TY - JOUR
T1 - Continuous glucose monitoring during diabetic pregnancy (GlucoMOMS)
T2 - A multicentre randomized controlled trial
AU - Voormolen, Daphne N.
AU - DeVries, J. Hans
AU - Sanson, Rieneke M.E.
AU - Heringa, Martijn P.
AU - de Valk, Harold W.
AU - Kok, Marjolein
AU - van Loon, Aren J.
AU - Hoogenberg, Klaas
AU - Bekedam, Dick J.
AU - Brouwer, Teri C.B.
AU - Porath, Martina
AU - Erdtsieck, Ronald J.
AU - NijBijvank, Bas
AU - Kip, Huib
AU - van der Heijden, Olivier W.H.
AU - Elving, Lammy D.
AU - Hermsen, Brenda B.
AU - Potter van Loon, B. J.
AU - Rijnders, Robert J.P.
AU - Jansen, Henry J.
AU - Langenveld, Josje
AU - Akerboom, Bettina M.C.
AU - Kiewiet, Rosalie M.
AU - Naaktgeboren, Christiana A.
AU - Mol, Ben W.J.
AU - Franx, Arie
AU - Evers, Inge M.
N1 - The study was funded by ZonMw, the Dutch Organization for Health Research and Development, project number 80-82310-97-11157.
PY - 2018/8
Y1 - 2018/8
N2 - Aim: Diabetes is associated with a high risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes. Optimal glycaemic control is fundamental and is traditionally monitored with self-measured glucose profiles and periodic HbA1c measurements. We investigated the effectiveness of additional use of retrospective continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in diabetic pregnancies. Material and methods: We performed a nationwide multicentre, open label, randomized, controlled trial to study pregnant women with type 1 or type 2 diabetes who were undergoing insulin therapy at gestational age < 16 weeks, or women who were undergoing insulin treatment for gestational diabetes at gestational age < 30 weeks. Women were randomly allocated (1:1) to intermittent use of retrospective CGM or to standard treatment. Glycaemic control was assessed by CGM for 5-7 days every 6 weeks in the CGM group, while self-monitoring of blood glucose and HbA1c measurements were applied in both groups. Primary outcome was macrosomia, defined as birth weight above the 90th percentile. Secondary outcomes were glycaemic control and maternal and neonatal complications. Results: Between July 2011 and September 2015, we randomized 300 pregnant women with type 1 (n = 109), type 2 (n = 82) or with gestational (n = 109) diabetes to either CGM (n = 147) or standard treatment (n = 153). The incidence of macrosomia was 31.0% in the CGM group and 28.4% in the standard treatment group (relative risk [RR], 1.06; 95% CI, 0.83-1.37). HbA1c levels were similar between treatment groups. Conclusions: In diabetic pregnancy, use of intermittent retrospective CGM did not reduce the risk of macrosomia. CGM provides detailed information concerning glycaemic fluctuations but, as a treatment strategy, does not translate into improved pregnancy outcome.
AB - Aim: Diabetes is associated with a high risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes. Optimal glycaemic control is fundamental and is traditionally monitored with self-measured glucose profiles and periodic HbA1c measurements. We investigated the effectiveness of additional use of retrospective continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in diabetic pregnancies. Material and methods: We performed a nationwide multicentre, open label, randomized, controlled trial to study pregnant women with type 1 or type 2 diabetes who were undergoing insulin therapy at gestational age < 16 weeks, or women who were undergoing insulin treatment for gestational diabetes at gestational age < 30 weeks. Women were randomly allocated (1:1) to intermittent use of retrospective CGM or to standard treatment. Glycaemic control was assessed by CGM for 5-7 days every 6 weeks in the CGM group, while self-monitoring of blood glucose and HbA1c measurements were applied in both groups. Primary outcome was macrosomia, defined as birth weight above the 90th percentile. Secondary outcomes were glycaemic control and maternal and neonatal complications. Results: Between July 2011 and September 2015, we randomized 300 pregnant women with type 1 (n = 109), type 2 (n = 82) or with gestational (n = 109) diabetes to either CGM (n = 147) or standard treatment (n = 153). The incidence of macrosomia was 31.0% in the CGM group and 28.4% in the standard treatment group (relative risk [RR], 1.06; 95% CI, 0.83-1.37). HbA1c levels were similar between treatment groups. Conclusions: In diabetic pregnancy, use of intermittent retrospective CGM did not reduce the risk of macrosomia. CGM provides detailed information concerning glycaemic fluctuations but, as a treatment strategy, does not translate into improved pregnancy outcome.
KW - CGM
KW - diabetes
KW - macrosomia
KW - pregnancy
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85049790252&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1111/dom.13310
DO - 10.1111/dom.13310
M3 - Article
C2 - 29603547
AN - SCOPUS:85049790252
SN - 1462-8902
VL - 20
SP - 1894
EP - 1902
JO - Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism
JF - Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism
IS - 8
ER -