Cargando…

Effects of treatment in women with gestational diabetes mellitus: systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective To summarise the benefits and harms of treatments for women with gestational diabetes mellitus. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Data sources Embase, Medline, AMED, BIOSIS, CCMed, CDMS, CDSR, CENTRAL, CINAHL, DARE, HTA, NHS EED, Heclinet, SciSearc...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Horvath, Karl, Koch, Klaus, Jeitler, Klaus, Matyas, Eva, Bender, Ralf, Bastian, Hilda, Lange, Stefan, Siebenhofer, Andrea
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. 2010
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2848718/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20360215
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c1395
_version_ 1782179711335530496
author Horvath, Karl
Koch, Klaus
Jeitler, Klaus
Matyas, Eva
Bender, Ralf
Bastian, Hilda
Lange, Stefan
Siebenhofer, Andrea
author_facet Horvath, Karl
Koch, Klaus
Jeitler, Klaus
Matyas, Eva
Bender, Ralf
Bastian, Hilda
Lange, Stefan
Siebenhofer, Andrea
author_sort Horvath, Karl
collection PubMed
description Objective To summarise the benefits and harms of treatments for women with gestational diabetes mellitus. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Data sources Embase, Medline, AMED, BIOSIS, CCMed, CDMS, CDSR, CENTRAL, CINAHL, DARE, HTA, NHS EED, Heclinet, SciSearch, several publishers’ databases, and reference lists of relevant secondary literature up to October 2009. Review methods Included studies were randomised controlled trials of specific treatment for gestational diabetes compared with usual care or “intensified” compared with “less intensified” specific treatment. Results Five randomised controlled trials matched the inclusion criteria for specific versus usual treatment. All studies used a two step approach with a 50 g glucose challenge test or screening for risk factors, or both, and a subsequent 75 g or 100 g oral glucose tolerance test. Meta-analyses did not show significant differences for most single end points judged to be of direct clinical importance. In women specifically treated for gestational diabetes, shoulder dystocia was significantly less common (odds ratio 0.40, 95% confidence interval 0.21 to 0.75), and one randomised controlled trial reported a significant reduction of pre-eclampsia (2.5 v 5.5%, P=0.02). For the surrogate end point of large for gestational age infants, the odds ratio was 0.48 (0.38 to 0.62). In the 13 randomised controlled trials of different intensities of specific treatments, meta-analysis showed a significant reduction of shoulder dystocia in women with more intensive treatment (0.31, 0.14 to 0.70). Conclusions Treatment for gestational diabetes, consisting of treatment to lower blood glucose concentration alone or with special obstetric care, seems to lower the risk for some perinatal complications. Decisions regarding treatment should take into account that the evidence of benefit is derived from trials for which women were selected with a two step strategy (glucose challenge test/screening for risk factors and oral glucose tolerance test).
format Text
id pubmed-2848718
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2010
publisher BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-28487182010-04-26 Effects of treatment in women with gestational diabetes mellitus: systematic review and meta-analysis Horvath, Karl Koch, Klaus Jeitler, Klaus Matyas, Eva Bender, Ralf Bastian, Hilda Lange, Stefan Siebenhofer, Andrea BMJ Research Objective To summarise the benefits and harms of treatments for women with gestational diabetes mellitus. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Data sources Embase, Medline, AMED, BIOSIS, CCMed, CDMS, CDSR, CENTRAL, CINAHL, DARE, HTA, NHS EED, Heclinet, SciSearch, several publishers’ databases, and reference lists of relevant secondary literature up to October 2009. Review methods Included studies were randomised controlled trials of specific treatment for gestational diabetes compared with usual care or “intensified” compared with “less intensified” specific treatment. Results Five randomised controlled trials matched the inclusion criteria for specific versus usual treatment. All studies used a two step approach with a 50 g glucose challenge test or screening for risk factors, or both, and a subsequent 75 g or 100 g oral glucose tolerance test. Meta-analyses did not show significant differences for most single end points judged to be of direct clinical importance. In women specifically treated for gestational diabetes, shoulder dystocia was significantly less common (odds ratio 0.40, 95% confidence interval 0.21 to 0.75), and one randomised controlled trial reported a significant reduction of pre-eclampsia (2.5 v 5.5%, P=0.02). For the surrogate end point of large for gestational age infants, the odds ratio was 0.48 (0.38 to 0.62). In the 13 randomised controlled trials of different intensities of specific treatments, meta-analysis showed a significant reduction of shoulder dystocia in women with more intensive treatment (0.31, 0.14 to 0.70). Conclusions Treatment for gestational diabetes, consisting of treatment to lower blood glucose concentration alone or with special obstetric care, seems to lower the risk for some perinatal complications. Decisions regarding treatment should take into account that the evidence of benefit is derived from trials for which women were selected with a two step strategy (glucose challenge test/screening for risk factors and oral glucose tolerance test). BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. 2010-04-01 /pmc/articles/PMC2848718/ /pubmed/20360215 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c1395 Text en © Horvath et al 2010 This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial License, which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non commercial and is otherwise in compliance with the license. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/ and http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/legalcode.
spellingShingle Research
Horvath, Karl
Koch, Klaus
Jeitler, Klaus
Matyas, Eva
Bender, Ralf
Bastian, Hilda
Lange, Stefan
Siebenhofer, Andrea
Effects of treatment in women with gestational diabetes mellitus: systematic review and meta-analysis
title Effects of treatment in women with gestational diabetes mellitus: systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full Effects of treatment in women with gestational diabetes mellitus: systematic review and meta-analysis
title_fullStr Effects of treatment in women with gestational diabetes mellitus: systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Effects of treatment in women with gestational diabetes mellitus: systematic review and meta-analysis
title_short Effects of treatment in women with gestational diabetes mellitus: systematic review and meta-analysis
title_sort effects of treatment in women with gestational diabetes mellitus: systematic review and meta-analysis
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2848718/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20360215
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c1395
work_keys_str_mv AT horvathkarl effectsoftreatmentinwomenwithgestationaldiabetesmellitussystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT kochklaus effectsoftreatmentinwomenwithgestationaldiabetesmellitussystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT jeitlerklaus effectsoftreatmentinwomenwithgestationaldiabetesmellitussystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT matyaseva effectsoftreatmentinwomenwithgestationaldiabetesmellitussystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT benderralf effectsoftreatmentinwomenwithgestationaldiabetesmellitussystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT bastianhilda effectsoftreatmentinwomenwithgestationaldiabetesmellitussystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT langestefan effectsoftreatmentinwomenwithgestationaldiabetesmellitussystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT siebenhoferandrea effectsoftreatmentinwomenwithgestationaldiabetesmellitussystematicreviewandmetaanalysis