Skip to main content
  • More from ADA
    • Diabetes
    • Clinical Diabetes
    • Diabetes Spectrum
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
    • ADA Scientific Sessions Abstracts
    • BMJ Open Diabetes Research & Care
  • Subscribe
  • Log in
  • My Cart
  • Follow ada on Twitter
  • RSS
  • Visit ada on Facebook
Diabetes Care

Advanced Search

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current
    • Current Issue
    • Online Ahead of Print
    • Special Article Collections
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
  • Browse
    • By Topic
    • Issue Archive
    • Saved Searches
    • Special Article Collections
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
  • Info
    • About the Journal
    • About the Editors
    • ADA Journal Policies
    • Instructions for Authors
    • Guidance for Reviewers
  • Reprints/Reuse
  • Advertising
  • Subscriptions
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Institutional Subscriptions and Site Licenses
    • Access Institutional Usage Reports
    • Purchase Single Issues
  • Alerts
    • E­mail Alerts
    • RSS Feeds
  • Podcasts
    • Diabetes Core Update
    • Special Podcast Series: Therapeutic Inertia
    • Special Podcast Series: Influenza Podcasts
    • Special Podcast Series: SGLT2 Inhibitors
    • Special Podcast Series: COVID-19
  • Submit
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Journal Policies
    • Instructions for Authors
    • ADA Peer Review
  • More from ADA
    • Diabetes
    • Clinical Diabetes
    • Diabetes Spectrum
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
    • ADA Scientific Sessions Abstracts
    • BMJ Open Diabetes Research & Care

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Diabetes Care
  • Home
  • Current
    • Current Issue
    • Online Ahead of Print
    • Special Article Collections
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
  • Browse
    • By Topic
    • Issue Archive
    • Saved Searches
    • Special Article Collections
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
  • Info
    • About the Journal
    • About the Editors
    • ADA Journal Policies
    • Instructions for Authors
    • Guidance for Reviewers
  • Reprints/Reuse
  • Advertising
  • Subscriptions
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Institutional Subscriptions and Site Licenses
    • Access Institutional Usage Reports
    • Purchase Single Issues
  • Alerts
    • E­mail Alerts
    • RSS Feeds
  • Podcasts
    • Diabetes Core Update
    • Special Podcast Series: Therapeutic Inertia
    • Special Podcast Series: Influenza Podcasts
    • Special Podcast Series: SGLT2 Inhibitors
    • Special Podcast Series: COVID-19
  • Submit
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Journal Policies
    • Instructions for Authors
    • ADA Peer Review
Clinical Care/Education/Nutrition

Prepregnancy Care and Pregnancy Outcomes in Women With Type 1 Diabetes

  1. Rosemary C. Temple, FRCP1,
  2. Vivien J. Aldridge, RGN1 and
  3. Helen R. Murphy, FRACP2
  1. 1Elsie Bertram Diabetes Centre, Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital, Norwich, U.K.
  2. 2Diabetes and Endocrinology, Ipswich Hospital, Heath Road, Ipswich, U.K.
  1. Address correspondence and reprint requests to Dr. Rosemary Temple, Elsie Bertram Diabetes Centre, Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital, Colney Lane, Norwich NR4 7UY, U.K. E-mail: rosemary.temple{at}nnuh.nhs.uk
Diabetes Care 2006 Aug; 29(8): 1744-1749. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc05-2265
PreviousNext
  • Article
  • Figures & Tables
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

OBJECTIVE—The objective of this study was to examine the relationship between prepregnancy care, glycemic control, maternal hypoglycemia, and pregnancy outcomes in women with type 1 diabetes.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS—This was a prospective observational cohort study of women with type 1 diabetes who delivered from 1991 to 2002. Outcome measures were attendance at a clinic for prepregnancy care, maternal HbA1c (A1C) throughout pregnancy, maternal severe hypoglycemic episodes, macrosomia, preeclampsia, premature delivery (delivery before 37 weeks), very premature delivery (delivery before 34 weeks), spontaneous abortion, and adverse pregnancy outcome (defined as major malformation, stillbirth, and neonatal death).

RESULTS—There were 290 pregnancies, in which 110 (38%) women had prepregnancy care. The prepregnancy care group contained more primiparous women (54.7 vs. 40.6%; P = 0.021) and fewer smokers (9.4 vs. 28.7%; P < 0.0001). They registered earlier (6.6 vs. 8.3 weeks, P < 0.0001) and had a lower A1C at the initial visit (6.5% vs. 7.6%; P < 0.0001). Adverse pregnancy outcomes and very premature deliveries were significantly lower in women who received prepregnancy care (2.9 vs. 10.2%; P = 0.03 and 5.0 vs. 14.2%; P = 0.02, respectively). In contrast, between groups, there was no difference in A1C after 24 weeks or in the rates of macrosomia, preeclampsia, or maternal severe hypoglycemic episodes.

CONCLUSIONS—Prepregnancy care was associated with improved glycemic control in early pregnancy and significant reductions in adverse pregnancy outcome (malformation, stillbirth, and neonatal death) and very premature delivery. However, prepregnancy care failed to have an impact on glycemic control in later pregnancy or to reduce the risk of macrosomia and preeclampsia.

Diabetes is the most common medical condition to complicate pregnancy, affecting 1 pregnant woman in 250 in the U.K. (1). Women with type 1 diabetes have a poor outcome compared with women without diabetes, with increased rates of congenital malformations, preeclampsia, premature delivery, perinatal mortality, and risk of delivering a macrosomic baby (2). The Confidential Enquiry into Maternal and Child Health (CEMACH) confirms a nearly fourfold rise in perinatal mortality rates and twofold rise in congenital malformation rate in women with diabetes over baseline rates in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland (1). Studies suggest that the risk of adverse outcome (malformation and perinatal mortality) is related to poor glycemic control in early pregnancy (3,4). The critical time period for optimal glycemic control is before 7 weeks’ gestation, during early organogenesis (5). Prepregnancy care is the only intervention that targets glycemic control at this critical early stage and has been associated with improvements in maternal and perinatal outcomes (4,6–13). The association of prepregnancy care with reduced risk of major congenital malformation has been further confirmed on meta-analysis (14). Some studies of macrosomia and preeclampsia suggest that these complications are related to glycemic control in early pregnancy and therefore may also be reduced by prepregnancy care (15–17).

However, many studies lack information on important confounding factors such as smoking status. Others have been criticized for lack of data on periconceptual use of folic acid (available for only one study in the meta-analysis), inadequate detail on glycemic control in later pregnancy, and poor descriptions of the type of antenatal care offered to women once pregnant (14). Much of the pregnancy outcome data on prepregnancy care dates back to the 1970s and 1980s, with only limited prospective data from studies carried out since 1990 (18,19).

It is well recognized that incidence of severe hypoglycemia is increased in pregnancy and is associated with tight glycemic control in early pregnancy (20). Indeed, it was originally observed that the offspring of women with increased numbers of hypoglycemic episodes had reduced rates of congenital malformation (21). One early study showed that prepregnancy care was associated with an increased risk of hypoglycemia (11), but the problem of hypoglycemia has not been addressed in recent studies of prepregnancy care.

The aim of our prospective study was to examine the relationship between attendance at a clinic for prepregnancy care, glycemic control throughout pregnancy, incidence of severe hypoglycemia, and pregnancy outcome including risk of macrosomia, preeclampsia, and premature delivery in women with type 1 diabetes.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This was a prospective observational cohort study including all pregnant women with type 1 diabetes who received their antenatal care and delivered in Norwich, U.K., between 1991 and 2002. The hospital serves a resident population of 510,000 of predominantly Caucasian ethnicity. Women were excluded if they received only part of their antenatal care in Norwich and terminated their pregnancy for nontherapeutic reasons. Ethical approval was obtained from the Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital Ethics Committee, and informed consent was obtained from all participants.

Prepregnancy and antenatal care

A formal preconception service was established in 1990 and was staffed by a consultant physician and a senior diabetes specialist nurse. All women with type 1 diabetes are reviewed regularly in the hospital diabetes center. Women of childbearing age are asked about plans for pregnancy during routine clinic visits and are encouraged to attend the center for prepregnancy care if they plan to become pregnant in the near future.

Women attending the center for prepregnancy care were seen every 1–3 months by the consultant physician and also the diabetes specialist nurse. All were reviewed by a dietitian. Women were advised to monitor capillary blood glucose four to seven times daily and aim for preprandial blood glucose <6 mmol/l, postprandial blood glucose <8 mmol/l, and a target HbA1c (A1C) <7.5% before conception. Women were educated about the increased risk of severe hypoglycemia during pregnancy, loss of hypoglycemic awareness during pregnancy, and risk of increased insulin sensitivity in early pregnancy and late pregnancy and instructed on the use of glucagon.

All women were advised to take folic acid supplementation before or as soon as they discontinued contraception and to avoid the use of certain drugs, e.g., ACE inhibitors and/or statins, with smoking cessation advice given as required. All women in this study attend hospital clinics; they are advised to contact the diabetes team by telephone if they become pregnant and would be registered into the diabetes antenatal clinic in the following week. All women received the same antenatal care, which involved fortnightly (occasionally weekly) visits to the diabetes antenatal clinic. Women were managed with short-acting insulin before meals with intermediate-acting insulin once or twice daily. Insulin analogs were not being used for diabetes in pregnancy during the study period.

Data collection and outcome measures

All women were screened for complications of diabetes, and those with a history of treated retinopathy or any degree of nephropathy were defined as having microvascular complications. Smoking status was documented as positive if the woman smoked at the time of her first visit to the diabetes antenatal clinic. Severe hypoglycemic episodes were defined as any episode of hypoglycemia needing external assistance for recovery, and all episodes of severe hypoglycemia were recorded at each clinic visit. A1C was measured every 4 weeks and assayed using the Biomen 8140 method (normal range 3.6–5.8%).

Adverse pregnancy outcome measures were major congenital malformation (defined as potentially life-threatening or associated with major long-term disability; spontaneous abortion was excluded), stillbirth (defined as death after 22 weeks’ gestation), and neonatal death (death within 28 days after delivery). Pregnancy complications included severe hypoglycemia, spontaneous abortion (<22 weeks), macrosomia, preeclampsia, premature delivery (before 37 weeks), very premature delivery (before 34 weeks), and cesarean section. Macrosomia was defined as birth weight >90th centile, matched for gestational age and sex. Preeclampsia was defined as blood pressure >140/90 mmHg on two occasions with protein excretion >300 mg in 24 h.

Statistical analyses

Univariate comparisons between patients receiving and not receiving prepregnancy care were performed using Pearson’s χ2 test for categorical variables and Student’s t tests for continuous variables. For multivariate comparisons, logistic regression analysis was performed with backward elimination using a P value of >0.10 as the threshold for removing a variable. The response variables of interest were spontaneous abortion, adverse pregnancy outcome (malformation, stillbirth, and neonatal death), macrosomia, preeclampsia, premature delivery, and cesarean section. Predictor variables entered into the model were diabetes duration, prepregnancy care, maternal age, parity, cigarette smoking at conception, maternal weight, A1C at registration and at 12 and 24 weeks’ gestation, and the presence of microvascular complications. Statistical analyses were performed using S-plus 6.2 (Insightful).

RESULTS

We present the results of 290 pregnancies in women with type 1 diabetes during the study period. Two women declined to participate in the study. Two women (1%) were non-Caucasian. No women were receiving statins before conception, and only one woman was receiving an ACE inhibitor before conception.

There were 28 (9.7%) spontaneous abortions, 13 (4.5%) congenital malformations, 5 stillbirths, and 2 neonatal deaths (perinatal mortality rate of 27 of 1,000 births). Eight women had medical pregnancy terminations for congenital malformations, and one woman had a medical termination for Patau’s syndrome (trisomy of chromosome 13). There were six neural tube, three cardiac, two skeletal, and two urogenital malformations. Both neonatal deaths were related to delivery before 26 weeks. Two stillbirths occurred before 28 weeks, and three stillbirths occurred between 37 and 38 weeks’ gestation.

A total of 110 (38%) women attended the center for prepregnancy care. Comparing 1997–2002 with 1991–1996, we found a significant increase in the proportion of women accessing prepregnancy care (44.8 vs. 31.6%, P = 0.023). Between women who did or did not receive prepregnancy care, there was no significant difference in mean maternal age (29.4 vs. 28.6 years), mean duration of diabetes (12.9 vs. 13.6 years), mean maternal weight (69.8 vs. 68.6 kg), or the presence of microvascular complications (8.7 vs. 8.1%) (Table 1). There were significantly more primiparous women (54.7 vs. 40.6%, P = 0.02) and significantly fewer smokers (9.4 vs. 28.7%, P < 0.0001) in women who did receive prepregnancy care. Women accessing prepregnancy care signed up in the diabetes antenatal clinic significantly earlier than women who did not (mean 6.6 vs. 8.3 weeks, P < 0.0001). Women who had not received prepregnancy care were rarely receiving folic acid supplements before they attended the antenatal clinic.

At the initial visit, 82.7% of women with prepregnancy care had an A1C ≤7.5% and 62.7% had an A1C <7% compared with 50% of women without prepregnancy care with an A1C ≤7.5% and 35.4% with A1C <7% (P < 0.0001 and P < 0.0001, respectively). In those women with no prepregnancy care, 53.3% of multiparous women had an A1C ≤7.5% compared with 46.6% of primiparous women. A1C was significantly lower in women who received prepregnancy care at registration (mean 6.5 vs. 7.6%, P < 0.0001) and remained lower throughout early pregnancy (Table 2). However, the difference in glycemic control became less marked with increasing gestation with no significant differences from 28 weeks onward. There was no significant difference in the incidence of severe hypoglycemia between women who did or did not receive prepregnancy care (42.5 vs. 36.2%, P = 0.30).

There were significantly fewer adverse pregnancy outcomes (malformations, stillbirths, and neonatal deaths) in women with prepregnancy care compared with women without prepregnancy care (2.9 vs. 10.2%, P = 0.03). In addition, there appeared to be a reduction in spontaneous abortions (5.7 vs. 14.0%, P = 0.056). There were also significantly fewer very premature deliveries (delivery before 34 weeks) in women with prepregnancy care (5.0 vs. 14.2%, P = 0.02) (Table 1). In contrast, between women with and without prepregnancy care, there was no significant difference in rates of delivery before 37 weeks, preeclampsia, macrosomia, or cesarean section.

The benefit of prepregnancy care was not explained by differences in confounding factors between the two groups. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that not having received prepregnancy care (odds ratio [OR] 3.89 [95% CI 1.35–11.18]; P = 0.006), primiparity (2.74 [1.10–6.81]; P = 0.03), and duration of diabetes (1.32 [1.00−1.75]; P = 0.05) were all independently associated with very premature delivery (Table 3). Variables not independently associated with very premature delivery were maternal age and weight, smoking at conception, A1C at registration and 12 and 24 weeks’ gestation, and microvascular complications. Variables independently associated with spontaneous abortion, congenital malformation, stillbirth, and perinatal death were lack of prepregnancy care (5.9 [1.7–20.4]; P < 0.0009), the presence of microvascular complications (5.9 [1.0–35.2]; P < 0.05), duration of diabetes (1.3 [1.0–1.6]; P < 0.07), and A1C at the initial visit (1.3 [1.0–1.6]; P < 0.03). Variables not associated with spontaneous abortion and adverse pregnancy outcome were maternal age and weight, smoking at conception, and A1C at 12 and 24 weeks’ gestation.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the most comprehensive cohort study of prepregnancy care in women with type 1 diabetes in the U.K., describing glycemic control throughout pregnancy and multiple pregnancy outcomes. In addition, we have complete follow-up on a large and recent unselected clinic population, a collection of monthly A1C measurements from a single laboratory, and careful assessment of potential confounding factors. The prepregnancy clinic was attended by 38% of women, which is in keeping with findings from the CEMACH report (1). There was a significant increase in numbers of women receiving prepregnancy care during the study. This figure is lower than that of 58% reported in a recent study from Denmark (22). In that study, preconception guidance was not defined, and only 34% women were monitoring their blood glucose at the time of conception compared with 100% women in our study. This might suggest that the preconception guidance had been limited compared with prepregnancy care in our study.

Our study shows that, in women with type 1 diabetes, receiving prepregnancy care is associated with improved glycemic control in early pregnancy. Although the improvement in glycemic control was most significant in the first 20 weeks of pregnancy, it was not associated with the increased risk of severe hypoglycemia seen in earlier studies (11,23). We suggest that this result is due to increased awareness about the risk of hypoglycemia in pregnancy by the health professionals and also education of the women with diabetes, as has been shown by Howorka et al. (24) in their study of functional insulin treatment programs in pregnancy. Prepregnancy care resulted in subsequently reduced risk of spontaneous abortion, adverse pregnancy outcome (major congenital malformation, stillbirth, and perinatal death), and very premature delivery. Our data show a highly statistically significant association between prepregnancy care and very premature delivery and suggest that not having received prepregnancy care was an important predictor of very premature delivery, even after correction for potential confounding factors including smoking status. A recent French study of premature delivery in women with type 1 diabetes suggested that the risk of premature delivery was related to glycemic control around the time of delivery (25). In contrast, our results suggest that early glycemic control is also important as the benefits of prepregnancy care on glycemic control were greatest in early pregnancy. Although we did not document neonatal admissions, we suggest that this reduction in deliveries before 34 weeks would have had a very positive impact.

The benefits of prepregnancy care were not explained by certain possible confounding factors such as smoking, maternal age, and maternal weight. In addition to emphasis on tight glycemic control and early registration, prepregnancy care included prescribing of folic acid supplements for all women whereas patients with no prepregnancy care were rarely taking folic acid supplements at conception. No patients were receiving statins at conception, and only one patient was receiving an ACE inhibitor at conception. All women in the study had received diabetes care from a hospital diabetologist before pregnancy and <1% was of non-Caucasian ethnicity. Data were not collected on the qualitative measure of planning of the pregnancy, but we concur with views expressed previously by both Steel et al. (11) and Holing et al. (26) that many women in the non–prepregnancy care group were pleased to be pregnant and had often either not been using contraception or using it unreliably. Data on socioeconomic status and level of maternal education were not collected, and these may have been factors in whether patients requested prepregnancy care as has been suggested by Holing et al. (26).

An association between accessing prepregnancy care and a reduced risk of spontaneous abortion was suggested in an earlier study (10). Despite the inherent difficulties in trying to capture all spontaneous abortions, it is important to reexamine this relationship because the risk of spontaneous abortion is increased in women with poorly controlled type 1 diabetes (27). We found a trend (P = 0.056) toward a reduction in spontaneous abortions in women receiving prepregnancy care compared with those who did not. Moreover, the magnitude of reduction in rates of spontaneous abortion may be underestimated because women not receiving prepregnancy care registered significantly later for antenatal care, with the possibility that some spontaneous abortions in this group may have been missed.

We found no differences in the risk of preeclampsia or macrosomia in women who did receive prepregnancy care compared with women who did not, despite evidence that these complications are related to poor glycemic control (15,17,28–30). One possible explanation for our findings is that the risk of preeclampsia and macrosomia is related to glycemic control in later rather than early pregnancy because we found the benefits of prepregnancy care on glycemic control were restricted to the first 24 weeks of gestation. Our rates of macrosomia and preeclampsia are strikingly similar to those in a recent prospective study in the Netherlands of 42.6 and 12.8%, respectively, compared with the Dutch rates of 45.1 and 12.7% (2). Currently, despite their relationship with glycemic control, we appear not to have effective tools to optimize glycemia and reduce these risks.

Several studies have analyzed characteristics of women receiving prepregnancy care and have shown that these women are more likely to be married or in stable relationships, have higher incomes, and are better educated than women not receiving prepregnancy care (18,31). It had therefore been suggested by some authors that women attending clinics for prepregnancy care are a self-selected group who are more able to achieve good glycemic control (31). However, our results show that there was no significant difference in glycemic control between the groups in the second half of pregnancy, suggesting that the women who had not accessed prepregnancy care are capable of achieving the same level of glycemia as women receiving prepregnancy care even if they are of a different socioeconomic status or educational background.

Our study is novel in documenting the duration of benefit associated with prepregnancy care on glycemic control. Because A1C reflects glycemic control over the preceding 6–8 weeks, our data showing significant differences in A1C between groups from registration until 24 weeks’ gestation suggest that improved glycemic control in the prepregnancy group continues until 16–18 weeks’ gestation. The rapid reduction in A1C values between the initial visit and 12 weeks’ gestation in both groups emphasizes the importance of early first trimester assessment and demonstrates that glycemic assessment at the end of the first trimester does not adequately represent glycemic control at the time of organogenesis.

During this study, great emphasis was placed on glucose monitoring in the prepregnancy care, and the aim was for an A1C <7.5% before conception. Recent guidelines suggest that when planning a pregnancy, women with type 1 diabetes should aim for the lowest A1C possible without undue risk of hypoglycemia, and the authors support these recommendations. However, during the study period, no women were using insulin pumps or analog insulins. Despite intensive input and support in the prepregnancy group, 13% of women were unable to achieve an A1C <7.5 and 37% of women were unable to achieve an A1C <7% at registration. Hopefully, newer technologies such as insulin pumps and glucose monitoring systems along with analog insulins will enable women to achieve better glycemic control both at initial registration and in later pregnancy.

In summary, the results of our study show that accessing of prepregnancy care is associated with earlier antenatal registration, improved glycemic control in the first half of pregnancy, and a reduced risk of spontaneous abortion, adverse outcome (malformation or perinatal death), and delivery before 34 weeks’ gestation. It is therefore essential that researchers and clinicians refocus on prepregnancy care to improve the use of these services, to examine the views of nonparticipants and determine how we can engage those most at risk of poor outcomes, and to evaluate the role of prepregnancy care for the growing numbers of women with type 2 diabetes, for whom existing services are failing (1). We also need to address the fact that, however effective prepregancy care is in early pregnancy, it fails to reduce the risks of macrosomia and preeclampsia. We believe that further study is required to optimize glycemic control in later pregnancy and that perhaps, by combining prepregnancy care with additional education during pregnancy and/or exploring the use of new technologies and analog insulins, glycemic control could be optimized throughout pregnancy.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1—

Characteristics of women with type 1 diabetes who did or did not receive prepregnancy care

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2—

Glycemic control during pregnancy in women who did or did not receive prepregnancy care

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 3—

Independent predictors of very premature delivery (<34 weeks) and spontaneous abortion, congenital malformation, stillbirth, and perinatal death in women with type 1 diabetes

Acknowledgments

We are grateful for the contributions of Lynette Yaxley in establishing the prepregnancy service, Moira Kelly and Katherine Stanley for their excellent obstetric management of all patients, and Peter Campbell for statistical advice.

Footnotes

  • A table elsewhere in this issue shows conventional and Système International (SI) units and conversion factors for many substances.

    The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked “ advertisement” in accordance with 18 U.S.C Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

    • Accepted April 28, 2006.
    • Received November 20, 2005.
  • DIABETES CARE

References

  1. ↵
    Confidential Enquiry into Maternal and Child Health (CEMACH): Pregnancy in Women with Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes in 2002–03, England, Wales and Northern Ireland. London, CEMACH, 2005
  2. ↵
    Evers IM, de Valk HW, Visser GH: Risk of complications of pregnancy in women with type 1 diabetes: nationwide prospective study in the Netherlands. BMJ 328: 915, 2004
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. ↵
    Temple R, Aldridge V, Greenwood R, Heyburn P, Sampson M, Stanley K: Association between outcome of pregnancy and glycaemic control in early pregnancy in type 1 diabetes: population based study. BMJ 325:1275–1276, 2002
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  4. ↵
    Kitzmiller JL, Gavin LA, Gin GD, Jovanovic-Peterson L, Main EK, Zigrang WD: Preconception care of diabetes: glycemic control prevents congenital anomalies. JAMA 265:731–736, 1991
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  5. ↵
    Mills JL, Baker L, Goldman AS: Malformations in infants of diabetic mothers occur before the seventh gestational week: implications for treatment. Diabetes 28:292–293, 1979
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. ↵
    Fuhrmann K, Reiher H, Semmler K, Fischer F, Fischer M, Glockner E: Prevention of congenital malformations in infants of insulin-dependent diabetic mothers. Diabetes Care 6:219–223, 1983
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. Fuhrmann K, Reiher H, Semmler K, Glockner E: The effect of intensified conventional insulin therapy before and during pregnancy on the malformation rate in offspring of diabetic mothers. Exp Clin Endocrinol 83:173–177, 1984
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  8. Goldman JA, Dicker D, Feldberg D, Yeshaya A, Samuel N, Karp M: Pregnancy outcome in patients with insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus with preconceptional diabetic control: a comparative study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 155:293–297, 1986
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  9. Rowe BR, Rowbotham CJ, Barnett AH: Pre-conception counselling, birth weight, and congenital abnormalities in established and gestational diabetic pregnancy. Diabetes Res 6:33–35, 1987
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  10. ↵
    Dicker D, Feldberg D, Samuel N, Yeshaya A, Karp M, Goldman JA: Spontaneous abortion in patients with insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus: the effect of preconceptional diabetic control. Am J Obstet Gynecol 158:1161–1164, 1988
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  11. ↵
    Steel JM, Johnstone FD, Hepburn DA, Smith AF: Can prepregnancy care of diabetic women reduce the risk of abnormal babies? BMJ 301:1070–1074, 1990
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. Rosenn B, Miodovnik M, Combs CA, Khoury J, Siddiqi TA: Pre-conception management of insulin-dependent diabetes: improvement of pregnancy outcome. Obstet Gynecol 77:846–849, 1991
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  13. ↵
    Dunne FP, Brydon P, Smith T, Essex M, Nicholson H, Dunn J: Pre-conception diabetes care in insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. QJM 92:175–176, 1999
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. ↵
    Ray JG, O’Brien TE, Chan WS: Preconception care and the risk of congenital anomalies in the offspring of women with diabetes mellitus: a meta-analysis. QJM 94:435–444, 2001
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  15. ↵
    Gold AE, Reilly R, Little J, Walker JD: The effect of glycemic control in the pre-conception period and early pregnancy on birth weight in women with IDDM. Diabetes Care 21:535–538, 1998
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  16. Hanson U, Persson B: Epidemiology of pregnancy-induced hypertension and preeclampsia in type 1 (insulin-dependent) diabetic pregnancies in Sweden. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 77:620–624, 1998
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  17. ↵
    Hiilesmaa V, Suhonen L, Teramo K: Glycaemic control is associated with pre-eclampsia but not with pregnancy-induced hypertension in women with type I diabetes mellitus. Diabetologia 43:1534–1539, 2000
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  18. ↵
    Janz NK, Herman WH, Becker MP, Charron-Prochownik D, Shayna VL, Lesnick TG, Jacober SJ, Fachnie JD, Kruger DF, Sanfield JA, Rosenblatt SI, Lorenz RP: Diabetes and pregnancy: factors associated with seeking pre-conception care. Diabetes Care 18:157–165, 1995
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  19. ↵
    Herman WH, Janz NK, Becker MP, Charron-Prochownik D: Diabetes and pregnancy: preconception care, pregnancy outcomes, resource utilization and costs. J Reprod Med 44:33–38, 1999
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  20. ↵
    Evers IM, ter Braak EW, de Valk HW, van Der Schoot B, Janssen N, Visser GH: Risk indicators predictive for severe hypoglycemia during the first trimester of type 1 diabetic pregnancy. Diabetes Care 25:554–559, 2002
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  21. ↵
    Pedersen J: The Pregnant Diabetic and Her Newborn. Baltimore, MD, Williams and Wilkins, 1977
  22. ↵
    Jensen DM, Damm P, Meolsted-Pedersen L, Ovesen P, Westergaard JG, Moeller M, Beck-Nielsen H: Outcomes in type 1 diabetic pregnancies: a nationwide population based study. Diabetes Care 27:2819–2823, 2004
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  23. ↵
    DCCT Study Group: Pregnancy outcomes in the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 174:1343–1353, 1996
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  24. ↵
    Howorka K, Pumprla J, Gabriel M, Feiks A, Schulsche C, Nowotny C, Schober E, Waldhoer T, Langer M: Normalization of pregnancy outcome in pregestational diabetes through functional insulin treatment and modular out-patient education adapted for pregnancy. Diabet Med 18:965–972, 2001
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  25. ↵
    Lepercq J, Coste J, Theau A, Dubois-Laforgue D, Timsit J: Factors associated with preterm delivery in women with type 1 diabetes: a cohort study. Diabetes Care 27:2824–2828, 2004
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  26. ↵
    Holing EV, Beyer CS, Brown ZA, Connell FA: Why don’t women with diabetes plan their pregnancies? Diabetes Care 21:889–895, 1998
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  27. ↵
    Kitzmiller JL, Buchanan TA, Kjos S, Combs CA, Ratner RE: Pre-conception care of diabetes, congenital malformations, and spontaneous abortions. Diabetes Care 19:514–541, 1996
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  28. ↵
    Rosenn B, Miodovnik M, Combs CA, Khoury J, Siddiqi TA: Poor glycemic control and antepartum obstetric complications in women with insulin-dependent diabetes. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 43:21–28, 1993
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. Hsu CD, Hong SF, Nickless NA, Copel JA: Glycosylated hemoglobin in insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus related to preeclampsia. Am J Perinatol 15:199–202, 1998
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. ↵
    Raychaudhuri K, Maresh MJ: Glycemic control throughout pregnancy and fetal growth in insulin-dependent diabetes. Obstet Gynecol 95:190–194, 2000
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  31. ↵
    Gregory R, Tattersall RB: Are diabetic pre-pregnancy clinics worth while? Lancet 340:656–658, 1992
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top
Diabetes Care: 29 (8)

In this Issue

August 2006, 29(8)
  • Table of Contents
  • About the Cover
  • Index by Author
Sign up to receive current issue alerts
View Selected Citations (0)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about Diabetes Care.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Prepregnancy Care and Pregnancy Outcomes in Women With Type 1 Diabetes
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Diabetes Care
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the Diabetes Care web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Prepregnancy Care and Pregnancy Outcomes in Women With Type 1 Diabetes
Rosemary C. Temple, Vivien J. Aldridge, Helen R. Murphy
Diabetes Care Aug 2006, 29 (8) 1744-1749; DOI: 10.2337/dc05-2265

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Add to Selected Citations
Share

Prepregnancy Care and Pregnancy Outcomes in Women With Type 1 Diabetes
Rosemary C. Temple, Vivien J. Aldridge, Helen R. Murphy
Diabetes Care Aug 2006, 29 (8) 1744-1749; DOI: 10.2337/dc05-2265
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • CONCLUSIONS
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Tables
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Increased Second Trimester Maternal Glucose Levels Are Related to Extremely Large-for-Gestational-Age Infants in Women With Type 1 Diabetes
  • Effect of Renal Insufficiency on the Pharmacokinetics of Sitagliptin, a Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 Inhibitor
  • A1C in Gestational Diabetes Mellitus in Asian Indian Women
Show more Clinical Care/Education/Nutrition

Similar Articles

Navigate

  • Current Issue
  • Standards of Care Guidelines
  • Online Ahead of Print
  • Archives
  • Submit
  • Subscribe
  • Email Alerts
  • RSS Feeds

More Information

  • About the Journal
  • Instructions for Authors
  • Journal Policies
  • Reprints and Permissions
  • Advertising
  • Privacy Policy: ADA Journals
  • Copyright Notice/Public Access Policy
  • Contact Us

Other ADA Resources

  • Diabetes
  • Clinical Diabetes
  • Diabetes Spectrum
  • Scientific Sessions Abstracts
  • Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes
  • BMJ Open - Diabetes Research & Care
  • Professional Books
  • Diabetes Forecast

 

  • DiabetesJournals.org
  • Diabetes Core Update
  • ADA's DiabetesPro
  • ADA Member Directory
  • Diabetes.org

© 2021 by the American Diabetes Association. Diabetes Care Print ISSN: 0149-5992, Online ISSN: 1935-5548.