John R. Moss

Bio: John R. Moss is an academic researcher from University of Adelaide. The author has contributed to research in topics: Randomized controlled trial & Gestational diabetes. The author has an hindex of 2, co-authored 3 publications receiving 2556 citations. Previous affiliations of John R. Moss include Queen Victoria Hospital.

Effect of treatment of gestational diabetes mellitus on pregnancy outcomes

Abstract: Background We conducted a randomized clinical trial to determine whether treatment of women with gestational diabetes mellitus reduced the risk of perinatal complications. Methods We randomly assig...

Effect of treatment of gestational diabetes mellitus on pregnancy outcomes

Abstract: Up to 9% of pregnancies reportedly are complicated by gestational diabetes, which carries substantial risks of both maternal and perinatal complications. It is not clear whether screening and treatment to control maternalglucose levels can lower these risks. In this randomized trial, 490 women at 24 to 34 weeks gestation who had gestational diabetes were assigned to receive dietary advice, have blood glucose monitoring, and receive insulin as needed. Another 510 women received routine care. The intervention and routine care groups were similar at the outset, although those having the intervention were older and less likely to be white or primiparous. More than 90% of women were considered to be at risk of gestational diabetes because of the results of an oral glucose challenge testing. Significantly fewer women in the intervention group than those given routine care had serious perinatal outcomes (1% vs 4%). These included death, shoulder dystocia, bone fracture, and nerve palsy. Thirty-four women had to be treated to prevent a serious perinatal outcome. More infants born to intervention group women were admitted to a neonatal nursery. Labor was induced significantly more often in the intervention group than in the routine care group (39% vs 29%). Rates of cesarean delivery were similar. Assessments of women's health status showed trends favoring the intervention group. Less frequent postnatal depression was an example. All 5 perinatal deaths were in the routine care group. Birth weights were significantly lower in the intervention group, and these infants were born at earlier gestational ages. Fewer intervention infants were large for gestational age at birth and fewer had macrosomia (birth weight of 4 kg or greater). Women having the intervention had fewer antenatal clinic visits than did those given routine care, but more physician visits. These findings indicate that treating gestational diabetes lowers the risk of serious perinatal complications without at the same lime increasing the rate of cesarean delivery.

A randomised controlled trial comparing birthing centre care with delivery suite care in Adelaide, Australia.

Abstract: Birthing centre care offers women with a low risk of complication in pregnancy an alternative to conventional care for the birthing of their baby. It is important these two forms of care are appropriately assessed. A randomised controlled trial comparing the newly opened birthing centre with the established conventional delivery suite was conducted at the then Queen Victoria Hospital, Adelaide, South Australia. The outcomes measured included maternal satisfaction, costs and clinical outcomes both for mother and baby which related to the need for Caesarean section, episiotomy or tear rate and method of feeding. Two hundred and one women attending the hospital's antenatal clinic were randomly allocated to either birthing centre or delivery suite care. One hundred women were allocated to the birthing centre. No differences were found in either group related to clinical outcomes or costs. The only difference in maternal satisfaction was the choice women made for their next birth. More women in the birthing centre group felt they were encouraged to breastfeed immediately after birth. While the numbers in this study were too small to detect any but large differences in outcome, birthing centre care should remain an option for women and further studies undertaken with larger numbers.

Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2012

Abstract: D iabetes mellitus is a chronic illness that requires continuing medical care and ongoing patient self-management education and support to prevent acute complications and to reduce the risk of long-term complications. Diabetes care is complex and requires that many issues, beyond glycemic control, be addressed. A large body of evidence exists that supports a range of interventions to improve diabetes outcomes. These standards of care are intended to provide clinicians, patients, researchers, payers, and other interested individuals with the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals, and tools to evaluate the quality of care. While individual preferences, comorbidities, and other patient factors may require modification of goals, targets that are desirable for most patients with diabetes are provided. Specifically titled sections of the standards address children with diabetes, pregnant women, and people with prediabetes. These standards are not intended to preclude clinical judgment or more extensive evaluation and management of the patient by other specialists as needed. For more detailed information about management of diabetes, refer to references 1–3. The recommendations included are screening, diagnostic, and therapeutic actions that are known or believed to favorably affect health outcomes of patients with diabetes. A large number of these interventions have been shown to be cost-effective (4). A grading system (Table 1), developed by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) andmodeled after existingmethods, was utilized to clarify and codify the evidence that forms the basis for the recommendations. The level of evidence that supports each recommendation is listed after each recommendation using the letters A, B, C, or E. These standards of care are revised annually by the ADA’s multidisciplinary Professional Practice Committee, incorporating new evidence. For the current revision, committee members systematically searched Medline for human studies related to each subsection and published since 1 January 2010. Recommendations (bulleted at the beginning of each subsection and also listed in the “Executive Summary: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetesd2012”) were revised based on new evidence or, in some cases, to clarify the prior recommendation or match the strength of the wording to the strength of the evidence. A table linking the changes in recommendations to new evidence can be reviewed at http:// professional.diabetes.org/CPR_Search. aspx. Subsequently, as is the case for all Position Statements, the standards of care were reviewed and approved by the ExecutiveCommittee of ADA’s Board ofDirectors, which includes health care professionals, scientists, and lay people. Feedback from the larger clinical community was valuable for the 2012 revision of the standards. Readers who wish to comment on the “Standards of Medical Care in Diabetesd2012” are invited to do so at http://professional.diabetes.org/ CPR_Search.aspx. Members of the Professional Practice Committee disclose all potential financial conflicts of interest with industry. These disclosures were discussed at the onset of the standards revisionmeeting. Members of the committee, their employer, and their disclosed conflicts of interest are listed in the “Professional PracticeCommitteeMembers” table (see pg. S109). The AmericanDiabetes Association funds development of the standards and all its position statements out of its general revenues and does not utilize industry support for these purposes.

Hyperglycemia and adverse pregnancy outcomes

Abstract: Background It is controversial whether maternal hyperglycemia less severe than that in diabetes mellitus is associated with increased risks of adverse pregnancy outcomes Methods A total of 25,505 pregnant women at 15 centers in nine countries underwent 75-g oral glucose-tolerance testing at 24 to 32 weeks of gestation Data remained blinded if the fasting plasma glucose level was 105 mg per deciliter (58 mmol per liter) or less and the 2-hour plasma glucose level was 200 mg per deciliter (111 mmol per liter) or less Primary outcomes were birth weight above the 90th percentile for gestational age, primary cesarean delivery, clinically diagnosed neonatal hypoglycemia, and cord-blood serum C-peptide level above the 90th percentile Secondary outcomes were delivery before 37 weeks of gestation, shoulder dystocia or birth injury, need for intensive neonatal care, hyperbilirubinemia, and preeclampsia Results For the 23,316 participants with blinded data, we calculated adjusted odds ratios for adverse pregnancy outcomes associated with an increase in the fasting plasma glucose level of 1 SD (69 mg per deciliter [04 mmol per liter]), an increase in the 1-hour plasma glucose level of 1 SD (309 mg per deciliter [17 mmol per liter]), and an increase in the 2-hour plasma glucose level of 1 SD (235 mg per deciliter [13 mmol per liter]) For birth weight above the 90th percentile, the odds ratios were 138 (95% confidence interval [CI], 132 to 144), 146 (139 to 153), and 138 (132 to 144), respectively; for cord-blood serum C-peptide level above the 90th percentile, 155 (95% CI, 147 to 164), 146 (138 to 154), and 137 (130 to 144); for primary cesarean delivery, 111 (95% CI, 106 to 115), 110 (106 to 115), and 108 (103 to 112); and for neonatal hypoglycemia, 108 (95% CI, 098 to 119), 113 (103 to 126), and 110 (100 to 112) There were no obvious thresholds at which risks increased Significant associations were also observed for secondary outcomes, although these tended to be weaker Conclusions Our results indicate strong, continuous associations of maternal glucose levels below those diagnostic of diabetes with increased birth weight and increased cord-blood serum C-peptide levels

International association of diabetes and pregnancy study groups recommendations on the diagnosis and classification of hyperglycemia in pregnancy.

Abstract: In the accompanying comment letter (1), Weinert summarizes published data from the Brazilian Gestational Diabetes Study (2) and comments on applying International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) Consensus Panel recommendations (3) for the diagnosis of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) to that cohort The Brazilian study provided evidence that adverse perinatal outcomes are associated with levels of maternal glycemia below those diagnostic of GDM by American Diabetes Association or World Health Organization criteria However, the results were potentially confounded by the treatment of GDM It did find that women with GDM were at increased risk for some …

Comment on: American Diabetes Association. Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2011. Diabetes Care 2011;34(Suppl. 1):S11–S61

Abstract: How to screen and treat gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) has always been controversial for clinicians and decision makers. The problem is complex, and the evidence is limited. The new standards set by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) in 2011 (1) recommend 1 ) universal screening at 24–28 weeks of gestation (2010 ADA standards recommended selective screening based on risk factors) and 2 ) an oral glucose tolerance test with a diagnostic fasting plasma glucose of ≥92 mg/dL (4.5 mmol/L) (much lower than the World Health Organization [WHO] criteria of ≥126 mg/dL [7.0 mmol/L] commonly used in clinical practice in Europe). Furthermore, diabetes is diagnosed when only one abnormal value is detected (whereas in the 2010 standards two …