PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1210 Japanese lactating women who satisfied the inclusion criteria, were invited across the country at various participating sites, between 2014 and 2019. Finally a total of 1122 women were enrolled in this study.
FINDINGS TO DATE: Among 1122 eligible participants, mean age at delivery was 31.2 (SD 4.4) years and mean prepregnancy BMI was 20.8 (SD 2.7). Among these women, 35% were previously nulliparous and 77.7% had college, university or higher education. The mean gestational period was 39.0 (SD 1.3) weeks. Caesarean section was reported among 11.9%; mean infant birth weight was 3082 (SD 360) g. Of the infants, 53.7% were male. Overall, our participants appeared to be healthier than the general population in Japan. Analyses of the 1079 eligible human milk samples obtained at the first and second months postpartum showed the following composition: carbohydrate, 8.13 (SD 0.32) g/100 mL; fat, 3.77 (SD 1.29) g/100 mL; and crude protein, 1.20 (SD 0.23) g/100 mL. We also analysed osteopontin, fatty acid, vitamin D and phospholipid levels in limited subcohorts of the samples.
FUTURE PLANS: Follow-up surveys will be conducted to obtain milk samples every 2 months for 12 months and to investigate mother and child health until the children reach 5 years of age. These will be completed in 2024. We plan to longitudinally analyse the composition of macronutrients and various bioactive factors in human milk and investigate the lifestyle and environmental factors that influence breastfeeding practices, maternal and child health, and child development.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: UMIN000015494; pre-results.
Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted on 400 Iranian women referring to health centres of the Zarand City four weeks to six months from the date of their childbirth, in the first half of 2018.
Result: The results showed that employed women with pregnancies who were categorised as depression and anxiety were more likely to have low gestational age, food insecurity, several deliveries, cesarean delivery and unintended pregnancy as well as they were not satisfied with their infant's gender. Also, women with several deliveries had lower risk for PPD before and after adjustment for confounders (odds ratio [OR] = 0.92, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.88-0.97, P < 0.001) and had lower risk for postpartum anxiety only after adjustment for confounders (OR = 0.82, 95% CI: 0.75-0.89, P < 0.001).
Conclusion: Eventually, demographic characteristics and attempting of pregnancy were independently associated with PPD and postpartum anxiety in women. There need to be more social and governmental support of employed women after delivery to decrease their occupational stresses to deal with PPD and anxiety in the studied population.
OBJECTIVES: To compare techniques of blood glucose monitoring and their impact on maternal and infant outcomes among pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 November 2016), searched reference lists of retrieved studies and contacted trial authors.
SELECTION CRITERIA: 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.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: 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.
MAIN RESULTS: 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.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: 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.