4.4 Review

Insulin analogues in pregnancy and specific congenital anomalies: a literature review

期刊

DIABETES-METABOLISM RESEARCH AND REVIEWS
卷 32, 期 4, 页码 366-375

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/dmrr.2730

关键词

insulin analogues; congenital anomalies; pregnancy; diabetes; review

资金

  1. European Commission [260598]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Insulin analogues are commonly used in pregnant women with diabetes. It is not known if the use of insulin analogues in pregnancy is associated with any higher risk of congenital anomalies in the offspring compared with use of human insulin. We performed a literature search for studies of pregnant women with pregestational diabetes using insulin analogues in the first trimester and information on congenital anomalies. The studies were analysed to compare the congenital anomaly rate among foetuses of mothers using insulin analogues with foetuses of mothers using human insulin. Of 29 studies, we included 1286 foetuses of mothers using short-acting insulin analogues with 1089 references of mothers using human insulin and 768 foetuses of mothers using long-acting insulin analogues with 685 references of mothers using long-acting human insulin (Neutral Protamine Hagedorn). The congenital anomaly rate was 4.84% and 4.29% among the foetuses of mothers using lispro and aspart. For glargine and detemir, the congenital anomaly rate was 2.86% and 3.47%, respectively. No studies on the use of insulin glulisine and degludec in pregnancy were found. There was no statistically significant difference in the congenital anomaly rate among foetuses exposed to insulin analogues (lispro, aspart, glargine or detemir) compared with those exposed to human insulin or Neutral Protamine Hagedorn insulin. The total prevalence of congenital anomalies was not increased for foetuses exposed to insulin analogues. The small samples in the included studies provided insufficient statistical power to identify a moderate increased risk of specific congenital anomalies. Copyright (c) 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据