Determination of a diabetes control and complications trial-aligned HbA(1c) reference range in pregnancy

Trimester-specific reference intervals for hemoglobin A1c in non-diabetic pregnancy in a Chinese population

BACKGROUND

Physiological glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) values in each trimester are not well defined. This study aimed to determine trimester-specific reference intervals for HbA1c levels in non-diabetic pregnant women in China.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, 5,042 Chinese pregnant women from 6 to 41 weeks of gestation were screened. An inclusion of 4,134 non-diabetic women was made to determine the reference intervals, they were divided into three trimesters: trimester 1 (T1), 6 weeks to 13 weeks + 6 days, trimester 2 (T2), 14 weeks to 27 weeks + 6 days, and trimester 3 (T3), 28 weeks to 41 weeks + 6 days. A total of 4,134 women (T1 n = 760, T2 n = 1,953, and T3 n = 1,421) provided blood samples which were analyzed for HbA1c concentrations. HbA1c was measured using high-performance liquid chromatography. The median and percentile (2.5th to 97.5th) for the HbA1c reference intervals were calculated for each trimester.

RESULTS

In total, 8,732 HbA1c measurements were taken. Reference intervals for HbA1c expressed as median and percentile (2.5th to 97.5th) for each trimester were: T1: 4.7 (4.0-5.5%), T2: 4.5 (3.9-5.3%), and T3: 4.8 (4.1-5.7%) respectively. The HbA1c levels were significantly lower in the second trimester compared to those in the first trimester (p < 0.0001), and higher in the third trimester compared to the second trimester (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

The reference intervals for HbA1c levels were 3.9-5.7% with upper limits of 5.5% in the first trimester, 5.3% in the second trimester, and 5.7% in the third trimester. These findings highlight the importance of considering trimester-specific reference intervals for HbA1c in non-diabetic pregnant women to promote maternal and fetal health.

Determination of Time in Range Associated with HbA1c ≤6.5% in Latin American pregnant women diagnosed with type 1 diabetes mellitus using an automated insulin delivery system

AIMS

To determine the correlation between %TIR and HbA1c in pregnant women with type 1 diabetes mellitus (DM1).

METHODS

Diagnostic test study in a prospective cohort of pregnant patients with DM1 using automated insulin delivery system (AID)in Colombia and Chile.

RESULTS

Fifty-two patients were included [mean age 31.8±6.2 years, pregestational HbA1c 7.2% [interquartile range (IQR), 6.5-8.2]. During follow-up, we found a better metabolic control during the second (HbA1c 6.40%, IQR 5.9,7.1) and third trimesters (HbA1c 6.25%;IQR 5.9,6.8). A weak and negative correlation between %TIR and HbA1c was found for all the gestation (Spearman's rank correlation coefficient:-0.22, p:0.0329), and in the second (r :-0.13, p: 0.38) and third trimesters (r:-0.26, p=0.08). %TIR had poor discriminating capacity for predicting HbA1c <6% (area under the curve [AUC], 0.59; 95% confidence interval [CI],0.46-0.72) and for predicting HbA1c <6.5% (AUC, 0.57;95% CI,0.44-0.70). The optimal cutoff points for %TIR were >66.1% for predicting HbA1c <6% (65% sensitivity, 62% specificity) and %TIR >61.1% for HbA1c <6.5% (59% sensitivity, 54% specificity).

CONCLUSION

The correlation between HbA1c and %TIR during pregnancy was weak. The optimal cutoff points for identifying patients with HbA1c <6.0% and <6.5% were %TIR >66.1% and >61.1%, respectively, with moderate sensitivity and specificity.

Establishing Trimester-Specific Haemoglobin A1c Reference Intervals in Pregnant Women: A retrospective study of healthy South Asian women with normal pregnancy outcomes

Objectives

This study aimed to define trimester-specific haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) reference intervals in healthy, pregnant South Asian women.

Methods

This retrospective study was conducted at St. Stephen's Hospital, Delhi, India, between January 2011 and December 2016. Healthy pregnant women were compared to a control group of healthy non-pregnant women. Pregnant participants had term deliveries of babies with appropriate gestational weights. The HbA1c levels were calculated in terms of non-parametric 2.5 and 97.5 percentiles for women in first (T1), second (T2) and third (T3) trimester groups. Statistical tests were used to obtain the normal HbA1c reference values and were considered significant when P <0.05.

Results

This study included a total of 1,357 healthy pregnant women and a control group of 67 healthy, non-pregnant women. Pregnant women had a median HbA1c of 4.8% (4-5.5%) or 32 mmol/mol (20-39 mmol/mol); non-pregnant women had a median HbA1c of 5.1% (4-5.7%) or 29 mmol/mol (20-37 mmol/mol; P <0.001). The HbA1c levels for the T1, T2 and T3 groups were 4.9% (4.1-5.5%) or 30 mmol/mol (21-37 mmol/mol), 4.8% (4.5-5.3%) or 29 mmol/mol (20-34 mmol/mol) and 4.8% (3.9-5.6%) or 29 mmol/mol (19-38 mmol/mol), respectively. The HbA1c values were significant when comparing T1 versus T2 (P <0.001), T1 versus T3 (P = 0.002) and T1 versus the non-pregnant group (P = 0.001). However, T2 versus T3 was not significant (P = 0.111).

Conclusion

Compared to non-pregnant women, HbA1c levels were lower in pregnant women, despite women in the T2 and T3 groups having a higher body mass index than the women in the T1 and non-pregnant groups. Further research is recommended to understand the factors responsible and validate these findings.

Hyperglycemia First Detected in Pregnancy in South Africa: Facts, Gaps, and Opportunities

This review contextualizes hyperglycemia in pregnancy from a South-African perspective. It aims to create awareness of the importance of hyperglycemia in pregnancy in low-middle-income countries. We address unanswered questions to guide future research on sub-Saharan African women with hyperglycemia first detected in pregnancy (HFDP). South African women of childbearing age have the highest prevalence of obesity in sub-Saharan Africa. They are predisposed to Type 2 diabetes (T2DM), the leading cause of death in South African women. T2DM remains undiagnosed in many African countries, with two-thirds of people living with diabetes unaware. With the South African health policy's increased focus on improving antenatal care, women often gain access to screening for non-communicable diseases for the first time in pregnancy. While screening practices and diagnostic criteria for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) differ amongst geographical areas in South Africa (SA), hyperglycemia of varying degrees is often first detected in pregnancy. This is often erroneously ascribed to GDM, irrespective of the degree of hyperglycemia and not overt diabetes. T2DM and GDM convey a graded increased risk for the mother and fetus during and after pregnancy, with cardiometabolic risk accumulating across the lifespan. Resource limitations and high patient burden have hampered the opportunity to implement accessible preventative care in young women at increased risk of developing T2DM in the broader public health system in SA. All women with HFDP, including those with true GDM, should be followed and undergo glucose assessment postpartum. In SA, studies conducted early postpartum have noted persistent hyperglycemia in a third of women after GDM. Interpregnancy care is advantageous and may attain a favourable metabolic legacy in these young women, but the yield of return following delivery is suboptimal. We review the current best evidence regarding HFDP and contextualize the applicability in SA and other African or low-middle-income countries. The review identifies gaps and shares pragmatic solutions regarding clinical factors that may improve awareness, identification, diagnosis, and management of women with HFDP.

Glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) in mid-pregnancy and perinatal outcomes

Background

Maternal diabetes is a well-known risk factor for pregnancy complications. Possible links between long-term maternal blood sugar in the normal range and pregnancy complications are less well described.

Methods

We assayed glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) in blood samples collected around the 18th week of pregnancy for 2937 singleton pregnancies in the Norwegian Mother, Father and Child Cohort Study (2000–09). Perinatal outcomes (gestational length, birthweight, birth length and head circumference, large-for-gestational age, small-for-gestational age, congenital malformations, preterm delivery and preeclampsia) were obtained from medical records. We tested associations using linear and log-binomial regression, adjusting for maternal age, body mass index (BMI) and smoking.

Results

Size at birth increased modestly but linearly with HbA1c. Birthweight rose 0.10 standard deviations [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.03, 0.16], for each 5-mmol/mol unit increase in HbA1c, corresponding to about 40 g at 40 weeks of gestation. Large-for-gestational age rose 23% (95% CI: 1%, 50%) per five-unit increase. Other pregnancy complications increased in non-linear fashion, with strongest associations within the top quartile of HbA1c (>35 mmol/mol or >5.4%). Per unit HbA1c within the top quartile, preterm delivery increased by 14% (95% CI: 1%, 31%), preeclampsia increased by 20% (95% CI: 5%, 37%) and gestational duration decreased by 0.7 days (95% CI: −1.0, −0.3).

Conclusions

Among women with no recorded diabetes, higher HbA1c levels at 18 gestational weeks were associated with important perinatal outcomes independent of mother’s age, smoking or BMI.

Reference intervals for hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) in healthy Mexican pregnant women: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

The reference intervals for hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) in pregnant Mexican women without diabetes are not well defined. The study aims to determine the reference intervals for HbA1c at each trimester in healthy Mexican pregnant women.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study included healthy Mexican pregnant women in trimester 1 (T1), 6-13.6 weeks of gestation (WG), trimester 2 (T2), 14-27 WG, and trimester 3 (T3), ≥27-36 WG, with a maternal age > 18 years, and pregestational body mass index (BMI) ranging between 18.5-24.9 kg/m2. Women with gestational diabetes mellitus, pregestational diabetes, anemia, a pregestational BMI < 18.5 or ≥ 25 kg/m2, and any hematologic, hepatic, immunological, renal, or cardiac disease were excluded. HbA1c was measured using high-performance liquid chromatography based on the National Glycohemoglobin Standardization Program-certified PDQ Primus guidelines. The HbA1c reference intervals were calculated in terms of the 2.5th to the 97.5th percentiles.

RESULTS

We analyzed the HbA1c values of 725 women (T1 n = 84, T2 n = 448, and T3 n = 193). The characteristics of the participants were expressed as mean ± standard deviation and included: maternal age (28.2 ± 6.7 years), pregestational weight (54.8 ± 5.9 Kg), pregestational BMI (22.2 ± 1.7 Kg/m2), and glucose values using a 75 g-2 h oral glucose tolerance test; fasting 4.5 ± 0.3 mmol/L (81.5 ± 5.5 mg/dL), 1 h 6.4 ± 1.5 mmol/L (115.3 ± 26.6 mg/dL), and 2 h 5.7 ± 1.1 mmol/L (103.5 ± 19.6 mg/dL). Reference intervals for HbA1c, expressed as median and 2.5th to 97.5th percentile for each trimester were: T1: 5.1 (4.5-5.6%), T2: 5.0 (4.4-5.5%), and T3: 5.1 (4.5-5.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

The reference range of HbA1C in healthy Mexican pregnant women during pregnancy was 4.4% to 5.6%. We suggest as upper limits of HbA1c value ≤5.6%, 5.5%, and 5.7% for T1, T2, and T3, respectively among Mexican pregnant women.

Evidence for the utility of antenatal HbA1c to predict early postpartum diabetes after gestational diabetes in South Africa

Aim To evaluate antenatal HbA1c at diagnosis and in the 4 weeks preceding delivery to predict early postpartum diabetes mellitus (DM) in women with Gestational Diabetes Mellitus (GDM). Methods Seventy-eight women with GDM were prospectively assessed. The ability of HbA1c at GDM diagnosis (t1) and in the 4 weeks preceding delivery (t2) to predict DM 6-12 weeks after delivery was investigated. Glucose assessment was performed between November 1, 2015, and November 1, 2016 at Tygerberg Hospital (TH), Cape Town, South Africa (SA). Individuals with known pre-existing diabetes were excluded. Results HbA1c of 6.2% (44 mmol/mol) and 6.5% (48 mmol/mol) at t1 predicted DM with sensitivities of 95% and 90% and specificities of 62% and 70% respectively. At t2 the best cut-off for HbA1c, in accordance with t1, was also 6.2% (44 mmol/mol; sensitivity 92%, specificity 56%). Nineteen of the 29 women with suspected pre-gestational DM had HbA1c levels ≥ 6.5% (48 mmol/mol) at t1. The increased risk for postpartum DM with HbA1c ≥ 6.2% (44 mmol/mol) was four-fold (OR 3.97 CI 2.08-7.59p < 0.001) at t1 and five-fold (OR 5.08 CI 1.60-16.25 p = 0.006) at t2. Conclusion HbA1c lower than 6.5% (48 mmol/mol) predicts postpartum DM in women with GDM. HbA1c can serve as instrument to improve postpartum follow-up.

Risk of macrosomia remains glucose-dependent in a cohort of women with pregestational type 1 diabetes and good glycemic control

Macrosomia risk remains high in type 1 diabetes (T1DM) complicated pregnancies. A linear relationship between macrosomia risk and glycated hemoglobin A_1c (HbA_1c) was described; however, low range of HbA_1c has not been studied. We aimed to identify risk factors and examine the impact of HbA_1c on the occurrence of macrosomia in newborns of T1DM women from a cohort with good glycemic control. In this observational retrospective one-center study we analyzed records of 510 consecutive T1DM pregnancies (1998-2012). The analyzed group consisted of 375 term singleton pregnancies. We used multiple regression models to examine the impact of HbA_1c and self-monitored glucose in each trimester on the risk of macrosomia and birth weight. The median age of T1DM women was 28 years, median T1DM duration-11 years, median pregestational BMI-23.3 kg/m². Median birth weight reached 3520 g (1st and 3rd quartiles 3150 and 3960, respectively) at median 39 weeks of gestation. There were 85 (22.7 %) macrosomic (>4000 g) newborns. Median HbA_1c levels in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd trimester were 6.4, 5.7, and 5.6 %. Third trimester HbA_1c, mean fasting self-monitored glucose and maternal age were independent predictors of birth weight and macrosomia. There was a linear relationship between 3rd trimester HbA_1c and macrosomia risk in HbA_1c range from 4.5 to 7.0 %. Macrosomia in children of T1DM mothers was common despite excellent metabolic control. Glycemia during the 3rd trimester was predominantly responsible for this condition.

Is There a Role for HbA1c in Pregnancy?

Outside pregnancy, HbA1c analysis is used for monitoring, screening for and diagnosing diabetes and prediabetes. During pregnancy, the role for HbA1c analysis is not yet established. Physiological changes lower HbA1c levels, and pregnancy-specific reference ranges may need to be recognised. Other factors that influence HbA1c are also important to consider, particularly since emerging data suggest that, in early pregnancy, HbA1c elevations close to the reference range may both identify women with underlying hyperglycaemia and be associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes. In later pregnancy, HbA1c analysis is less useful than an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) at detecting gestational diabetes. Postpartum, HbA1c analysis detects fewer women with abnormal glucose tolerance than an OGTT, but the ease of testing may improve follow-up rates and combining HbA1c analysis with fasting plasma glucose or waist circumference may improve detection rates. This article discusses the relevance of HbA1c testing at different stages of pregnancy.

Influence of iron metabolism indices on HbA1c in non-diabetic pregnant women with and without iron-deficiency anemia: effect of iron supplementation

AIMS

Condition that influence erythrocyte turnover also affect HbA1c. Although many forms of anemia are associated with lowering of HbA1c, iron-deficiency anemia (IDA) tends to increase HbA1c. In this study, we examined the relationship between HbA1c and erythrocyte indices in non-diabetic pregnancy and assessed the effect of iron supplementation on HbA1c.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

150 women were studied (30 non-diabetic), non-pregnant, non-anemic women in child bearing women with varying parity as controls (Gp 1); 30 non-diabetic, non-anemic pregnant women in first trimester of pregnancy (Gp 2a); 30 non-diabetic, non-anemic pregnant women in second trimester of pregnancy (Gp 2b); 30 non-diabetic, non-anemic pregnant women in third trimester of pregnancy (Gp 2c) and 30 non-diabetic pregnant women with IDA (Gp 2d). HbA1c, OGTT, erythrocyte indices and iron metabolic indices were determined in Gp 2d subjects not supplemented with iron and repeated these indices after 3 months of iron-supplementation.

RESULTS

The mean fasting and postprandial blood glucose levels (79.9±8.0mg/dl, 108.1±14.1mg/dl) in Gp 1 were found to be significantly lower in first trimester among Gp 2a (74.4±5.3mg/dl and 97.2±11.1mg/dl), in second trimester among Gp 2b (76.2±5.2mg/dl and 103.4±7.9mg/dl) followed by increase in IIIrd trimester among Gp 2c (82.3±5.7mg/dl and 112.5±8.5mg/dl) subjects. A significant difference in HbA1c was also observed among the groups (HbA1c 4.7±0.3% in Gp 1; 4.6±0.4% in Gp 2a; 4.5±0.3 in Gp 2b; 4.7±0.3 in Gp 2c). Among Gp 2d subjects, HbA1c was 5.2±0.3% and the level decreased after iron supplementation to 5.1±0.3%. Significant correlation between erythrocyte indices, iron metabolic indices and HbA1c was also observed.

CONCLUSION

We conclude that consideration should be given for performing glucose testing in patients with IDA to ascertain the reliability of HbA1c in the diagnosis of diabetes. HbA1c concentrations in diabetic patients with IDA should be interpreted with caution.

HbA1c in pregnancy

During pregnancy, the glucose levels vary according to the hormonal changes and the metabolic needs necessary to maintain fetal nutrition but strict glycemic control is essential to minimize the maternal and fetal morbidity and mortality of pregnancies complicated by diabetes. Although considered the "gold standard" for diagnosis, measurement of glucose in the blood is subject to several limitations, many of which are not widely appreciated. Measurement of A1c for diagnosis is appealing as with one number, a total, integrated view of glycemia over time is derived though it has some inherent limitations. Thus, supplementation with HbA1c, as is common outside pregnancy, seems appropriate. Before pregnancy, the target for metabolic control in women with diabetes is HbA1c values near the normal range. However, the upper normal range of HbA1c during normal pregnancy is only sparsely investigated with different methods though recently a number of papers have been published regarding the determination of reference ranges for HbA1c in pregnancy. These changes may have clinical implications for the assessment and management of glycemic control in diabetic pregnancy and calls for establishment of separate reference limits of HbA1c levels in different trimesters as compared to general population.

Is there a relationship between mean blood glucose and glycated hemoglobin?

Measurement of hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) is considered the gold standard for monitoring chronic glycemia of diabetes patients. Hemoglobin A1c indicates an average of blood glucose levels over the past 3 months. Its close association with the risk for the development of long-term complications is well established. However, HbA1c does not inform patients about blood glucose values on a daily basis; therefore, frequent measurements of blood glucose levels are necessary for the day-to-day management of diabetes. Clinicians understand what HbA1c means and how it relates to glucose, but this is not the case with patients. Therefore, the translation of the HbA1c results into something more familiar to patients seemed a necessity. The scope of this article is to review the literature to search for enough scientific evidence to support the idea of a close relationship between HbA1c and mean blood glucose (MBG), and to justify the translation of HbA1c into something that reflects the MBG. Most studies confirm a close relationship between HbA1c and MBG, although different studies result in different linear equations. Factors affecting this relationship may limit the usefulness and applicability of a unique mathematical equation to all diabetes populations.

Standardization of HbA1c: good or bad?

The development of a true reference measurement system by the International Federation for Clinical Chemistry (IFCC) for the first time allows reporting of true HbA(1c) results, standardized to an absolute value, worldwide. Regression equations between the IFCC assay and current harmonization assays, including the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT) assay, are linear, tight, and stable over time. National and international setting of targets, audit and benchmarking of services will be easier than before, as will translation of research into clinical practice. Nevertheless, the main disadvantage of the IFCC assay is that the numbers and units reported (mmol/mol) are very different from the DCCT value (percentage). An extensive education program for patients and health-care professionals is, therefore, needed to prevent confusion and consequent deterioration in glycemic control. Furthermore, the IFCC system does not overcome difficulties inherent in the measurement and interpretation of HbA(1c), such as in the presence of abnormal turnover of red blood cells and hemoglobinopathies.

Reference intervals for hemoglobin A1c in pregnant women: data from an Italian multicenter study

BACKGROUND

The reference intervals for hemoglobin A1c (Hb A1c) in pregnant women without diabetes are not well defined, and few examples of reference intervals established by networks of different laboratories are available.

METHODS

Five Italian Diabetic Care Units were involved in the study. Data were collected from 445 pregnant women without diabetes, selected on the basis of glucose challenge test results, and from 384 nonpregnant control women. The Hb A1c measurements were performed with HPLC systems aligned to the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial. Plasma glucose measurements were also performed locally. Both Hb A1c and glucose measurements were harmonized by running appropriate external quality assessment schemes. The reference intervals were calculated in terms of nonparametric 2.5th to 97.5th percentiles with 0.90 confidence intervals.

RESULTS

The Hb A1c measurements were reproducible (CV = 2.0%) and accurate [mean (SE) difference from the target values, -0.10 (0.06)%]. Glucose measurements were also reproducible (mean CV = 3.2%) and accurate [difference from the target values, -0.01 (0.04) mmol/L]. To calculate common reference intervals, we merged the data collected in the different centers. The Hb A1c reference intervals were 4.0%-5.5% for pregnant nondiabetic women and 4.8%-6.2% for nonpregnant controls.

CONCLUSIONS

Healthy pregnant women have lower Hb A1c concentrations than nonpregnant women. The reference intervals for Hb A1c in pregnant women should therefore be lower than those currently in use.