Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Scopus Web of Science® Altmetric
Type: Journal article
Title: Continuous glucose monitoring during diabetic pregnancy (GlucoMOMS): a multicentre randomized controlled trial
Author: Voormolen, D.
DeVries, J.
Sanson, R.
Heringa, M.
de Valk, H.
Kok, M.
van Loon, A.
Hoogenberg, K.
Bekedam, D.
Brouwer, T.
Porath, M.
Erdtsieck, R.
NijBijvank, B.
Kip, H.
van der Heijden, O.
Elving, L.
Hermsen, B.
Potter van Loon, B.
Rijnders, R.
Jansen, H.
et al.
Citation: Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism: a journal of pharmacology and therapeutics, 2018; 20(8):1894-1902
Publisher: Wiley Online Library
Issue Date: 2018
ISSN: 1462-8902
Statement of
Daphne N. Voormolen, J. Hans DeVries, Rieneke M. E. Sanson, Martijn P. Heringa, Harold W. de Valk ... Bernardus W (Ben) Mol ... et al.
Abstract: 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.
Keywords: CGM
Rights: © 2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
DOI: 10.1111/dom.13310
Published version:
Appears in Collections:Aurora harvest 3
Medicine publications

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.