-
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2023Ondansetron is a selective antagonist of the serotonin 5-HT3 receptor that is commonly used to treat morning sickness. It is estimated that 70%-80% of pregnant women...
Ondansetron is a selective antagonist of the serotonin 5-HT3 receptor that is commonly used to treat morning sickness. It is estimated that 70%-80% of pregnant women suffer from morning sickness, a condition characterized by nausea and vomiting. However, it is still controversial regarding its safety during pregnancy, and continued research will be necessary to fully understand the risks and benefits associated with its use. Therefore, we aimed to identify and provide details of the efficacy and safety of ondansetron in clinical trials. A search was conducted of the ClinicalTrials.gov database on 13 April 2023, using the search term "ondansetron and pregnancy." Inclusion and exclusion criteria were defined to identify relevant clinical trials. The inclusion criteria encompassed clinical trials related to pregnancy that utilized ondansetron as a treatment, while other clinical trials were excluded from consideration. All data extractions such as study title, study status, study type, intervention details, and outcome were collected. A total of 18 clinical trials were identified, of which only 6 focused on studying the effects of ondansetron. Their respective study titles, statuses, conditions, interventions, outcome measures, and enrollment sizes have been written in detail. The information collected from these trials will contribute to our understanding of the potential benefits and risks of ondansetron in the context of pregnancy and its complications. Ondansetron has been shown to be an effective treatment for nausea and vomiting, including pregnancy-related morning sickness. Further research is needed to better understand the potential risks and benefits associated with its use in pregnant women. ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier.
PubMed: 37936910
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2023.1291235 -
Journal of Stomatology, Oral and... Dec 2023Oral cancers in pregnancy (OCiP) are rare, however when diagnosed it complicates both the treatment of cancer and the outcome of pregnancy. The aim of this systematic...
PURPOSE
Oral cancers in pregnancy (OCiP) are rare, however when diagnosed it complicates both the treatment of cancer and the outcome of pregnancy. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the factors impacting the foetal and maternal outcome in OCiP.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A systematic search was performed on the following electronic databases: PubMed, Scopus, ScienceDirect and Google Scholar. Only histopathologically diagnosed cases of oral cancer in pregnant patients were included. The Joanna Briggs Institute questionnaire for case reports was used to assess the risk of bias. Logistic regression analysis was used to assess the factors impacting foetal and maternal outcome.
RESULTS
Out of the 40 cases reported, 28 were squamous cell carcinomas and 7 osteosarcomas. Logistic regression analysis demonstrated a non-significant association between age of patient, staging, trimester and treatment to maternal and foetal outcome. The overall recurrence, maternal death and foetal death for OCiP was 25 %, 30.77 % and 3.45 % respectively.
CONCLUSION
It could be concluded with low evidence level that none of the factors explored in this SR affected the maternal and foetal outcome. A regular oral check-up, particularly the tongue of pregnant females is recommended to identify any early signs of inflammation or oral cancer and subjected to biopsy to identify malignancy or dysplasia.
Topics: Female; Humans; Pregnancy; Mouth Neoplasms; Pregnancy Complications, Neoplastic
PubMed: 37783336
DOI: 10.1016/j.jormas.2023.101647 -
Clinical Infectious Diseases : An... Jan 2024Tularemia is caused by the gram-negative bacterium Francisella tularensis. Although rare, tularemia during pregnancy has been associated with pregnancy complications;...
BACKGROUND
Tularemia is caused by the gram-negative bacterium Francisella tularensis. Although rare, tularemia during pregnancy has been associated with pregnancy complications; data on efficacy of recommended antimicrobials for treatment are limited. We performed a systematic literature review to characterize clinical manifestations of tularemia during pregnancy and examine maternal, fetal, and neonatal outcomes with and without antimicrobial treatment.
METHODS
We searched 9 databases, including Medline, Embase, Global Health, and PubMed Central, using terms related to tularemia and pregnancy. Articles reporting cases of tularemia with ≥1 maternal or fetal outcome were included.
RESULTS
Of 5891 articles identified, 30 articles describing 52 cases of tularemia in pregnant patients met inclusion criteria. Cases were reported from 9 countries, and oropharyngeal and ulceroglandular tularemia were the most common presenting forms. A plurality (46%) of infections occurred in the second trimester. Six complications were observed: lymph node aspiration, lymph node excision, maternal bleeding, spontaneous abortion, intrauterine fetal demise, and preterm birth. No deaths among mothers were reported. Of 28 patients who received antimicrobial treatment, 1 pregnancy loss and 1 fetal death were reported. Among 24 untreated patients, 1 pregnancy loss and 3 fetal deaths were reported, including one where F. tularensis was detected in placental and fetal tissues.
CONCLUSIONS
Pregnancy loss and other complications have been reported among cases of tularemia during pregnancy. However, risk of adverse outcomes may be lower when antimicrobials known to be effective are used. Without treatment, transplacental transmission appears possible. These data underscore the importance of prompt recognition and treatment of tularemia during pregnancy.
Topics: Humans; Female; Infant, Newborn; Pregnancy; Tularemia; Premature Birth; Placenta; Francisella tularensis; Abortion, Spontaneous; Anti-Infective Agents
PubMed: 38294114
DOI: 10.1093/cid/ciad686 -
Thyroid : Official Journal of the... Nov 2023Thyroid autoimmunity is the most prevalent autoimmune disorder among women of reproductive age and has been suggested as a risk factor in recurrent pregnancy loss... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Thyroid autoimmunity is the most prevalent autoimmune disorder among women of reproductive age and has been suggested as a risk factor in recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL)-a condition in which couples suffer several consecutive pregnancy losses, but where a cause can be identified in less than half of the cases. Most studies have focused on thyroid peroxidase antibodies (TPOAbs), not considering the presence of thyroglobulin antibodies (TgAbs). The aim of this study was to systematically assess the prevalence of TgAb positivity in women with RPL, and whether TgAb positivity was associated with the outcome of the next pregnancy. A systematic literature search of PubMed and Embase (from inception to April 29, 2023) was performed for studies reporting on TgAbs in women with RPL. The primary outcome was TgAb positivity in women with RPL compared with women without RPL, with a secondary outcome of association between TgAb positivity and the outcome of the next pregnancy. Pooled effect estimates were expressed as odds ratios (ORs) with confidence intervals [CI] using a random-effects model. The study was registered with PROSPERO (No. CRD42022310232) and adhered to the PRISMA guidelines. A total of 770 studies were screened, 28 of which could be included reporting data from a total of 6868 women. The prevalence of TgAb positivity in women with RPL ranged from 3.6% to 28% compared with 2.4% to 29% in women without RPL. The OR for TgAb positivity was 1.93 ([CI 1.27-2.92]; = 63%) compared with women without RPL, and for TgAbs and/or TPOAbs 2.66 ([CI 1.75-4.05]; = 69%). Four studies reported on the outcome of the next pregnancy after antibody measurement with highly heterogeneous results (OR for pregnancy loss ranging from 0.99 in one study to 10.0 in the other study, and two studies reported no data eligible for meta-analysis). Consequently, a meta-analysis could not be performed. Women with RPL were significantly more often TgAb-positive than women without RPL. Although there was a lack of studies reporting prospective outcomes, the findings of this study support the significance of awareness about the strong association between RPL and thyroid autoimmunity.
Topics: Pregnancy; Female; Humans; Thyroglobulin; Prospective Studies; Thyroid Gland; Autoantibodies; Autoimmunity; Abortion, Habitual
PubMed: 37725583
DOI: 10.1089/thy.2023.0292 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2023In vitro fertilisation (IVF) is a treatment for unexplained subfertility but is invasive, expensive, and associated with risks. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
In vitro fertilisation (IVF) is a treatment for unexplained subfertility but is invasive, expensive, and associated with risks.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of IVF versus expectant management, unstimulated intrauterine insemination (IUI), and IUI with ovarian stimulation using gonadotropins, clomiphene citrate (CC), or letrozole in improving pregnancy outcomes.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched following databases from inception to November 2021, with no language restriction: Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL. We searched reference lists of articles and conference abstracts.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing effectiveness of IVF for unexplained subfertility with expectant management, unstimulated IUI, and stimulated IUI.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We followed standard Cochrane methods.
MAIN RESULTS
IVF versus expectant management (two RCTs) We are uncertain whether IVF improves live birth rate (LBR) and clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) compared to expectant management (odds ratio (OR) 22.0, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.56 to 189.37; 1 RCT; 51 women; very low-quality evidence; OR 3.24, 95% CI 1.07 to 9.8; 2 RCTs; 86 women; I = 80%; very low-quality evidence). Adverse effects were not reported. Assuming 4% LBR and 12% CPR with expectant management, these would be 8.8% to 9% and 13% to 58% with IVF. IVF versus unstimulated IUI (two RCTs) IVF may improve LBR compared to unstimulated IUI (OR 2.47, 95% CI 1.19 to 5.12; 2 RCTs; 156 women; I = 60%; low-quality evidence). We are uncertain whether there is a difference between IVF and IUI for multiple pregnancy rate (MPR) (OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.04 to 27.29; 1 RCT; 43 women; very low-quality evidence) and miscarriage rate (OR 1.72, 95% CI 0.14 to 21.25; 1 RCT; 43 women; very low-quality evidence). No study reported ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS). Assuming 16% LBR, 3% MPR, and 6% miscarriage rate with unstimulated IUI, these outcomes would be 18.5% to 49%, 0.1% to 46%, and 0.9% to 58% with IVF. IVF versus IUI + ovarian stimulation with gonadotropins (6 RCTs), CC (1 RCT), or letrozole (no RCTs) Stratified analysis was based on pretreatment status. Treatment-naive women There may be little or no difference in LBR between IVF and IUI + gonadotropins (1 IVF to 2 to 3 IUI cycles: OR 1.19, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.61; 3 RCTs; 731 women; I = 0%; low-quality evidence; 1 IVF to 1 IUI cycle: OR 1.63, 95% CI 0.91 to 2.92; 2 RCTs; 221 women; I = 54%; low-quality evidence); or between IVF and IUI + CC (OR 2.51, 95% CI 0.96 to 6.55; 1 RCT; 103 women; low-quality evidence). Assuming 42% LBR with IUI + gonadotropins (1 IVF to 2 to 3 IUI cycles) and 26% LBR with IUI + gonadotropins (1 IVF to 1 IUI cycle), LBR would be 39% to 54% and 24% to 51% with IVF. Assuming 15% LBR with IUI + CC, LBR would be 15% to 54% with IVF. There may be little or no difference in CPR between IVF and IUI + gonadotropins (1 IVF to 2 to 3 IUI cycles: OR 1.17, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.59; 3 RCTs; 731 women; I = 0%; low-quality evidence; 1 IVF to 1 IUI cycle: OR 4.59, 95% CI 1.86 to 11.35; 1 RCT; 103 women; low-quality evidence); or between IVF and IUI + CC (OR 3.58, 95% CI 1.51 to 8.49; 1 RCT; 103 women; low-quality evidence). Assuming 48% CPR with IUI + gonadotropins (1 IVF to 2 to 3 IUI cycles) and 17% with IUI + gonadotropins (1 IVF to 1 IUI cycle), CPR would be 44% to 60% and 28% to 70% with IVF. Assuming 21% CPR with IUI + CC, CPR would be 29% to 69% with IVF. There may be little or no difference in multiple pregnancy rate (MPR) between IVF and IUI + gonadotropins (1 IVF to 2 to 3 IUI cycles: OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.77; 3 RCTs; 731 women; I = 0%; low-quality evidence; 1 IVF to 1 IUI cycle: OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.58; 2 RCTs; 221 women; I = 0%; low-quality evidence); or between IVF and IUI + CC (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.17 to 2.41; 1 RCT; 102 women; low-quality evidence). We are uncertain if there is a difference in OHSS between IVF and IUI + gonadotropins with 1 IVF to 2 to 3 IUI cycles (OR 6.86, 95% CI 0.35 to 134.59; 1 RCT; 207 women; very low-quality evidence); and there may be little or no difference in OHSS with 1 IVF to 1 IUI cycle (OR 1.22, 95% CI 0.36 to 4.16; 2 RCTs; 221 women; I = 0%; low-quality evidence). There may be little or no difference between IVF and IUI + CC (OR 1.53, 95% CI 0.24 to 9.57; 1 RCT; 102 women; low-quality evidence). We are uncertain if there is a difference in miscarriage rate between IVF and IUI + gonadotropins with 1 IVF to 2 to 3 IUI cycles (OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.03 to 3.04; 1 RCT; 207 women; very low-quality evidence); and there may be little or no difference with 1 IVF to 1 IUI cycle (OR 1.16, 95% CI 0.44 to 3.02; 1 RCT; 103 women; low-quality evidence). There may be little or no difference between IVF and IUI + CC (OR 1.48, 95% CI 0.54 to 4.05; 1 RCT; 102 women; low-quality evidence). In women pretreated with IUI + CC IVF may improve LBR compared with IUI + gonadotropins (OR 3.90, 95% CI 2.32 to 6.57; 1 RCT; 280 women; low-quality evidence). Assuming 22% LBR with IUI + gonadotropins, LBR would be 39% to 65% with IVF. IVF may improve CPR compared with IUI + gonadotropins (OR 14.13, 95% CI 7.57 to 26.38; 1 RCT; 280 women; low-quality evidence). Assuming 30% CPR with IUI + gonadotropins, CPR would be 76% to 92% with IVF.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
IVF may improve LBR over unstimulated IUI. Data should be interpreted with caution as overall evidence quality was low.
Topics: Pregnancy; Female; Humans; Letrozole; Abortion, Spontaneous; Insemination, Artificial; Fertility Agents, Female; Fertilization in Vitro; Infertility; Clomiphene; Ovarian Hyperstimulation Syndrome; Ovulation Induction; Gonadotropins; Pregnancy Rate; Live Birth
PubMed: 37753821
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003357.pub5 -
Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research Apr 2024To determine whether prenatal cannabis use alone increases the likelihood of fetal and neonatal morbidity and mortality. We searched bibliographic databases, such as... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
To determine whether prenatal cannabis use alone increases the likelihood of fetal and neonatal morbidity and mortality. We searched bibliographic databases, such as PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane reviews, PsycInfo, MEDLINE, Clinicaltrials.gov, and Google Scholar from inception through February 14, 2022. Cohort or case-control studies with prespecified fetal or neonatal outcomes in pregnancies with prenatal cannabis use. Primary outcomes were preterm birth (PTB; <37 weeks of gestation), small-for-gestational-age (SGA), birthweight (grams), and perinatal mortality. Two independent reviewers screened studies. Studies were extracted by one reviewer and confirmed by a second using a predefined template. Risk of bias assessment of studies, using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale, and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation for evaluating the certainty of evidence for select outcomes were performed by two independent reviewers with disagreements resolved by a third. Random effects meta-analyses were conducted, using adjusted and unadjusted effect estimates, to compare groups according to prenatal exposure to cannabis use status. Fifty-three studies were included. Except for birthweight, unadjusted and adjusted meta-analyses had similar results. We found very-low- to low-certainty evidence that cannabis use during pregnancy was significantly associated with greater odds of PTB (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.42; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.19 to 1.69; , 93%; =0.0001), SGA (aOR, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.52 to 2.05; , 86%; <0.0001), and perinatal mortality (aOR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.39 to 1.62; , 0%; <0.0001), but not significantly different for birthweight (mean difference, -40.69 g; 95% CI, -124.22 to 42.83; , 85%; =0.29). Because of substantial heterogeneity, we also conducted a narrative synthesis and found comparable results to meta-analyses. Prenatal cannabis use was associated with greater odds of PTB, SGA, and perinatal mortality even after accounting for prenatal tobacco use. However, our confidence in these findings is limited. Limitations of most existing studies was the failure to not include timing or quantity of cannabis use. This review can help guide health care providers with counseling, management, and addressing the limited existing safety data. PROSPERO CRD42020172343.
Topics: Pregnancy; Female; Infant, Newborn; Humans; Pregnancy Outcome; Premature Birth; Cannabis; Birth Weight; Perinatal Mortality; Fetal Growth Retardation; Perinatal Death
PubMed: 36730710
DOI: 10.1089/can.2022.0262 -
Clinical and Experimental Medicine Aug 2023Coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) is an infectious disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Throughout the pandemic, evidence on the effects... (Review)
Review
Coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) is an infectious disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Throughout the pandemic, evidence on the effects of COVID-19 during pregnancy has been inadequate due to the limited number of studies published. Therefore, the objective of this systematic review was to evaluate current literature regarding the effects of COVID-19 during pregnancy and establish pregnancy outcomes and vertical and perinatal transmission during pregnancy. Multiple databases were searched, including Embase, Medline, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane Central Register of Control Clinical Trials, using the following keywords: [Pregnancy] AND [COVID-19 OR SARS-CoV-2 OR nCoV-19] OR [Perinatal transmission, Vertical transmission (VT), Pregnancy complications], [Pregnancy] AND [Hyperinflammation OR Cytokine storm]. We excluded in vitro and experimental studies, but also ex-vivo and animal study methods. To exclude the risk of bias during data collection and interpretation, all included studies were peer-reviewed publications. This review is estimated to tabulate the study intervention characteristics and compare them against the planned groups for each synthesis. Our findings showed that pregnant women are commonly susceptible to respiratory viral infections and severe pneumonia due to physiological immune suppression and pregnancy-induced changes. VT of SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy is associated with a great deal of controversy and conflict. However, there is still no robust clinical evidence of VT. Furthermore, the clinical presentation and management of COVID-19 during pregnancy are nearly identical to those of non-pregnant women. Finally, chloroquine and remdesivir are the only two drugs evaluated as adequate for the management of COVID-19 during pregnancy.
Topics: Pregnancy; Female; Humans; COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2; Infectious Disease Transmission, Vertical; Pregnancy Complications, Infectious; Pregnancy Outcome
PubMed: 36251144
DOI: 10.1007/s10238-022-00907-z -
BJOG : An International Journal of... Sep 2023To develop a core outcome set for pregnancy nutrition.
OBJECTIVE
To develop a core outcome set for pregnancy nutrition.
DESIGN
Mixed-methods core outcome set development study.
SETTING
Online.
POPULATION
Healthcare professionals, researchers and women with experience of pregnancy.
METHODS
Candidate outcomes were identified from a systematic review of intervention and observational studies. One-to-one semi-structured interviews with women with experience of pregnancy (n = 26) were transcribed and analysed using inductive thematic analysis. Outcomes were consolidated, organised into domains and categorised using the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials taxonomy. A two-round, modified Delphi survey (May-August 2021) was conducted. Participants voted on how critical each outcome was to include using a nine-point Likert scale. All outcomes that did not reach consensus were discussed at a consensus meeting.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES
Critical outcomes to include in the core outcome set.
RESULTS
A total of 53 091 articles were identified. Outcomes were extracted from 427 articles. The qualitative data yielded 45 outcomes. An additional 24 outcomes came from the literature. In round one, 82 participants ranked 30 outcomes. One new outcome was included in round two, during which participants (n = 60) voted 12/31 outcomes as critical to include. The remaining 20 outcomes were discussed at the consensus meeting and two outcomes were included. Maternal outcomes included: pregnancy complications; delivery complications; maternal wellbeing; gestational weight change; maternal vitamin and mineral status; mental health; diet quality; nutritional intakes; need for treatments, interventions, medications and supplements; pregnancy loss or perinatal death; birth defects or congenital anomalies; neonatal complications; and newborn anthropometry and body composition.
CONCLUSIONS
The use of the Pregnancy Nutrition Core Outcome Set (PRENCOS) will ensure researchers measure what matters most from the perspective of key stakeholders.
Topics: Infant, Newborn; Pregnancy; Female; Humans; Prenatal Nutritional Physiological Phenomena; Pregnancy Outcome; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Pregnancy Complications; Perinatal Death; Research Design; Delphi Technique; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 37017148
DOI: 10.1111/1471-0528.17470 -
Acta Obstetricia Et Gynecologica... Jan 2024Hyperemesis gravidarum affects 0.3%-3% of pregnant women each year and is the leading cause of hospitalization in early pregnancy. Previous systematic reviews of...
INTRODUCTION
Hyperemesis gravidarum affects 0.3%-3% of pregnant women each year and is the leading cause of hospitalization in early pregnancy. Previous systematic reviews of available treatments have found a lack of consistent evidence, and few studies of high quality. Since 2016, no systematic review has been conducted and an up-to date review is requested. In a recent James Lind Alliance collaboration, it was clear that research on effective treatments is a high priority for both patients and clinicians.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Searches without time limits were performed in the AMED, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Medline, PsycINFO, and Scopus databases until June 26, 2023. Studies published before October 1, 2014 were identified from the review by O'Donnell et al., 2016. Selection criteria were randomized clinical trials and non-randomized studies of interventions comparing treatment of hyperemesis gravidarum with another treatment or placebo. Outcome variables included were: degree of nausea; vomiting; inability to tolerate oral fluids or food; hospital treatment; health-related quality of life, small-for-gestational-age infant; and preterm birth. Abstracts and full texts were screened, and risk of bias of the studies was assessed independently by two authors. Synthesis without meta-analysis was performed, and certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. PROSPERO (CRD42022303150).
RESULTS
Twenty treatments were included in 25 studies with low or moderate risk of bias. The certainty of evidence was very low for all treatments except for acupressure in addition to standard care, which showed a possible moderate decrease in nausea and vomiting, with low certainty of evidence.
CONCLUSIONS
Several scientific knowledge gaps were identified. Studies on treatments for hyperemesis gravidarum are few, and the certainty of evidence for different treatments is either low or very low. To establish more robust evidence, it is essential to use validated scoring systems, the recently established diagnostic criteria, clear descriptions and measurements of core outcomes and to perform larger studies.
Topics: Female; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Pregnancy; Hyperemesis Gravidarum; Nausea; Pregnant Women; Premature Birth; Quality of Life
PubMed: 37891710
DOI: 10.1111/aogs.14706 -
Nutrients Sep 2023Although gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) has several short- and long-term adverse effects on the mother and the offspring, no medicine is generally prescribed to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Although gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) has several short- and long-term adverse effects on the mother and the offspring, no medicine is generally prescribed to prevent GDM. The present systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the effect of inositol supplementation in preventing GDM and related outcomes. Systematic search was performed in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase until 13 September 2023. Eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) compared the efficacy of inositols to placebo in pregnant women at high risk for GDM. Our primary outcome was the incidence of GDM, whereas secondary outcomes were oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) and maternal and fetal complications. (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021284939). Eight eligible RCTs were identified, including the data of 1795 patients. The incidence of GDM was halved by inositols compared to placebo (RR = 0.42, CI: 0.26-0.67). Fasting, 1-h, and 2-h OGTT glucose levels were significantly decreased by inositols. The stereoisomer myoinositol also reduced the risk of insulin need (RR = 0.29, CI: 0.13-0.68), preeclampsia or gestational hypertension (RR = 0.38, CI: 0.2-0.71), preterm birth (RR = 0.44, CI: 0.22-0.88), and neonatal hypoglycemia (RR = 0.12, CI: 0.03-0.55). Myoinositol decrease the incidence of GDM in pregnancies high-risk for GDM. Moreover, myoinositol supplementation reduces the risk of insulin need, preeclampsia or gestational hypertension, preterm birth, and neonatal hypoglycemia. Based on the present study 2-4 g myoinositol canbe suggested from the first trimester to prevent GDM and related outcomes.
Topics: Pregnancy; Infant, Newborn; Female; Humans; Diabetes, Gestational; Premature Birth; Pre-Eclampsia; Hypertension, Pregnancy-Induced; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Hypoglycemia; Insulin; Inositol
PubMed: 37836508
DOI: 10.3390/nu15194224