Midwifery awareness of diabetes in pregnancy screening guidelines in Aotearoa New Zealand.

OBJECTIVE: Effective and timely management of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) requires early detection. However, screening rates have been shown to be relatively low in New Zealand, despite the introduction of national screening guidelines in 2014 which indicate that all pregnant women should be screened. Thus, the aim of this study was to explore the awareness of the New Zealand Ministry of Health Diabetes in Pregnancy screening guidelines by New Zealand midwives. DESIGN: A 24-question online survey based upon the New Zealand screening guidelines was distributed via New Zealand midwifery social media groups to explore the awareness of New Zealand midwives with regard to screening for diabetes in pregnancy. Free text comments were also allowed, these were broadly categorized and reviewed. PARTICIPANTS: 174 registered midwives in Aotearoa New Zealand completed the survey. MEASUREMENTS AND FINDINGS: All participants responded that they routinely offer glycated haemoglobin screening for detection of undiagnosed pre-gestational diabetes, and 92.9% identified that this should occur prior to 20 weeks gestation (as per the national guidelines). However, less than two thirds of midwives thought that all women should be screened for GDM, with 18.2% indicating they would only do this if immediate risk factors were present. There also appeared to be some confusion over the time period for screening for GDM with 22.9% indicating that this should occur later than the guideline-recommended timepoint of 24-28 weeks gestation. Participants who identified as Maori and community-based midwives were most likely to screen for GDM 'only if risk factors were present'. Participants practicing for more than 6 years, those aged 45-54 years, and midwives identifying as Maori were most likely to screen for GDM after 28 weeks (though these did not reach statistical significance). KEY CONCLUSIONS: The New Zealand Diabetes in Pregnancy screening guidelines do not appear to be well implemented in our sample group, particularly with regard to screening for GDM. This needs to be evaluated in a larger group of midwives, as education around the timeliness and importance of screening for all women may be required. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: A lack of appropriate or timely screening for GDM may mean that women are not being diagnosed or managed appropriately, which in turn may have implications for both mother and child.

The ADIPS Pilot National Diabetes in Pregnancy Benchmarking Programme.

BACKGROUND: To test the feasibility of benchmarking the care of women with pregnancies complicated by hyperglycaemia. METHODS: A retrospective audit of volunteer diabetes services in Australia and New Zealand involving singleton pregnancies resulting in live births between 2014 and 2020. Ranges are shown and compared across services. RESULTS: The audit included 10,144 pregnancies (gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) = 8696; type 1 diabetes (T1D) = 435; type 2 diabetes (T2D) = 1013) from 11 diabetes services. Among women with GDM, diet alone was used in 39.4% (ranging among centres from 28.8-57.3%), metformin alone in 18.8% (0.4-43.7%), and metformin and insulin in 10.1% (1.5-23.4%); when compared between sites, all p < 0.001. Birth was by elective caesarean in 12.1% (3.6-23.7%) or emergency caesarean in 9.5% (3.5-21.2%) (all p < 0.001). Preterm births (<37 weeks) ranged from 3.7% to 9.4% (p < 0.05), large for gestational age 10.3-26.7% (p < 0.001), admission to special care nursery 16.7-25.0% (p < 0.001), and neonatal hypoglycaemia (<2.6 mmol/L) 6.0-27.0% (p < 0.001). Many women with T1D and T2D had limited pregnancy planning including first trimester hyperglycaemia (HbA1c > 6.5% (48 mmol/mol)), 78.4% and 54.6%, respectively (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Management of maternal hyperglycaemia and pregnancy outcomes varied significantly. The maintenance and extension of this benchmarking service provides opportunities to identify policy and clinical approaches to improve pregnancy outcomes among women with hyperglycaemia in pregnancy.

Comparison of Pregnancy Outcomes Using Different Gestational Diabetes Diagnostic Criteria and Treatment Thresholds in Multiethnic Communities between Two Tertiary Centres in Australian and New Zealand: Do They Make a Difference?

INTRODUCTION: Australia, but not New Zealand (NZ), has adopted the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) criteria to diagnose gestational diabetes (GDM). We compared pregnancy outcomes using these different diagnostic approaches. METHOD: Prospective data of women with GDM were collected from one NZ (NZ) and one Australian (Aus) hospital between 2007-2018. Aus screening criteria with 2-step risk-based 50 g Glucose Challenge Testing (GCT) followed by 75 g-oral glucose tolerance testing (OGTT): fasting ≥ 5.5, 2-h ≥ 8.0 mmol/L (ADIPS98) changed to a universal OGTT and fasting ≥5.1, 1-h ≥ 10, 2-h ≥ 8.5 mmol/L (IADPSG). NZ used GCT followed by OGTT with fasting ≥ 5.5, 2-h ≥ 9.0 mmol/L (NZSSD); in 2015 adopted a booking HbA1c (NZMOH). Primary outcome was a composite of macrosomia, perinatal death, preterm delivery, neonatal hypoglycaemia, and phototherapy. An Aus subset positive using NZSSD was also defined. RESULTS: The composite outcome odds ratio compared to IADPSG (1788 pregnancies) was higher for NZMOH (934 pregnancies) 2.227 (95%CI: 1.84-2.68), NZSSD (1344 pregnancies) 2.19 (1.83-2.61), and ADIPS98 (3452 pregnancies) 1.91 (1.66-2.20). Composite outcomes were similar between the Aus subset and NZ. CONCLUSIONS: The IADPSG diagnostic criteria were associated with the lowest rate of composite outcomes. Earlier NZ screening with HbA1c was not associated with a change in adverse pregnancy outcomes.

Ethnic inequities in screening for diabetes in pregnancy in New Zealand-adherence to national guidelines.

AIM: The aim of this study was to assess adherence to the 2014 Ministry of Health (MoH) screening guidelines for diabetes in pregnancy (DiP) by Maori and non-Maori in the Waikato region. METHODS: Clinical records were reviewed for women without known diabetes before pregnancy who delivered in hospitals or community birth centres in the Waikato region during June-August 2017. Screening rates for DiP were assessed using HbA1c, glucose challenge and/or glucose tolerance tests. RESULTS: Of a total of 807 women, 94% received some form of screening for DiP; 527 (65.3%) underwent HbA1c screening at <20 weeks and 267 (33.1%) underwent testing for gestational diabetes at 24-28 weeks' gestation. However, only 213 (26.4%) received all screening as per the MoH guideline. HbA1c testing was the most common screening performed (83.9% of all pregnancies), and three quarters of women had a glucose load screen at some point during pregnancy. In all measures, screening rates were lower in Maori, with only 17.5% (46 of 263 women) receiving both HbA1c and further glucose load screening in the recommended gestation windows (versus 31.6% (171 of 541) for non-Maori; P<0.0005). CONCLUSIONS: Adherence to screening guidelines for DiP was poor with a marked ethnic inequity. Further work is needed to investigate the barriers to care that drive these differences.

Should antenatal corticosteroids be considered in women with gestational diabetes before planned late gestation caesarean section.

Babies born to mothers with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) are at a greater risk of developing respiratory complications and hypoglycaemia than those born to mothers without diabetes. However, there is currently insufficient evidence as to whether these risks are altered by antenatal corticosteroids after 37 weeks gestation. This retrospective study suggests that antenatal corticosteroids probably reduce respiratory admissions to the newborn intensive care unit with a mild increase in neonatal hypoglycaemia in women with GDM who deliver via caesarean section after 37 weeks gestation. Consequently, we recommend a randomised, controlled trial is required to determine the efficacy and safety of antenatal corticosteroids specifically in women with GDM.

Hickam's dictum: Myasthenia Gravis presenting concurrently with Graves' disease.

We present two patients with Graves' disease and concurrent myasthenia gravis. The impact of the dual diagnosis on the clinical course and the potential for a delayed diagnosis of myasthenia gravis is discussed. Patient 1, a 28-year-old man was diagnosed with Graves' disease following his second respiratory arrest. His history was strongly suggestive of a second pathology. Patient 2, a 66-year-old Cantonese woman with established Graves' disease presented with thionamide-related neutropaenia. Examination revealed bilateral ptosis and right lateral rectus palsy. Both patients had thyrotoxicosis secondary to Graves' disease with concurrent myasthenia gravis. Although neuromuscular weakness is common in Graves' disease, coexisting myasthenia gravis (MG) is rare and can cause profound morbidity. Ocular signs in both diseases may cause diagnostic confusion although ptosis suggests coexisting MG. In both cases, the thyrotoxicosis delayed the diagnosis of MG.

Familial dysalbuminaemic hyperthyroxinaemia: a rapid and novel mass spectrometry approach to diagnosis.

BACKGROUND: Familial dysalbuminaemic hyperthyroxinaemia is an important cause of discordant thyroid function test results (due to an inherited albumin variant); however, the diagnosis can be challenging. A 51-year-old man had persistently elevated free thyroxine (T4), with discordant normal thyroid-stimulating hormone and normal free triiodothyronine. He was clinically euthyroid and had a daughter with similar thyroid function test results. We aimed to apply a whole protein mass spectrometry method to investigate this case of suspected familial dysalbuminaemic hyperthyroxinaemia. METHODS: Intact serum albumin was assessed directly using electrospray time-of-flight mass spectrometry. Results were confirmed using tryptic peptide m/z mapping and targeted DNA sequencing (exons 3 and 7 of the albumin gene). We also used this sequencing to screen 14 archived DNA samples that were negative for thyroid hormone receptor mutations (in suspected thyroid hormone resistance). RESULTS: Mass spectrometry analysis demonstrated heterozygosity for an albumin variant with a 19 Da decrease in mass, indicative of an Arg→His substitution. The familial dysalbuminaemic hyperthyroxinaemia variant was confirmed with peptide mapping (showing the precise location of the substitution, 218Arg→His) and DNA sequencing (showing guanine to adenine transition at codon 218 of exon 7). The same familial dysalbuminaemic hyperthyroxinaemia variant was identified in one additional screened sample. CONCLUSIONS: Time-of-flight mass spectrometry is a novel procedure for diagnosing familial dysalbuminaemic hyperthyroxinaemia. The test is rapid (<10 min), can be performed on <2 µL of serum and requires minimal sample preparation.

Hypercalcaemia due to parathyroid carcinoma presenting in the third trimester of pregnancy.

Primary hyperparathyroidism (pHPT) in pregnancy may be associated with significant maternal and fetal morbidity and mortality. Medical management of pHPT in pregnancy is limited, and surgery is the only definitive therapeutic option. The ideal timing for surgery is mid-second trimester, but surgery may also be safely performed in the third trimester. Delayed parathyroid surgery may result in a hypercalcaemic crisis postpartum owing to loss of active placental calcium transfer. We present a case of parathyroid carcinoma in pregnancy presenting with pre-eclampsia at 32 weeks' gestation.

The ADIPS pilot National Diabetes in Pregnancy Audit Project.

BACKGROUND: Limited resources are available to compare outcomes of pregnancies complicated by diabetes across different centres. AIMS: To compare the use of paper, stand alone and networked electronic processes for a sustainable, systematic international audit of diabetes in pregnancy care. METHODS: Development of diabetes in pregnancy minimum dataset using nominal group technique, email user survey of difficulties with audit tools and collation of audit data from nine pilot sites across Australia and New Zealand. RESULTS: Seventy-nine defined data items were collected: 33 were for all women, nine for those with gestational diabetes (GDM) and 37 for women with pregestational diabetes. After the pilot, four new fields were requested and 18 fields had queries regarding utility or definition. A range of obstacles hampered the implementation of the audit including Medical Records Committee processes, other medical/non-medical staff not initially involved, temporary staff, multiple clinical records used by different parts of the health service, difficulty obtaining the postnatal test results and time constraints. Implementation of electronic audits in both the networked and the stand-alone settings had additional problems relating to the need to nest within pre-existing systems. Among the 496 women (45 type 1; 43 type 2; 399 GDM) across the nine centres, there were substantial differences in key quality and outcome indicators between sites. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that an international, multicentre audit and benchmarking program is feasible and sustainable, but can be hampered by pre-existing processes, particularly in the initial introduction of electronic methods.