A controversy exists regarding the time to monitor blood glucose in the diabetic pregnancy (60 or 120 minutes after meals). Using a novel approach that provides continuous measurement of blood glucose, we sought to determine postprandial glucose profile in the diabetic pregnancy.Subjects were connected to a continuous glucose monitoring system for 72 consecutive hours. A continuous glucose monitoring system measures the interstitial glucose levels in subcutaneous tissue every 5 minutes. Women were instructed to record the time of each meal during the study period. For each meal, the first 240 minutes were analyzed.Sixty-five women participated in the study: 26 women were treated by diet alone; 19 women received insulin therapy, and 20 women had type 1 diabetes mellitus. The time interval from meal to peak postprandial glucose levels was similar in all the evaluated types of diabetic pregnancies and in good and poor control insulin-treated patients with gestational diabetes mellitus (approximately 90 minutes). Failure to return to preprandial glucose values within a 3-hour observation period was identified in approximately 50% of the patients. A similar postprandial glucose peak time was obtained for breakfast, lunch, and dinner in all study groups. Postprandial hypoglycemia events were noted in approximately 10% of the meals and occurred about 160 minutes after mealtime.The time interval for postprandial glucose peak in diabetic pregnancies is approximately 90 minutes after meals throughout the day and is not affected by the level of glycemic control. This information should be considered in the treatment of diabetes mellitus in pregnancy.

Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) provides far greater detail about fetal exposure to maternal glucose across the 24-h day. Our aim was to examine the role of temporal glucose variation on the development of large for gestational age (LGA) infants in women with treated gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM).We performed a prospective observational study of 162 pregnant women with GDM in specialist multidisciplinary antenatal diabetes clinics. Participants undertook 7-day masked CGM at 30-32 weeks' gestation. Standard summary indices and glycemic variability measures of CGM were calculated. Functional data analysis was applied to determine differences in temporal glucose profiles. LGA was defined as birth weight ≥90th percentile adjusted for infant sex, gestational age, maternal BMI, ethnicity, and parity.Mean glucose was significantly higher in women who delivered an LGA infant (6.2 vs. 5.8 mmol/L, = 0.025, or 111.6 mg/dL vs. 104.4 mg/dL). There were no significant differences in percentage time in, above, or below the target glucose range or in glucose variability measures (all > 0.05). Functional data analysis revealed that the higher mean glucose was driven by a significantly higher glucose for 6 h overnight (0030-0630 h) in mothers of LGA infants (6.0 ± 1.0 mmol/L vs. 5.5 ± 0.8 mmol/L, = 0.005, and 108.0 ± 18.0 mg/dL vs. 99.0 ± 14.4 mg/dL).Mothers of LGA infants run significantly higher glucose overnight compared with mothers without LGA infants. Detecting and addressing nocturnal glucose control may help to further reduce rates of LGA in women with GDM.© 2019 by the American Diabetes Association.

Background: Women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) are required to control their blood glucose shortly after GDM diagnosis to minimize adverse pregnancy outcomes. A real time-continuous glucose monitoring system (RT-CGMS) provides the patient with continuous information about the alterations in levels of the blood glucose. This visibility may empower the patient to modify her lifestyle and engage in therapeutic management. The aim of this study was to determine whether a single application of RT-CGMS to pregnant women shortly after GDM diagnosis is useful as an educational and motivational tool. Methods: This study was a prospective open label randomized controlled study conducted at Maternity and Children Hospital, Medina, Saudi Arabia. A total of 130 pregnant women with GDM were randomised to either blood glucose self-monitor alone (SMBG group) (n = 62) or in addition to SMBG, patients wore a Guardian (R) REAL-Time Continuous Glucose Monitoring System (Medtronic MiniMed) once for 3-7 days, within 2 weeks of GDM diagnosis (RT-CGMS group) (n = 68). The primary outcomes were maternal glycemic control and pregnancy outcomes. Secondary outcomes were the changes in parameters of glucose variability, which includes mean sensor readings, standard deviation (SD) of blood glucose, and area under the curve for hyper and hypoglycaemia at the end of the RT-CGMS application. Results: HbA1c, mean fasting and postprandial glucose levels were similar in both groups at the end of the pregnancy. Pregnancy outcomes were comparable. However, there was significant improvement in the parameters of glucose variability on the last day of sensor application; both mean glucose and the SD of mean glycaemia were reduced significantly; P = 0.016 and P = 0.034, respectively. The area under the curve for hyper and hypoglycaemia were improved, however, the results were not statistically significant. Conclusion: Although a single application of RT-CGMS shortly after GDM diagnosis is helpful as an educational tool, it was not associated with improvement in glycemic control or pregnancy outcomes.

Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is the most common type of hyperglycaemia in pregnancy. GDM is a risk factor of adverse perinatal outcomes, with the incidence rate increasing proportionally to the level of maternal dysglycaemia. Therefore, glycaemic control plays an important role in management of GDM. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of flash glucose monitoring (FGM) in GDM.This was a non-blinded, randomised controlled trial, that recruited 100 pregnant women diagnosed with GDM between 24 and 28 weeks of gestation at the 1st Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Medical University of Warsaw. After meeting the inclusion criteria patients were randomly allocated to the study group (FGM, n = 50) or control group (self-monitoring of blood glucose-SMBG, n = 50). Clinical and laboratory results were assessed at four follow-up visits. The primary outcome was mean fasting and postprandial glycaemia. The secondary outcomes were perinatal outcomes.There was no significant difference in mean glycaemia between the groups (p = 0.437) Compared to the control group, the study group significantly reduced their fasting (p = 0.027) and postprandial glycaemia (p = 0.034) during the first 4 weeks following GDM diagnosis, with no significant difference in progression to insulin therapy (OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.47-2.57). Incidence of fetal macrosomia was significantly higher in SMBG as compared to FGM group (OR 5.63, 95% CI 1.16-27.22).Study results indicate that FGM has an impact on glycaemic control, dietary habits and incidence of fetal macrosomia in patients with GDM. Trial registration clinicaltrials.gov ID: NCT04422821.© 2023. The Author(s).

To determine if therapeutic, retrospective continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) improves HbA1c with less hypoglycaemia in women with insulin‐treated gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM).

Clinical evidence on the consequential effects of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) on pregnancy outcomes in women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is scarcely available.Our objective was to evaluate the effectiveness of CGM on maternal glycemic control and pregnancy outcomes in patients with GDM.In total, 340 Chinese pregnant women with GDM were allocated to either the routine care group (n = 190) or the CGM group (n =150).This was a prospective cohort study in the Department of Obstetrics of GuangDong Women and Children Hospital in China. Recruitment started in April 2011 and stopped in August 2012.A 72-hour CGM system was used as a supplementary tool for glucose monitoring in the CGM group. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: The parameters of glycemic variability included mean blood glucose, the SD of blood glucose, mean amplitude of glycemic excursions (MAGEs), and the mean of daily differences. The maternal outcomes (preeclampsia and cesarean delivery) and composite neonatal outcomes were analyzed.The SD of blood glucose, MAGEs, and mean of daily differences values were significantly lower in the CGM group compared with those of the routine care group (P <.001). Subjects in the CGM group were at lower risk of preeclampsia and primary cesarean delivery compared with the routine care group (P <.05). The mean infant birth weight of women in the CGM group was lower than infants of women in the routine care group (P <.001). The MAGE was associated with birth weight (β = 0.196, P <.001), and it was an independent factor for preeclampsia (odds ratio, 3.66; 95% confidence interval 2.16-6.20) and composite neonatal outcome (odds ratio, 1.34; 95% confidence interval 1.01-1.77).The use of supplementary CGM combined with routine antenatal care can improve the glycemic control and pregnancy outcomes of patients with GDM.

In this study, we sought to investigate the effects of a continuous glucose monitoring system (CGMS) on maternal and neonatal outcomes. A total of 106 women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) in gestational weeks 24-28 were randomly allocated to the antenatal care plus CGMS group or the self-monitoring blood glucose (SMBG) group. The CGMS group was subdivided into early and late subgroups. There were no significant differences in prenatal or obstetric outcomes, e.g., caesarean delivery rate, Apgar score at 5 min, macrosomia or neonatal hypoglycaemia, between the CGMS and SMBG groups. The CGMS group had lower glycated haemoglobin (HbA1C) levels than the SMBG group; however, the difference was not statistically significant. The proportion of GDM women with excessive gestational weight gain was lower in the CGMS group than in the SMBG group (33.3% vs. 56.4%, P = 0.039), and women who initiated CGMS earlier gained less weight (P = 0.017). The mode of blood glucose monitoring (adjusted OR 2.40; 95% CI 1.030-5.588; P = 0.042) and pre-pregnancy BMI (adjusted OR 0.578; 95% CI 0.419-0.798; P = 0.001) were independent factors for weight gain. In conclusion, early CGMS for GDM mothers reduces gestational weight gain. A follow-up study with a large cohort is needed.

Give the high background risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes (APOs), it is important to understand the associations of maternal pre-pregnancy body mass index (ppBMI), gestational weight gain (GWG) with APOs in women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). We addressed the independent and joint associations of maternal ppBMI and GWG with APOs in Chinese women with GDM.

This study evaluated the effect of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) versus self-monitored blood glucose (SMGB) in gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) with hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) &lt;6%.

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.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.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.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.© 2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Measurement of glycated hemoglobin (HbA) has been the traditional method for assessing glycemic control. However, it does not reflect intra- and interday glycemic excursions that may lead to acute events (such as hypoglycemia) or postprandial hyperglycemia, which have been linked to both microvascular and macrovascular complications. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), either from real-time use (rtCGM) or intermittently viewed (iCGM), addresses many of the limitations inherent in HbA testing and self-monitoring of blood glucose. Although both provide the means to move beyond the HbA measurement as the sole marker of glycemic control, standardized metrics for analyzing CGM data are lacking. Moreover, clear criteria for matching people with diabetes to the most appropriate glucose monitoring methodologies, as well as standardized advice about how best to use the new information they provide, have yet to be established. In February 2017, the Advanced Technologies & Treatments for Diabetes (ATTD) Congress convened an international panel of physicians, researchers, and individuals with diabetes who are expert in CGM technologies to address these issues. This article summarizes the ATTD consensus recommendations and represents the current understanding of how CGM results can affect outcomes.© 2017 by the American Diabetes Association.

\n Objective Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) has become available for women with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) or gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) during pregnancy. The recommended time in range (TIR, blood glucose 70–140 mg/dL) and its correlation with adverse pregnancy outcomes in this group is unknown. Our aim was to compare maternal and neonatal outcomes in pregnant people with T2DM or GDM with average CGM TIR values >70 versus ≤70%.

Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) could detect certain patterns of hyperglycemia at different times of the day that may help predict the development of maternal-fetal complications and the probability of needing pharmacological treatment.

To investigate the association between continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) metrics and perinatal outcomes in insulin‐treated diabetes mellitus in pregnancy.

Pregnant women with type 1 diabetes are a high-risk population who are recommended to strive for optimal glucose control, but neonatal outcomes attributed to maternal hyperglycaemia remain suboptimal. Our aim was to examine the effectiveness of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) on maternal glucose control and obstetric and neonatal health outcomes.In this multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial, we recruited women aged 18-40 years with type 1 diabetes for a minimum of 12 months who were receiving intensive insulin therapy. Participants were pregnant (≤13 weeks and 6 days' gestation) or planning pregnancy from 31 hospitals in Canada, England, Scotland, Spain, Italy, Ireland, and the USA. We ran two trials in parallel for pregnant participants and for participants planning pregnancy. In both trials, participants were randomly assigned to either CGM in addition to capillary glucose monitoring or capillary glucose monitoring alone. Randomisation was stratified by insulin delivery (pump or injections) and baseline glycated haemoglobin (HbA). The primary outcome was change in HbA from randomisation to 34 weeks' gestation in pregnant women and to 24 weeks or conception in women planning pregnancy, and was assessed in all randomised participants with baseline assessments. Secondary outcomes included obstetric and neonatal health outcomes, assessed with all available data without imputation. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01788527.Between March 25, 2013, and March 22, 2016, we randomly assigned 325 women (215 pregnant, 110 planning pregnancy) to capillary glucose monitoring with CGM (108 pregnant and 53 planning pregnancy) or without (107 pregnant and 57 planning pregnancy). We found a small difference in HbA in pregnant women using CGM (mean difference -0·19%; 95% CI -0·34 to -0·03; p=0·0207). Pregnant CGM users spent more time in target (68% vs 61%; p=0·0034) and less time hyperglycaemic (27% vs 32%; p=0·0279) than did pregnant control participants, with comparable severe hypoglycaemia episodes (18 CGM and 21 control) and time spent hypoglycaemic (3% vs 4%; p=0·10). Neonatal health outcomes were significantly improved, with lower incidence of large for gestational age (odds ratio 0·51, 95% CI 0·28 to 0·90; p=0·0210), fewer neonatal intensive care admissions lasting more than 24 h (0·48; 0·26 to 0·86; p=0·0157), fewer incidences of neonatal hypoglycaemia (0·45; 0·22 to 0·89; p=0·0250), and 1-day shorter length of hospital stay (p=0·0091). We found no apparent benefit of CGM in women planning pregnancy. Adverse events occurred in 51 (48%) of CGM participants and 43 (40%) of control participants in the pregnancy trial, and in 12 (27%) of CGM participants and 21 (37%) of control participants in the planning pregnancy trial. Serious adverse events occurred in 13 (6%) participants in the pregnancy trial (eight [7%] CGM, five [5%] control) and in three (3%) participants in the planning pregnancy trial (two [4%] CGM and one [2%] control). The most common adverse events were skin reactions occurring in 49 (48%) of 103 CGM participants and eight (8%) of 104 control participants during pregnancy and in 23 (44%) of 52 CGM participants and five (9%) of 57 control participants in the planning pregnancy trial. The most common serious adverse events were gastrointestinal (nausea and vomiting in four participants during pregnancy and three participants planning pregnancy).Use of CGM during pregnancy in patients with type 1 diabetes is associated with improved neonatal outcomes, which are likely to be attributed to reduced exposure to maternal hyperglycaemia. CGM should be offered to all pregnant women with type 1 diabetes using intensive insulin therapy. This study is the first to indicate potential for improvements in non-glycaemic health outcomes from CGM use.Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, Canadian Clinical Trials Network, and National Institute for Health Research.Copyright © 2017 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.

This study aims to evaluate the impact of using FreeStyle Libre continuous glucose monitoring (FSL-CGM) on maternal glucose control and obstetric and neonatal outcomes among women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM).A total of 3062 women with GDM in gestational weeks 24-28 were enrolled in this study and divided into FSL-CGM and self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) groups according to the method of monitoring blood glucose. Nearest-neighbor matching propensity score matching (PSM) was used to balance covariates at a ratio of 1:2.Compared with the first 6 days during the study period, the index of glycemic variability, such as the mean largest amplitude of glycemic excursions (LAGE), average daily risk range (ADRR) and glucose management indicators (GMI) during the last 6 days were improved (all p < 0.05). The fasting blood glucose before delivery in the FSL-CGM group was lower than that in the SMBG group (p < 0.05). In the normal weight subgroup, the FSL-CGM group had a lower gestational weight gain (GWG) than the SMBG group (p < 0.05). The incidence of neonatal hypoglycemia was higher in the SMBG group than in the FSL-CGM group (p < 0.05).This study demonstrated that FSL-CGM helps reduce maternal glycemic variability and the incidence of neonatal hypoglycemia. Additionally, FSL-CGM may contribute to appropriate gestational weight gain during pregnancy.ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT05003154.© 2025. The Author(s).

We aimed to evaluate the relationship between intrapartum continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and neonatal hypoglycemia (NH) in individuals with diabetes.

Neonatal hypoglycemia is a major source of concern for pediatricians since it has commonly been related to poor neurodevelopmental outcomes. Diagnosis is challenging, considering the different operational thresholds provided by each guideline. Screening of infants at risk plays a crucial role, considering that most hypoglycemic infants show no clinical signs. New opportunities for prevention and treatment are provided by the use of oral dextrose gel. Continuous glucose monitoring systems could be a feasible tool in the next future. Furthermore, there is still limited evidence to underpin the current clinical practice of administering, in case of hypoglycemia, an intravenous "mini-bolus" of 10% dextrose before starting a continuous dextrose infusion. This brief review provides an overview of the latest advances in this field and neurodevelopmental outcomes according to different approaches.   Conclusion: To adequately define if a more permissive approach is risk-free for neurodevelopmental outcomes, more research on continuous glucose monitoring and long-term follow-up is still needed. What is Known: • Neonatal hypoglycemia (NH) is a well-known cause of brain injury that could be prevented to avoid neurodevelopmental impairment. • Diagnosis is challenging, considering the different suggested operational thresholds for NH (<36, <40, <45, <47 or <50 mg/dl). What is New: • A 36 mg/dl threshold seems to be not associated with a worse psychomotor development at 18 months of life when compared to the "traditional" threshold (47 mg/dl). • Further studies on long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes are required before suggesting a more permissive management of NH.© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) “Standards of Care in Diabetes” includes the ADA’s current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, an interprofessional expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA’s clinical practice recommendations and a full list of Professional Practice Committee members, please refer to Introduction and Methodology. Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

To determine the relation between exposure to glycaemia over time and the risk of macrovascular or microvascular complications in patients with type 2 diabetes.Prospective observational study.23 hospital based clinics in England, Scotland, and Northern Ireland.4585 white, Asian Indian, and Afro-Caribbean UKPDS patients, whether randomised or not to treatment, were included in analyses of incidence; of these, 3642 were included in analyses of relative risk.Primary predefined aggregate clinical outcomes: any end point or deaths related to diabetes and all cause mortality. Secondary aggregate outcomes: myocardial infarction, stroke, amputation (including death from peripheral vascular disease), and microvascular disease (predominantly retinal photo-coagulation). Single end points: non-fatal heart failure and cataract extraction. Risk reduction associated with a 1% reduction in updated mean HbA(1c) adjusted for possible confounders at diagnosis of diabetes.The incidence of clinical complications was significantly associated with glycaemia. Each 1% reduction in updated mean HbA(1c) was associated with reductions in risk of 21% for any end point related to diabetes (95% confidence interval 17% to 24%, P<0.0001), 21% for deaths related to diabetes (15% to 27%, P<0.0001), 14% for myocardial infarction (8% to 21%, P<0.0001), and 37% for microvascular complications (33% to 41%, P<0.0001). No threshold of risk was observed for any end point.In patients with type 2 diabetes the risk of diabetic complications was strongly associated with previous hyperglycaemia. Any reduction in HbA(1c) is likely to reduce the risk of complications, with the lowest risk being in those with HbA(1c) values in the normal range (<6.0%).