Despite the well-recognized association between pre-existing diabetes mellitus and stillbirth or perinatal mortality, there remain knowledge gaps about the strength of association across different populations. The primary objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to quantify the association between pre-existing diabetes and stillbirth or perinatal mortality, and secondarily, to identify risk factors predictive of stillbirth or perinatal mortality among those with pre-existing diabetes.

MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to April 2022.

Cohort studies and randomized controlled trials in English or French that examined the association between pre-existing diabetes and stillbirth or perinatal mortality (as defined by the original authors) or identified risk factors for stillbirth and perinatal mortality in individuals with pre-existing diabetes were included. Data extraction was performed independently and in duplicate with the use of prespecified inclusion and exclusion criteria. Assessment for heterogeneity and risk of bias was performed. Meta-analyses were completed with a random-effects model.

From 7,777 citations, 91 studies met the inclusion criteria. Pre-existing diabetes was associated with higher odds of stillbirth (37 studies; pooled odds ratio [OR] 3.74, 95% CI, 3.17-4.41, I2 =82.5%) and perinatal mortality (14 studies; pooled OR 3.22, 95% CI, 2.54-4.07, I2 =82.7%). Individuals with type 1 diabetes had lower odds of stillbirth (pooled OR 0.81, 95% CI, 0.68-0.95, I2 =0%) and perinatal mortality (pooled OR 0.73, 95% CI, 0.61-0.87, I2 =0%) compared with those with type 2 diabetes. Prenatal care and prepregnancy diabetes care were significantly associated with lower odds of stillbirth (OR 0.26, 95% CI, 0.11-0.62, I2 =87.0%) and perinatal mortality (OR 0.41, 95% CI, 0.29-0.59, I2 =0%).

Pre-existing diabetes confers a more than threefold increased odds of both stillbirth and perinatal mortality. Maternal type 2 diabetes was associated with a higher risk of stillbirth and perinatal mortality compared with maternal type 1 diabetes.

PROSPERO, CRD42022303112.

The incidence of Type 2 Diabetes (T2DM) among younger women now accounts for 40% of females with T2DM. Women of reproductive age with T2DM have additional health considerations and their needs may differ from older populations.

The aims were (1) to identify the health issues encountered by women aged 16-45 years living with T2DM; (2) to determine the modifiable risk factors associated with living with diabetes; (3) to specify ideas for interventions to meet age and gender-specific diabetes-related healthcare needs.

A systematic search was performed in the following databases; MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Maternity and Infant Care. Databases were searched without time and study design limits. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool was used to assess the methodological quality of included studies. Data were narratively synthesised due to mixed methods evidence included.

A total of 32 papers were included in the review from which six domains were identified from the synthesis: (1) diabetes related modifiable risk factors: blood glucose, cardiovascular risk, neuropathy/nephropathy/retinopathy, diabetes self-management barriers (2) reproductive health: diabetes care before pregnancy, pre-pregnancy care barriers and expectations of women, contraceptive use (3) psychosocial wellbeing: depression symptoms and diabetes distress, perception of T2DM, emotional concerns about pregnancy (4) sexual function; (5) menopause; (6) sociocultural factors: social support, cultural norms.

This review highlighted specific health issues affecting women of reproductive age with T2DM and which represent an important focus for health services research and health care delivery. Future research needs to address identified health domains to improve women's health and well-being living with T2DM.

The prevalence of diabetes in reproductive age women has been reported to be as high as 6.8%, with pregestational diabetes affecting 2% of all pregnancies. As cases of diabetes in children and adolescents rise, more patients will be entering reproductive age and pregnancy with diagnoses of obesity, prediabetes, type 2 diabetes. Early interventions of diet modification and exercise to maintain healthy weights can delay or even prevent these complications. It is critical for health care providers to emphasize the importance of preconception counseling in this high-risk patient population to reduce the morbidities associated with obesity and diabetes in pregnancy.

Metformin use in pregnancy is controversial because metformin crosses the placenta and the safety on the fetus has not been well-established. This retrospective study aimed to compare pregnancy outcomes in women with preexisting type 2 diabetes receiving metformin or standard insulin treatment.

The cohort of this population-based study includes women of age 20-44 years with preexisting type 2 diabetes and singleton pregnancies in Taiwan between 2003 and 2014. Subjects were classified into three mutually exclusive groups according to glucose-lowering treatments received before and after becoming pregnant: insulin group, switching group (metformin to insulin), and metformin group. A generalized estimating equation model adjusted for patient age, duration of type 2 diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, retinopathy, and aspirin use was used to estimate the adjusted odds ratio (aOR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) of adverse pregnancy outcomes.

A total of 1166 pregnancies were identified in the insulin group (n = 222), the switching group (n = 318) and the metformin group (n = 626). The insulin group and the switching group had similar pregnancy outcomes for both the mother and fetus, including risk of primary cesarean section, pregnancy-related hypertension, preeclampsia, preterm birth (< 37 weeks), very preterm birth (< 32 weeks), low birth weight (< 2500 g), high birth weight (> 4000 g), large for gestational age, and congenital malformations. The metformin group had a lower risk of primary cesarean section (aOR = 0.57; 95% CI, 0.40-0.82) and congenital malformations (aOR, 0.51; 95% CI; 0.27-0.94) and similar risk for the other outcomes as compared with the insulin group.

Metformin therapy was not associated with increased adverse pregnancy outcomes in women with type 2 diabetes as compared with standard insulin therapy.

Stillbirth risk is increased in pregnancy complicated by diabetes. Fear of stillbirth has major influence on obstetric management, particularly timing of delivery. We analysed population-level data from Scotland to describe timing of stillbirths in women with diabetes and associated risk factors.

A retrospective cohort of singleton deliveries to mothers with type 1 (n = 3778) and type 2 diabetes (n = 1614) from 1 April 1998 to 30 June 2016 was analysed using linked routine care datasets. Maternal and fetal characteristics, HbA_1c data and delivery timing were compared between stillborn and liveborn groups.

Stillbirth rates were 16.1 (95% CI 12.4, 20.8) and 22.9 (95% CI 16.4, 31.8) per 1000 births in women with type 1 (n = 61) and type 2 diabetes (n = 37), respectively. In women with type 1 diabetes, higher HbA_1c before pregnancy (OR 1.03 [95% CI 1.01, 1.04]; p = 0.0003) and in later pregnancy (OR 1.06 [95% CI 1.04, 1.08]; p < 0.0001) were associated with stillbirth, while in women with type 2 diabetes, higher maternal BMI (OR 1.07 [95% CI 1.01, 1.14]; p = 0.02) and pre-pregnancy HbA_1c (OR 1.02 [95% CI 1.00, 1.04]; p = 0.016) were associated with stillbirth. Risk was highest in infants with birthweights <10th centile (sixfold higher born to women with type 1 diabetes [n = 5 stillbirths, 67 livebirths]; threefold higher for women with type 2 diabetes [n = 4 stillbirths, 78 livebirths]) compared with those in the 10th-90th centile (n = 20 stillbirths, 1685 livebirths). Risk was twofold higher in infants with birthweights >95th centile born to women with type 2 diabetes (n = 15 stillbirths, 402 livebirths). A high proportion of stillborn infants were male among mothers with type 2 diabetes (81.1% vs 50.5% livebirths, p = 0.0002). A third of stillbirths occurred at term, with highest rates in the 38th week (7.0 [95% CI 3.7, 12.9] per 1000 ongoing pregnancies) among mothers with type 1 diabetes and in the 39th week (9.3 [95% CI 2.4, 29.2]) for type 2 diabetes.

Maternal blood glucose levels and BMI are important modifiable risk factors for stillbirth in diabetes. Babies at extremes of weight centiles are at most risk. Many stillbirths occur at term and could potentially be prevented by change in routine care and delivery policies.

There are a number of ways of monitoring blood glucose in women with diabetes during pregnancy, with self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) recommended as a key component of the management plan. No existing systematic reviews consider the benefits/effectiveness of different techniques of blood glucose monitoring on maternal and infant outcomes among pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes. The effectiveness of the various monitoring techniques is unclear. This review is an update of a review that was first published in 2014 and subsequently updated in 2017.

To compare techniques of blood glucose monitoring and their impact on maternal and infant outcomes among pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes.

For this update, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (1 November 2018), and reference lists of retrieved studies.

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing techniques of blood glucose monitoring including SMBG, continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), automated telemedicine monitoring or clinic monitoring among pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes mellitus (type 1 or type 2). Trials investigating timing and frequency of monitoring were also eligible for inclusion. RCTs using a cluster-randomised design were eligible for inclusion but none were identified.

Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Data were checked for accuracy. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.

This review update includes a total of 12 trials (863) women (792 women with type 1 diabetes and 152 women with type 2 diabetes). The trials took place in Europe, the USA and Canada. Three of the 12 included studies are at low risk of bias, eight studies are at moderate risk of bias, and one study is at high risk of bias. Four trials reported that they were provided with the continuous glucose monitors free of charge or at a reduced cost by the manufacturer.Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) versus intermittent glucose monitoring, (four studies, 609 women)CGM may reduce hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (pre-eclampsia and pregnancy-induced hypertension) (risk ratio (RR) 0.58, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.39 to 0.85; 2 studies, 384 women; low-quality evidence), although it should be noted that only two of the four relevant studies reported data for this composite outcome. Conversely, this did not translate into a clear reduction for pre-eclampsia (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.08; 4 studies, 609 women, moderate-quality evidence). There was also no clear reduction in caesarean section (average RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.18; 3 studies, 427 women; I2 = 41%; moderate-quality evidence) or large-for-gestational age (average RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.26; 3 studies, 421 women; I2 = 70%; low-quality evidence) with CGM. There was not enough evidence to assess perinatal mortality (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.05 to 12.61, 71 infants, 1 study; low-quality evidence), or mortality or morbidity composite (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.06; 1 study, 200 women) as the evidence was based on single studies of low quality. CGM appears to reduce neonatal hypoglycaemia (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.93; 3 studies, 428 infants). Neurosensory disability was not reported.Other methods of glucose monitoringFor the following five comparisons, self-monitoring versus a different type of self-monitoring (two studies, 43 women); self-monitoring at home versus hospitalisation (one study, 100 women), pre-prandial versus post-prandial glucose monitoring (one study, 61 women), automated telemedicine monitoring versus conventional system (three studies, 84 women), and constant CGM versus intermittent CGM (one study, 25 women), it is uncertain whether any of the interventions has any impact on any of our GRADE outcomes (hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, caesarean section, large-for-gestational age) because the quality of the evidence was found to be very low. This was due to evidence largely being derived from single trials, with design limitations and limitations with imprecision (wide CIs, small sample sizes, and few events). There was not enough evidence to assess perinatal mortality and neonatal mortality and morbidity composite. Other important outcomes, such as neurosensory disability, were not reported in any of these comparisons.

Two new studies (406 women) have been incorporated to one of the comparisons for this update. Although the evidence suggests that CGM in comparison to intermittent glucose monitoring may reduce hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, this did not translate into a clear reduction for pre-eclampsia, and so this result should be viewed with caution. No differences were observed for other primary outcomes for this comparison. The evidence base for the effectiveness of other monitoring techniques analysed in the other five comparisons is weak and based on mainly single studies with very low-quality evidence. Additional evidence from large well-designed randomised trials is required to inform choices of other glucose monitoring techniques and to confirm the effectiveness of CGM.

The number of pregnancies in women with pregestational diabetes has been steadily increasing worldwide. These pregnancies are associated with an increased risk of a variety of complications, including miscarriages, congenital malformations, macrosomia, fetal growth restriction, preeclampsia, preterm delivery and stillbirth. In pregnant women with diabetic nephropathy it is important to evaluate both the effect of pregnancy on kidney function and the effect of kidney disease on pregnancy outcomes. Pregnant women with normal renal function and microalbuminuria have a low risk of loss of kidney function during pregnancy, while women with GFR < 60 ml/min and/or proteinuria ≥ 3 g/24 h at the beginning of pregnancy are at risk of permanent kidney damage. The risk of fetal and maternal complications is associated with the severity of chronic kidney disease and glycemic control. Advances in prenatal care have improved fetal and maternal outcomes and preconception counseling has become key for a successful pregnancy in all women with diabetes and especially in those with diabetes and chronic kidney disease.

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.

Our aim was to review the data from the National Pregnancy in Diabetes (NPID) audit, and to identify the challenges and opportunities for improving pregnancy outcomes in women with diabetes. We reviewed three years of NPID data and relevant diabetes and obstetric literature, and found that there has been little change in pregnancy preparation or outcomes over the past 3 years, with substantial clinic-to clinic variations in care. Women with Type 2 diabetes remain less likely to take 5 mg preconception folic acid (22.8% vs. 41.8%; P < 0.05), and more likely to take potentially harmful medications (statin and/or ACE inhibitor 13.0% vs. 1.8%; P < 0.05) than women with Type 1 diabetes. However, women with Type 1 diabetes are less likely to achieve the recommended glucose control target of HbA_1c < 48 mmol/mol (6.5%) (14.9% vs. 38.1%; P < 0.05). The following opportunities for improvement were identified. First, the need to integrate reproductive health into the diabetes care plans of all women with diabetes aged 15-50 years. Second, to develop more innovative approaches to improve uptake of pre-pregnancy care in women with Type 2 diabetes in primary care settings. Third, to integrate insulin pump, continuous glucose monitoring and automated insulin delivery technologies into the pre-pregnancy and antenatal care of women with Type 1 diabetes. Fourth, to improve postnatal care with personalized approaches targeting women with previous pregnancy loss, congenital anomaly and perinatal mortality. A nationwide commitment to delivering integrated reproductive and diabetes healthcare interventions is needed to improve the health outcomes of women with diabetes.

Self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) is recommended as a key component of the management plan for diabetes therapy during pregnancy. No existing systematic reviews consider the benefits/effectiveness of various techniques of blood glucose monitoring on maternal and infant outcomes among pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes. The effectiveness of the various monitoring techniques is unclear.

To compare techniques of blood glucose monitoring and their impact on maternal and infant outcomes among pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes.

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 November 2016), searched reference lists of retrieved studies and contacted trial authors.

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing techniques of blood glucose monitoring including SMBG, continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) or clinic monitoring among pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes mellitus (type 1 or type 2). Trials investigating timing and frequency of monitoring were also included. RCTs using a cluster-randomised design were eligible for inclusion but none were identified.

Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Data were checked for accuracy. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.

This review update includes at total of 10 trials (538) women (468 women with type 1 diabetes and 70 women with type 2 diabetes). The trials took place in Europe and the USA. Five of the 10 included studies were at moderate risk of bias, four studies were at low to moderate risk of bias, and one study was at high risk of bias. The trials are too small to show differences in important outcomes such as macrosomia, preterm birth, miscarriage or death of baby. Almost all the reported GRADE outcomes were assessed as being very low-quality evidence. This was due to design limitations in the studies, wide confidence intervals, small sample sizes, and few events. In addition, there was high heterogeneity for some outcomes.Various methods of glucose monitoring were compared in the trials. Neither pooled analyses nor individual trial analyses showed any clear advantages of one monitoring technique over another for primary and secondary outcomes. Many important outcomes were not reported.1. Self-monitoring versus standard care (two studies, 43 women): there was no clear difference for caesarean section (risk ratio (RR) 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40 to 1.49; one study, 28 women) or glycaemic control (both very low-quality), and not enough evidence to assess perinatal mortality and neonatal mortality and morbidity composite. Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, large-for-gestational age, neurosensory disability, and preterm birth were not reported in either study.2. Self-monitoring versus hospitalisation (one study, 100 women): there was no clear difference for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (pre-eclampsia and hypertension) (RR 4.26, 95% CI 0.52 to 35.16; very low-quality: RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.08 to 2.22; very low-quality). There was no clear difference in caesarean section or preterm birth less than 37 weeks' gestation (both very low quality), and the sample size was too small to assess perinatal mortality (very low-quality). Large-for-gestational age, mortality or morbidity composite, neurosensory disability and preterm birth less than 34 weeks were not reported.3. Pre-prandial versus post-prandial glucose monitoring (one study, 61 women): there was no clear difference between groups for caesarean section (RR 1.45, 95% CI 0.92 to 2.28; very low-quality), large-for-gestational age (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.85; very low-quality) or glycaemic control (very low-quality). The results for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy: pre-eclampsia and perinatal mortality are not meaningful because these outcomes were too rare to show differences in a small sample (all very low-quality). The study did not report the outcomes mortality or morbidity composite, neurosensory disability or preterm birth.4. Automated telemedicine monitoring versus conventional system (three studies, 84 women): there was no clear difference for caesarean section (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.48; one study, 32 women; very low-quality), and mortality or morbidity composite in the one study that reported these outcomes. There were no clear differences for glycaemic control (very low-quality). No studies reported hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, large-for-gestational age, perinatal mortality (stillbirth and neonatal mortality), neurosensory disability or preterm birth.5.CGM versus intermittent monitoring (two studies, 225 women): there was no clear difference for pre-eclampsia (RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.52 to 3.59; low-quality), caesarean section (average RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.54; I² = 62%; very low-quality) and large-for-gestational age (average RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.92; I² = 82%; very low-quality). Glycaemic control indicated by mean maternal HbA1c was lower for women in the continuous monitoring group (mean difference (MD) -0.60 %, 95% CI -0.91 to -0.29; one study, 71 women; moderate-quality). There was not enough evidence to assess perinatal mortality and there were no clear differences for preterm birth less than 37 weeks' gestation (low-quality). Mortality or morbidity composite, neurosensory disability and preterm birth less than 34 weeks were not reported.6. Constant CGM versus intermittent CGM (one study, 25 women): there was no clear difference between groups for caesarean section (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.79; very low-quality), glycaemic control (mean blood glucose in the 3rd trimester) (MD -0.14 mmol/L, 95% CI -2.00 to 1.72; very low-quality) or preterm birth less than 37 weeks' gestation (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.08 to 15.46; very low-quality). Other primary (hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, large-for-gestational age, perinatal mortality (stillbirth and neonatal mortality), mortality or morbidity composite, and neurosensory disability) or GRADE outcomes (preterm birth less than 34 weeks' gestation) were not reported.

This review found no evidence that any glucose monitoring technique is superior to any other technique among pregnant women with pre-existing type 1 or type 2 diabetes. The evidence base for the effectiveness of monitoring techniques is weak and additional evidence from large well-designed randomised trials is required to inform choices of glucose monitoring techniques.

The establishment of a legal father for children of unmarried parents reflects both high paternity confidence and male willingness to commit to paternal investment. Whether an unmarried man voluntarily acknowledges paternity after a child is born has important consequences for both the mother and child. This paper brings to bear a life history perspective on paternity establishment, noting that men face trade-offs between mating and parental effort and that women will adjust their investment in children based on expected male investment. I predict that paternity establishment will be more likely when the mother has high socioeconomic status, when maternal health is good, and when the child is male, low parity, or a singleton (versus multiple) birth. I further predict that establishment of paternity will be associated with increased maternal investment in offspring, resulting in healthier babies with higher birthweights who are more likely to be breastfed. These predictions are tested using data on 5.4 million births in the United States from 2009 through 2013. Overall the results are consistent with the hypothesis that the trade-offs men face between reproductive and parental investment influence whether men voluntarily acknowledge paternity when a child is born.

To evaluate the effect of regional implementation of a preconception counselling resource into routine diabetes care on pregnancy planning indicators.

A preconception counselling DVD was distributed to women by diabetes care teams and general practices. Subsequently, in a prospective population-based study, pregnancy planning indicators were evaluated. The post-DVD cohort (n=135), including a viewed-DVD subgroup (n=58), were compared with an historical cohort (pre-DVD, n=114). Primary outcome was HbA1c at first diabetes-antenatal visit. Secondary outcomes included preconception folic acid consumption, planned pregnancy and HbA1c recorded in the 6 months preconception.

Mean first visit HbA1c was lower post-DVD vs. pre-DVD: 7.5% vs. 7.8% [58.4 vs. 61.8mmol/mol]; p=0.12), although not statistically significant. 53% and 20% of women with type 1 and 2 diabetes, respectively, viewed the DVD. The viewed-DVD subgroup were significantly more likely to have lower first visit HbA1c: 6.9% vs. 7.8% [52.1 vs. 61.8mmol/mol], P<0.001; planned pregnancy (88% vs. 59%, P<0.001); taken folic acid preconception (81% vs. 43%, P=0.001); and had HbA1c recorded preconception (88% vs. 53%, P<0.001) than the pre-DVD cohort.

Implementation of a preconception counselling resource was associated with improved pregnancy planning indicators. Women with type 2 diabetes are difficult to reach. Greater awareness within primary care of the importance of preconception counselling among this population is needed.

There are no contemporary cohorts examining pregnancy outcomes in women with type 2 diabetes (T2D) in Australia.

To compare pregnancy outcomes in women with and without T2D, and assess effects of body mass index (BMI) and glycaemic control on outcomes.

An historical cohort study was conducted of all singleton births > 20 weeks gestation at a specialist maternity network in Australia from 2010 to 2013. Data were extracted from the Birthing Outcomes System database. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to examine associations between presence of T2D and pregnancy outcomes.

Outcomes for 138 pregnancies with T2D and 27 075 pregnancies in women without diabetes were compared (type 1 diabetes and gestational diabetes excluded). Women with T2D were older and more overweight compared to women without diabetes (P < 0.01). Their babies were born earlier (P < 0.01) with increased risk of large for gestational age (adjusted odds ratio 2.13 (95% CI 1.37-3.32)), hypoglycaemia (4.90 (2.79-8.61)), jaundice (2.58 (1.61-4.13)) and shoulder dystocia (2.72 (1.09-6.78)), but not congenital malformations or perinatal death. Women with T2D had a higher risk of induction (4.03 (2.71-5.99)), caesarean section (2.10 (1.44-3.04)), preterm birth (2.74 (1.78-4.24)) and pre-eclampsia (2.75 (1.49-5.10)). An HbA1c ≥ 6.0% (42 mmol/mol) was associated with increased preterm birth, special care nursery admission, hypoglycaemia and jaundice.

Despite availability of preconception care, good glycaemic control and specialist management, T2D remains associated with increased adverse obstetric and neonatal outcomes. Further research to examine predictors of adverse outcomes may assist in targeted antenatal surveillance and management.

Determine the independent association between time-specific placental growth factor (PIGF)-a marker of placental vasculature-and infant birth weight in offspring of mothers with preexisting type 1 and 2 diabetes.

A total of 150 women were recruited from Joslin Diabetes Center's/Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center's Diabetes in Pregnancy Program. PlGF was measured up to four times during pregnancy. Infant birth weight and covariate data were collected from medical records. Hemoglobin A1c was assessed from drawn blood samples. We used generalized linear and log-binomial models to calculate the change in continuous birth weight, as well as macrosomia for every unit change in time-specific ln-transformed PlGF, respectively. Models were adjusted for potential confounders.

Approximately 75% of women had type 1 diabetes. Third trimester PlGF levels were significantly associated with infant birth weight (r = 0.24, p = 0.02 at 27-34 weeks; r = 0.26, p < 0.009 for 36-40 weeks). After full adjustment, there was a 6.1% and 6.6% increase in birth weight for gestational age percentile for each unit increase in ln-transformed PlGF level at 27-34 weeks and 35-40 weeks, respectively (95% CI for 27-34 weeks gestation: 1.1, 11.0, and 95% CI for 35-40 weeks gestation: 0.7%, 12.5%). We found a statistically significant increased risk of macrosomia among women with higher ln-transformed PlGF levels (RR: 1.72; 95% CI: 1.09, 2.70). Associations were not mediated by hemoglobin A1c.

Third trimester PlGF levels were associated with higher birth weight in women with preexisting diabetes. These findings may provide insight to the pathophysiology of fetal overgrowth in women with diabetes.

Pregnancy in women with type 1 or 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) is associated with an increased risk for complications in both the mother and her fetus. The impact of these complications on modifiable risk factors may substantially improve pregnancy outcomes and reduce malformation rates in children. This is a goal of pregravid preparation (PGP) in this category of patients. The review gives the main points of PGP in patients with types 1 and DM and shows the results of main studies providing evidence for PGP in DM. In particular, by the moment of conception, DM patients should achieve a glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) goal of <6% no later than 4 weeks before conception and during the first trimester of pregnancy, take folic acid in a high dose (at least 4000 µg, or 4 mg, daily), quit tobacco smoking and alcohol use, receive potentially teratogenic drugs, and, if need be, lose weight (the target body mass index of <27 kg/m2).

This study sought to understand the relationship between Type 2 diabetes in pregnancy and previous gestational diabetes (GDM), and determine whether a previous pregnancy with GDM was associated with subsequent better pregnancy planning.

A retrospective review of medical records of women with Type 2 diabetes in pregnancy was conducted at three teaching hospitals to ascertain whether they had earlier GDM, and to determine whether this is associated with differences in measures of pregnancy planning and diabetes management.

Of 172 index pregnancies affected by Type 2 diabetes, in 76 (44%) cases, the mother had a previous history of GDM. Within this cohort, a diagnosis of 'overt diabetes in pregnancy', made on the basis of a GTT result during pregnancy in the WHO diabetic range with persistent diabetes post partum, was more common among women who had previous GDM than women who had not had GDM (20% vs 7%, P = 0.02). Women who previously had GDM did not exhibit a higher incidence of preconception planning or folate supplementation.

It is common for women with Type 2 diabetes in pregnancy to have had GDM previously. The diagnosis of GDM is an opportunity to improve future pregnancy planning and outcomes for women with Type 2 diabetes in pregnancy. This goal is yet to be realized.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate maternal and neonatal outcomes in Korean women with type 1 diabetes and type 2 diabetes.

We performed a retrospective survey of 163 pregnancies in women with type 1 diabetes (n=13) and type 2 diabetes (n=150) treated from 2003 to 2010 at Cheil General Hospital & Women's Healthcare Center, Korea. We compared maternal characteristics as well as maternal and neonatal outcomes between groups.

Differences in glycosylated hemoglobin between type 1 and type 2 diabetes were not significant. Birth weight (3,501±689.6 g vs. 3,366±531.4 g) and rate of major congenital malformations (7.7% vs. 5.6%) were not significantly different. However, women with type 1 diabetes had higher rates of preeclampsia (38.5% vs. 8.2%, P=0.006), large for gestational age (LGA; 46.2% vs. 20.4%, P=0.004), macrosomia (38.5% vs. 13.4%, P=0.032), and admission for neonatal care (41.7% vs. 14.8%, P=0.03) than women with type 2 diabetes.

Maternal and neonatal outcomes for women with type 1 diabetes were poorer than for women with type 2 diabetes, especially preeclampsia, LGA, macrosomia and admission to the neonatal intensive care unit.

Pregnancy in women with type 1 (T1DM) or type 2 diabetes (T2DM) is associated with increased risk. These conditions are managed similarly during pregnancy, and compared directly in analyses, however they affect women of different age, body mass index and ethnicity.

We assess if differences exist in pregnancy outcomes between T1DM and T2DM by comparing them directly and with matched controls. We also analyze the effect of glycemic control on pregnancy outcomes and analyze predictive variables for poor outcome.

We include 323 women with diabetes and 660 glucose-tolerant controls. T2DM women had higher BMI, age and parity with a shorter duration of diabetes and better glycemic control. Preeclampsia occurred more in women with T1DM only. Rates of elective cesarean section were similar between groups but greater than in controls, emergency cesarean section was increased in women with type 1 diabetes. Maternal morbidity in T1DM was double that of matched controls but T2DM was similar to controls. Babies of mothers with diabetes were more likely to be delivered prematurely. Neonatal hypoglycemia occurred more in T1DM than T2DM and contributed to a higher rate of admission to neonatal intensive care for both groups. Adverse neonatal outcomes including stillbirths and congenital abnormalities were seen in both groups but were more common in T1DM pregnancies. HbA1C values at which these poor outcomes occurred differed between T1 and T2DM.

Pregnancy outcomes in T1DM and T2DM are different and occur at different levels of glycemia. This should be considered when planning and managing pregnancy and when counseling women.

To determine the extent of provision of preconception care among women with prepregnancy diabetes or women who develop gestational diabetes compared with women without diabetes and to examine the association between preconception care receipt and diabetes status, adjusting for maternal characteristics.

Data were collected from women who completed the Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System questionnaire in 10 U.S. states (Hawaii, Maryland, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, Ohio, Tennessee, Utah and West Virginia) in the period 2009 to 2010. Weighted, self-reported receipt of preconception care by diabetes status was examined. Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify the association between preconception care receipt and diabetes status.

Overall, 31% of women reported receiving preconception care. Women with prepregnancy diabetes (53%) reported the highest prevalence of preconception care, while women with gestational diabetes and women without diabetes reported a lower prevalence (32 and 31%, respectively). In the adjusted model, there was no difference in reported preconception care receipt between women with gestational diabetes and women without diabetes (odds ratio 1.1, 95% CI 0.9, 1.3), while women with prepregnancy diabetes were significantly more likely to report receipt of preconception care (odds ratio 2.2, 95% CI 1.5, 3.3) than women without diabetes.

Although all women of reproductive age should receive preconception care, it is vital that women with known risk factors, such as those with prepregnancy diabetes and with risk factors for gestational diabetes, are counselled before pregnancy to optimize maternal and infant health outcomes. It is encouraging that women with prepregnancy diabetes report receiving preconception care more often than women on average, but preconception care is still not reaching all women at high risk.

To evaluate fetal growth in relation to gestational weight gain in women with Type 2 diabetes.

A retrospective cohort study of 142 consecutive pregnancies in 28 women of normal weight, 39 overweight women and 75 obese women with Type 2 diabetes (pre-pregnancy BMI < 25, 25-29.9, ≥ 30 kg/m2, respectively). Gestational weight gain was categorized as excessive (exceeding the US Institute of Medicine recommendations) or as non-excessive (within or below the Institute of Medicine recommendations).

Excessive and non-excessive gestational weight gain were seen in 61 (43%) and 81 women (57%) with a median (range) gestational weight gain of 14.3 (9-32) vs. 7.0 (-5-16) kg (P < 0.001), respectively. Infants of women with excessive gestational weight gain were characterized by higher birth weight (3712 vs. 3258 g; P = 0.001), birth weight z-score (1.14 vs. -0.01, P = 0.001) and prevalence of large-for-gestational-age infants (48 vs. 20%; P < 0.001). In normal weight, overweight and obese women with non-excessive gestational weight gain, the median weight gain in the first half of pregnancy was 371, 114 and 81 g/week, and in the second half of pregnancy 483, 427 and 439 g/week, respectively. In multiple linear regression analysis, gestational weight gain was associated with a higher infant birth weight z-score independent of pre-pregnancy BMI, smoking, HbA1c and insulin dose at last visit, ethnicity and parity [β=0.1 (95% CI 0.06-0.14), P < 0.001].

Infant birth weight was almost 0.5 kg higher in women with Type 2 diabetes and excessive gestational weight gain than in women with Type 2 diabetes and non-excessive weight gain.

Maternal diabetes preceding pregnancy may increase the risk of birth defects in the offspring, but not all studies confirm this association, which has shown considerable variation over time, and the effect of having type 1 versus type 2 diabetes is unclear. We conducted a population-based cohort study in the Northern Italy Emilia-Romagna region linking administrative databases with a Birth Defects Registry. From hospital discharge records we identified all diabetic pregnancies during 1997-2010, and a population of non-diabetic parturients matched for age, residence, year and delivery hospital. We collected available information on education, smoking and drug prescriptions, from which we inferred the type of diabetes. We found 62 malformed infants out of 2,269 births among diabetic women, and 162 out of 10,648 births among non-diabetic women. The age-standardized prevalence ratio (PR) of malformation associated with maternal pregestational diabetes was 1.79 (95 % confidence interval 1.34-2.39), a value that varied little by age. Type of diabetes strongly influenced the PR, with higher values related to type 2 diabetic women. Most major subgroups of anomalies had PRs above 1, including cardiovascular, genitourinary, musculoskeletal, and chromosomal abnormalities. There was an unusually high PR for the rare defect 'extra-ribs', but it was based on only two cases. This study indicates that maternal pregestational type 2 diabetes is associated with a higher prevalence of specific birth defects in offspring, whereas for type 1 diabetic mothers, particularly in recent years, the association was unremarkable.

Self-monitoring of blood glucose is recommended as a key component of the management plan for diabetes therapy during pregnancy. No existing systematic reviews consider the benefits/effectiveness of various techniques of blood glucose monitoring on maternal and infant outcomes among pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes. The effectiveness of the various monitoring techniques is unclear.

To compare techniques of blood glucose monitoring and their impact on maternal and infant outcomes among pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes.

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (6 August 2013), searched reference lists of retrieved studies and contacted trial authors.

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing techniques of blood glucose monitoring including self blood glucose monitoring, continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) or clinic monitoring among pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes mellitus (Type 1 or Type 2). Trials investigating timing and frequency of monitoring were also included. Quasi-RCTs and RCTs using a cluster-randomised design were eligible for inclusion but none were identified.

Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Data were checked for accuracy.

The search of the Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register identified 21 trial reports. Following application of eligibility criteria, nine trials were included in this review. The included trials involved a total of 506 women (436 women with Type 1 diabetes and 70 women with Type 2 diabetes). All trials originated from European countries and the USA. None of the studies included women with gestational diabetes. Five of the nine included studies were at moderate risk of bias and four studies were at low to moderate risk of bias. Primary outcomes were maternal glycaemic control (fasting blood glucose and HbA1c) and infant birthweight or macrosomia.Various methods of glucose monitoring were compared in the trials. The following comparisons were included in the review: (1) self-monitoring versus standard care, (2) self-monitoring versus hospitalisation, (3) pre-prandial versus post-prandial glucose monitoring, (4) automated telemedicine monitoring versus conventional system, (5) CGM versus intermittent monitoring and (6) constant CGM versus intermittent CGM.Neither pooled analyses nor individual trial analyses showed any significant advantages of one monitoring technique over another for primary outcomes (maternal glycaemic control and infant birthweight) and secondary outcomes such as gestational age at birth or preterm birth, frequency of neonatal hypoglycaemia, death of baby including stillbirth, and neonatal intensive care admission. Primary outcome data on macrosomia were reported by one trial but at a different cut-off value than that pre-specified for the review. Secondary outcomes such as shoulder dystocia, major and minor anomalies were not reported by any of the trials.

This review found no evidence that any glucose monitoring technique is superior to any other technique among pregnant women with pre-existing Type 1 or Type 2 diabetes. The evidence base for the effectiveness of monitoring techniques is weak and additional evidence from large well-designed randomised trials is required to inform choices of glucose monitoring techniques.

Over the past decade the prevalence of type 2 diabetes in pregnancy has continued to increase. It is vital that health care professionals recognize that preconception care is just as important for mothers with type 2 diabetes as it is in type 1 diabetes. All women with type 2 diabetes should be advised regarding safe effective contraception and the benefits of optimal glycemic control, folic acid supplementation, and avoidance of potentially harmful mediations before attempting pregnancy. Glycemic control is the most important modifiable risk factor for congenital anomaly in women with type 2 diabetes, whereas maternal obesity and social disadvantage are associated with large for gestational age neonates. This review aims to bring the reader up to date with the burden of perinatal outcomes and clinical interventions to improve maternal and infant health. It warns that the consequences of type 2 diabetes pregnancy do not end at birth.

Placentas of women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) exhibit an altered lipid metabolism. The mechanism by which GDM is linked to alterations in placental lipid metabolism remains obscure. We hypothesized that high glucose levels reduce mitochondrial fatty acid oxidation (FAO) and increase triglyceride accumulation in human placenta. To test this hypothesis, we measured FAO, fatty acid esterification, de novo fatty acid synthesis, triglyceride levels, and carnitine palmitoyltransferase activities (CPT) in placental explants of women with GDM or no pregnancy complication. In women with GDM, FAO was reduced by ~30% without change in mitochondrial content, and triglyceride content was threefold higher than in the control group. Likewise, in placental explants of women with no complications, high glucose levels reduced FAO by ~20%, and esterification increased linearly with increasing fatty acid concentrations. However, de novo fatty acid synthesis remained unchanged between high and low glucose levels. In addition, high glucose levels increased triglyceride content approximately twofold compared with low glucose levels. Furthermore, etomoxir-mediated inhibition of FAO enhanced esterification capacity by ~40% and elevated triglyceride content 1.5-fold in placental explants of women, with no complications. Finally, high glucose levels reduced CPT I activity by ~70% and phosphorylation levels of acetyl-CoA carboxylase by ~25% in placental explants of women, with no complications. We reveal an unrecognized regulatory mechanism on placental fatty acid metabolism by which high glucose levels reduce mitochondrial FAO through inhibition of CPT I, shifting flux of fatty acids away from oxidation toward the esterification pathway, leading to accumulation of placental triglycerides.

Since January 2008, obese women with type 2 diabetes were advised to gain 0-5 kg during pregnancy. The aim with this study was to evaluate fetal growth and perinatal morbidity in relation to gestational weight gain in these women.

A retrospective cohort comprised the records of 58 singleton pregnancies in obese women (BMI ≥30 kg/m(2)) with type 2 diabetes giving birth between 2008 and 2011. Birth weight was evaluated by SD z score to adjust for gestational age and sex.

Seventeen women (29%) gained ≤5 kg, and the remaining 41 gained >5 kg. The median (range) gestational weight gains were 3.7 kg (-4.7 to 5 kg) and 12.1 kg (5.5-25.5 kg), respectively. Prepregnancy BMI was 33.5 kg/m(2) (30-53 kg/m(2)) vs. 36.8 kg/m(2) (30-48 kg/m(2)), P = 0.037, and median HbA1c was 6.7% at first visit in both groups and decreased to 5.7 and 6.0%, P = 0.620, in late pregnancy, respectively. Gestational weight gain ≤5 kg was associated with lower birth weight z score (P = 0.008), lower rates of large-for-gestational-age (LGA) infants (12 vs. 39%, P = 0.041), delivery closer to term (268 vs. 262 days, P = 0.039), and less perinatal morbidity (35 vs. 71%, P = 0.024) compared with pregnancies with maternal weight gain >5 kg.

In this pilot study in obese women with type 2 diabetes, maternal gestational weight gain ≤5 kg was associated with a more proportionate birth weight and less perinatal morbidity.

The objective of the study was to determine the outcome of pregnancies with pre-gestational diabetes mellitus (PGDM) in the presence of a specialised maternal and fetal service. Prospective data included mothers with documented pre-gestational diabetes (PGDM) delivered between 1 January 2007 and 31 December 2009. A total of 138 patients with PGDM were included in this study. The post-lunch glucose level at 34 weeks was significantly lower than at 30 weeks' gestation (p =0.007) and 37 weeks' gestation (p =0.02). No correlation was observed between maternal blood sugar and birth weight. The incidence of pre-term labour, stillbirth and admission to the NICU was similar to the control group. Caesarean section rate was 39.1%, and the main indication was previous caesarean section. The incidence of fetal anomalies was significantly higher than in the control group. It was concluded that the presence of specialised maternal and fetal clinics reduces complications related to prenatal glycaemic control. However, complications related to preconception care remains high.

The number of pregnancies complicated by type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is growing; however, their clinical characteristics remain incomplete. We aimed to assess clinical characteristics, glycemic control, and selected pregnancy outcomes in pregestational T2DM from Poland and to compare them with those of T1DM. We analyzed 415 consecutive singleton pregnancies; among them, there were 70 women with T2DM and 345 with T1DM. As compared to T1DM patients, women with T2DM were older (mean age 33.1 years vs. 27.8, respectively), heavier before pregnancy (mean BMI 30.8 kg/m² vs. 23.9), and had a shorter duration of diabetes (mean 3.3 years vs. 11.4); ( P<0.0001 for all comparisons). The gestational age at the first visit was higher in T2DM (mean 11.4 weeks vs. 8.6; P=0.0004). Nevertheless, they had better glycemic control in the first trimester (mean HbA1c 6.2% vs. 7.0; P=0.003); in subsequent months, the differences in HbA1c were no longer significant. T2DM women gained less weight during pregnancy (mean 9.9 kgs vs. 14.1; P<0.0001). The proportion of miscarriages (10.0 vs. 7.3%; P=0.32), preterm deliveries (12.7 vs. 17.8%; P=0.32), combined infant deaths, and congenital malformations were similar in both groups (9.5 vs. 8.8%; P=0.4) as was the frequency of caesarean sections (58.7 vs. 64.1%; P=0.30). Macrosomic babies were more than twice less frequent in T2DM and the difference reached borderline significance (7.9 vs. 17.5%, P=0.07). Pregnancy planning in T2DM had a significant impact on HbA1c in the first trimester (5.7 vs. 6.4% in the planning vs. the not planning group, P=0.02); the difference was not significant in the second and third trimester. T2DM women had better glycemic control in the first trimester than T1DM subjects and gained less weight during pregnancy. This could have been the reason for the slightly lower number of macrosomic babies but did not affect other outcomes. In T2DM, pregnancy planning had a beneficial glycemic effect in the first trimester.

To compare obstetric and perinatal outcomes in women with Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes and relate these to maternal risk factors.

Prospective cohort study of 682 consecutive diabetic pregnancies in East Anglia during 2006-2009. Relationships between congenital malformation, perinatal mortality and perinatal morbidity (large for gestational age, preterm delivery, neonatal care) with maternal age, parity, ethnicity, glycaemic control, obesity and social disadvantage were examined using bivariable and multivariate models.

There were 408 (59.8%) Type 1 and 274 (40.2%) Type 2 diabetes pregnancies. Women with Type 2 diabetes were older (P < 0.001), heavier (P < 0.0001), more frequently multiparous (P < 0.001), more ethnically diverse (p < 0.0001) and more socially disadvantaged (P = 0.0004). Although women with Type 2 diabetes had shorter duration of diabetes (P < 0.0001) and better pre-conception glycaemic control [HbA(1c) 52 mmol/mol (6.9%) Type 2 diabetes vs. 63 mmol/l (7.9%) Type 1 diabetes; p < 0.0001), rates of congenital malformation and perinatal mortality were comparable. Women with Type 2 diabetes had fewer large-for-gestational-age infants (37.6 vs. 52.9%, P < 0.0008), fewer preterm deliveries (17.5 vs. 37.1%, P < 0.0001) and their offspring had fewer neonatal care admissions (29.8 vs. 43.2%, P = 0.001). Third trimester HbA(1c) (OR 1.35, 95% CI 1.09-1.67, P = 0.006) and social disadvantage (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.67-0.98; P = 0.03) were risk factors for large for gestational age.

Despite increased age, parity, obesity and social disadvantage, women with Type 2 diabetes had better glycaemic control, fewer large-for-gestational-age infants, fewer preterm deliveries and fewer neonatal care admissions. Better tools are needed to improve glycaemic control and reduce the rates of large for gestational age, particularly in Type 1 diabetes.

Given that both type 2 diabetes and obesity are associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes and often coexist, we sought to determine if outcomes in type 2 diabetic patients are related to the presence of diabetes or to maternal obesity.

This retrospective cohort study examined perinatal outcomes of type 2 diabetic and nondiabetic patients matched by prepregnancy body mass index January 2000 to July 2008. Chi-square, Fisher's exact test, Mann-Whitney U and t-tests were used to compare groups. The association between type 2 diabetes and adverse perinatal outcomes was evaluated through logistic regression with adjustment for potential confounders.

213 pairs of type 2 and non-diabetic patients were compared. Diabetic patients had overall worse composite pregnancy, delivery, fetal, and neonatal outcomes. Specifically, diabetic patients had higher rates of preeclampsia, poly- and oligohydramnios, cesarean delivery, shoulder dystocia, postpartum hemorrhage, preterm delivery, LGA infant, fetal anomaly, and neonatal hypoglycemia, hyperbilirubinemia, RDS, sepsis, intubation, and admission to the NICU. Diabetes remained a significant predictor of adverse delivery, fetal and neonatal composite outcomes when adjusted for confounders in logistic regression.

Type 2 diabetic patients have a higher incidence of adverse perinatal outcomes than nondiabetic patients independent of obesity.

To develop and evaluate a standardized data set for measuring pregnancy outcomes in women with Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes and to compare recent outcomes with those of the 2002-2003 Confidential Enquiry into Maternal and Child Health.

Existing regional, national and international data sets were compared for content, consistency and validity to develop a standardized data set for diabetes in pregnancy of 46 key clinical items. The data set was tested retrospectively using data from 2007-2008 pregnancies included in three regional audits (Northern, North West and East Anglia). Obstetric and neonatal outcomes of pregnancies resulting in a stillbirth or live birth were compared with those from the same regions during 2002-2003.

Details of 1381 pregnancies, 812 (58.9%) in women with Type 1 diabetes and 556 (40.3%) in women with Type 2 diabetes, were available to test the proposed standardized data set. Of the 46 data items proposed, only 16 (34.8%), predominantly the delivery and neonatal items, achieved ≥ 85% completeness. Ethnic group data were available for 746 (54.0%) pregnancies and BMI for 627 (46.5%) pregnancies. Glycaemic control data were most complete-available for 1217 pregnancies (88.1%), during the first trimester. Only 239 women (19.9%) had adequate pregnancy preparation, defined as pre-conception folic acid and first trimester HbA(1c) ≤ 7% (≤ 53 mmol/mol). Serious adverse outcome rates (major malformation and perinatal mortality) were 55/1000 and had not improved since 2002-2003.

A standardized data set for diabetes in pregnancy may improve consistency of data collection and allow for more meaningful evaluation of pregnancy outcomes in women with pregestational diabetes.

To implement and evaluate a regional prepregnancy care program in women with type 1 and type 2 diabetes.

Prepregnancy care was promoted among patients and health professionals and delivered across 10 regional maternity units. A prospective cohort study of 680 pregnancies in women with type 1 and type 2 diabetes was performed. Primary outcomes were adverse pregnancy outcome (congenital malformation, stillbirth, or neonatal death), congenital malformation, and indicators of pregnancy preparation (5 mg folic acid, gestational age, and A1C). Comparisons were made with a historical cohort (n = 613 pregnancies) from the same units during 1999-2004.

A total of 181 (27%) women attended, and 499 women (73%) did not attend prepregnancy care. Women with prepregnancy care presented earlier (6.7 vs. 7.7 weeks; P < 0.001), were more likely to take 5 mg preconception folic acid (88.2 vs. 26.7%; P < 0.0001) and had lower A1C levels (A1C 6.9 vs. 7.6%; P < 0.0001). They had fewer adverse pregnancy outcomes (1.3 vs. 7.8%; P = 0.009). Multivariate logistic regression confirmed that in addition to glycemic control, lack of prepregnancy care was independently associated with adverse outcome (odds ratio 0.2 [95% CI 0.05-0.89]; P = 0.03). Compared with 1999-2004, folic acid supplementation increased (40.7 vs. 32.5%; P = 0.006) and congenital malformations decreased (4.3 vs. 7.3%; P = 0.04).

Regional prepregnancy care was associated with improved pregnancy preparation and reduced risk of adverse pregnancy outcome in type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Prepregnancy care had benefits beyond improved glycemic control and was a stronger predictor of pregnancy outcome than maternal obesity, ethnicity, or social disadvantage.

The association between hyperglycaemia and congenital malformations was first recognised over 40 years ago and was followed by the development of preconception clinics for women with diabetes. A fresh look at preconception care is needed as many studies were conducted during the late 1970s and early 1980s, before the introduction of regular home blood glucose monitoring and glycosylated haemoglobin assays, and when many patients with diabetes had microvascular complications. Recent observational studies and a meta-analysis suggest preconception care is effective with an approximately threefold reduction in the risk of malformations. There is now a worldwide epidemic of type 2 diabetes, but only few studies of preconception care have included women with type 2 diabetes. Furthermore, few studies have addressed the relationship between preconception care and perinatal morbidity. This article will review the evidence for preconception care in women with diabetes, evaluate different models of preconception care and discuss future strategies.

National guidelines emphasise the need to deliver preconception care to women of childbearing age. However, uptake of the services among women with diabetes in the UK is low. Questions arising include how best to deliver preconception care and what the respective roles of primary versus secondary caregivers might be.

To explore the perspective of GPs and secondary care health professionals on the role of GPs in delivering preconception care to women with diabetes.

Qualitative, cross-sectional study.

A London teaching hospital and GP practices in the hospital catchment area.

Semi-structured interviews with GPs and members of the preconception care team in secondary care. Thematic analysis using the framework approach.

GPs and secondary care professionals differ in their perception of the number of women with diabetes requiring preconception care and the extent to which preconception care should be integrated into GPs' roles. Health professionals agreed that GPs have a significant role to play and that delivery of preconception care is best shared between primary and secondary care. However, the lack of clear guidelines and shared protocols detailing the GP's role presents a challenge to implementing 'shared' preconception care.

GPs should be more effectively involved in providing preconception care to women with diabetes. Organisational and policy developments are required to support GPs in playing a role in preconception care. This study's findings stress the importance of providing an integrated approach to ensure continuity of care and optimal pregnancy preparation for women with diabetes.