Search

OBJECTIVE: To compare the risk of fetal overgrowth and preterm delivery in pregnant women with type 1 diabetes (T1D) treated with insulin pumps versus multiple daily injections (MDI) and examine whether possible differences were mediated through improved glycemic control or gestational weight gain during pregnancy. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The risk of pregnancy and perinatal outcomes were evaluated in a cohort of 2,003 pregnant women with T1D enrolled from 17 countries in a real-world setting during 2013–2018. RESULTS: In total, 723 women were treated with pumps and 1,280 with MDI. At inclusion (median gestational weeks 8.6 [interquartile range 7–10]), pump users had lower mean HbA1c (mean ± SD 50.6 ± 9.8 mmol/mol [6.8 ± 0.9%] vs. 53.6 ± 13.8 mmol/mol [7.1 ± 1.3%], P < 0.001), longer diabetes duration (18.4 ± 7.8 vs. 14.4 ± 8.2 years, P < 0.001), and higher prevalence of retinopathy (35.3% vs. 24.4%, P < 0.001). Proportions of large for gestational age (LGA) offspring and preterm delivery were 59.0% vs. 52.2% (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.36 [95% CI 1.09; 1.70], P = 0.007) and 39.6% vs. 32.1% (adjusted OR 1.46 (95% CI 1.17; 1.82), P < 0.001), respectively. The results did not change after adjustment for HbA1c or gestational weight gain. CONCLUSIONS: Insulin pump treatment in pregnant women with T1D, prior to the widespread use of continuous glucose monitoring or automated insulin delivery, was associated with a higher risk of LGA offspring and preterm delivery compared with MDI in crude and adjusted analyses. This association did not appear to be mediated by differences in glycemic control as represented by HbA1c or by gestational weight gain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OBJECTIVE: The hyperosmolar hyperglycemic state (HHS) is a rare and life-threatening complication of diabetes. We aimed to estimate the incidence of HHS and describe the clinical and biomarker profiles of patients with HHS, including subgroups with acidosis and acute kidney injury. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This nationwide, descriptive cohort study used Danish registry data during years 2016–2018 to identify acutely admitted patients fulfilling the hyperglycemia and hyperosmolarity criteria of HHS (glucose ≥33 mmol/L and osmolarity [2 × sodium + glucose] ≥320 mmol/L). RESULTS: We identified 634 patients (median age, 69 years (first quartile; third quartile: 58; 79) who met the criteria of HHS among 4.80 million inhabitants aged ≥18 years. The incidence rates were 16.5 and 3.9 per 10,000 person-years among people with known type 1 (n = 24,196) and type 2 (n = 251,357) diabetes, respectively. Thirty-two percent of patients with HHS were not previously diagnosed with diabetes. Patients were categorized as pure HHS (n = 394) and combined HHS and diabetic ketoacidosis (HHS-DKA; n = 240). The in-hospital mortality rate for pure HHS was 17% and 9% for HHS-DKA. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of HHS was higher among patients with type 1 diabetes compared with type 2 diabetes. HHS is a spectrum of hyperglycemic crises and can be divided in pure HHS and HHS-DKA. In one-third of patients, HHS was the debut of their diabetes diagnosis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The prevalence of depression and the exposure to antidepressants are high among women of reproductive age and during pregnancy. Duloxetine is a selective serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) approved in the United States and Europe in 2004 for the treatment of depression. Fetal safety of duloxetine is not well established. The present study evaluates the association of exposure to duloxetine during pregnancy and the risk of major and minor congenital malformations and the risk of stillbirths. Methods and findings A population-based observational study was conducted based on data from registers in Sweden and Denmark. All registered births and stillbirths in the medical birth registers between 2004 and 2016 were included. Malformation diagnoses were identified up to 1 year after birth. Logistic regression analyses were used. Potential confounding was addressed through multiple regression, propensity score (PS) matching, and sensitivity analyses. Confounder variables included sociodemographic information (income, education, age, year of birth, and country), comorbidity and comedication, previous psychiatric contacts, and birth-related information (smoking during pregnancy and previous spontaneous abortions and stillbirths). Duloxetine-exposed women were compared with 4 comparators: (1) duloxetine-nonexposed women; (2) selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI)-exposed women; (3) venlafaxine-exposed women; and (4) women exposed to duloxetine prior to, but not during, pregnancy. Exposure was defined as redemption of a prescription during the first trimester and throughout pregnancy for the analyses of malformations and stillbirths, respectively. Outcomes were major and minor malformations and stillbirths gathered from the national patient registers. The cohorts consisted of more than 2 million births with 1,512 duloxetine-exposed pregnancies. No increased risk for major malformations, minor malformations, or stillbirth was found across comparison groups in adjusted and PS-matched analyses. Duloxetine-exposed versus duloxetine-nonexposed PS-matched analyses showed odds ratio (OR) 0.98 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.74 to 1.30, p = 0.909) for major malformations, OR 1.09 (95% CI 0.82 to 1.45, p = 0.570) for minor malformation, and 1.18 (95% CI 0.43 to 3.19, p = 0.749) for stillbirths. For the individual malformation subtypes, some findings were statistically significant but were associated with large statistical uncertainty due to the extremely small number of events. The main limitations for the study were that the indication for duloxetine and a direct measurement of depression severity were not available to include as covariates. Conclusions Based on this observational register-based nationwide study with data from Sweden and Denmark, no increased risk of major or minor congenital malformations or stillbirth was associated with exposure to duloxetine during pregnancy., Author(s): Mikkel Zöllner Ankarfeldt 1,*, Janne Petersen 1,2, Jon Trærup Andersen 3,4, Hu Li 5, Stephen Paul Motsko 5, Thomas Fast 6, Simone Møller Hede 6, Espen Jimenez-Solem 1,3,4 Introduction [...]