OBJECTIVE: Advice to monitor and distribute carbohydrate intake is a key recommendation for treatment of gestational diabetes, but fails to consider circadian regulation of glucose homeostasis. In the non-pregnant state, glucose responses to a meal at night-time are significantly higher than during the day and are associated with an increased risk of developing type 2 diabetes. However, the impact of night time eating on postprandial glucose in pregnancy is uncertain. Using a systematic approach we explored postprandial glucose responses to dietary intake at night compared to during the day in pregnant women.
METHODS: Searches were conducted in four databases (Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, CINAHL plus and Scopus), in September 2022 (updated, June 2023). Eligible studies reported on postprandial glucose at a minimum of two times a day, after identical meals or an oral glucose tolerance test, in pregnant women with or without gestational diabetes. Publication bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I tool.
RESULTS: Four eligible studies were retrieved. Two studies reported within group comparison of two timepoints, and observed reduced glucose tolerance in the afternoon compared to the morning in pregnant women, irrespective of diabetes status. The other two studies meeting inclusion criteria did not report time of day comparisons.
CONCLUSIONS: It is unclear as to whether the higher (and extended) postprandial glucose levels observed at night in non-pregnant populations are observed in pregnancy. Clinical studies are needed to explore the impact of circadian rhythmicity on glucose metabolism during pregnancy, and the implications of current dietary advice on when and what to eat for management of gestational diabetes.

Vaccinations are an essential element of public health programs around the world, which have a major impact on morbidity, mortality, and costs of the health care system. In recent years, with a better understanding of the effectiveness and safety of vaccinations, many recommendations have been developed for administering vaccines to adults. Countless physiological changes occur during pregnancy, including those affecting the immune system. Pregnant women are at increased risk of developing infections and resulting complications. According to research, vaccines are immunogenic and safe for pregnant women. Pregnancy is not an absolute contraindication to vaccination. After administration of vaccines to pregnant women, the concentration of antibodies increases, which can be transferred to the child in the second and third trimesters of pregnancy and provide protection in the first months of life. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), guidelines of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG) unanimously recommend vaccination of pregnant women if a safe vaccine is available and there is a risk of exposure of the woman to a disease that threatens herself or her developing baby. In everyday clinical practice, medical professionals should provide their patients with the necessary information on vaccinations, which may contribute to greater awareness and implementation of vaccinations. This article aims to review current global recommendations for the vaccination of pregnant and breastfeeding women, including against the Omicron variants of SARS-CoV-2.

BACKGROUND: Globally, studies illustrate different approaches among health care professionals to decision making about caesarean section (CS) and that attitudes regarding the extent to which a CS on maternal request (CSMR) can be granted vary significantly, both between professionals and countries. Absence of proper regulatory frameworks is one potential explanation for high CSMR rates in some countries, but overall, it is unclear how recommendations and guidelines on CSMR relate to CSMR rates. In Sweden, CSMR rates are low by international comparison, but statistics show that the extent to which maternity clinics perform CSMR vary among Sweden\'s 21 self-governing regions. These regions are responsible for funding and delivery of healthcare, while national guidelines provide guidance for the professions throughout the country; however, they are not mandatory. To further understand considerations for CSMR requests and existing practice variations, the aim was to analyse guideline documents on CSMR at all local maternity clinics in Sweden.
METHODS: All 43 maternity clinics in Sweden were contacted and asked for any guideline documents regarding CSMR. All clinics replied, enabling a total investigation. We used a combined deductive and inductive design, using the framework method for the analysis of qualitative data in multi-disciplinary health research.
RESULTS: Overall, 32 maternity clinics reported guideline documents and 11 denied having any. Among those reporting no guideline documents, one referred to using national guideline document. Based on the Framework method, four theme categories were identified: CSMR is treated as a matter of fear of birth (FOB); How important factors are weighted in the decision-making is unclear; Birth contracts are offered in some regions; and The post-partum care is related to FOB rather than CSMR.
CONCLUSIONS: In order to offer women who request CS equal and just care, there is a pressing need to either implement current national guideline document at all maternity clinics or rewrite the guideline documents to enable clinics to adopt a structured approach. The emphasis must be placed on exploring the reasons behind the request and providing unbiased information and support. Our results contribute to the ongoing discussion about CSMR and lay a foundation for further research in which professionals, as well as stakeholders and both women planning pregnancy and pregnant women, can give their views on this issue.

The initiative of a consensus on the topic of antidepressant and anxiolytic drug use in pregnancy is developing in an area of clinical uncertainty. Although many studies have been published in recent years, there is still a paucity of authoritative evidence-based indications useful for guiding the prescription of these drugs during pregnancy, and the data from the literature are complex and require expert judgment to draw clear conclusions.
For the elaboration of the consensus, we have involved the scientific societies of the sector, namely, the Italian Society of Toxicology, the Italian Society of Neuropsychopharmacology, the Italian Society of Psychiatry, the Italian Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology, the Italian Society of Drug Addiction and the Italian Society of Addiction Pathology. An interdisciplinary team of experts from different medical specialties (toxicologists, pharmacologists, psychiatrists, gynecologists, neonatologists) was first established to identify the needs underlying the consensus. The team, in its definitive structure, includes all the representatives of the aforementioned scientific societies; the task of the team was the evaluation of the most accredited international literature as well as using the methodology of the \"Nominal Group Technique\" with the help of a systematic review of the literature and with various discussion meetings, to arrive at the drafting and final approval of the document.
The following five areas of investigation were identified: (1) The importance of management of anxiety and depressive disorders in pregnancy, identifying the risks associated with untreated maternal depression in pregnancy. (2) The assessment of the overall risk of malformations with the antidepressant and anxiolytic drugs used in pregnancy. (3) The evaluation of neonatal adaptation disorders in the offspring of pregnant antidepressant/anxiolytic-treated women. (4) The long-term outcome of infants\' cognitive development or behavior after in utero exposure to antidepressant/anxiolytic medicines. (5) The evaluation of pharmacological treatment of opioid-abusing pregnant women with depressive disorders.
Considering the state of the art, it is therefore necessary in the first instance to frame the issue of pharmacological choices in pregnant women who need treatment with antidepressant and anxiolytic drugs on the basis of data currently available in the literature. Particular attention must be paid to the evaluation of the risk/benefit ratio, understood both in terms of therapeutic benefit with respect to the potential risks of the treatment on the pregnancy and on the fetal outcome, and of the comparative risk between the treatment and the absence of treatment; in the choice prescription, the specialist needs to be aware of both the potential risks of pharmacological treatment and the equally important risks of an untreated or undertreated disorder.

Both COVID-19 and pregnancy are associated with hypercoagulability. Due to the increased risk for thrombosis, the United States National Institute of Health\'s recommendation for prophylactic anticoagulant use for pregnant patients has expanded from patients hospitalized for severe COVID-19 manifestation to all patients hospitalized for the manifestation of COVID-19 (no guideline: before December 26, 2020; first update: December 27, 2022; second update: February 24, 2022-present). However, no study has evaluated this recommendation.
The objective of this study was to characterize prophylactic anticoagulant use among hospitalized pregnant people with COVID-19 from March 20, 2020, to October 19, 2022.
This was a retrospective cohort study in large US health care systems across 7 states. The cohort of interest was pregnant patients who were hospitalized with COVID-19, without previous coagulopathy or contraindication to anticoagulants (n=2767). The treatment group consisted of patients prescribed prophylactic dose anticoagulation between 2 days before and 14 days after COVID-19 treatment onset (n=191). The control group was patients with no anticoagulant exposure between 14 days before and 60 days after COVID-19 treatment onset (n=2534). We ascertained the use of prophylactic anticoagulants with attention to the updates in guidelines and emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants. We propensity score matched the treatment and control group 1:1 on the most important features contributing to the prophylactic anticoagulant administration status classification. Outcome measures included coagulopathy, bleeding, COVID-19-related complications, and maternal-fetal health outcomes. Additionally, the inpatient anticoagulant administration rate was validated in a nationwide population from Truveta, a collective of 700 hospitals across the United States.
The overall administration rate of prophylactic anticoagulants was 7% (191/2725). It was lowest after the second guideline update (no guideline: 27/262, 10%; first update: 145/1663, 8.72%; second update: 19/811, 2.3%; P<.001) and during the omicron-dominant period (Wild type: 45/549, 8.2%; Alpha: 18/129, 14%; Delta: 81/507, 16%; and Omicron: 47/1551, 3%; P<.001). Models developed on retrospective data showed that the variable most associated with the administration of inpatient prophylactic anticoagulant was comorbidities prior to SARS-CoV-2 infection. The patients who were administered prophylactic anticoagulant were also more likely to receive supplementary oxygen (57/191, 30% vs 9/188, 5%; P<.001). There was no statistical difference in a new diagnosis of coagulopathy, bleeding, or maternal-fetal health outcomes between those who received treatment and the matched control group.
Most hospitalized pregnant patients with COVID-19 did not receive prophylactic anticoagulants across health care systems as recommended by guidelines. Guideline-recommended treatment was administered more frequently to patients with greater COVID-19 illness severity. Given the low rate of administration and differences between treated and untreated cohorts, efficacy could not be assessed.

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

The 2009 Institute of Medicine (IOM) gestational weight gain (GWG) guidelines were initially developed for pregnant women in the United States.
This study aimed to investigate whether the IOM guidelines were suitable for pregnant Chinese women.
A retrospective cohort study comprising 20,593 singleton pregnant women was conducted at the Beijing Obstetrics and Gynaecology Hospital (1 January 2018 to 31 December 2019). Applicability was evaluated by comparing the GWG corresponding to the lowest point of the predicted composite risk curve with the 2009 IOM GWG Guidelines. The IOM Guidelines serve as the standard for the GWG categories and the pre-pregnancy body mass index. An exponential function model was used to fit the weight gain during pregnancy and the probability of caesarean section, preterm birth, small for gestational age, and large for gestational age. A quadratic function model was used to fit the combined probability of the above-mentioned adverse pregnancy outcomes. The applicability of the IOM guidelines was evaluated by comparing the weights corresponding to the lowest predicted probability with the GWG range recommended by the IOM guidelines.
According to the 2009 IOM GWG Guidelines, 43% of the women achieved adequate weight, almost 32% gained excessive weight, and 25% gained inadequate weight. The GWG range proposed by the IOM included the lowest predicted probability value for underweight women and exceeded the lowest predicted probability for normal weight, overweight, and obese women.
The 2009 IOM guidelines were suitable for Chinese women whose pre-pregnancy body mass index was classified as underweight. The guidelines were not suitable for normal, overweight, or obese pre-pregnancy body mass index classifications. Therefore, based on the above evidence, the 2009 IOM guidelines are not suitable for all Chinese women.

OBJECTIVE: This review aimed to appraise clinical guidelines about exercise for women with gestational diabetes mellitus and summarize consensus and inconsistent recommendations.
BACKGROUND: Exercise is an effective non-pharmacological therapeutic for gestational diabetes mellitus, but the variety of relevant clinical practice guidelines is confusing for healthcare professionals.
METHODS: This is a systematic review of clinical practice guidelines.
METHODS: Websites of guideline development institutions, eight literature databases and organizations of obstetricians, gynaecologists, midwives, and medical sports associations were searched for guidelines published from January 2011 to October 2021.
METHODS: Two reviewers independently extracted recommendations. Four reviewers assessed guideline quality using the AGREE II instrument independently.
RESULTS: Fifteen guidelines were included. All women with diabetes are recommended to exercise during pregnancy. The consistent recommendations were for pre-exercise screening, for 30 min per exercise session on 5 days of the week or every day after meals, exercise at moderate intensity, using aerobic and resistance exercise, and walking. The main non-consistent recommendations included warning signs for women on insulin during exercise, minimum duration per session, intensity assessment, duration and frequency of sessions for strengthening and flexibility exercise and detailed physical activity giving birth.
CONCLUSIONS: Guidelines strongly support pregnant women with diabetes to exercise regularly. Research is needed to make non-consistent recommendations clear.

BACKGROUND: Women who enter pregnancy with a Body Mass Index above 30 kg/m2 face an increased risk of complications during pregnancy and birth. National and local practice recommendations in the UK exist to guide healthcare professionals in supporting women to manage their weight. Despite this, women report inconsistent and confusing advice and healthcare professionals report a lack of confidence and skill in providing evidence-based guidance. A qualitative evidence synthesis was conducted to examine how local clinical guidelines interpret national recommendations to deliver weight management care to people who are pregnant or in the postnatal period.
METHODS: A qualitative evidence synthesis of local NHS clinical practice guidelines in England was conducted. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists guidelines for weight management during pregnancy constructed the framework used for thematic synthesis. Data was interpreted within the embedded discourse of risk and the synthesis was informed by the Birth Territory Theory of Fahy and Parrat.
RESULTS: A representative sample of twenty-eight NHS Trusts provided guidelines that included weight management care recommendations. Local recommendations were largely reflective of national guidance. Consistent recommendations included obtaining a weight at booking and informing women of the risks associated with being obese during pregnancy. There was variation in the adoption of routine weighing practices and referral pathways were ambiguous. Three interpretive themes were constructed, exposing a disconnect between the risk dominated discourse evident in the local guidelines and the individualised, partnership approach emphasised in national level maternity policy.
CONCLUSIONS: Local NHS weight management guidelines are rooted in a medical model rather than the model advocated in national maternity policy that promotes a partnership approach to care. This synthesis exposes the challenges faced by healthcare professionals and the experiences of pregnant women who are in receipt of weight management care. Future research should target the tools utilised by maternity care providers to achieve weight management care that harnesses a partnership approach empowering pregnant and postnatal people in their journey through motherhood.