MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2755734682 · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(17)32400-5

Continuous glucose monitoring in pregnant women with type 1 diabetes (CONCEPTT): a multicentre international randomised controlled trial

2017· article· en· W2755734682 sur OpenAlexafffundabout
Denice S. Feig, Lois Donovan, Rosa Corcoy, Kellie E. Murphy, Stephanie A. Amiel, Katharine F. Hunt, Elizabeth Asztalos, Jon Barrett, Johanna Sanchez, Alberto de Leiva, Moshe Hod, Lois Jovanovič, Ruth McManus, Eileen K. Hutton, Claire L. Meek, Zoe A. Stewart, Tim Wysocki, Robert O’Brien, Katrina J. Ruedy, Craig Kollman, George Tomlinson, Helen Murphy, Jeannie Grisoni, Carolyn Byrne, Katy Davenport, Sandra Neoh, Claire Gougeon, Carolyn Oldford, Catherine A. Young, Louisa Green, Benedetta Rossi, Helen Rogers, Barbara Cleave, Michelle Strom, Juan M. Adelantado, Ana Chico, Diana Tundidor, Janine Malcolm, Kathy Henry, Damian Morris, Gerry Rayman, Duncan Fowler, Susan L. Mitchell, Josephine Rosier, Rosemary Temple, Jeremy Turner, Gioia Canciani, Niranjala Hewapathirana, Leanne Piper, Anne Kudirka, Margaret Watson, Matteo Bonomo, Basilio Pintaudi, Federico Bertuzzi, Giuseppina Daniela, Elena Mion, Julia Lowe, Ilana Halperin, Anna Rogowsky, Sapida Adib, Robert S. Lindsay, David Carty, Isobel Crawford, Fiona Mackenzie, Therese McSorley, John N. Booth, Natalia McInnes, Ada Smith, Irene Stanton, Tracy Tazzeo, John Weisnagel, Peter Mansell, Nia Jones, Gayna Babington, Dawn Spick, Malcolm MacDougall, Sharon Chilton, Terri Cutts, Michelle Perkins, Eleanor Scott, Del Endersby, Anna R. Dover, Frances Dougherty, Susan Johnston, Simon Heller, Peter Novodorsky, Sue Hudson, Chloe Nisbet, Thomas Ransom, Jillian Coolen, Darlene Baxendale, Richard I. G. Holt, Jane Forbes, Nicki Martin, Fiona Walbridge, Fidelma Dunne, Sharon Conway, Aoife M. Egan, Collette Kirwin, Michael Maresh, Gretta Kearney, Juliet Morris, Susan J. Quinn, Rudy Bilous, Rasha Mukhtar, Ariane Godbout, Sylvie Daigle, Alexandra Lubina, Margaret Jackson, Emma Paul, Julie Taylor, Robyn L. Houlden, Adriana Breen, Anita Banerjee, Anna Brackenridge, Annette Briley, Anna Reid, Claire Singh, Jill Newstead-Angel, J. Baxter, Sam Philip, Martyna Chlost, Lynne Murray, Kristin Castorino, Donna Frase, Olivia Lou, Marlon Pragnell

Notice bibliographique

RevueThe Lancet · 2017
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueGestational Diabetes Research and Management
Établissements canadiensMcMaster UniversityWestern UniversityOttawa HospitalUniversity of OttawaSinai Health SystemUniversity of CalgaryLunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research InstituteSunnybrook HospitalUniversity Health NetworkSt Joseph's Health CareUniversity of Toronto
Organismes subventionnairesFedDev OntarioBreakthrough T1D CanadaCambridge University HospitalsTommy'sUniversity of CambridgeNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchSunnybrook Research Institute
Mots-clésMedicinePregnancyRandomized controlled trialGestationPopulationObstetricsType 1 diabetesType 2 diabetesDiabetes mellitusPediatricsInternal medicineEndocrinologyEnvironmental health

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Background 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. Methods 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 1c ). The primary outcome was change in HbA 1c 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. Findings 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 1c 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). Interpretation 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. Funding Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, Canadian Clinical Trials Network, and National Institute for Health Research.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,008
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Essai randomisé · Signal consensuel: Essai randomisé
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,008
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,043

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0080,015
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0040,003
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0020,002
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0030,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0070,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,027
Tête enseignante GPT0,312
Écart entre enseignants0,285 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeEssai randomisé
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations778
Publié2017
Routes d'admission3
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueThe LancetMême sujetGestational Diabetes Research and ManagementTravaux en français237 207