To evaluate whether myo-inositol supplementation, an insulin sensitizer, reduces the rate of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) and lowers insulin resistance in obese pregnant women.
Methods
In an open-label, randomized trial, myo-inositol (2 g plus 200 micrograms folic acid twice a day) or placebo (200 micrograms folic acid twice a day) was administered from the first trimester to delivery in pregnant obese women (prepregnancy body mass index 30 or greater. We calculated that 101 women in each arm would be required to demonstrate a 65% GDM reduction in the myo-inositol group with a statistical power of 80% (α=0.05). The primary outcomes were the incidence of GDM and the change in insulin resistance from enrollment until the diagnostic oral glucose tolerance test.
Results
From January 2011 to April 2014, 220 pregnant women at 12-13 weeks of gestation were randomized at two Italian university hospitals, 110 to myo-inositol and 110 to placebo. Most characteristics were similar between groups. The GDM rate was significantly reduced in the myo-inositol group compared with the control group, 14.0% compared with 33.6%, respectively (P=.001; odds ratio 0.34, 95% confidence interval 0.17-0.68). Furthermore, women treated with myo-inositol showed a significantly greater reduction in the homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance compared with the control group, -1.0±3.1 compared with 0.1±1.8 (P=.048).
Conclusion
Myo-inositol supplementation, started in the first trimester, in obese pregnant women seems to reduce the incidence in GDM through a reduction of insulin resistance.
PMID 26241420 26241420 DOI 10.1097/AOG.0000000000000958 10.1097/AOG.0000000000000958
Cite this article
D'Anna, R., Di Benedetto, A., Scilipoti, A., Santamaria, A., Interdonato, M. L., Petrella, E., Neri, I., Pintaudi, B., Corrado, F., & Facchinetti, F. (2015). Myo-inositol Supplementation for Prevention of Gestational Diabetes in Obese Pregnant Women: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Obstetrics and gynecology, 126(2), 310-315. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000000958
D'Anna R, Di Benedetto A, Scilipoti A, Santamaria A, Interdonato ML, Petrella E, et al. Myo-inositol Supplementation for Prevention of Gestational Diabetes in Obese Pregnant Women: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2015;126(2):310-315. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000000958
D'Anna, R., et al. "Myo-inositol Supplementation for Prevention of Gestational Diabetes in Obese Pregnant Women: A Randomized Controlled Trial." Obstetrics and gynecology, vol. 126, no. 2, 2015, pp. 310-315.
This study aims to evaluate the effects of myo-inositol supplementation on gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) rates and body water distribution in overweight non-obese women. 223 overweight non-obese women pregnant were randomly assigned to the treatment group (2 g of myo-inositol plus 200 µg of folic acid) or to the placebo one (200 µg of folic acid). The treatment lasted until three weeks after delivery. A tetrapolar impedance analyser was used to study body composition. The incidence of GDM was significantly reduced in the myo-inositol group compared with the placebo group. There was a significant increase in TBW, ECW and ICW values in the placebo group compared to the myo-inositol group. We have recorded a significant reduction in the overall incidence of pregnancy-induced hypertension in the myo-inositol group compared with the placebo group. Our results demonstrate the effectiveness of myo-inositol supplementation in preventing GDM in overweight non-obese pregnant women.
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of prophylactic vaginal progesterone in decreasing preterm birth rate in a high-risk population. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study included 142 high-risk singleton pregnancies. Progesterone (100 mg) or placebo was administered daily by vaginal suppository and all patients underwent uterine contraction monitoring with an external tocodynamometer once a week for 60 minutes, between 24 and 34 weeks of gestation. Progesterone (n = 72) and placebo (n = 70) groups were compared for epidemiologic characteristics, uterine contraction frequency, and incidence of preterm birth. Data were compared by chi(2) analysis and Fisher exact test. The preterm birth rate was 21.1% (30/142). Differences in uterine activity were found between the progesterone and placebo groups (23.6% vs 54.3%, respectively; P <.05) and in preterm birth between progesterone and placebo (13.8% vs 28.5%, respectively; P <.05). More women were delivered before 34 weeks in the placebo group (18.5%) than in the progesterone group (2.7%) (P <.05). Prophylactic vaginal progesterone reduced the frequency of uterine contractions and the rate of preterm delivery in women at high risk for prematurity.
Although low-dose aspirin has been reported to reduce the incidence of preeclampsia among women at high risk for this complication, its efficacy and safety in healthy, nulliparous pregnant women are not known. We studied 3135 normotensive nulliparous women who were 13 to 26 weeks pregnant to determine whether treatment with aspirin reduced the incidence of preeclampsia. Of this group, 1570 women received 60 mg of aspirin per day and 1565 received placebo for the remainder of their pregnancies. We also evaluated the effect of aspirin on maternal and neonatal morbidity. Of the original group of 3135 women, 2985 (95 percent) were followed throughout pregnancy and the immediate puerperium. The incidence of preeclampsia was lower in the aspirin group (69 of 1485 women [4.6 percent]) than in the placebo group (94 of 1500 women [6.3 percent]) (relative risk, 0.7; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.6 to 1.0; P = 0.05), whereas the incidence of gestational hypertension was 6.7 and 5.9 percent, respectively. There were no significant differences in the infants' birth weight or in the incidence of fetal growth retardation, postpartum hemorrhage, or neonatal bleeding problems between the two groups. Subgroup analysis showed that preeclampsia occurred primarily in women whose initial systolic blood pressure was 120 to 134 mm Hg (incidence among such women, 5.6 percent in the aspirin group vs. 11.9 percent in the placebo group; P = 0.01). The incidence of abruptio placentae was greater among the women who received aspirin (11 women, vs. 2 in the placebo group; P = 0.01). Low-dose aspirin decreases the incidence of preeclampsia among nulliparous women, primarily through its effect in those who have elevated systolic blood pressure initially. This treatment does not decrease perinatal morbidity but increases the risk of abruptio placentae.
EndometriosisFertility OutcomesEndometriosis Surgery ClaimsReproductive Treatment Access
For many patients with endometriosis, laparoscopic surgery is the most effective treatment to alleviate severe chronic pelvic pain and improve quality of life. Because endometriosis is common among individuals with infertility, surgery is often considered alongside fertility evaluation and treatment to manage symptoms, identify disease pathology, and restore pelvic anatomy. In patients who desire pregnancy, the decision of whether and when to pursue surgery should be guided by clear medical indications and shared decision making between the patient and their obstetrician-gynecologist. In recent months, however, religious and political groups have sought to reframe this medical decision as an ideologic and moral one, advocating for endometriosis surgery in nearly all patients with infertility and claiming that this can eliminate the need for assisted reproductive technologies. This framework, known as restorative reproductive medicine (RRM), aligns with efforts to promote the "personhood" of fertilized eggs, restrict access to in in vitro fertilization (IVF), and advance endometriosis surgery and lifestyle modifications as "root-cause treatment leading to natural fertility." Recent editorials and issue briefs in the obstetrics and gynecology literature have discussed the serious ethical, medical, and policy implications of RRM, yet there remains an urgent need to address specifically the unfounded claims about endometriosis surgery and its purported advantages over assisted reproductive technology. This article examines the social context of this controversy and reviews the current evidence regarding the indications, benefits, and limitations of endometriosis surgery in the management of infertility. In contrast to RRM's assertions, no evidence supports the adoption of endometriosis surgery as a replacement for IVF or as a primary treatment for infertility. Rather, the role of surgery in fertility care is highly nuanced and depends on each patient's clinical presentation, reproductive goals, and personal priorities.