These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Continuous glucose monitoring during diabetic pregnancy (GlucoMOMS): A multicentre randomized controlled trial.
    Author: Voormolen DN, DeVries JH, Sanson RME, Heringa MP, de Valk HW, Kok M, van Loon AJ, Hoogenberg K, Bekedam DJ, Brouwer TCB, Porath M, Erdtsieck RJ, NijBijvank B, Kip H, van der Heijden OWH, Elving LD, Hermsen BB, Potter van Loon BJ, Rijnders RJP, Jansen HJ, Langenveld J, Akerboom BMC, Kiewiet RM, Naaktgeboren CA, Mol BWJ, Franx A, Evers IM.
    Journal: Diabetes Obes Metab; 2018 Aug; 20(8):1894-1902. PubMed ID: 29603547.
    Abstract:
    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.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]