Cargando…

Maternal and neonatal outcomes with the use of long acting, compared to intermediate acting basal insulin (NPH) for managing diabetes during pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: To assess the impact of long-acting insulin analogues, compared to intermediate acting neutral protamine Hagedron (NPH), on maternal, perinatal and neonatal outcomes. METHODS: Studies for inclusion in the review were identified using a structured search strategy in PubMed, Scopus and Coc...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Wang, Jijiao, Ji, Xiaochen, Liu, Ting, Zhao, Nan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9585834/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36271431
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13098-022-00925-7
_version_ 1784813579213471744
author Wang, Jijiao
Ji, Xiaochen
Liu, Ting
Zhao, Nan
author_facet Wang, Jijiao
Ji, Xiaochen
Liu, Ting
Zhao, Nan
author_sort Wang, Jijiao
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: To assess the impact of long-acting insulin analogues, compared to intermediate acting neutral protamine Hagedron (NPH), on maternal, perinatal and neonatal outcomes. METHODS: Studies for inclusion in the review were identified using a structured search strategy in PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) database. Studies that were randomized controlled trials or observational in design were considered for inclusion. Eligible studies should have compared the maternal, perinatal and neonatal outcomes between pregnant women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) managed by intermediate acting (NPH) and by long-acting insulin analogues. Statistical analysis was performed using STATA software. RESULTS: We found 17 studies to be eligible for inclusion. The mean gestational weight gain and risk of maternal hypoglycaemia, hypertensive disorder, caesarean delivery, spontaneous abortion, endometritis and wound infection or dehiscence were similar among pregnant women with GDM managed using long-acting insulin analogues and NPH. Those receiving long-acting insulin analogues had significantly lower HbA1c values in the second (WMD − .09, 95% CI 0.12, − 0.06; N = 4) and third trimester (WMD − 0.08, 95% CI − 0.14, − 0.02; N = 12). The mean gestational age and birth weight and risk of perinatal mortality, prematurity, large for gestational age, small for gestational age, shoulder dystocia and congenital abnormalities was similar among babies in both groups. No statistically significant differences in risk of admission to neonatal intensive care unit, respiratory distress, neonatal hypoglycaemia, 5 min APGAR score of < 7, neonatal hyperbilirubinemia and sepsis was observed. The quality of pooled evidence, as per GRADE criteria, was judged to be “very low” for all the maternal and neonatal outcomes considered. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest no significant differences in the maternal, perinatal and neonatal outcomes between intermediate and long-acting insulin analogues. The results provide support for use of long-acting insulin analogues in women with GDM. However, evidence is still needed from high quality randomized controlled trials to arrive at a recommendation for inclusion in routine clinical care. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13098-022-00925-7.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9585834
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-95858342022-10-22 Maternal and neonatal outcomes with the use of long acting, compared to intermediate acting basal insulin (NPH) for managing diabetes during pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis Wang, Jijiao Ji, Xiaochen Liu, Ting Zhao, Nan Diabetol Metab Syndr Review BACKGROUND: To assess the impact of long-acting insulin analogues, compared to intermediate acting neutral protamine Hagedron (NPH), on maternal, perinatal and neonatal outcomes. METHODS: Studies for inclusion in the review were identified using a structured search strategy in PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) database. Studies that were randomized controlled trials or observational in design were considered for inclusion. Eligible studies should have compared the maternal, perinatal and neonatal outcomes between pregnant women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) managed by intermediate acting (NPH) and by long-acting insulin analogues. Statistical analysis was performed using STATA software. RESULTS: We found 17 studies to be eligible for inclusion. The mean gestational weight gain and risk of maternal hypoglycaemia, hypertensive disorder, caesarean delivery, spontaneous abortion, endometritis and wound infection or dehiscence were similar among pregnant women with GDM managed using long-acting insulin analogues and NPH. Those receiving long-acting insulin analogues had significantly lower HbA1c values in the second (WMD − .09, 95% CI 0.12, − 0.06; N = 4) and third trimester (WMD − 0.08, 95% CI − 0.14, − 0.02; N = 12). The mean gestational age and birth weight and risk of perinatal mortality, prematurity, large for gestational age, small for gestational age, shoulder dystocia and congenital abnormalities was similar among babies in both groups. No statistically significant differences in risk of admission to neonatal intensive care unit, respiratory distress, neonatal hypoglycaemia, 5 min APGAR score of < 7, neonatal hyperbilirubinemia and sepsis was observed. The quality of pooled evidence, as per GRADE criteria, was judged to be “very low” for all the maternal and neonatal outcomes considered. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest no significant differences in the maternal, perinatal and neonatal outcomes between intermediate and long-acting insulin analogues. The results provide support for use of long-acting insulin analogues in women with GDM. However, evidence is still needed from high quality randomized controlled trials to arrive at a recommendation for inclusion in routine clinical care. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13098-022-00925-7. BioMed Central 2022-10-21 /pmc/articles/PMC9585834/ /pubmed/36271431 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13098-022-00925-7 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Review
Wang, Jijiao
Ji, Xiaochen
Liu, Ting
Zhao, Nan
Maternal and neonatal outcomes with the use of long acting, compared to intermediate acting basal insulin (NPH) for managing diabetes during pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title Maternal and neonatal outcomes with the use of long acting, compared to intermediate acting basal insulin (NPH) for managing diabetes during pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full Maternal and neonatal outcomes with the use of long acting, compared to intermediate acting basal insulin (NPH) for managing diabetes during pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_fullStr Maternal and neonatal outcomes with the use of long acting, compared to intermediate acting basal insulin (NPH) for managing diabetes during pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Maternal and neonatal outcomes with the use of long acting, compared to intermediate acting basal insulin (NPH) for managing diabetes during pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_short Maternal and neonatal outcomes with the use of long acting, compared to intermediate acting basal insulin (NPH) for managing diabetes during pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_sort maternal and neonatal outcomes with the use of long acting, compared to intermediate acting basal insulin (nph) for managing diabetes during pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9585834/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36271431
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13098-022-00925-7
work_keys_str_mv AT wangjijiao maternalandneonataloutcomeswiththeuseoflongactingcomparedtointermediateactingbasalinsulinnphformanagingdiabetesduringpregnancyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT jixiaochen maternalandneonataloutcomeswiththeuseoflongactingcomparedtointermediateactingbasalinsulinnphformanagingdiabetesduringpregnancyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT liuting maternalandneonataloutcomeswiththeuseoflongactingcomparedtointermediateactingbasalinsulinnphformanagingdiabetesduringpregnancyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT zhaonan maternalandneonataloutcomeswiththeuseoflongactingcomparedtointermediateactingbasalinsulinnphformanagingdiabetesduringpregnancyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis