5 research outputs found

    SUGAR-DIP trial: Oral medication strategy versus insulin for diabetes in pregnancy, study protocol for a multicentre, open-label, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial

    Get PDF
    Introduction In women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) requiring pharmacotherapy, insulin was the established first-line treatment. More recently, oral glucose lowering drugs (OGLDs) have gained popularity as a patient-friendly, less expensive and safe alternative. Monotherapy with metformin or glibenclamide (glyburide) is incorporated in several international guidelines. In women who do not reach sufficient glucose control with OGLD monotherapy, usually insulin is added, either with or without continuation of OGLDs. No reliable data from clinical trials, however, are available on the effectiveness of a treatment strategy using all three agents, metformin, glibenclamide and insulin, in a stepwise approach, compared with insulin-only therapy for improving pregnancy outcomes. In this trial, we aim to assess the clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and patient experience of a stepwise combined OGLD treatment protocol, compared with conventional insulin-based therapy for GDM. Methods The SUGAR-DIP trial is an open-label, multicentre randomised controlled non-inferiority trial. Participants are women with GDM who do not reach target glycaemic control with modification of diet, between 16 and 34 weeks of gestation. Participants will be randomised to either treatment with OGLDs, starting with metformin and supplemented as needed with glibenclamide, or randomised to treatment with insulin. In women who do not reach target glycaemic control with combined metformin and glibenclamide, glibenclamide will be substituted with insulin, while continuing metformin. The primary outcome will be the incidence of large-for-gestational-age infants (birth weight >90th percentile). Secondary outcome measures are maternal diabetes-related endpoints, obstetric complications, neonatal complications and cost-effectiveness analysis. Outcomes will be analysed according to the intention-to-treat principle. Ethics and dissemination The study protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Utrecht University Medical Centre. Approval by the boards of management for all participating hospitals will be obtained. Trial results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals

    Management of late-preterm premature rupture of membranes: the PPROMEXIL-2 trial

    No full text
    Item does not contain fulltextOBJECTIVE: The evidence for the management of near term prelabor rupture of membranes is poor. From January 2007 until September 2009, we performed the PPROM Expectant Management versus Induction of Labor (PPROMEXIL) trial. In this trial, we showed that in women with preterm prelabor rupture of membranes (PPROM), the incidence of neonatal sepsis was low, and the induction of labor (IoL) did not reduce this risk. Because the PPROMEXIL trial was underpowered and because of a lower-than-expected incidence of neonatal sepsis, we performed a second trial (PPROMEXIL-2), aiming to randomize 200 patients to improve the evidence in near-term PPROM. STUDY DESIGN: In a nationwide multicenter study, nonlaboring women with PPROM between 34 and 37 weeks' gestational age were eligible for inclusion. Patients were randomized to IoL or expectant management (EM). The primary outcome measure was neonatal sepsis. RESULTS: From December 2009 until January 2011, we randomized 100 women to IoL and 95 to EM. Neonatal sepsis was seen in 3 neonates (3.0%) in the IoL-group versus 4 neonates (4.1%) in the EM group (relative risk, 0.74; 95% confidence interval, 0.17-3.2). One of the sepsis cases in the IoL group resulted in neonatal death because of asphyxia. There were no significant differences in secondary outcomes. CONCLUSION: The risk of neonatal sepsis after PPROM near term is low. Induction of labor does not reduce this risk
    corecore