Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2017 Feb 3;2(2):CD011880.
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011880.pub2.

Different insulin types and regimens for pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes

Sinéad M O'Neill  1 , Louise C Kenny  1 , Ali S Khashan  1   2 , Helen M West  3 , Rebecca Md Smyth  4 , Patricia M Kearney  2
Affiliations

Different insulin types and regimens for pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes

Sinéad M O'Neill et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. .

Abstract

Background: Insulin requirements may change during pregnancy, and the optimal treatment for pre-existing diabetes is unclear. There are several insulin regimens (e.g. via syringe, pen) and types of insulin (e.g. fast-acting insulin, human insulin).

Objectives: To assess the effects of different insulin types and different insulin regimens in pregnant women with pre-existing type 1 or type 2 diabetes.

Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 October 2016), ClinicalTrials.gov (17 October 2016), the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP; 17 October 2016), and the reference lists of retrieved studies.

Selection criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared different insulin types and regimens in pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes.We had planned to include cluster-RCTs, but none were identified. We excluded quasi-randomised controlled trials and cross-over trials. We included studies published in abstract form and contacted the authors for further details when applicable. Conference abstracts were superseded by full publications.

Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, conducted data extraction, assessed risk of bias, and checked for accuracy. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

Main results: The findings in this review were based on very low-quality evidence, from single, small sample sized trial estimates, with wide confidence intervals (CI), some of which crossed the line of no effect; many of the prespecified outcomes were not reported. Therefore, they should be interpreted with caution. We included five trials that included 554 women and babies (four open-label, multi-centre, two-arm trials; one single centre, four-arm RCT). All five trials were at a high or unclear risk of bias due to lack of blinding, unclear methods of randomisation, and selective reporting of outcomes. Pooling of data from the trials was not possible, as each trial looked at a different comparison.1. One trial (N = 33 women) compared Lispro insulin with regular insulin and provided very low-quality evidence for the outcomes. There were seven episodes of pre-eclampsia in the Lispro group and nine in the regular insulin group, with no clear difference between the two groups (risk ratio (RR) 0.68, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.30). There were five caesarean sections in the Lispro group and nine in the regular insulin group, with no clear difference between the two groups (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.39). There were no cases of fetal anomaly in the Lispro group and one in the regular insulin group, with no clear difference between the groups (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.02 to 8.08). Macrosomia, perinatal deaths, episodes of birth trauma including shoulder dystocia, nerve palsy, and fracture, and the composite outcome measure of neonatal morbidity were not reported.2. One trial (N = 42 women) compared human insulin to animal insulin, and provided very low-quality evidence for the outcomes. There were no cases of macrosomia in the human insulin group and two in the animal insulin group, with no clear difference between the groups (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.30). Perinatal death, pre-eclampsia, caesarean section, fetal anomaly, birth trauma including shoulder dystocia, nerve palsy and fracture and the composite outcome measure of neonatal morbidity were not reported.3. One trial (N = 93 women) compared pre-mixed insulin (70 NPH/30 REG) to self-mixed, split-dose insulin and provided very low-quality evidence to support the outcomes. Two cases of macrosomia were reported in the pre-mixed insulin group and four in the self-mixed insulin group, with no clear difference between the two groups (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.54). There were seven cases of caesarean section (for cephalo-pelvic disproportion) in the pre-mixed insulin group and 12 in the self-mixed insulin group, with no clear difference between groups (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.32). Perinatal death, pre-eclampsia, fetal anomaly, birth trauma including shoulder dystocia, nerve palsy, or fracture and the composite outcome measure of neonatal morbidity were not reported.4. In the same trial (N = 93 women), insulin injected with a Novolin pen was compared to insulin injected with a conventional needle (syringe), which provided very low-quality evidence to support the outcomes. There was one case of macrosomia in the pen group and five in the needle group, with no clear difference between the different insulin regimens (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.03 to 1.76). There were five deliveries by caesarean section in the pen group compared with 14 in the needle group; women were less likely to deliver via caesarean section when insulin was injected with a pen compared to a conventional needle (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.97). Perinatal death, pre-eclampsia, fetal anomaly, birth trauma including shoulder dystocia, nerve palsy, or fracture, and the composite outcome measure of neonatal morbidity were not reported.5. One trial (N = 223 women) comparing insulin Aspart with human insulin reported none of the review's primary outcomes: macrosomia, perinatal death, pre-eclampsia, caesarean section, fetal anomaly, birth trauma including shoulder dystocia. nerve palsy, or fracture, or the composite outcome measure of neonatal morbidity.6. One trial (N = 162 women) compared insulin Detemir with NPH insulin, and supported the outcomes with very low-quality evidence. There were three cases of major fetal anomalies in the insulin Detemir group and one in the NPH insulin group, with no clear difference between the groups (RR 3.15, 95% CI 0.33 to 29.67). Macrosomia, perinatal death, pre-eclampsia, caesarean section, birth trauma including shoulder dystocia, nerve palsy, or fracture and the composite outcome of neonatal morbidity were not reported.

Authors' conclusions: With limited evidence and no meta-analyses, as each trial looked at a different comparison, no firm conclusions could be made about different insulin types and regimens in pregnant women with pre-existing type 1 or 2 diabetes. Further research is warranted to determine who has an increased risk of adverse pregnancy outcome. This would include larger trials, incorporating adequate randomisation and blinding, and key outcomes that include macrosomia, pregnancy loss, pre-eclampsia, caesarean section, fetal anomalies, and birth trauma.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

SON: received support from a Health Research Board Cochrane Fellowship in order to prepare this review.

AK: none known.

LK: is As Director of the Irish Centre for Fetal and Neonatal Translational Research, and as such, has numerous grant applications under review at any given time. She has been paid by Alere to give invited symposia on a proprietary screening test for preeclampsia. She is the editor of Te Teachers and received royalties from the publishers. LK is also a limited share holder in Metabolomic Diagnostics, an SME who have licensed technology she has developed pertaining to the screening of preeclampsia.

HW: Helen West is paid to work on Cochrane reviews by a grant to Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth. The views and opinions expressed therein are those of the authors, and do not necessarily reflect those of the Systematic Reviews Programme, NIHR, NHS or the Department of Health.

RS: none known.

PK: none known.

Figures

1
1
Study flow diagram.
2
2
Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
3
3
Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Update of

  • doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011880

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

References to studies included in this review

Jovanovic‐Peterson 1992 {published data only}
    1. Jovanovic‐Peterson L, Kitzmiller JL, Peterson CM. Randomized trial of human versus animal species insulin in diabetic pregnant women: improved glycemic control, not fewer antibodies to insulin, influences birth weight. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1992;167:1325‐30. - PubMed
Mathiesen 2007 {published data only}
    1. Damm P, Mersebach H, Rastam J, Kaaja R, Hod M, McCance DR, et al. Poor pregnancy outcome in women with type 1 diabetes is predicted by elevated HbA1c and spikes of high glucose values in the third trimester. Journal of Maternal‐Fetal and Neonatal Medicine 2014;27(2):149‐54. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Heller S, Damm P, Mersebach H, Skjoth TV, Kaaja R, Hod M, et al. Hypoglycemia in type 1 diabetic pregnancy: role of preconception insulin aspart treatment in a randomized study. Diabetes Care 2010;33(3):473‐7. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Hod M, Damm P, Kaaja R, Visser GH, Dunne F, Demidova I, et al. Fetal and perinatal outcomes in type 1 diabetes pregnancy: a randomized study comparing insulin aspart with human insulin in 322 subjects. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2008;198(2):186.e1‐7. - PubMed
    1. Kaaja R, Hod M, Wisser G, Damm P, Dunne F, Hansen A, et al. Safety and perinatal outcome in pregnancy: a randomised trial comparing insulin aspart with human insulin in 322 subjects with type 1 diabetes. Diabetologia 2006;49(Suppl 1):577.
    1. Lloyd A, Townsend C, Munro V, Twena N, Nielsen S, Holman A. Cost‐effectiveness of insulin aspart compared to human insulin in pregnant women with type 1 diabetes in the UK. Current Medical Research & Opinion 2009;25(3):599‐605. - PubMed
Mathiesen 2012 {published data only}
    1. Hod M, Mathiesen ER, Jovanovic L, McCance DR, Ivanisevic M, Duran‐Garcia S, et al. A randomized trial comparing perinatal outcomes using insulin detemir or neutral protamine Hagedorn in type 1 diabetes. Journal of Maternal‐Fetal & Neonatal Medicine 2014;27(1):7‐13. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Hod M, McCance DR, Ivanisevic M, Garcia S, Jovanovic L, Mathiesen ER, et al. Perinatal outcomes in pregnancy: A randomised trial comparing insulin detemir with NPH insulin in 310 subjects with type 1 diabetes. Diabetologia 2011;54(Suppl 1):S487.
    1. Mathiesen ER, Damm P, Hod M, McCance DR, Ivanisevic M, Garcia S, et al. Maternal glycaemic control and hypoglycaemia in pregnancy: A randomised trial comparing insulin detemir with NPH insulin in 310 subjects with type 1 diabetes. Diabetologia 2011;54(Suppl 1):S486.
    1. Mathiesen ER, Damm P, Jovanovic L, Mccance DR, Thyregod C, Jensen AB, et al. Basal insulin analogues in diabetic pregnancy: A literature review and baseline results of a randomised, controlled trial in type 1 diabetes. Diabetes/Metabolism Research and Reviews 2011;27(6):543‐51. [Trial register # NCT00474045] - PubMed
    1. Mathiesen ER, Hod M, Ivanisevic M, Duran Garcia S, Brondsted L, Jovanovic L, et al. Maternal efficacy and safety outcomes in a randomized, controlled trial comparing insulin detemir with NPH insulin in 310 pregnant women with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2012;35(10):2012‐7. - PMC - PubMed
Persson 2002 {published data only}
    1. Persson B, Swahn ML, Hjertberg R, Hanson U, Nord E, Nordlander E, et al. Insulin lispro therapy in pregnancies complicated by type 1 diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Research & Clinical Practice 2002;58(2):115‐21. - PubMed
Schuster 1998 {published data only}
    1. Schuster MW, Chauhan SP, McLaughlin BN, Perry KG Jr, Morrison JC. Comparison of insulin regimens and administration modalities in pregnancy complicated by diabetes. Journal of the Mississippi State Medical Association 1998;39(2):51‐5. - PubMed

References to studies excluded from this review

Carr 2004 {published data only}
    1. Carr KJE, Idama TO, Masson EA, Ellis K, Lindow SW. A randomised controlled trial of insulin lispro given before or after meals in pregnant women with type 1 diabetes ‐ the effect on glycaemic excursion. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 2004;24(4):382‐6. - PubMed
Herrera 2015b {published data only}
    1. Herrera K, Rosenn B, Foroutan J, Bimson B, Al Ibraheemi Z, Brustman L. A randomized controlled trial of insulin detemir versus insulin NPH for the treatment of pregnant women with gestational diabetes and type 2 diabetes. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2015;212(1 Suppl 1):S320. - PubMed
    1. Herrera K, Rosenn B, Foroutan J, Bimson B, Al‐Ibraheemi Z, Scarpelli S, et al. Insulin detemir vs. NPH: Association with maternal weight gain in pregnancy. Diabetes 2015;64:A675.
    1. Herrera KM, Rosenn BM, Foroutan J, Bimson BE, Al Z, Moshier EL, et al. Randomized controlled trial of insulin detemir versus NPH for the treatment of pregnant women with diabetes. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2015;213(3):426e1‐7. - PubMed
    1. NCT01837680. Insulin detemir versus insulin NPH: a randomized prospective study comparing glycemic control in pregnant women with diabetes. clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01837680 First received: 4 April 2013.
Kipikasa 2008 {published data only}
    1. NCT00371306. Comparison of glucovance to insulin for diabetes during pregnancy. clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00371306 First received: 1 September 2006.
Mohd 2012 {published data only}
    1. Mohd Azri MS, Joy PP, Kunasegaran K. Maternal glycaemic control and perinatal outcome in pregnant diabetic women treated with twice daily insulin dose regimen. BJOG: an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology 2012;119(Suppl 1):16.
Murphy 2011 {published data only}
    1. ISRCTN50385583. Evaluation of the safety and efficacy of closed loop glucose control during the activities of normal daily living in women with type 1 diabetes during pregnancy: an open label randomised cross‐over study. isrctn.com/ISRCTN50385583 First received: 9 February 2010.
    1. Murphy HR, Kumareswaran K, Elleri D, Allen JM, Caldwell K, Biagioni M, et al. Safety and efficacy of 24‐h closed‐loop insulin delivery in well‐controlled pregnant women with type 1 diabetes: a randomized crossover case series. Diabetes Care 2011;34(12):2527‐9. Erratum in Diabetes Care 2012; 35(1):191. - PMC - PubMed
Nachum 1999 {published data only}
    1. Nachum Z, Ben‐Shlomo I, Weiner E, Shalev E. Twice daily versus four times daily insulin dose regimens for diabetes in pregnancy: randomised controlled trial. BMJ 1999;319(7219):1223‐7. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Nachum Z, Goldberg Y, Ben‐Shlomo I, Weiner E, Shalev E. QID insulin dosage vs. BID dosage for the treatment of diabetes mellitus during pregnancy. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1999;180(1 Pt 2):S38.
Nor 2007 {published data only}
    1. Nor Azlin MI, Nor NA, Sufian SS, Mustafa N, Jamil MA, Kamaruddin NA. Comparative study of two insulin regimes in pregnancy complicated by diabetes mellitus. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica 2007;86(4):407‐8. - PubMed
Porta 2011 {published data only}
    1. Chaturvedi N, Porta M, Klein R, Orchard T, Fuller J, Parving HH, et al. Effect of candesartan on prevention (DIRECT ‐ Prevent 1) and progression (DIRECT ‐ Protect 1) of retinopathy in type 1 diabetes: randomised, placebo‐controlled trials. Lancet 2008;372(9647):1394‐402. - PubMed
    1. Porta M, Hainer JW, Jansson SO, Malm A, Bilous R, Chaturvedi N, et al. Exposure to candesartan during the first trimester of pregnancy in type 1 diabetes: experience from the placebo‐controlled diabetic retinopathy candesartan trials. Diabetologia 2011;54(6):1298‐303. - PubMed
    1. Sjølie AK, Klein R, Porta M, Orchard T, Fuller J, Parving HH, et al. Effect of candesartan on progression and regression of retinopathy in type 2 diabetes (DIRECT ‐ Protect 2): a randomised placebo‐controlled trial. Lancet 2008;372(9647):1385‐93. - PubMed
Reller 1985 {published data only}
    1. Reller MD, Tsang RC, Meyer RA, Braun CP. Relationship of prospective diabetes control in pregnancy to neonatal cardiorespiratory function. Journal of Pediatrics 1985;106:86‐90. - PubMed
Secher 2012 {published data only}
    1. Secher AL, Ringholm L, Andersen HU, Damm P, Mathiesen ER. The effect of real‐time continuous glucose monitoring in diabetic pregnancy ‐ A randomised controlled trial. Diabetologia 2012;55(Suppl 1):S40.

Additional references

Adam 2014
    1. Adam S, Lombaard HA, Zyl DG. Are we missing at‐risk babies? Comparison of customised growth charts v. standard population charts in a diabetic population. South African Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 2014;20(3):88‐90.
Albrecht 2010
    1. Albrecht SS, Kuklina EV, Bansil P, Jamieson DJ, Whiteman MK, Kourtis AP, et al. Diabetes trends among delivery hospitalizations in the US, 1994–2004. Diabetes Care 2010;33(4):768‐73. - PMC - PubMed
Ali 2011
    1. Ali S, Dornhorst A. Diabetes in pregnancy: health risks and management. Postgraduate Medical Journal 2011;87(1028):417‐27. - PubMed
Allnutt 2015
    1. Allnutt KJ, Allan CA, Brown J. Early pregnancy screening for identification of undiagnosed pre‐existing diabetes to improve maternal and infant health. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2015, Issue 4. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011601] - DOI
Atkinson 2014
    1. Atkinson MA, Eisenbarth GS, Michels AW. Type 1 diabetes. Lancet 2014;383(9981):69‐82. - PMC - PubMed
Balaji 2011
    1. Balaji V, Seshiah V. Management of diabetes in pregnancy. Journal of the Association of Physicians of India 2011;59(Suppl):33‐6. - PubMed
Ballas 2012
    1. Ballas J, Moore TR, Ramos GA. Management of diabetes in pregnancy. Current Diabetes Reports 2012;12(1):33‐42. - PubMed
Barnett 2008
    1. Barnett A, Begg A, Dyson P, Feher M, Hamilton S, Munro N. Insulin for type 2 diabetes: choosing a second‐line insulin regimen. International Journal of Clinical Practice 2008;62(11):1647‐53. [DOI: 10.1111/j.1742-1241.2008.01909.x] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Bartz 2012
    1. Bartz S, Freemark M. Pathogenesis and prevention of type 2 diabetes: parental determinants, breastfeeding, and early childhood nutrition. Current Diabetes Reports 2012;12(1):82‐7. - PubMed
Beals 2013
    1. Beals JM, DeFelippis MR, Kovach PM, Jackson JA. "Insulin" in Pharmaceutical Biotechnology. Pharmaceutical Biotechnology. New York: Springer, 2013:255‐75.
Bell 2008
    1. Bell R, Bailey K, Cresswell T, Hawthorne G, Critchley J, Lewis BN. Trends in prevalence and outcomes of pregnancy in women with pre‐existing type I and type II diabetes. BJOG: an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology 2008;115(4):445‐52. - PubMed
Billionnet 2014
    1. Billionnet C, Weill A, Simeoni U, Ricordeau P, Alla F, Jacqueminet S, et al. The risk of macrosomia linked to diabetes in pregnancy: data from the French population In 2011. Archives of Disease in Childhood 2014;99(Suppl 2):A224‐A.
Boulvain 2001
    1. Boulvain M, Stan CM, Irion O. Elective delivery in diabetic pregnant women. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2001, Issue 2. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001997] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Carter 2012
    1. Carter MF, Xenakis E, Holden A, Dudley D. Neonatal intensive care unit admissions and their associations with late preterm birth and maternal risk factors in a population‐based study. Journal of Maternal‐Fetal & Neonatal Medicine 2012;25(4):343‐5. - PubMed
Ceysens 2006
    1. Ceysens G, Rouiller D, Boulvain M. Exercise for diabetic pregnant women. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2006, Issue 3. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004225.pub2] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Daflapurkar 2014
    1. Daflapurkar SB. Diabetes in pregnancy. High Risk Cases in Obstetrics. First Edition. New Delhi: Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers Ltd, 2014.
Danaei 2011
    1. Danaei G, Finucane MM, Lin JK, Singh GM, Paciorek CJ, Cowan MJ, et al. National, regional, and global trends in systolic blood pressure since 1980: systematic analysis of health examination surveys and epidemiological studies with 786 country‐years and 5.4 million participants. Lancet 2011;377(9765):568‐77. - PubMed
Daneman 2006
    1. Daneman D. Type 1 diabetes. Lancet 2006;367(9513):847‐58. - PubMed
East 2014
    1. East C, Dolan WJ, Forster DA. Antenatal breast milk expression by women with diabetes for improving infant outcomes. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2014, Issue 7. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010408.pub2] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Farrar 2016
    1. Farrar D, Tuffnell DJ, West J, West HM. Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion versus multiple daily injections of insulin for pregnant women with diabetes. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2016, Issue 6. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005542.pub3] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Feghali 2012
    1. Feghali MN, Driggers RW, Miodovnik M, Umans JG. Diabetes in Pregnancy. First Edition. San Diego: Academic Press, 2012.
Feig 2014
    1. Feig DS, Hwee J, Shah BR, Booth GL, Bierman AS, Lipscombe LL. Trends in incidence of diabetes in pregnancy and serious perinatal outcomes: a large, population‐based study in Ontario, Canada, 1996–2010. Diabetes Care 2014;37(6):1590‐6. - PubMed
Fraser 2014
    1. Fraser A, Lawlor DA. Long‐term health outcomes in offspring born to women with diabetes in pregnancy. Current Diabetes Reports 2014;14(5):1‐8. - PMC - PubMed
Gough 2007
    1. Gough SC. A review of human and analogue insulin trials. Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice 2007;77(1):1‐15. - PubMed
Greuter 2012
    1. Greuter MJ, Emmerik NM, Wouters MG, Tulder MW. Quality of guidelines on the management of diabetes in pregnancy: a systematic review. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 2012;12:58. [PUBMED: 22741571] - PMC - PubMed
Higgins 2011
    1. Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.handbook.cochrane.org.
Holman 2014
    1. Holman N, Bell R, Murphy H, Maresh M. Women with pre‐gestational diabetes have a higher risk of stillbirth at all gestations after 32 weeks. Diabetic Medicine 2014;31(9):1129‐32. - PubMed
Home 2005
    1. Home P, Rosskamp R, Forjanic‐Klapproth J, Dressler A. A randomized multicentre trial of insulin glargine compared with NPH insulin in people with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes/Metabolism Research and Reviews 2005;21(6):545‐53. - PubMed
Horvath 2007
    1. Horvath K, Jeitler K, Berghold A, Ebrahim SH, Gratzer TW, Plank J, et al. Long‐acting insulin analogues versus NPH insulin (human isophane insulin) for type 2 diabetes mellitus. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2007, Issue 2. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005613.pub3] - DOI - PubMed
Kapoor 2007
    1. Kapoor N, Sankaran S, Hyer S, Shehata H. Diabetes in pregnancy: a review of current evidence. Current Opinion in Obstetrics and Gynecology 2007;19(6):586‐90. - PubMed
Kim 2002
    1. Kim C, Newton KM, Knopp RH. A systematic review of gestational diabetes and the incidence of type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2002;25(10):1862‐8. - PubMed
Kothari 2014
    1. Kothari D, Lim BH. Diabetes and pregnancy: time to rethink the focus on type 2 diabetes. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 2014;54(2):181‐3. - PubMed
Krane 2014
    1. Krane NK, Pasala R, Baudy A. Pregnancy and diabetic nephropathy. Diabetes and Kidney Disease. New York: Springer, 2014.
Kumareswaran 2013
    1. Kumareswaran K, Elleri D, Allen JM, Caldwell K, Nodale M, Wilinska ME, et al. Accuracy of continuous glucose monitoring during exercise in type 1 diabetes pregnancy. Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics 2013;15(3):223‐9. - PMC - PubMed
Lawrence 2008
    1. Lawrence JM, Contreras RC, WansuSacks DA. Trends in the prevalence of pre‐existing diabetes and gestational diabetes mellitus among a racially/ethnically diverse population of pregnant women, 1999‐2005. Diabetes Care 2008;31(5):899‐904. - PubMed
McCance 2010
    1. McCance DR, Holmes VA. Insulin Regimens in Pregnancy: A Practical Manual of Diabetes in Pregnancy. Oxford: Wiley‐Blackwell, 2010.
Middleton 2012
    1. Middleton P, Crowther CA, Simmonds L. Different intensities of glycaemic control for pregnant women with pre‐existing diabetes. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2012, Issue 8. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008540.pub3] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Misso 2010
    1. Misso ML, Egberts KJ, Page M, O'Connor D, Shaw J. Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) versus multiple insulin injections for type 1 diabetes mellitus. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2010, Issue 1. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005103.pub2] - DOI - PubMed
Mooradian 2006
    1. Mooradian AD, Bernbaum M, Albert SG. Narrative review: a rational approach to starting insulin therapy. Annals of Internal Medicine 2006;145:125‐34. - PubMed
Morken 2014
    1. Morken NH, Källen K, Jacobsson B. Predicting risk of spontaneous preterm delivery in women with a singleton pregnancy. Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology 2014;28(1):11‐22. - PubMed
Morton 2014
    1. Morton S, Kirkwood S, Thangaratinam S. Interventions to modify the progression to type 2 diabetes mellitus in women with gestational diabetes: a systematic review of literature. Current Opinion in Obstetrics and Gynecology 2014;26(6):476‐86. - PubMed
Moy 2014
    1. Moy FM, Ray A, Buckley BS. Techniques of monitoring blood glucose during pregnancy for women with pre‐existing diabetes. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2014, Issue 4. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009613.pub2] - DOI - PubMed
Negrato 2012
    1. Negrato CA, Montenegro Junior RM, Kostrisch LM, Guedes MF, Mattar RG, Marilia B. Insulin analogues in the treatment of diabetes in pregnancy. Arquivos Brasileiros de Endocrinologia e Metabologia 2012;56:405‐14. - PubMed
NICE 2015
    1. NICE. Diabetes in pregnancy: management of diabetes and its complications from preconception to the postnatal period. www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng3 (accessed 30 June 2015).
Nolan 2011
    1. Nolan CJ, Damm P, Prentki M. Type 2 diabetes across generations: from pathophysiology to prevention and management. Lancet 2011;378(9786):169‐81. - PubMed
RevMan 5 2014 [Computer program]
    1. The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration. Review Manager 5 (RevMan 5). Version 5.3. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014.
Ryu 2014
    1. Ryu RJ, Hays KE, Hebert MF. Gestational diabetes mellitus management with oral hypoglycemic agents. Seminars in Perinatology. 2014; Vol. 38:508‐15. [DOI: 10.1053/j.semperi.2014.08.012] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Siebenhofer 2004
    1. Siebenhofer A, Plank J, Berghold A, Horvath K, Sawicki PT, Beck P. Meta‐analysis of short‐acting insulin analogues in adult patients with type 1 diabetes: continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion versus injection therapy. Diabetologia 2004;47(11):1895‐905. - PubMed
Siebenhofer 2006
    1. Siebenhofer A, Plank J, Berghold A, Jeitler K, Horvath K, Narath M, et al. Short acting insulin analogues versus regular human insulin in patients with diabetes mellitus. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2006, Issue 2. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003287.pub4] - DOI - PubMed
Tennant 2014
    1. Tennant PWG, Glinianaia SV, Bilous RW, Rankin J, Bell R. Pre‐existing diabetes, maternal glycated haemoglobin, and the risks of fetal and infant death: a population‐based study. Diabetologia 2014;57(2):285‐94. - PubMed
Teuscher 2007
    1. Teuscher A. Insulin: A Voice for Choice. Basel: Karger Medical and Scientific Publishers, 2007. [DOI: 10.1159/isbn.978-3-8055-8354-1] - DOI
Tieu 2010a
    1. Tieu J, Coat S, Hague W, Middleton P. Oral anti‐diabetic agents for women with pre‐existing diabetes mellitus/impaired glucose tolerance or previous gestational diabetes mellitus. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2010, Issue 10. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007724.pub2] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Tieu 2010b
    1. Tieu J, Middleton P, Crowther CA. Preconception care for diabetic women for improving maternal and infant health. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2010, Issue 12. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007776.pub2] - DOI - PubMed
Vardi 2008
    1. Vardi M, Jacobson E, Nini A, Bitterman H. Intermediate acting versus long acting insulin for type 1 diabetes mellitus. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2008, Issue 3. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006297.pub2] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Visser 2013
    1. Visser J, Snel M, Vliet HAAM. Hormonal versus non‐hormonal contraceptives in women with diabetes mellitus type 1 and 2. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013, Issue 3. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003990.pub4] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Wass 2011
    1. Wass JA, Stewart PM. Oxford Textbook of Endocrinology and Diabetes. Second Edition. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011.
WHO 1999
    1. World Health Organization. Definition, Diagnosis and Classification of Diabetes mellitus and its Complications. Part 1: Diagnosis and Classification of Diabetes Mellitus. Geneva: WHO, 1999.
Yessoufou 2011
    1. Yessoufou A, Moutairou K. Maternal diabetes in pregnancy: early and long‐term outcomes on the offspring and the concept of “metabolic memory”. Experimental Diabetes Research 2011;2011:218598. - PMC - PubMed
Øverland 2014
    1. Øverland EA, Vatten LJ, Eskild A. Pregnancy week at delivery and the risk of shoulder dystocia: a population study of 2,014,956 deliveries. BJOG: an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology 2014;121(1):34‐41. - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms