CONCEPTT: Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Women with Type 1 Diabetes in Pregnancy Trial: A multi-center, multi-national, randomized controlled trial - Study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Women with type 1 diabetes strive for optimal glycemic control before and during pregnancy to avoid adverse obstetric and perinatal outcomes. For most women, optimal glycemic control is challenging to achieve and maintain. The aim of this study is to determine whether the use of real-time continuous glucose monitoring (RT-CGM) will improve glycemic control in women with type 1 diabetes who are pregnant or planning pregnancy. METHODS/DESIGN: A multi-center, open label, randomized, controlled trial of women with type 1 diabetes who are either planning pregnancy with an HbA1c of 7.0 % to ≤10.0 % (53 to ≤ 86 mmol/mol) or are in early pregnancy (<13 weeks 6 days) with an HbA1c of 6.5 % to ≤10.0 % (48 to ≤ 86 mmol/mol). Participants will be randomized to either RT-CGM alongside conventional intermittent home glucose monitoring (HGM), or HGM alone. Eligible women will wear a CGM which does not display the glucose result for 6 days during the run-in phase. To be eligible for randomization, a minimum of 4 HGM measurements per day and a minimum of 96 hours total with 24 hours overnight (11 pm-7 am) of CGM glucose values are required. Those meeting these criteria are randomized to RT- CGM or HGM. A total of 324 women will be recruited (110 planning pregnancy, 214 pregnant). This takes into account 15 and 20 % attrition rates for the planning pregnancy and pregnant cohorts and will detect a clinically relevant 0.5 % difference between groups at 90 % power with 5 % significance. Randomization will stratify for type of insulin treatment (pump or multiple daily injections) and baseline HbA1c. Analyses will be performed according to intention to treat. The primary outcome is the change in glycemic control as measured by HbA1c from baseline to 24 weeks or conception in women planning pregnancy, and from baseline to 34 weeks gestation during pregnancy. Secondary outcomes include maternal hypoglycemia, CGM time in, above and below target (3.5-7.8 mmol/l), glucose variability measures, maternal and neonatal outcomes. DISCUSSION: This will be the first international multicenter randomized controlled trial to evaluate the impact of RT- CGM before and during pregnancy in women with type 1 diabetes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01788527 Registration Date: December 19, 2012

The Thrombophilia in Pregnancy Prophylaxis Study (TIPPS): a multi-national randomized trial of dalteparin vs. no dalteparin to prevent pregnancy complications in pregnant thrombophilic women

Abstract FS 01.1Rodger M, Hague WM, Kingdom J, Kahn SR, Karovitch A, Wells PS, Sermer M, Clement AM, Chan WS, and The TIPPS Investigator

Antepartum dalteparin versus no antepartum dalteparin for the prevention of pregnancy complications in pregnant women with thrombophilia (TIPPS): a multinational open-label randomised trial

Background Thrombophilias are common disorders that increase the risk of pregnancy-associated venous thromboembolism and pregnancy loss and can also increase the risk of placenta-mediated pregnancy complications (severe pre-eclampsia, small-for-gestational-age infants, and placental abruption). We postulated that antepartum dalteparin would reduce these complications in pregnant women with thrombophilia. Methods In this open-label randomised trial undertaken in 36 tertiary care centres in fi ve countries, we enrolled consenting pregnant women with thrombophilia at increased risk of venous thromboembolism or with previous placenta-mediated pregnancy complications. Eligible participants were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to either antepartum prophylactic dose dalteparin (5000 international units once daily up to 20 weeks’ gestation, and twice daily thereafter until at least 37 weeks’ gestation) or to no antepartum dalteparin (control group). Randomisation was done by a web-based randomisation system, and was stratifi ed by country and gestational age at randomisation day with a permuted block design (block sizes 4 and 8). At randomisation, site pharmacists (or delegates) received a randomisation number and treatment allocation (by fax and/or e-mail) from the central web randomisation system and then dispensed study drug to the local coordinator. Patients and study personnel were not masked to treatment assignment, but the outcome adjudicators were masked. The primary composite outcome was independently adjudicated severe or earlyonset pre-eclampsia, small-for-gestational-age infant (birthweight <10th percentile), pregnancy loss, or venous thromboembolism. We did intention-to-treat and on-treatment analyses. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00967382, and with Current Controlled Trials, number ISRCTN87441504. Findings Between Feb 28, 2000, and Sept 14, 2012, 292 women consented to participate and were randomly assigned to the two groups. Three women were excluded after randomisation because of ineligibility (two in the antepartum dalteparin group and one in the control group), leaving 146 women assigned to antepartum dalteparin and 143 assigned to no antepartum dalteparin. Some patients crossed over to the other group during treatment, and therefore for ontreatment and safety analysis there were 143 patients in the dalteparin group and 141 in the no dalteparin group. Dalteparin did not reduce the incidence of the primary composite outcome in both intention-to-treat analysis (dalteparin 25/146 [17·1%; 95% CI 11·4–24·2%] vs no dalteparin 27/143 [18·9%; 95% CI 12·8–26·3%]; risk diff erence −1·8% [95% CI –10·6% to 7·1%)) and on-treatment analysis (dalteparin 28/143 [19·6%] vs no dalteparin 24/141 [17·0%]; risk diff erence +2·6% [95% CI –6·4 to 11·6%]). In safety analysis, the occurrence of major bleeding did not diff er between the two groups. However, minor bleeding was more common in the dalteparin group (28/143 [19·6%]) than in the no dalteparin group (13/141 [9·2%]; risk diff erence 10·4%, 95% CI 2·3–18·4; p=0·01). Interpretation Antepartum prophylactic dalteparin does not reduce the occurrence of venous thromboembolism, pregnancy loss, or placenta-mediated pregnancy complications in pregnant women with thrombophilia at high risk of these complications and is associated with an increased risk of minor bleeding.M.A. Rodger ... W.M. Hague ... S. Coat ... et al. (for the TIPPS Investigators

Antepartum dalteparin versus no antepartum dalteparin for the prevention of pregnancy complications in pregnant women with thrombophilia (TIPPS): a multinational open-label randomised trial

International audienceBACKGROUND: Thrombophilias are common disorders that increase the risk of pregnancy-associated venous thromboembolism and pregnancy loss and can also increase the risk of placenta-mediated pregnancy complications (severe pre-eclampsia, small-for-gestational-age infants, and placental abruption). We postulated that antepartum dalteparin would reduce these complications in pregnant women with thrombophilia. METHODS: In this open-label randomised trial undertaken in 36 tertiary care centres in five countries, we enrolled consenting pregnant women with thrombophilia at increased risk of venous thromboembolism or with previous placenta-mediated pregnancy complications. Eligible participants were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to either antepartum prophylactic dose dalteparin (5000 international units once daily up to 20 weeks' gestation, and twice daily thereafter until at least 37 weeks' gestation) or to no antepartum dalteparin (control group). Randomisation was done by a web-based randomisation system, and was stratified by country and gestational age at randomisation day with a permuted block design (block sizes 4 and 8). At randomisation, site pharmacists (or delegates) received a randomisation number and treatment allocation (by fax and/or e-mail) from the central web randomisation system and then dispensed study drug to the local coordinator. Patients and study personnel were not masked to treatment assignment, but the outcome adjudicators were masked. The primary composite outcome was independently adjudicated severe or early-onset pre-eclampsia, small-for-gestational-age infant (birthweight <10th percentile), pregnancy loss, or venous thromboembolism. We did intention-to-treat and on-treatment analyses. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00967382, and with Current Controlled Trials, number ISRCTN87441504. FINDINGS: Between Feb 28, 2000, and Sept 14, 2012, 292 women consented to participate and were randomly assigned to the two groups. Three women were excluded after randomisation because of ineligibility (two in the antepartum dalteparin group and one in the control group), leaving 146 women assigned to antepartum dalteparin and 143 assigned to no antepartum dalteparin. Some patients crossed over to the other group during treatment, and therefore for on-treatment and safety analysis there were 143 patients in the dalteparin group and 141 in the no dalteparin group. Dalteparin did not reduce the incidence of the primary composite outcome in both intention-to-treat analysis (dalteparin 25/146 [17.1%; 95% CI 11.4-24.2%] vs no dalteparin 27/143 [18.9%; 95% CI 12.8-26.3%]; risk difference -1.8% [95% CI -10.6% to 7.1%)) and on-treatment analysis (dalteparin 28/143 [19.6%] vs no dalteparin 24/141 [17.0%]; risk difference +2.6% [95% CI -6.4 to 11.6%]). In safety analysis, the occurrence of major bleeding did not differ between the two groups. However, minor bleeding was more common in the dalteparin group (28/143 [19.6%]) than in the no dalteparin group (13/141 [9.2%]; risk difference 10.4%, 95% CI 2.3-18.4; p=0.01). INTERPRETATION: Antepartum prophylactic dalteparin does not reduce the occurrence of venous thromboembolism, pregnancy loss, or placenta-mediated pregnancy complications in pregnant women with thrombophilia at high risk of these complications and is associated with an increased risk of minor bleeding. FUNDING: Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, and Pharmacia and UpJohn

Effect of hydrolyzed infant formula vs conventional formula on risk of type 1 diabetes the TRIGR randomized clinical trial

IMPORTANCE Early exposure to complex dietary proteins may increase the risk of type 117 diabetes in children with genetic disease susceptibility. There are no intact proteins in extensively hydrolyzed formulas. OBJECTIVE To test the hypothesis that weaning to an extensively hydrolyzed formula decreases the cumulative incidence of type 117 diabetes in young children. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS An international double-blind randomized clinical trial of 211759 infants with human leukocyte antigen-conferred disease susceptibility and a first-degree relative with type 117 diabetes recruited from May 2002 to January 2007 in 78 study centers in 1175 countries; 11708117 were randomized to be weaned to the extensively hydrolyzed casein formula and 117078 to a conventional formula. The follow-up of the participants ended on February 28, 201177. INTERVENTIONS The participants received either a casein hydrolysate or a conventional adapted cow's milk formula supplemented with 20%of the casein hydrolysate. The minimum duration ofstudy formula exposure was 60 days by6 to 8 months ofage. MAINOUTCOMES ANDMEASURES Primary outcome was type 117 diabetes diagnosed according to World Health Organization criteria. Secondary outcomes included age at diabetes diagnosis and safety (adverse events). RESULTS Among 211759 newborn infants (11702117 female [47.3%]) who were randomized, 117744 (80.8%) completed the trial. The participants were observed for a median of 117117.5 years (quartile [Q] 117-Q3, 1170.2-1172.8). The absolute risk of type 117 diabetes was 8.4% among those randomized tothe casein hydrolysate (n = 9117) vs 7.6% among those randomized to the conventional formula (n = 82) (difference, 0.8% [95% CI, -117.6% to 3.2%]). The hazard ratio for type 117 diabetes adjusted for human leukocyte antigen risk group, duration of breastfeeding, duration of study formula consumption, sex, and region while treating study center as a random effect was 117.117 (95% CI, 0.8 to 117.5; P =.46). The median age at diagnosis of type 117 diabetes was similar in the 2 groups (6.0 years [Q117-Q3, 3.117-8.9] vs 5.8 years [Q117-Q3, 2.6-9.117]; difference, 0.2 years [95% CI, -0.9 to 117.2]). Upper respiratory infections were the most common adverse event reported (frequency, 0.48 events/year in the hydrolysate group and 0.50 events/year in the control group). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among infants at risk for type 117 diabetes, weaning to a hydrolyzed formula compared with a conventional formula did not reduce the cumulative incidence of type 117 diabetes after median follow-up for 117117.5 years. These findings do not support a need to revise the dietary recommendations for infants at risk for type 117 diabetes

Effect of hydrolyzed infant formula vs conventional formula on risk of type 1 diabetes the TRIGR randomized clinical trial

IMPORTANCE Early exposure to complex dietary proteins may increase the risk of type 117 diabetes in children with genetic disease susceptibility. There are no intact proteins in extensively hydrolyzed formulas. OBJECTIVE To test the hypothesis that weaning to an extensively hydrolyzed formula decreases the cumulative incidence of type 117 diabetes in young children. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS An international double-blind randomized clinical trial of 211759 infants with human leukocyte antigen-conferred disease susceptibility and a first-degree relative with type 117 diabetes recruited from May 2002 to January 2007 in 78 study centers in 1175 countries; 11708117 were randomized to be weaned to the extensively hydrolyzed casein formula and 117078 to a conventional formula. The follow-up of the participants ended on February 28, 201177. INTERVENTIONS The participants received either a casein hydrolysate or a conventional adapted cow's milk formula supplemented with 20%of the casein hydrolysate. The minimum duration ofstudy formula exposure was 60 days by6 to 8 months ofage. MAINOUTCOMES ANDMEASURES Primary outcome was type 117 diabetes diagnosed according to World Health Organization criteria. Secondary outcomes included age at diabetes diagnosis and safety (adverse events). RESULTS Among 211759 newborn infants (11702117 female [47.3%]) who were randomized, 117744 (80.8%) completed the trial. The participants were observed for a median of 117117.5 years (quartile [Q] 117-Q3, 1170.2-1172.8). The absolute risk of type 117 diabetes was 8.4% among those randomized tothe casein hydrolysate (n = 9117) vs 7.6% among those randomized to the conventional formula (n = 82) (difference, 0.8% [95% CI, -117.6% to 3.2%]). The hazard ratio for type 117 diabetes adjusted for human leukocyte antigen risk group, duration of breastfeeding, duration of study formula consumption, sex, and region while treating study center as a random effect was 117.117 (95% CI, 0.8 to 117.5; P =.46). The median age at diagnosis of type 117 diabetes was similar in the 2 groups (6.0 years [Q117-Q3, 3.117-8.9] vs 5.8 years [Q117-Q3, 2.6-9.117]; difference, 0.2 years [95% CI, -0.9 to 117.2]). Upper respiratory infections were the most common adverse event reported (frequency, 0.48 events/year in the hydrolysate group and 0.50 events/year in the control group). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among infants at risk for type 117 diabetes, weaning to a hydrolyzed formula compared with a conventional formula did not reduce the cumulative incidence of type 117 diabetes after median follow-up for 117117.5 years. These findings do not support a need to revise the dietary recommendations for infants at risk for type 117 diabetes

Edoxaban versus warfarin for the treatment of symptomatic venous thromboembolism.

BACKGROUND: Whether the oral factor Xa inhibitor edoxaban can be an alternative to warfarin in patients with venous thromboembolism is unclear. METHODS: In a randomized, double-blind, noninferiority study, we randomly assigned patients with acute venous thromboembolism, who had initially received heparin, to receive edoxaban at a dose of 60 mg once daily, or 30 mg once daily (e.g., in the case of patients with creatinine clearance of 30 to 50 ml per minute or a body weight below 60 kg), or to receive warfarin. Patients received the study drug for 3 to 12 months. The primary efficacy outcome was recurrent symptomatic venous thromboembolism. The principal safety outcome was major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding. RESULTS: A total of 4921 patients presented with deep-vein thrombosis, and 3319 with a pulmonary embolism. Among patients receiving warfarin, the time in the therapeutic range was 63.5%. Edoxaban was noninferior to warfarin with respect to the primary efficacy outcome, which occurred in 130 patients in the edoxaban group (3.2%) and 146 patients in the warfarin group (3.5%) (hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.70 to 1.13; P&lt;0.001 for noninferiority). The safety outcome occurred in 349 patients (8.5%) in the edoxaban group and 423 patients (10.3%) in the warfarin group (hazard ratio, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.94; P=0.004 for superiority). The rates of other adverse events were similar in the two groups. A total of 938 patients with pulmonary embolism had right ventricular dysfunction, as assessed by measurement of N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide levels; the rate of recurrent venous thromboembolism in this subgroup was 3.3% in the edoxaban group and 6.2% in the warfarin group (hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.28 to 0.98). CONCLUSIONS: Edoxaban administered once daily after initial treatment with heparin was noninferior to high-quality standard therapy and caused significantly less bleeding in a broad spectrum of patients with venous thromboembolism, including those with severe pulmonary embolism. (Funded by Daiichi-Sankyo; Hokusai-VTE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00986154.)

Metformin in women with type 2 diabetes in pregnancy (MiTy): a multicentre, international, randomised, placebo-controlled trial

Background: Although metformin is increasingly being used in women with type 2 diabetes during pregnancy, little data exist on the benefits and harms of metformin use on pregnancy outcomes in these women. We aimed to investigate the effects of the addition of metformin to a standard regimen of insulin on neonatal morbidity and mortality in pregnant women with type 2 diabetes. Methods: In this prospective, multicentre, international, randomised, parallel, double-masked, placebo-controlled trial, women with type 2 diabetes during pregnancy were randomly assigned from 25 centres in Canada and four in Australia to receive either metformin 1000 mg twice daily or placebo, added to insulin. Randomisation was done via a web-based computerised randomisation service and stratified by centre and pre-pregnancy BMI (<30 kg/m2 or ≥30 kg/m2) in a ratio of 1:1 using random block sizes of 4 and 6. Women were eligible if they had type 2 diabetes, were on insulin, had a singleton viable pregnancy, and were between 6 and 22 weeks plus 6 days' gestation. Participants were asked to check their fasting blood glucose level before the first meal of the day, before the last meal of the day, and 2 h after each meal. Insulin doses were adjusted aiming for identical glucose targets (fasting glucose <5·3 mmol/L [95 mg/dL], 2-h postprandial glucose <6·7 mmol/L [120 mg/dL]). Study visits were done monthly and patients were seen every 1–4 weeks as was needed for standard clinical care. At study visits blood pressure and bodyweight were measured; patients were asked about tolerance to their pills, any hospitalisations, insulin doses, and severe hypoglycaemia events; and glucometer readings were downloaded to the central coordinating centre. Participants, caregivers, and outcome assessors were masked to the intervention. The primary outcome was a composite of fetal and neonatal outcomes, for which we calculated the relative risk and 95% CI between groups, stratifying by site and BMI using a log-binomial regression model with an intention-to-treat analysis. Secondary outcomes included several relevant maternal and neonatal outcomes. The trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01353391. Findings: Between May 25, 2011, and Oct 11, 2018, we randomly assigned 502 women, 253 (50%) to metformin and 249 (50%) to placebo. Complete data were available for 233 (92%) participants in the metformin group and 240 (96%) in the placebo group for the primary outcome. We found no significant difference in the primary composite neonatal outcome between the two groups (40% vs 40%; p=0·86; relative risk [RR] 1·02 [0·83 to 1·26]). Compared with women in the placebo group, metformin-treated women achieved better glycaemic control (HbA1c at 34 weeks' gestation 41·0 mmol/mol [SD 8·5] vs 43·2 mmol/mol [–10]; 5·90% vs 6·10%; p=0·015; mean glucose 6·05 [0·93] vs 6·27 [0·90]; difference −0·2 [–0·4 to 0·0]), required less insulin (1·1 units per kg per day vs 1·5 units per kg per day; difference −0·4 [95% CI −0·5 to −0·2]; p<0·0001), gained less weight (7·2 kg vs 9·0 kg; difference −1·8 [–2·7 to −0·9]; p<0·0001) and had fewer caesarean births (125 [53%] of 234 in the metformin group vs 148 [63%] of 236 in the placebo group; relative risk [RR] 0·85 [95% CI 0·73 to 0·99]; p=0·031). We found no significant difference between the groups in hypertensive disorders (55 [23%] in the metformin group vs 56 [23%] in the placebo group; p=0·93; RR 0·99 [0·72 to 1·35]). Compared with those in the placebo group, metformin-exposed infants weighed less (mean birthweight 3156 g [SD 742] vs 3375 g [742]; difference −218 [–353 to −82]; p=0·002), fewer were above the 97th centile for birthweight (20 [9%] in the metformin group vs 34 [15%] in the placebo group; RR 0·58 [0·34 to 0·97]; p=0·041), fewer weighed 4000 g or more at birth (28 [12%] in the metformin group vs 44 [19%] in the placebo group; RR 0·65 [0·43 to 0·99]; p=0·046), and metformin-exposed infants had reduced adiposity measures (mean sum of skinfolds 16·0 mm [SD 5·0] vs 17·4 [6·2] mm; difference −1·41 [–2·6 to −0·2]; p=0·024; mean neonatal fat mass 13·2 [SD 6·2] vs 14·6 [5·0]; p=0·017). 30 (13%) infants in the metformin group and 15 (7%) in the placebo group were small for gestational age (RR 1·96 [1·10 to 3·64]; p=0·026). We found no significant difference in the cord c-peptide between groups (673 pmol/L [435] in the metformin group vs 758 pmol/L [595] in the placebo group; p=0·10; ratio of means 0·88 [0·72 to 1·02]). The most common adverse event reported was gastrointestinal (38 events in the metformin group and 38 events in the placebo group). Interpretation: We found several maternal glycaemic and neonatal adiposity benefits in the metformin group. Along with reduced maternal weight gain and insulin dosage and improved glycaemic control, the lower adiposity and infant size measurements resulted in fewer large infants but a higher proportion of small-for-gestational-age infants. Understanding the implications of these effects on infants will be important to properly advise patients who are contemplating the use of metformin during pregnancy.The trial was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, Toronto, ON, Canada, and the Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada