Glycaemic control in labour with diabetes: GILD, a scoping study.

IF 4 2区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Nia Wyn Jones, Eleanor J Mitchell, Kate F Walker, Susan Ayers, Lucy Bradshaw, Georgina Constantinou, Tasso Gazis, Shalini Ojha, Phoebe Pallotti, Stavros Petrou, Rachel Plachcinski, Michael Rimmer, Liz Schroeder, Jim G Thornton, Natalie Wakefield
{"title":"Glycaemic control in labour with diabetes: GILD, a scoping study.","authors":"Nia Wyn Jones, Eleanor J Mitchell, Kate F Walker, Susan Ayers, Lucy Bradshaw, Georgina Constantinou, Tasso Gazis, Shalini Ojha, Phoebe Pallotti, Stavros Petrou, Rachel Plachcinski, Michael Rimmer, Liz Schroeder, Jim G Thornton, Natalie Wakefield","doi":"10.3310/KHGD2761","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Diabetes in pregnancy is common, affecting 5-10% of pregnant women. Poor glycaemic control in labour is associated with neonatal hypoglycaemia and other adverse outcomes for mother and baby, but tight glucose control is burdensome, intrusive and may not always be necessary. The ideal intrapartum glucose target level is unknown, traditionally 'tight' control (target 4-7 mmol/l) has been recommended; however, this increases the risk of maternal hypoglycaemia.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To determine the feasibility of a randomised clinical trial to compare clinical and cost-effectiveness of permissive versus intensive intrapartum glycaemic control in labour in pregnancies complicated by diabetes.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>A mixed-methods study including audit of clinical guidelines from United Kingdom maternity units, online surveys of women with diabetes and healthcare professionals, service evaluation of intrapartum glycaemic care, Delphi survey and consensus meeting. Data from these work packages led to the design of a clinical trial, and qualitative interviews were held to understand acceptability of the trial.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>National Health Service maternity services and online input from service users.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>Healthcare professionals and women with type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus or gestational diabetes (currently pregnant or having birthed after active labour in past 3 years).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There is significant variation in the recommended frequency of testing for gestational diabetes in labour, technologies used to test glucose levels in labour and administer insulin in type 1 diabetes mellitus, and in how neonatal hypoglycaemia is defined. Of surveyed women, 66% would be willing to participate in a future trial, with 23% unsure without further information. The service evaluation showed that once glucose testing had commenced, it was repeated after 1 hour in 18%, 2 hours in 38% and 4 hours in 45% of women. Neonatal hypoglycaemia was considered the most important neonatal outcome for a future trial, with maternal satisfaction the most important maternal outcome. The incidence of neonatal hypoglycaemia (defined as glucose < 2.6 mmol/l) was 47% in type 1 diabetes mellitus, 45% in type 2 diabetes mellitus and 16% in gestational diabetes mellitus. A non-inferiority trial to compare permissive versus intensive glucose control was designed to include all types of diabetes in an umbrella trial (conduct more than one trial simultaneously). Women and healthcare professionals considered the trial design acceptable and feasible, though noted important considerations in the design and conduct.</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>Glucose levels may be poorly recorded in maternity notes and in practice tested more frequently than the study suggests. Sample sizes in some of the work packages were smaller than our pre-specified target, attrition in the Delphi survey was greater than anticipated and the study was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic impacting results. Willingness to participate in a hypothetical trial might not translate into recruitment to a real trial.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>An umbrella trial using a master protocol was designed to compare tight glycaemic control (standard care) with more permissive control in all types of diabetes. Such a trial is feasible and acceptable to women with lived experience of diabetes during pregnancy and by the women and healthcare professionals who took part in qualitative interviews.</p><p><strong>Future work: </strong>We recommend that a future randomised trial should include an internal pilot phase to test key aspects of trial conduct and clear progression criteria, given the challenges we have identified during this scoping study.</p><p><strong>Study registration: </strong>This study is registered as researchregistry6832.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR130175) and is published in full in <i>Health Technology Assessment</i>; Vol. 29, No. 41. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.</p>","PeriodicalId":12898,"journal":{"name":"Health technology assessment","volume":"29 41","pages":"1-150"},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12376010/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health technology assessment","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3310/KHGD2761","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Diabetes in pregnancy is common, affecting 5-10% of pregnant women. Poor glycaemic control in labour is associated with neonatal hypoglycaemia and other adverse outcomes for mother and baby, but tight glucose control is burdensome, intrusive and may not always be necessary. The ideal intrapartum glucose target level is unknown, traditionally 'tight' control (target 4-7 mmol/l) has been recommended; however, this increases the risk of maternal hypoglycaemia.

Objective: To determine the feasibility of a randomised clinical trial to compare clinical and cost-effectiveness of permissive versus intensive intrapartum glycaemic control in labour in pregnancies complicated by diabetes.

Design: A mixed-methods study including audit of clinical guidelines from United Kingdom maternity units, online surveys of women with diabetes and healthcare professionals, service evaluation of intrapartum glycaemic care, Delphi survey and consensus meeting. Data from these work packages led to the design of a clinical trial, and qualitative interviews were held to understand acceptability of the trial.

Setting: National Health Service maternity services and online input from service users.

Participants: Healthcare professionals and women with type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus or gestational diabetes (currently pregnant or having birthed after active labour in past 3 years).

Results: There is significant variation in the recommended frequency of testing for gestational diabetes in labour, technologies used to test glucose levels in labour and administer insulin in type 1 diabetes mellitus, and in how neonatal hypoglycaemia is defined. Of surveyed women, 66% would be willing to participate in a future trial, with 23% unsure without further information. The service evaluation showed that once glucose testing had commenced, it was repeated after 1 hour in 18%, 2 hours in 38% and 4 hours in 45% of women. Neonatal hypoglycaemia was considered the most important neonatal outcome for a future trial, with maternal satisfaction the most important maternal outcome. The incidence of neonatal hypoglycaemia (defined as glucose < 2.6 mmol/l) was 47% in type 1 diabetes mellitus, 45% in type 2 diabetes mellitus and 16% in gestational diabetes mellitus. A non-inferiority trial to compare permissive versus intensive glucose control was designed to include all types of diabetes in an umbrella trial (conduct more than one trial simultaneously). Women and healthcare professionals considered the trial design acceptable and feasible, though noted important considerations in the design and conduct.

Limitations: Glucose levels may be poorly recorded in maternity notes and in practice tested more frequently than the study suggests. Sample sizes in some of the work packages were smaller than our pre-specified target, attrition in the Delphi survey was greater than anticipated and the study was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic impacting results. Willingness to participate in a hypothetical trial might not translate into recruitment to a real trial.

Conclusions: An umbrella trial using a master protocol was designed to compare tight glycaemic control (standard care) with more permissive control in all types of diabetes. Such a trial is feasible and acceptable to women with lived experience of diabetes during pregnancy and by the women and healthcare professionals who took part in qualitative interviews.

Future work: We recommend that a future randomised trial should include an internal pilot phase to test key aspects of trial conduct and clear progression criteria, given the challenges we have identified during this scoping study.

Study registration: This study is registered as researchregistry6832.

Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR130175) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 29, No. 41. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

糖尿病分娩中的血糖控制:GILD,一项范围研究。
背景:妊娠期糖尿病很常见,影响5-10%的孕妇。产程血糖控制不良与新生儿低血糖和母婴其他不良结局有关,但严格的血糖控制是繁重的,侵入性的,可能并不总是必要的。理想的产时血糖目标水平是未知的,传统上建议“严格”控制(目标4-7毫摩尔/升);然而,这增加了产妇低血糖的风险。目的:确定一项随机临床试验的可行性,以比较糖尿病合并妊娠分娩时放任与强化产时血糖控制的临床和成本效益。设计:一项混合方法研究,包括对英国妇产单位临床指南的审核,对糖尿病妇女和医疗保健专业人员的在线调查,对分娩时血糖护理的服务评估,德尔菲调查和共识会议。来自这些工作包的数据导致了临床试验的设计,并进行了定性访谈以了解试验的可接受性。背景:国民保健服务的生育服务和服务用户的在线输入。参与者:医疗保健专业人员和患有1型或2型糖尿病或妊娠期糖尿病的妇女(目前怀孕或在过去3年内产程后分娩)。结果:在产程妊娠糖尿病的推荐检测频率、用于产程血糖水平检测和1型糖尿病患者胰岛素使用的技术以及如何定义新生儿低血糖方面存在显著差异。在接受调查的女性中,66%的人愿意参加未来的试验,23%的人在没有进一步信息的情况下不确定。服务评估显示,一旦开始葡萄糖检测,18%的女性在1小时后重复检测,38%的女性在2小时后重复检测,45%的女性在4小时后重复检测。新生儿低血糖被认为是未来试验中最重要的新生儿结局,而产妇满意度是最重要的产妇结局。新生儿低血糖的发生率(定义为葡萄糖限制):产褥单上的血糖水平可能记录得很差,而且实际检测的频率比研究表明的要高。一些工作包的样本量小于我们预先指定的目标,德尔菲调查的损耗率大于预期,并且该研究是在COVID-19大流行影响结果期间进行的。愿意参加一个假设的试验可能不会转化为招募到一个真正的试验。结论:一项使用主方案的伞形试验旨在比较所有类型糖尿病的严格血糖控制(标准护理)和更宽松控制。对于怀孕期间有糖尿病经历的妇女以及参加定性访谈的妇女和保健专业人员来说,这样的试验是可行和可接受的。未来的工作:我们建议未来的随机试验应该包括一个内部试点阶段,以测试试验行为的关键方面和明确的进展标准,考虑到我们在这个范围研究中发现的挑战。研究注册:本研究注册号为researchregistry6832。资助:该奖项由美国国家卫生与保健研究所(NIHR)卫生技术评估计划(NIHR奖励编号:NIHR130175)资助,全文发表在《卫生技术评估》上;第29卷,第41期有关进一步的奖励信息,请参阅美国国立卫生研究院资助和奖励网站。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Health technology assessment
Health technology assessment 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
94
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Health Technology Assessment (HTA) publishes research information on the effectiveness, costs and broader impact of health technologies for those who use, manage and provide care in the NHS.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信