Gestational diabetes and pregnancy outcomes - a systematic review of the World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Association of Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) diagnostic criteria

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Two criteria based on a 2 h 75 g OGTT are being used for the diagnosis of gestational diabetes (GDM), those recommended over the years by the World Health Organization (WHO), and those recently recommended by the International Association for Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group (IADPSG), the latter generated in the HAPO study and based on pregnancy outcomes. Our aim is to systematically review the evidence for the associations between GDM (according to these criteria) and adverse outcomes.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We searched relevant studies in MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, the Cochrane Library, CINHAL, WHO-Afro library, IMSEAR, EMCAT, IMEMR and WPRIM. We included cohort studies permitting the evaluation of GDM diagnosed by WHO and or IADPSG criteria against adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes in untreated women. Only studies with universal application of a 75 g OGTT were included. Relative risks (RRs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) were obtained for each study. We combined study results using a random-effects model. Inconsistency across studies was defined by an inconsistency index (I²) > 50%.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Data were extracted from eight studies, totaling 44,829 women. Greater risk of adverse outcomes was observed for both diagnostic criteria. When using the WHO criteria, consistent associations were seen for macrosomia (RR = 1.81; 95%CI 1.47-2.22; p < 0.001); large for gestational age (RR = 1.53; 95%CI 1.39-1.69; p < 0.001); perinatal mortality (RR = 1.55; 95% CI 0.88-2.73; p = 0.13); preeclampsia (RR = 1.69; 95%CI 1.31-2.18; p < 0.001); and cesarean delivery (RR = 1.37;95%CI 1.24-1.51; p < 0.001). Less data were available for the IADPSG criteria, and associations were inconsistent across studies (I²≥ 73%). Magnitudes of RRs and their 95%CIs were 1.73 (1.28-2.35; p = 0.001) for large for gestational age; 1.71 (1.38-2.13; p < 0.001) for preeclampsia; and 1.23 (1.01-1.51; p = 0.04) for cesarean delivery. Excluding either the HAPO or the EBDG studies minimally altered these associations, but the RRs seen for the IADPSG criteria were reduced after excluding HAPO.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The WHO and the IADPSG criteria for GDM identified women at a small increased risk for adverse pregnancy outcomes. Associations were of similar magnitude for both criteria. However, high inconsistency was seen for those with the IADPSG criteria. Full evaluation of the latter in settings other than HAPO requires additional studies.</p

Person-centred care in interventions to limit weight gain in pregnant women with obesity - a systematic review

Background Person-centred care, asserting that individuals are partners in their care, has been associated with care satisfaction but the value of using it to support women with obesity during pregnancy is unknown. Excessive gestational weight gain is associated with increased risks for both mother and baby and weight gain therefore is an important intervention target. The aims of this review was to 1) explore to what extent and in what manner interventions assessing weight in pregnant women with obesity use person-centred care and 2) assess if interventions including aspects of person-centred care are more effective at limiting weight gain than interventions not employing person-centred care. Methods Ten databases were systematically searched in January 2014. Studies had to report an intervention offered to pregnant women with obesity and measure gestational weight gain to be included. All included studies were independently double coded to identify to what extent they included three defined aspects of person-centred care: 1) “initiate a partnership” including identifying the person’s circumstances and motivation; 2) “working the partnership” through sharing the decision-making regarding the planned action and 3) “safeguarding the partnership through documentation” of care preferences. Information on gestational weight gain, study quality and characteristics were also extracted. Results Ten studies were included in the review, of which five were randomised controlled trials (RCT), and the remaining observational studies. Four interventions included aspects of person-centred care; two observational studies included both “initiating the partnership”, and “working the partnership”. One observational study included “initiating the partnership” and one RCT included “working the partnership”. No interventions included “safeguarding the partnership through documentation”. Whilst all studies with person-centred care aspects showed promising findings regarding limiting gestational weight gain, so did the interventions not including person-centred care aspects. Conclusions The use of an identified person-centred care approach is presently limited in interventions targeting gestational weight gain in pregnant women with obesity. Hence to what extent person-centred care may improve health outcomes and care satisfaction in this population is currently unknown and more research is needed. That said, our findings suggest that use of routines incorporating person-centredness are feasible to include within these interventions

Risk factor screening to identify women requiring oral glucose tolerance testing to diagnose gestational diabetes : a systematic review and meta-analysis and analysis of two pregnancy cohorts

BACKGROUND: Easily identifiable risk factors including: obesity and ethnicity at high risk of diabetes are commonly used to indicate which women should be offered the oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) to diagnose gestational diabetes (GDM). Evidence regarding these risk factors is limited however. We conducted a systematic review (SR) and meta-analysis and individual participant data (IPD) analysis to evaluate the performance of risk factors in identifying women with GDM. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Medline in Process, Embase, Maternity and Infant Care and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) up to August 2016 and conducted additional reference checking. We included observational, cohort, case-control and cross-sectional studies reporting the performance characteristics of risk factors used to identify women at high risk of GDM. We had access to IPD from the Born in Bradford and Atlantic Diabetes in Pregnancy cohorts, all pregnant women in the two cohorts with data on risk factors and OGTT results were included. RESULTS: Twenty nine published studies with 211,698 women for the SR and a further 14,103 women from two birth cohorts (Born in Bradford and the Atlantic Diabetes in Pregnancy study) for the IPD analysis were included. Six studies assessed the screening performance of guidelines; six examined combinations of risk factors; eight evaluated the number of risk factors and nine examined prediction models or scores. Meta-analysis using data from published studies suggests that irrespective of the method used, risk factors do not identify women with GDM well. Using IPD and combining risk factors to produce the highest sensitivities, results in low specificities (and so higher false positives). Strategies that use the risk factors of age (>25 or >30) and BMI (>25 or 30) perform as well as other strategies with additional risk factors included. CONCLUSIONS: Risk factor screening methods are poor predictors of which pregnant women will be diagnosed with GDM. A simple approach of offering an OGTT to women 25 years or older and/or with a BMI of 25kg/m2 or more is as good as more complex risk prediction models. Research to identify more accurate (bio)markers is needed. Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO CRD42013004608

Opportunities for primary and secondary prevention of excess gestational weight gain: General Practitioners' perspectives

BackgroundThe impact of excess gestational weight gain (GWG) on maternal and child health outcomes is well documented. Understanding how health care providers view and manage GWG may assist with influencing healthy gestational weight outcomes. This study aimed to assess General Practitioner\u27s (GPs) perspectives regarding the management and assessment of GWG and to understand how GPs can be best supported to provide healthy GWG advice to pregnant women.MethodsDescriptive qualitative research methods utilising semi - structured interview questions to assess GPs perspectives and management of GWG. GPs participating in shared antenatal care in Geelong, Victoria and Sydney, New South Wales were invited to participate in semi - structured, individual interviews via telephone or in person. Interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data was analysed utilising thematic analysis for common emerging themes.ResultsTwenty eight GPs participated, 14 from each state. Common themes emerged relating to awareness of the implications of excess GWG, advice regarding weight gain, regularity of gestational weighing by GPs, options for GPs to seek support to provide healthy lifestyle behaviour advice and barriers to engaging pregnant women about their weight. GPs perspectives concerning excess GWG were varied. They frequently acknowledged maternal and child health complications resulting from excess GWG yet weighing practices and GWG advice appeared to be inconsistent. The preferred support option to promote healthy weight was referral to allied health practitioners yet GPs noted that cost and limited access were barriers to achieving this.ConclusionsGPs were aware of the importance of healthy GWG yet routine weighing was not standard practice for diverse reasons. Management of GWG and perspectives of the issue varied widely. Time efficient and cost effective interventions may assist GPs in ensuring women are supported in achieving healthy GWG to provide optimal maternal and infant health outcomes.<br /

Protocol for a randomized controlled trial of a specialized health coaching intervention to prevent excessive gestational weight gain and postpartum weight retention in women: the HIPP study

BackgroundPregnancy is a time of significant physiological and physical change for women. In particular, it is a time at which many women are at risk of gaining excessive weight. We describe the rationale and methods of the Health in Pregnancy and Post-birth (HIPP) Study, a study which aims primarily to determine the effectiveness of a specialized health coaching (HC) intervention during pregnancy, compared to education alone, in preventing excessive gestational weight gain and postpartum weight retention 12 months post birth. A secondary aim of this study is to evaluate the mechanisms by which our HC intervention impacts on weight management both during pregnancy and post birth.Methods/DesignThe randomized controlled trial will be conducted with 220 women who have a BMI &gt; 18.5 (American IOM cut-off for normal weight), are 18 years of age or older, English speaking, no history of disordered eating or diabetes and are less than 18 weeks gestation at recruitment. Women will be randomly allocated to either a specialized HC intervention group or an Education Alone group. Our specialized HC intervention has two components: (1) one-on-one sessions with a Health Coach, and (2) two by two hour educational group sessions led by a Health Coach. Women in the Education Alone group will receive two by two hour educational group sessions with no HC components. Body Mass Index, waist circumference, and psychological factors including motivation, readiness to change, symptoms of depression and anxiety, and body dissatisfaction will be assessed at baseline (14-16 weeks gestation), and again at follow-up: 32 weeks gestation, 6 weeks, 6 months and 12 months postpartum.DiscussionOur study responds to the urgent need to design effective interventions in pregnancy to prevent excessive gestational weight gain and postpartum weight retention. Our pregnancy HC intervention is novel and innovative and has been designed to be easily adopted by health professionals who work with pregnant women, such as obstetricians, midwives, allied health professionals and health psychologists. <br /

Chronic kidney disease-associated pruritus: impact on quality of life and current management challenges

Shayan Shirazian,1 Olufemi Aina,1 Youngjun Park,1 Nawsheen Chowdhury,1 Kathleen Leger,1 Linle Hou,1 Nobuyuki Miyawaki,1 Vandana S Mathur2 1Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, Winthrop University Hospital, Mineola, NY; 2Mathur Consulting, Woodside, CA, USA Abstract: Chronic kidney disease-associated pruritus (CKD-aP) is a distressing, often overlooked condition in patients with CKD and end-stage renal disease. It affects ~40% of patients with end-stage renal disease and has been associated with poor quality of life, poor sleep, depression, and mortality. Prevalence estimates vary based on the instruments used to diagnose CKD-aP, and standardized diagnostic instruments are sorely needed. Treatment studies have often yielded conflicting results. This is likely related to studies that are limited by small sample size, flawed designs, and nonstandardized diagnostic instruments. Several large well-designed treatment trials have recently been completed and may soon influence CKD-aP management. Keywords: pruritus, chronic kidney disease, uremia, end-stage renal disease, itching, depressio