Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

怀孕间期照护对于改善妊娠期糖尿病产妇及其婴儿结局的作用。

Contraer todo Desplegar todo

Abstract

研究背景

妊娠期糖尿病(GDM)和母亲及其婴儿的围产期和长期的不良结局相关。有GDM病史的女性下次妊娠时有复发的风险,可能受益于在怀孕间期的干预,改善产妇和婴儿的健康结果。

研究目的

为了评估怀孕间期照护对有GDM病史的产妇及其婴儿的健康结局的影响。

检索策略

我们检索了Cochrane妊娠和分娩试验注册库(Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register )(2017年4月7日)和研究的参考文献目录。

标准/纳入排除标准

随机对照的试验,包括半随机对照的试验和整群随机试验,评价对有GDM病史的女性进行怀孕间期照护时产妇和婴儿的健康结局,和标准照护或其他形式的怀孕间期照护对比。

数据收集与分析

两位研究者独立评估研究的纳入标准。以后更新本系统评价时,将有至少两个检索者提取资料和评估纳入研究的偏倚风险;将使用GRADE方法来评估证据的质量。

主要结果

未发现合格的已发表的试验。我们发现一个已完成的的随机对照的试验,旨在对比饮食和运动干预和标准照护对有GDM病史的女性的效果,然而迄今为止,该研究仅发表了随机分组的怀孕女性的结果(而不是怀孕间期的女性)。我们也找到一个正在进行的试验,试验对象为有GDM病史计划下一次怀孕的肥胖女性,评估对比普通照护,利拉鲁肽治疗支持的强化生活方式干预的影响。我们还找到一个试验,旨在评价减肥和运动干预与生活方式的教育相比,对有GDM病史计划下一次怀孕的肥胖女性的影响,然而结果尚未发表。这些试验将在系统评价下一次更新时重新考虑纳入。

作者结论

怀孕间期照护对有GDM病史的产妇及其婴儿的健康结局的影响尚不明确。需要随机对照试验来评估这些女性进行不同形式和方案的怀孕间期照护时产妇及其婴儿的围产期和长期健康结局,此类干预措施的可接受性和成本‐效益。

PICO

Population
Intervention
Comparison
Outcome

El uso y la enseñanza del modelo PICO están muy extendidos en el ámbito de la atención sanitaria basada en la evidencia para formular preguntas y estrategias de búsqueda y para caracterizar estudios o metanálisis clínicos. PICO son las siglas en inglés de cuatro posibles componentes de una pregunta de investigación: paciente, población o problema; intervención; comparación; desenlace (outcome).

Para saber más sobre el uso del modelo PICO, puede consultar el Manual Cochrane.

妊娠期糖尿病女性下一次怀孕之前的照护。

问题是什么?

本系统评价的目的是研究给予至少有一次怀孕受妊娠期糖尿病影响的母亲专业的和有针对性的照护的作用。这种治疗可以改善下一次怀孕期间和以后母亲和她的孩子的健康吗?我们收集和分析所有相关的研究来回答这个问题(检索日期:2017年4月)。

为什么这个问题很重要?

妊娠期糖尿病(Gestational diabetes,GD),也称为妊娠期糖尿病(gestational diabetes mellitus,GDM),是在怀孕期间发生的葡萄糖不耐受。GDM会导致母亲的并发症。这些并发症可能包括怀孕期间和生产时的血压高、子痫前期(高血压加尿蛋白),以及在以后发展为2型糖尿病。这更可能导致引产。妊娠期糖尿病母亲的胎儿更有可能通过剖腹产生产,并发展为儿童或青少年糖尿病。有GDM的女性再次妊娠时有复发的风险。

如果在一个孩子的诞生与下一次妊娠期间的有针对性的照护(称为怀孕间期照护)减少了妊娠期糖尿病的发生率,那么,也许这些风险也可以减少。

怀孕间期照护可以包括教育、饮食和生活方式建议、药物干预和母亲健康的仔细监测,着重关注糖耐量测试。

我们找到了什么证据?

我们检索了研究专业的怀孕间期照护后女性及婴儿的健康结果的试验,并和标准照护(没有这种怀孕间期照护)的结果进行对比。我们的检索发现一项还未发布一系列完整结果的试验,再加上两个进一步的试验;其中一个试验仍在进行中,另一个试验尚未发表。

这是什么意思?

因为目前还没有可获得的研究,没有足够的证据表明,对有GDM病史的女性的怀孕间期照护,有助于改善母亲及其婴儿的健康状况。需要更多高质量的研究,来评估对女性及其婴儿的短期和长期健康结果,以及评估对卫生服务的影响。

Authors' conclusions

Implications for practice

The role of interconception care for women with a history of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) on maternal and infant health outcomes remains unclear.

Implications for research

Research should be conducted to investigate the effects of interconception care for women with a history of GDM on health outcomes for mothers and their infants. Although such trials are faced with difficulties in identifying women in this time period between pregnancies, women with a history of GDM do represent a population at risk for potentially reversible poor health outcomes.

Trials should consider the role of different forms of intervention including dietary, lifestyle and pharmacological therapies, in addition to the duration of such interventions. Such trials should not only evaluate the effects on maternal and infant health outcomes, but also the acceptability and cost‐effectiveness, to enable translation to clinical practice. Furthermore, future research should focus on long‐term follow‐up, evaluating the effects of such interventions on the long‐term health outcomes associated with GDM for both mothers and their infants.

Background

Description of the condition

Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is defined as 'carbohydrate intolerance resulting in hyperglycaemia of variable severity with onset or first recognition during pregnancy' (WHO 1999). This definition includes women who first present with type 1 or type 2 diabetes during pregnancy, or where diabetes was previously undetected. Although GDM typically resolves following birth, it is associated with adverse outcomes for both mother and infant, both in the perinatal period and in the long term.

In subsequent pregnancies of women with a history of GDM, one of the main issues is recurrence of GDM and the associated outcomes. Irrespective of subsequent pregnancies, other long‐term considerations for these women include the development of type 2 diabetes, metabolic syndrome and the risk of cardiovascular disease.

Epidemiology

The reported incidence of GDM varies between different populations and the method and criteria by which the diagnosis is made, with some studies estimating that between 1% and 28% of pregnancies are affected by GDM (Jiwani 2012). Despite variation in diagnostic criteria, there is widespread agreement that the prevalence of diabetes, including GDM, is increasing across the world, in line with the escalating prevalence of obesity. In women with a history of GDM, recurrence occurs in 30% to 84% of subsequent pregnancies (Kim 2007).

A number of risk factors have been linked to GDM, including a history of GDM or glucose intolerance (Kim 2007), family history of first‐degree relatives with GDM or type 2 diabetes, ethnicity (e.g. African, Hispanic, South or East Asian, Native American and Pacific Islander), advanced maternal age, maternal high or low birthweight, high parity, a past history of a macrosomic (large) baby or a stillbirth (Petry 2010), polycystic ovarian syndrome (Toulis 2009), and maternal overweight or obesity (body mass index (BMI) equal to or greater than 25 kg/m² or 30 kg/m², respectively) (Torloni 2009).

Many of these risk factors are unmodifiable background characteristics of the women. It is therefore unsurprising that women with a history of GDM are at an increased risk of recurrent GDM. In addition to a history of GDM in a previous pregnancy, other risk factors for recurrence include ethnicity, maternal age, prepregnancy obesity, weight gain between pregnancies, a short interpregnancy interval and the number of previous pregnancies affected by GDM (Gaudier 1992; Getahun 2010; Kwak 2008; Major 1998). Certain characteristics of the pregnancy affected by GDM have also been reported to increase the risk of recurrence, specifically, earlier diagnosis of GDM, insulin requirement for blood glucose control and higher infant birthweight (Gaudier 1992;Kwak 2008; MacNeill 2001; Major 1998).

Screening and diagnosis of gestational diabetes

There is little consensus on the most appropriate methods by which to screen and diagnose GDM. Screening methods include selective‐ (risk factor‐) based screening, or universal screening, commonly performed between 24 and 28 weeks' gestation, with the use of random or fasting blood glucose concentrations and a 50 g oral glucose challenge test. Diagnostic testing commonly involves either a 75 g or 100 g oral glucose tolerance test, with various diagnostic cut‐offs used. These are addressed in the Cochrane reviews 'Screening and subsequent management for gestational diabetes for improving maternal and infant health' (Tieu 2014) and 'Different strategies for diagnosing gestational diabetes to improve maternal and infant health' (Farrar 2015).

Women with a history of GDM are acknowledged as being at high risk for both GDM recurrence and type 2 diabetes, and it is suggested that women with a history of GDM may require greater monitoring for glucose intolerance during subsequent pregnancies, as such through early self‐monitoring of blood glucose, or an early oral glucose tolerance test (NICE 2015).

Clinical features

Maternal

GDM is usually diagnosed before women experience symptoms, such as polyuria, polydipsia or fatigue. GDM is associated with increased rates of caesarean birth and pre‐eclampsia (Dodd 2007). As mentioned above, women who develop GDM represent a subset of the population prone to developing subsequent type 2 diabetes, in addition to recurrent GDM in future pregnancies. Within 10 years of women developing GDM, approximately half develop type 2 diabetes (Kim 2002). Furthermore, there is increasing evidence that women with a history of GDM may also be at increased risk of cardiovascular disease and metabolic syndrome (Reece 2009; Reece 2010; Vohr 2008).

Infant

Excess insulin due to maternal hyperglycaemia acts in two ways on the fetus. Firstly, insulin promotes fat deposition due to the state of nutrient excess (Pedersen 1954Whitelaw 1977). Insulin also acts as a growth factor, stimulating further growth of the infant in utero (Hunt 2007). Thus, fetal hyperinsulinaemia results in excessive growth of the fetus, leading to one of the major perinatal concerns in GDM, macrosomia (birthweight greater than 4000 g). Macrosomia may lead to birth trauma including shoulder dystocia, nerve palsies and fractures (Reece 2009; Reece 2010). GDM is associated with respiratory distress syndrome, neonatal hypoglycaemia (low blood glucose), hyperbilirubinaemia (high bilirubin levels), polycythaemia (excess red blood cells), and hypocalcaemia (low calcium) (Reece 2009; Reece 2010). In utero exposure to hyperglycaemia has long‐lasting effects on the infant, increasing their risk of future obesity and type 2 diabetes (Reece 2009; Reece 2010).

While there is relatively little reported on the effects of recurrent GDM on infants, infants born to mothers with recurrent GDM are likely to be larger, as measured by birthweight, incidence of large‐for‐gestational age, or macrosomia compared with infants born to mothers without recurrent GDM in a subsequent pregnancy (Spong 1998).

Management of GDM

The importance of management for women with GDM has been recognised (Crowther 2005; Landon 2009), and several Cochrane reviews have (or plan to) assess alternative management strategies for GDM (Alwan 2009), including lifestyle interventions (Brown 2017a), insulin (Brown 2016a), oral anti‐diabetic pharmacological therapies (Brown 2017b), exercise (Brown 2017c), dietary supplementation with myo‐inositol (Brown 2016b), and different intensities of glycaemic control (Martis 2016).

Description of the intervention

Interconception care may encompass a variety of interventions, including education, dietary and lifestyle advice, pharmacological intervention and active surveillance for illness and complications. It includes care between the birth of one child to the next pregnancy.

Internationally, clinical practice guidelines and consensus statements generally recommend postpartum assessment for continuing glucose intolerance after six to 12 weeks, by oral glucose tolerance testing to detect type 2 diabetes, and on a regular basis thereafter (i.e. every one to three years thereafter depending on other risk factors) (ACOG 2013; ADA 2017; CDA 2013; Metzger 2007; Nankervis 2014; NICE 2015). Despite such recommendations, a high proportion of women with previous GDM do not have testing for diabetes in the postpartum period (Blatt 2011). A Cochrane review evaluating 'Reminder systems for women with previous GDM to increase uptake of testing for type 2 diabetes or impaired glucose tolerance', showed low‐quality evidence supporting an increase in the uptake of testing for type 2 diabetes in women with previous GDM following the issue of postal reminders (Middleton 2014).

While often recommended, there is little evidence on what care women with a history of GDM should receive prior to a subsequent pregnancy. Clinical guidelines recommend that women be assessed preconceptually for a medical review and/or an oral glucose tolerance test, with early evaluation for glucose intolerance during pregnancy (ACOG 2013; NICE 2015). In addition to earlier identification and management of diabetes, interconception care after the postpartum period would ideally aim to target the modifiable risk factors for GDM, thus improving women's metabolic profiles.

How the intervention might work

In a survey of women with a history of GDM within the last five years, while 90% understood that previous GDM placed women at high risk of type 2 diabetes, only 16% believed that they themselves were at high risk of developing diabetes (Kim 2007b). This was partially explained by women planning to improve their behaviour in the future. When women considered the risks if they continued their current lifestyle, this risk perception rose to 39%. Importantly 85% of these women had plans for risk‐reducing behaviour (Kim 2007b). Another survey comparing women with children and a history of GDM with women with children without a history of GDM, found that those with a history of GDM were more likely to smoke and less likely to meet fruit and vegetable consumption recommendations (Kieffer 2006).

The interconception period provides an opportunity to provide advice on potential risks and possible interventions to improve health. Moreover, it provides the opportunity to identify undiagnosed pre‐existing diabetes. Since women with a history of GDM are at increased risk of diabetes, and pre‐existing diabetes in pregnancy is linked to poor maternal and infant health outcomes, it is important to identify and manage accordingly in the interconception period.

Risk factor reduction is a potential area of focus for these women, targeting modifiable risk factors such as maternal obesity where dietary and lifestyle interventions could be implemented and potentially benefit women with a history of GDM. Reducing maternal obesity itself may also lead to better maternal and infant health outcomes outside of its potential effect in the prevention of GDM. Regardless of whether women subsequently become pregnant, such interventions may improve the health of these women.

There is little information on the value of pharmacological agents such as oral anti‐diabetics for women with a history of GDM in the preconceptual period; assessed in the Cochrane review, 'Oral anti‐diabetic agents for women with pre‐existing diabetes mellitus/impaired glucose tolerance or previous gestational diabetes mellitus' (Tieu 2010b). The use of oral anti‐diabetic agents has been predominantly in the setting of polycystic ovarian syndrome or for prevention of type 2 diabetes in women with a history of GDM. 'Interventions for the prevention of type 2 diabetes in women with previous gestational diabetes' will be the focus of a planned Cochrane review (Li 2017).

Why it is important to do this review

Women with a history of GDM are recognised to be at high risk for recurrence in subsequent pregnancies, type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease, and therefore, for adverse maternal and infant health outcomes. While management of GDM is worthwhile, interconception care for these women also has the potential to improve maternal and infant health. Interconception care may also allow for detection and appropriate management of asymptomatic pre‐existing diabetes and provide an opportunity for risk factor reduction and, potentially, prevention of recurrent GDM and its sequelae.

Routine pre‐pregnancy care and preconception care for women with known diabetes mellitus are reviewed by the Cochrane reviews 'Routine pre‐pregnancy health promotion for improving pregnancy outcomes' (Whitworth 2009) and 'Preconception care for diabetic women for improving maternal and infant health' (Tieu 2010).

Objectives

To assess the effects of interconception care for women with a history of gestational diabetes mellitus on maternal and infant health outcomes.

Methods

Criteria for considering studies for this review

Types of studies

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), including quasi‐RCTs and cluster‐RCTs. We plan to exclude cross‐over trials. We plan to exclude trials presented only as abstracts where information on risk of bias and primary or secondary outcomes cannot be obtained; we plan to reconsider these trials for inclusion once the full publication is available.

Types of participants

Women who have been diagnosed with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) in a previous pregnancy. Diagnosis of GDM made according to individual study criteria.

Types of interventions

Any protocol of care compared with no care and other forms of interconception care. Interventions may continue during pregnancy.

Types of outcome measures

For this update, we used the core outcome set agreed by consensus between review authors of Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth systematic reviews for prevention and treatment of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) and pre‐existing diabetes, which we adapted, as appropriate for this review question.

Primary outcomes
For women

  • GDM (diagnostic criteria as defined in individual trials)

  • Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (including pre‐eclampsia, pregnancy‐induced hypertension, eclampsia)

  • Caesarean section

For children

  • Large‐for‐gestational age

  • Perinatal mortality (stillbirth or neonatal death)

  • Mortality or morbidity composite (e.g. death, shoulder dystocia, bone fracture or nerve palsy)

Secondary outcomes
For women

All women (interconception, and if pregnant, antenatal and postnatal)

  • Adherence to the intervention

  • Behaviour changes associated with the intervention

  • Sense of well‐being and quality of life

  • Views of the intervention

  • Glycaemic control during/at the end of the intervention (e.g. HbA1c, blood glucose)

  • Pregnancy

  • Weight gain

  • Body mass index (BMI)

Pregnant women

  • Spontaneous abortion/miscarriage/therapeutic abortion

  • Induction of labour

  • Perineal trauma

  • Placental abruption

  • Postpartum haemorrhage

  • Postpartum infection

  • Breastfeeding

  • Postnatal depression

Pregnant women with GDM

  • Use of additional pharmacotherapy

  • Hypoglycaemia

  • Mortality

Longer term

  • GDM in a subsequent pregnancy

  • Type 1 diabetes mellitus

  • Type 2 diabetes mellitus

  • Impaired glucose tolerance

  • Cardiovascular health (e.g. blood pressure, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, metabolic syndrome)

For children

Fetuses/neonates

  • Stillbirth

  • Neonatal death

  • Gestational age at birth

  • Preterm birth (before 37 weeks' gestation; before 34 weeks' gestation)

  • Apgar score less than seven at five minutes

  • Macrosomia

  • Small‐for‐gestational age

  • Birthweight and z score

  • Head circumference and z score

  • Length and z score

  • Ponderal index

  • Adiposity

  • Shoulder dystocia

  • Bone fracture

  • Nerve palsy

  • Respiratory distress syndrome

  • Hypoglycaemia

  • Hyperbilirubinaemia

Children/adults

  • Weight and z scores

  • Height and z scores

  • Head circumference and z scores

  • Adiposity (e.g. as measured by BMI, skinfold thickness)

  • Cardiovascular health (e.g. blood pressure, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, metabolic syndrome)

  • Education, employment and social status/achievement

  • Type 1 diabetes mellitus

  • Type 2 diabetes mellitus

  • Impaired glucose tolerance

  • Neurosensory disability

  • Employment, education and social status/achievement

For the use of health services

  • Number of hospital or health professional visits

  • Number of antenatal visits or admissions

  • Length of antenatal stay

  • Neonatal intensive care unit admission

  • Length of postnatal stay (mother)

  • Length of postnatal stay (baby)

  • Costs to families associated with the intervention

  • Costs associated with the intervention

  • Cost of maternal care

  • Cost of infant care

Search methods for identification of studies

The following methods section of this review is based on a standard template used by Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth.

Electronic searches

We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth’s Trials Register by contacting their Information Specialist (7 April 2017).

The Register is a database containing over 22,000 reports of controlled trials in the field of pregnancy and childbirth. For full search methods used to populate Pregnancy and Childbirth’s Trials Register including the detailed search strategies for CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL; the list of handsearched journals and conference proceedings, and the list of journals reviewed via the current awareness service, please follow this link to the editorial information about Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth in the Cochrane Library and select the ‘Specialized Register ’ section from the options on the left side of the screen.

Briefly, Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth’s Trials Register is maintained by their Information Specialist and contains trials identified from:

  1. monthly searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL);

  2. weekly searches of MEDLINE (Ovid);

  3. weekly searches of Embase (Ovid);

  4. monthly searches of CINAHL (EBSCO);

  5. handsearches of 30 journals and the proceedings of major conferences;

  6. weekly current awareness alerts for a further 44 journals plus monthly BioMed Central email alerts;

  7. scoping search of clinical trials registries (ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP)).

Search results are screened by two people and the full text of all relevant trial reports identified through the searching activities described above is reviewed. Based on the intervention described, each trial report is assigned a number that corresponds to a specific Pregnancy and Childbirth review topic (or topics), and is then added to the Register. The Information Specialist searches the Register for each review using this topic number rather than keywords. This results in a more specific search set which has been fully accounted for in the relevant review sections (Studies awaiting classification; Ongoing studies).

Searching other resources

We searched the reference lists of retrieved studies.

We did not apply any language or date restrictions.

Data collection and analysis

For methods used in the previous version of this review, seeTieu 2013.

Two review authors independently assessed for inclusion the reports identified as a result of the search strategy. No studies were eligible for inclusion. We would have resolved any disagreement through discussion with a third person.

Full methods of data collection and analysis to be used in future updates of this review, if eligible studies are identified, are given in Appendix 1.

Results

Description of studies

The updated search of Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's register identified nine reports, relating to one trial (Koivusalo 2016), which we have listed as awaiting further classification, and one report relating to one trial (ISRCTN76189107) which we have listed as ongoing.

Koivusalo 2016 recruited 788 women including 235 women who were not pregnant during their first study visit (women with a previous history of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) (187) or a pre‐pregnancy BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2 (48)), and assessed a diet and exercise intervention compared with standard care. To date, however, results have only been reported for the subset of women who were pregnant during the first study visit. See Characteristics of studies awaiting classification.

We identified one new ongoing trial (ISRCTN76189107), which plans to include 50 obese women with a previous history of GDM pre‐pregnancy, and assess the effects of an intensive lifestyle intervention supported with liraglutide treatment compared with standard care. In the previous version of this review we identified one additional trial (NCT00924599), which to date, has not been published (and is thus listed as ongoing). This trial planned to include 12 obese women with a history of GDM and to assess the effects of a pre‐pregnancy weight loss and exercise intervention compared with lifestyle education. See Characteristics of ongoing studies.

See: Figure 1.


Study flow diagram.

Study flow diagram.

Risk of bias in included studies

No randomised controlled trials were included in the review.

Effects of interventions

No randomised controlled trials were included in the review.

Discussion

Summary of main results

One randomised controlled trial (Koivusalo 2016) was identified that was designed to assess the effects of interconception care on maternal and infant outcomes in women with a history of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM), however to date, has only published results on women who were pregnant at randomisation, and not non‐pregnant women. A further two trials (ISRCTN76189107; NCT00924599), have been designed to assess the effects of lifestyle interventions for obese women with a history of GDM planning a subsequent pregnancy, however to date have not been published, or are ongoing.

Women with a history of GDM are at increased risk of recurrence of GDM in subsequent pregnancies, future impaired glucose tolerance and diabetes, cardiovascular disease and their sequelae. Given the potential poor outcomes identified in these women, they represent a group who could potentially benefit from intervention(s) aiming to prevent these outcomes. A number of interventions studied in women with a history of GDM after birth, most notably to increase follow‐up testing for impaired glucose tolerance or diabetes (Clark 2009), and interventions such as metformin and lifestyle modification to prevent type 2 diabetes (Ratner 2008) have demonstrated benefit. It remains uncertain how this may translate to interventions in the interconception period for the prevention of GDM recurrence.

In theory, the interconception period in these women represents a time in a high‐risk person's life for: identification and management of undiagnosed impaired glucose tolerance and type 2 diabetes; to initiate lifestyle interventions to potentially improve maternal and infant health outcomes; and to reinforce dietary and lifestyle behaviours for prevention of long‐term adverse health outcomes. No results from randomised controlled trials have been published relating to the effects of interventions in this interconception period for women with a history of GDM for improving health outcomes for women and their children. Given the potential benefits, it remains important to evaluate the effects of such interventions and identify the ideal form of intervention for these women.

Study flow diagram.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 1

Study flow diagram.