Role of vitamin D in iron metabolism, a pilot study

Background: The objective of the study was to evaluate the effect of Vit D & Iron supplementation on Serum Hb level &Vit D level as compared to Iron supplementation alone. To evaluate the percentage responders in terms of Haemoglobin to Iron supplementation when Vit D is added as compared to only Iron supplemented. Vitamin D Deficiency is very prevalent in our country due to many reasons; therefore we also wanted to assess how deficient they are?Methods: Recruited pregnant mothers were with 25 (OH) D <20ng/ml & Hb=8-10g/dl. Patients were randomized into groups using a computerized program. Group iron + Vitamin D : tablets containing fixed dose combination of vit D (1000 IU) + ferrous ascorbate (100mg of elemental iron) + folic acid (1 mg) + vit B12 (7.5 mcg) (1 tab/day) for 12 weeks. Group iron alone: tablets containing fixed dose combination of ferrous ascorbate (100 mg of elemental iron) + folic acid (1.1 mg) (1 tablet/day) for 12 weeks.Results: There was no significant difference between the ages of patients of two groups. Parity and BMI were nearly same. Vit D level assessment at the recruitment in both groups is nearly same and also Hb level assessment at the recruitment in both groups is nearly same. The study shows that addition of Vitamin D to the Iron supplement does not increase the level of Hb any further as compared to the Iron administration alone.Conclusions: This pilot study shows that administration of iron to Vitamin D does not influence the rise in haemoglobin level any greater than Iron administration alone. A larger sample size study is needed to prove this finding further

Effect of myo-inositol and di-chiro inositol plus vitamin D supplementation during pregnancy on prevention of gestational diabetes: a multi-centric, prospective, randomized, double-blind clinical trial

Background: Aim of study was to evaluate the impact of myoinositol and D-chiro inositol plus vitamin D supplementation on the prevention of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) in pregnant women. Methods: In the multi-centric, prospective, randomised, double-blind clinical trial, either vitamin D alone (group I) or myoinositol and D-chiro inositol plus Vitamin D (group II) were administered to pregnant women from 12 weeks of gestation. The administration was continued until delivery to primigravids who were normoglycemic at 12 weeks of gestation and consented. From October 2018 to December 2019. A total of 1250 women were enrolled, and randomly allocated to either of the groups: 630 women in Group I and 620 in Group II. The allocation was blinded. The primary outcome was the rate of GDM as assessed by oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) recommended by diabetes in pregnancy Study Group India (DIPSI), International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) and the Government of India, at first antenatal visit followed by at weeks 24 to 28 in both the groups. Results: The rate of GDM was found more in group I as compared to group II treated with myoinositol and D-chiro Inositol plus vitamin D, but the difference was not statistically significant (5.08% in group I and 3.22% in group II). Conclusions: In conclusion, an improved trend has been noticed in the reduction of the rate of GDM with myoinositol and D-chiro inositol plus vitamin D as compared to vitamin D alone. Myoinositol and D-chiro inositol plus vitamin D supplementation may be a good option for pregnant women to prevent the GDM occurrence especially in women having positive risk factors for GDM.

The International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) Initiative on gestational diabetes mellitus: A pragmatic guide for diagnosis, management, and care#

n/

Adverse maternal, fetal, and newborn outcomes among pregnant women with SARS-CoV-2 infection: an individual participant data meta-analysis

Introduction Despite a growing body of research on the risks of SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy, there is continued controversy given heterogeneity in the quality and design of published studies. Methods We screened ongoing studies in our sequential, prospective meta-analysis. We pooled individual participant data to estimate the absolute and relative risk (RR) of adverse outcomes among pregnant women with SARS-CoV-2 infection, compared with confirmed negative pregnancies. We evaluated the risk of bias using a modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Results We screened 137 studies and included 12 studies in 12 countries involving 13 136 pregnant women. Pregnant women with SARS-CoV-2 infection—as compared with uninfected pregnant women—were at significantly increased risk of maternal mortality (10 studies; n=1490; RR 7.68, 95% CI 1.70 to 34.61); admission to intensive care unit (8 studies; n=6660; RR 3.81, 95% CI 2.03 to 7.17); receiving mechanical ventilation (7 studies; n=4887; RR 15.23, 95% CI 4.32 to 53.71); receiving any critical care (7 studies; n=4735; RR 5.48, 95% CI 2.57 to 11.72); and being diagnosed with pneumonia (6 studies; n=4573; RR 23.46, 95% CI 3.03 to 181.39) and thromboembolic disease (8 studies; n=5146; RR 5.50, 95% CI 1.12 to 27.12). Neonates born to women with SARS-CoV-2 infection were more likely to be admitted to a neonatal care unit after birth (7 studies; n=7637; RR 1.86, 95% CI 1.12 to 3.08); be born preterm (7 studies; n=6233; RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.28 to 2.29) or moderately preterm (7 studies; n=6071; RR 2.92, 95% CI 1.88 to 4.54); and to be born low birth weight (12 studies; n=11 930; RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.40). Infection was not linked to stillbirth. Studies were generally at low or moderate risk of bias. Conclusions This analysis indicates that SARS-CoV-2 infection at any time during pregnancy increases the risk of maternal death, severe maternal morbidities and neonatal morbidity, but not stillbirth or intrauterine growth restriction. As more data become available, we will update these findings per the published protocol

FIGO (international Federation of Gynecology and obstetrics) initiative on fetal growth: best practice advice for screening, diagnosis, and management of fetal growth restriction

Fetal growth restriction (FGR) is defined as the failure of the fetus to meet its growth potential due to a pathological factor, most commonly placental dysfunction. Worldwide, FGR is a leading cause of stillbirth, neonatal mortality, and short- and long-term morbidity. Ongoing advances in clinical care, especially in definitions, diagnosis, and management of FGR, require efforts to effectively translate these changes to the wide range of obstetric care providers. This article highlights agreements based on current research in the diagnosis and management of FGR, and the areas that need more research to provide further clarification of recommendations. The purpose of this article is to provide a comprehensive summary of available evidence along with practical recommendations concerning the care of pregnancies at risk of or complicated by FGR, with the overall goal to decrease the risk of stillbirth and neonatal mortality and morbidity associated with this condition. To achieve these goals, FIGO (the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics) brought together international experts to review and summarize current knowledge of FGR. This summary is directed at multiple stakeholders, including healthcare providers, healthcare delivery organizations and providers, FIGO member societies, and professional organizations. Recognizing the variation in the resources and expertise available for the management of FGR in different countries or regions, this article attempts to take into consideration the unique aspects of antenatal care in low-resource settings (labelled “LRS” in the recommendations). This was achieved by collaboration with authors and FIGO member societies from low-resource settings such as India, Sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America

Adverse maternal, fetal, and newborn outcomes among pregnant women with SARS-CoV-2 infection: an individual participant data meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION Despite a growing body of research on the risks of SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy, there is continued controversy given heterogeneity in the quality and design of published studies. METHODS We screened ongoing studies in our sequential, prospective meta-analysis. We pooled individual participant data to estimate the absolute and relative risk (RR) of adverse outcomes among pregnant women with SARS-CoV-2 infection, compared with confirmed negative pregnancies. We evaluated the risk of bias using a modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS We screened 137 studies and included 12 studies in 12 countries involving 13 136 pregnant women.Pregnant women with SARS-CoV-2 infection-as compared with uninfected pregnant women-were at significantly increased risk of maternal mortality (10 studies; n=1490; RR 7.68, 95% CI 1.70 to 34.61); admission to intensive care unit (8 studies; n=6660; RR 3.81, 95% CI 2.03 to 7.17); receiving mechanical ventilation (7 studies; n=4887; RR 15.23, 95% CI 4.32 to 53.71); receiving any critical care (7 studies; n=4735; RR 5.48, 95% CI 2.57 to 11.72); and being diagnosed with pneumonia (6 studies; n=4573; RR 23.46, 95% CI 3.03 to 181.39) and thromboembolic disease (8 studies; n=5146; RR 5.50, 95% CI 1.12 to 27.12).Neonates born to women with SARS-CoV-2 infection were more likely to be admitted to a neonatal care unit after birth (7 studies; n=7637; RR 1.86, 95% CI 1.12 to 3.08); be born preterm (7 studies; n=6233; RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.28 to 2.29) or moderately preterm (7 studies; n=6071; RR 2.92, 95% CI 1.88 to 4.54); and to be born low birth weight (12 studies; n=11 930; RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.40). Infection was not linked to stillbirth. Studies were generally at low or moderate risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS This analysis indicates that SARS-CoV-2 infection at any time during pregnancy increases the risk of maternal death, severe maternal morbidities and neonatal morbidity, but not stillbirth or intrauterine growth restriction. As more data become available, we will update these findings per the published protocol

Pregnancy and neonatal outcomes of COVID-19: The PAN-COVID study

Objective To assess perinatal outcomes for pregnancies affected by suspected or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Methods Prospective, web-based registry. Pregnant women were invited to participate if they had suspected or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection between 1st January 2020 and 31st March 2021 to assess the impact of infection on maternal and perinatal outcomes including miscarriage, stillbirth, fetal growth restriction, pre-term birth and transmission to the infant. Results Between April 2020 and March 2021, the study recruited 8239 participants who had suspected or confirmed SARs-CoV-2 infection episodes in pregnancy between January 2020 and March 2021. Maternal death affected 14/8197 (0.2%) participants, 176/8187 (2.2%) of participants required ventilatory support. Pre-eclampsia affected 389/8189 (4.8%) participants, eclampsia was reported in 40/ 8024 (0.5%) of all participants. Stillbirth affected 35/8187 (0.4 %) participants. In participants delivering within 2 weeks of delivery 21/2686 (0.8 %) were affected by stillbirth compared with 8/4596 (0.2 %) delivering ≥ 2 weeks after infection (95 % CI 0.3–1.0). SGA affected 744/7696 (9.3 %) of livebirths, FGR affected 360/8175 (4.4 %) of all pregnancies. Pre-term birth occurred in 922/8066 (11.5%), the majority of these were indicated pre-term births, 220/7987 (2.8%) participants experienced spontaneous pre-term births. Early neonatal deaths affected 11/8050 livebirths. Of all neonates, 80/7993 (1.0%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Conclusions Infection was associated with indicated pre-term birth, most commonly for fetal compromise. The overall proportions of women affected by SGA and FGR were not higher than expected, however there was the proportion affected by stillbirth in participants delivering within 2 weeks of infection was significantly higher than those delivering ≥ 2 weeks after infection. We suggest that clinicians’ threshold for delivery should be low if there are concerns with fetal movements or fetal heart rate monitoring in the time around infection

Negotiating Gestational Diabetes Mellitus in India: A National Approach

The worldwide epidemic of diabetes mellitus and hyperglycemia in pregnancy (HIP) presents many challenges, some of which are country-specific. To address these specific problems, parochial resolutions are essential. In India, the government, by working in tandem with (a) national groups such as the Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group of India, and (b) global organizations such as the International Diabetes Federation, has empowered the medical and paramedical staff throughout the country to manage HIP. Additionally, despite their academic university backgrounds, Indian health planners have provided practical guidelines for caregivers at the ground level, who look up to these experts for guidance. This multipronged process has helped to negotiate some of the multiple problems that are indigenous and exclusive to India. This review traces the Indian journey to manage and prevent HIP with simple, constructive, and pragmatic solutions