Introduction In women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) requiring pharmacotherapy, insulin was the established first-line treatment. More recently, oral glucose lowering drugs (OGLDs) have... Show moreIntroduction In women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) requiring pharmacotherapy, insulin was the established first-line treatment. More recently, oral glucose lowering drugs (OGLDs) have gained popularity as a patient-friendly, less expensive and safe alternative. Monotherapy with metformin or glibenclamide (glyburide) is incorporated in several international guidelines. In women who do not reach sufficient glucose control with OGLD monotherapy, usually insulin is added, either with or without continuation of OGLDs. No reliable data from clinical trials, however, are available on the effectiveness of a treatment strategy using all three agents, metformin, glibenclamide and insulin, in a stepwise approach, compared with insulin-only therapy for improving pregnancy outcomes. In this trial, we aim to assess the clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and patient experience of a stepwise combined OGLD treatment protocol, compared with conventional insulin-based therapy for GDM.Methods The SUGAR-DIP trial is an open-label, multicentre randomised controlled non-inferiority trial. Participants are women with GDM who do not reach target glycaemic control with modification of diet, between 16 and 34 weeks of gestation. Participants will be randomised to either treatment with OGLDs, starting with metformin and supplemented as needed with glibenclamide, or randomised to treatment with insulin. In women who do not reach target glycaemic control with combined metformin and glibenclamide, glibenclamide will be substituted with insulin, while continuing metformin. The primary outcome will be the incidence of large-for-gestational-age infants (birth weight >90th percentile). Secondary outcome measures are maternal diabetes-related endpoints, obstetric complications, neonatal complications and cost-effectiveness analysis. Outcomes will be analysed according to the intention-to-treat principle.Ethics and dissemination The study protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Utrecht University Medical Centre. Approval by the boards of management for all participating hospitals will be obtained. Trial results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration number NTR6134; Pre-results. Show less
Nijman, T.A.J.; Baaren, G.J. van; Vliet, E.O.G. van; Kok, M.; Gyselaers, W.; Porath, M.M.; ... ; Oudijk, M.A. 2019
Objective To assess the cost-effectiveness of treatment with nifedipine compared with atosiban in women with threatened preterm birth. Design An economic analysis alongside a randomised clinical... Show moreObjective To assess the cost-effectiveness of treatment with nifedipine compared with atosiban in women with threatened preterm birth. Design An economic analysis alongside a randomised clinical trial (the APOSTEL III study). Setting Obstetric departments of 12 tertiary hospitals and seven secondary hospitals in the Netherlands and Belgium. Population Women with threatened preterm birth between 25 and 34 weeks of gestation, randomised for tocolysis with either nifedipine or atosiban. Methods We performed an economic analysis from a societal perspective. We estimated costs from randomisation until discharge. Analyses for singleton and multiple pregnancies were performed separately. The robustness of our findings was evaluated in sensitivity analyses. Main outcome measures Mean costs and differences were calculated per woman treated with nifedipine or atosiban. Health outcomes were expressed as the prevalence of a composite of adverse perinatal outcomes. Results Mean costs per patients were significantly lower in the nifedipine group [singleton pregnancies: euro34,897 versus euro43,376, mean difference (MD) -euro8479 [95% confidence interval (CI) -euro14,327 to -euro2016)]; multiple pregnancies: euro90,248 versus euro102,292, MD -euro12,044 (95% CI -euro21,607 to euro -1671). There was a non-significantly higher death rate in the nifedipine group. The difference in costs was mainly driven by a lower neonatal intensive care unit admission (NICU) rate in the nifedipine group. Conclusion Treatment with nifedipine in women with threatened preterm birth results in lower costs when compared with treatment with atosiban. However, the safety of nifedipine warrants further investigation. Tweetable abstract In women with threatened preterm birth, tocolysis using nifedipine results in lower costs when compared with atosiban. Show less
