

19.1 FBG target 3.33 to 5.0 vs 5.27 to 6.38 mmol/L

1

22

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐272.0 [‐803.99, 259.99]

19.2 FBG target < 4.44 vs < 5.55 mmol/L

1

137

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

31.0 [‐156.95, 218.95]

20 Apgar score Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

20.1 < 7 at 1 minute: FBG target < 4.44 vs < 5.55 mmol/L

1

137

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.01 [0.40, 2.55]

20.2 < 7 at 5 minutes: FBG target < 4.44 vs < 5.55 mmol/L

1

137

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

21 Asphyxia: not prespecified Show forest plot

1

137

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.01 [0.58, 1.78]

21.1 FBG target < 4.44 vs < 5.55 mmol/L

1

137

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.01 [0.58, 1.78]

22 Neonatal hypocalcaemia Show forest plot

1

137

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.55 [0.30, 1.03]

22.1 FBG target < 4.44 vs < 5.55 mmol/L

1

137

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.55 [0.30, 1.03]

23 Neonatal hypomagnesaemia: not prespecified Show forest plot

1

127

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.65 [0.25, 1.68]

23.1 FBG target < 4.44 vs < 5.55 mmol/L

1

127

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.65 [0.25, 1.68]

24 Maternal hospitalisation (days) Show forest plot

1

137

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

10.60 [9.53, 11.67]

24.1 FBG target < 4.44 vs < 5.55 mmol/L

1

137

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

10.60 [9.53, 11.67]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 1. Very tight versus tight‐moderate glycaemic control
Comparison 2. Tight versus moderate glycaemic control

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Pre‐eclampsia Show forest plot

1

45

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

5.29 [0.23, 122.91]

1.1 FBG target ≤ 5.6 mmol/L vs 5.6 to 6.7 mmol/L

1

45

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

5.29 [0.23, 122.91]

2 Caesarean section Show forest plot

1

45

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.21 [0.22, 6.50]

2.1 FBG target ≤ 5.6 vs 5.6 to 6.7 mmol/L

1

45

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.21 [0.22, 6.50]

3 Perinatal mortality Show forest plot

1

45

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

3.1 FBG target ≤ 5.6 vs 5.6 to 6.7 mmol/L

1

45

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

4 Transient maternal hypertension Show forest plot

1

45

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.59 [0.03, 13.66]

4.1 FBG target ≤ 5.6 vs 5.6 to 6.7 mmol/L

1

45

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.59 [0.03, 13.66]

5 Hypoglycaemic epispodes ‐ first half of pregnancy: not prespecified Show forest plot

1

45

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

26.47 [1.61, 435.38]

5.1 FBG target ≤ 5.6 vs 5.6 to 6.7 mmol/L

1

45

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

26.47 [1.61, 435.38]

6 Large‐for‐gestational age (birthweight > 90th centile) Show forest plot

1

45

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

6.1 FBG target ≤ 5.6 vs 5.6 to 6.7 mmol/L

1

45

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

7 Respiratory distress syndrome Show forest plot

1

45

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.91 [0.09, 9.24]

7.1 FBG target ≤ 5.6 v 5.6 to 6.7 mmol/L

1

45

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.91 [0.09, 9.24]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 2. Tight versus moderate glycaemic control
Comparison 3. Tight‐moderate versus loose glycaemic control

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Pre‐eclampsia Show forest plot

1

60

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.11 [0.01, 0.99]

1.1 FBG ≤ 6.7 mmol/L vs 6.7 to 8.9 mmol/L

1

60

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.11 [0.01, 0.99]

2 Caesarean section Show forest plot

1

60

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.28 [0.10, 0.78]

2.1 FBG target ≤ 6.7 vs 6.7 to 8.9 mmol/L

1

60

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.28 [0.10, 0.78]

3 Perinatal mortality Show forest plot

1

60

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.07 [0.00, 1.37]

3.1 FBG target ≤ 6.7 vs 6.7 to 8.9 mmol/L

1

60

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.07 [0.00, 1.37]

4 Transient maternal hypertension Show forest plot

1

45

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.81 [0.12, 27.07]

4.1 FBG target ≤ 6.7 vs 6.7 to 8.9 mmol/L

1

45

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.81 [0.12, 27.07]

5 Hypoglycaemic episodes ‐ in first half of pregnancy: not prespecified Show forest plot

1

60

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

5.22 [0.32, 86.28]

5.1 FBG target ≤ 6.7 vs 6.7 to 8.9 mmol/L

1

60

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

5.22 [0.32, 86.28]

6 Large‐for‐gestational age (birthweight > 90th centile) Show forest plot

1

60

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.01 [0.00, 0.20]

6.1 FBG target ≤ 6.7 vs 6.7 to 8.9 mmol/L

1

60

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.01 [0.00, 0.20]

7 Respiratory distress syndrome Show forest plot

1

60

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.17 [0.05, 0.59]

7.1 FBG target ≤ 6.7 vs 6.7 to 8.9 mmol/L

1

60

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.17 [0.05, 0.59]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 3. Tight‐moderate versus loose glycaemic control