Evidence Hub

Continuous glucose monitoring metrics and pregnancy outcomes in women with gestational diabetes: a secondary analysis of the DiGest trial

Laura C. Kusinski, Nooria Atta, Danielle L. Jones, Suzanne Smith, Louise Cooper, L. O. Oude Griep, Kirsten L. Rennie, E. De Lucia Rolfe et al.

Diabetes Care, 2025

425 participants · 9 citations

Abstract

Objective Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) is increasingly used in gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) but optimal metrics, ranges and targets in this population are undefined. We assessed associations between CGM metrics and pregnancy outcomes in gestational diabetes. Research Design and Methods During the DiGest study, 425 women with GDM (diagnosed at median (IQR) 25.1 (18.3- 27.7) weeks) and BMI ≥25kg/m2 received a dietary intervention, with masked Dexcom G6 CGM at 29 (n=361), 32 (n=215) and 36 weeks (n=227) gestation. For this secondary analysis, we used logistic regression, receiver-operator-curves and Youden index to assess associations and predictive ability of CGM metrics including pregnancy-specific time-in-range (TIRp; 63-140mg/dL; 3.5-7.8mmol/L) and pregnancy outcomes. Results CGM metrics at 29 weeks were significantly associated with LGA and SGA. Participants achieving mean glucose <110mg/dL (6.1mmol/L), TIRp ≥90% or pregnancy-specific time-above-range (TARp) <10% at 29 weeks had a significantly lower risk of LGA (OR 0.41 (95%CI 0.22-0.77); OR 0.38 (0.20-0.70); OR 0.39 (0.20-0.73) and SGA (OR 0.26 (0.08-0.79); OR 0.30 (0.10-0.91); OR 0.19 (0.06-0.62)). TARp<10% and mean nocturnal glucose <110mg/dL were associated with reduced odds of preterm birth (OR 0.40 (0.17-0.94); OR 0.42 (0.19-0.97)). A stricter range (63-120mg/dL; 3.5-6.7mmol/L) had similar performance overall, but had no single statistically-robust TIR/TAR target across all outcomes. Conclusions In…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a secondary / pooled analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 425 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free