Abnormal Glucose Tolerance in Women Diagnosed With Gestational Diabetes (WHO 2013) 10 Years After Index Pregnancy.

Context: It is not clear if the risk of abnormal glucose tolerance (AGT) is attenuated in the long-term in women diagnosed with gestational diabetes (GDM) using the World Health Organization (WHO) 2013 criteria and who have received appropriate treatment during pregnancy. Objective: We aimed to assess the long-term prevalence of AGT and other cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors in this cohort. Methods: A retrospective cohort follow-up study was conducted of 37 and 107 women diagnosed with and without GDM respectively using the WHO 2013 criteria between June 2010 and December 2010. Women were invited to attend our center, where they underwent a 75-g oral glucose tolerance test, blood and urine collection, body measurements, and electrocardiography. Main outcome measure included the development of AGT using the American Diabetes Association criteria. Results: Sixteen (43.2%) women with GDM compared to 5 (4.7%) women with normal glucose tolerance (NGT) at index pregnancy had AGT (P < .001). In the GDM group, 10 (27.0%), 7 (18.9%), and 4 (10.8%) women had impaired fasting glucose (IFG), impaired glucose tolerance (IGT), and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), respectively. In the NGT group, 2 (1.9%), 3 (2.8%), and 1 (0.9%) woman had IFG, IGT, and T2DM, respectively. Women with AGT also had an unfavorable metabolic profile including obesity, hypertension, insulin resistance, and dyslipidemia. Conclusion: Women treated for GDM (WHO 2013 criteria) remain at increased risk for developing AGT and adverse CVD risk factors as early as a decade after diagnosis. Continued efforts are needed to accurately follow this population to address modifiable risk factors.

Retrospective national cohort study of pregnancy outcomes for women with type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus in Republic of Ireland.

AIM: Report the outcomes of pregnant women with type 1 and type 2 diabetes and to identify modifiable and non-modifiable factors associated with poor outcomes. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of pregnancy preparedness, pregnancy care and outcomes in the Republic of Ireland from 2015 to 2020 and subsequent multivariate analysis. RESULTS: In total 1104 pregnancies were included. Less than one third attended pre-pregnancy care (PPC), mean first trimester haemoglobin A1c was 7.2 ± 3.6% (55.5 ± 15.7 mmol/mol) and 52% received pre-conceptual folic acid. Poor preparation translated into poorer pregnancy outcomes. Livebirth rates (80%) were comparable to the background population however stillbirth rates were 8.7/1000 (four times the national rate). Congenital anomalies occurred in 42.5/1000 births (1.5 times the background rate). More than half of infants were large for gestational age and 47% were admitted to critical care. Multivariate analyses showed strong associations between non-attendance at PPC, poor glycaemic control and critical care admission (adjusted odds ratio of 1.68 (1.48-1.96) and 1.61 (1.43-1.86), p < 0.05 respectively) for women with type 1 diabetes. Smoking and teratogenic medications were also associated with critical care admission and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy. CONCLUSION: Pregnancy outcomes in women with diabetes are suboptimal. Significant effort is needed to optimize the modifiable factors identified in this study.

ATLANTIC DIP: Despite insulin therapy in women with IADPSG diagnosed GDM, desired pregnancy outcomes are still not achieved. What are we missing?

AIMS: To assess if pregnancy outcomes for women with GDM treated with insulin (GDM-I) are comparable to outcomes for women with GDM treated with medical nutritional therapy (MNT) (GDM-M). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included 752 women with GDM-I and 567 women with GDM-M. Maternal and foetal outcomes were examined. RESULTS: Women with GDM-I had a greater risk of polyhydramnios (aOR 2.33, 95%CI 1.31-4.14) and were more likely to deliver by caesarean section (CS) (aOR 1.67, 95%CI 1.25-2.23). Their offspring had higher rates of macrosomia (22.2% vs 12.7%; p < .01), large for gestational age (LGA) (19.7% vs 12.5%; p < .01) and were more likely to require neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission (aOR 4.88, 95%CI 3.54-6.73). There was no difference between the groups in rates of pre-eclampsia (PET), pregnancy-induced hypertension (PIH), infant mortality, congenital malformations, neonatal hypoglycaemia, prematurity and rates of small for gestational age (SGA). CONCLUSIONS: GDM-I and GDM-M mothers have similar rates of maternal medical morbidities. Despite this, the rate of delivery by CS remains greater, possibly driven by physician choice for elective intervention in the GDM-I group. Despite insulin therapy, offspring of GDM-I mothers experience higher rates of macrosomia, LGA and NICU admissions. This may be related to the higher baseline risk profile in GDM-I women, to sub-optimal glycaemic control, excessive gestational weight gain (GWG) or higher baseline BMI of the mother. Addressing baseline maternal BMI, limiting excessive GWG and tightening glycaemic control in GDM-I women may translate to better pregnancy outcomes.

ATLANTIC DIP: Insulin Therapy for Women With IADPSG-Diagnosed Gestational Diabetes Mellitus. Does It Work?

INTRODUCTION: Approximately 40% of women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) diagnosed using International Association of the Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Group (IADPSG) criteria require insulin therapy. OBJECTIVE: We assessed whether the outcomes for women with GDM treated with insulin are comparable to women with normal glucose tolerance (NGT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included 752 women with insulin-treated GDM and 2496 women with NGT during pregnancy. Maternal and fetal outcomes were examined. RESULTS: Infants of women with insulin-treated GDM had rates of macrosomia [adjusted odds ratio (aOR), 1.19; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.87 to 1.63; P = 0.26], large for gestational age (LGA) (aOR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.77 to 1.47; P = 0.67), and small for gestational age (SGA) (aOR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.38 to 1.38; P = 0.26) similar to women with NGT. They were more likely to be hypoglycemic at birth (aOR, 6.85; 95% CI, 2.31 to 20.28; P < 0.01) and to require neonatal intensive care unit care (NICU) (aOR, 12.09; 95% CI, 8.72 to 16.76; P < 0.01), predominantly for nonmedical reasons. Maternal rates of hypertensive disorders (preeclampsia: aOR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.34 to 1.12; P = 0.17; pregnancy-induced hypertension: aOR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.66; P = 0.60) and hemorrhage (ante partum hemorrhage: aOR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.19 to 1.58; P = 0.27; postpartum hemorrhage: aOR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.68 to 2.03; P = 0.55) were similar between groups, but the risk of polyhydramnios was increased in the GDM cohort (aOR, 7.75; 95% CI, 3.96 to 15.16; P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Insulin treatment of IADPSG-diagnosed GDM results in rates of macrosomia, LGA, SGA, and maternal hypertensive disorders similar to those of women with NGT. Although NICU admissions are greater in the GDM cohort, they are primarily for nonmedical reasons. Neonatal hypoglycemia and polyhydramnios remain greater among women with insulin-treated GDM.

Abnormal glucose tolerance post-gestational diabetes mellitus as defined by the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups criteria.

OBJECTIVE: An increase in gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) prevalence has been demonstrated across many countries with adoption of the International Association of the Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) diagnostic criteria. Here, we determine the cumulative incidence of abnormal glucose tolerance among women with previous GDM, and identify clinical risk factors predicting this. DESIGN: Two hundred and seventy women with previous IADPSG-defined GDM were prospectively followed up for 5years (mean 2.6) post-index pregnancy, and compared with 388 women with normal glucose tolerance (NGT) in pregnancy. METHODS: Cumulative incidence of abnormal glucose tolerance (using American Diabetes Association criteria for impaired fasting glucose, impaired glucose tolerance and diabetes) was determined using the Kaplan-Meier method of survival analysis. Cox regression models were constructed to test for factors predicting abnormal glucose tolerance. RESULTS: Twenty-six percent of women with previous GDM had abnormal glucose tolerance vs 4% with NGT, with the log-rank test demonstrating significantly different survival curves (P<0.001). Women meeting IADPSG, but not the World Health Organization (WHO) 1999 criteria, had a lower cumulative incidence than women meeting both sets of criteria, both in the early post-partum period (4.2% vs 21.7%, P<0.001) and at longer-term follow-up (13.7% vs 32.6%, P<0.001). Predictive factors were glucose levels on the pregnancy oral glucose tolerance test, family history of diabetes, gestational week at testing, and BMI at follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of women developing abnormal glucose tolerance remains high among those with IADPSG-defined GDM. This demonstrates the need for continued close follow-up, although the optimal frequency and method needs further study.

Screening for gestational diabetes mellitus in primary versus secondary care: The clinical outcomes of a randomised controlled trial.

AIMS: To examine the clinical outcomes of screening for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) in primary care versus secondary care, in the Irish healthcare system. DESIGN AND METHODS: A parallel group randomised controlled trial (RCT) of screening for GDM in primary versus secondary care was used to examine (i) prevalence, (ii) gestational week of screen, (iii) time to access specialist care, and (iv) maternal and neonatal outcomes. In total 781 women were recruited for screening in primary care (n=391) or secondary care (n=390). RESULTS: The prevalence of GDM and gestational week of screen were similar in both locations. There was a trend towards a longer time to access diabetes care in primary care (24days) versus secondary care (19days), a difference of 5days (p=0.09). Women screened in primary care also showed a trend towards a higher rate of large for gestational age (LGA) infants (20%) than those screened in secondary care (14.7%), (p=0.09). There were no differences between groups in maternal outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: This RCT suggests that screening for GDM in secondary care may be associated with potentially faster time to access specialist antenatal diabetes care and possibly lower LGA rates. Further research is needed to clarify these findings and to improve the delay in accessing specialist care requires an urgent focus. Further research is needed to test these findings in other health systems.

A Prepregnancy Care Program for Women With Diabetes: Effective and Cost Saving.

CONTEXT: Only a minority of women with diabetes attend prepregnancy care service and the economic effects of providing this service are unclear. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to design, put into practice, and evaluate a regional prepregnancy care program for women with types 1 and 2 diabetes. DESIGN: This was a prospective cohort and cost-analysis study. SETTING: The study was conducted at antenatal centers along the Irish Atlantic Seaboard. PARTICIPANTS: Four hundred fourteen women with type 1 or 2 diabetes participated in the study. INTERVENTIONS: The intervention for the study was a newly developed prepregnancy care program. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The program was assessed for its effect on the risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes. The difference between program delivery cost and the excess cost of treating adverse outcomes in nonattendees was evaluated. RESULTS: In total, 149 (36%) attended: this increased from 19% to 50% after increased recruitment measures in 2010. Attendees were more likely to take preconception folic acid (97.3% vs 57.7%, P < .001) and less likely to smoke (8.7% vs 16.6%, P = .03) or take potentially teratogenic medications at conception (0.7 vs 6.0, P = .008). Attendees had lower glycated hemoglobin levels throughout pregnancy (first trimester glycated hemoglobin 6.8% vs 7.7%, P < .001; third trimester glycated hemoglobin 6.1% vs 6.5%, P = .001), and their offspring had lower rates of serious adverse outcomes (2.4% vs 10.5%, P = .007). The adjusted difference in complication costs between those who received prepregnancy care vs usual antenatal care only is €2578.00. The average cost of prepregnancy care delivery is €449.00 per pregnancy. CONCLUSIONS: This regional prepregnancy care program is clinically effective. The cost of program delivery is less than the excess cost of managing adverse pregnancy outcomes.

Perspectives on the provision of GDM screening in general practice versus the hospital setting: a qualitative study of providers and patients.

OBJECTIVE: A novel gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) screening programme which involved offering screening at the patient's general practitioner (GP) compared with the traditional hospital setting was trialled. This study investigates perspectives of involved stakeholders on the provision of GDM screening at both settings. DESIGN: Thematic analysis of the perspectives of stakeholders involved in the receiving and provision of GDM screening in both the GP and hospital settings drawn from focus groups and interviews. PARTICIPANTS: 3 groups of participants are included in this research--patient participants, GP screening providers and hospital screening providers. All were recruited from a larger sample who participated in a randomised controlled screening trial. Purposeful sampling was utilised to select participants with a wide variety of perspectives on the provision of GDM screening. SETTING: Participants were recruited from a geographical area covered by 3 hospitals in Ireland. RESULTS: 4 themes emerged from thematic analysis--namely (1) travel distance, (2) best care provision, (3) sense of ease created and (4) optimal screening. CONCLUSIONS: The influence of travel distance from the screening site is the most important factor influencing willingness to attend for GDM screening among women who live a considerable distance from the hospital setting. For patients who live equidistance from both settings, other factors are important; namely the waiting facilities including parking, perceived expertise of screening provider personnel, access to emergency treatment if necessary, accuracy of tests and access to timely results and treatment. Optimal screening for GDM should be specialist led, incorporate expert advice of GDM screening, treatment and management, should be provided locally, offer adequate parking and comfort levels, provide accurate tests, and timely access to results and treatment. Such a service should result in improved rates of GDM screening uptake. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN41202110.

Ten Years of Optimizing Outcomes for Women With Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes in Pregnancy-The Atlantic DIP Experience.

CONTEXT: Pregnancy for women with type 1 or type 2 diabetes is a time of increased risk for both mother and baby. The Atlantic Diabetes in Pregnancy program provides coordinated, evidence-based care for women with diabetes in Ireland. Founded in 2005, the program now shares outcomes over its first decade in caring for pregnant women with diabetes. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to assess improvements in clinical outcomes after the introduction of interventions. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS: We retrospectively examined 445 pregnancies in women with type 1 and type 2 diabetes and compared them over two timepoints, 2005­2009 and 2010­2014. INTEVENTIONS: Interventions introduced over that time include: provision of combined antenatal/diabetes clinics, prepregnancy care, electronic data management, local clinical care guidelines, professional and patient education materials, an app, and a web site. MAIN OUTCOMES: Pregnancy outcomes were measured. RESULTS: The introduction of the Atlantic Diabetes in Pregnancy program has been associated with a reduction in adverse neonatal outcomes. There has been a reduction in congenital malformations (5 to 1.8%; P = .04), stillbirths (2.3 vs 0.4%; P = .09), despite an upward trend in maternal age (mean age, 31.7 vs 33 years), obesity (29 vs 43%; body mass index >30 kg/m2), and excessive gestational weight gain (24 vs 38%; P = .002). These improvements in outcomes occur alongside an increase in attendance at prepregnancy care (23 to 49%; P < .001), use of folic acid (45 vs 71%; P < .001), and sustained improvement in glycemic control. CONCLUSIONS: Changing the process of clinical care delivery and utilizing evidence-based interventions in a pragmatic clinical setting improves pregnancy outcomes for women with pregestational diabetes. We now need to target optimization of maternal body mass index before pregnancy and put a greater focus on gestational weight gain through education and monitoring.

Treatment With Diet and Exercise for Women With Gestational Diabetes Mellitus Diagnosed Using IADPSG Criteria.

CONTEXT: Prevalence of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) and obesity continue to increase. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to ascertain whether diet and exercise is a successful intervention for women with GDM and whether a subset of these women have comparable outcomes to those with normal glucose tolerance (NGT). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This was a retrospective cohort study of five antenatal centers along the Irish Atlantic seaboard of 567 women diagnosed with GDM and 2499 women with NGT during pregnancy. INTERVENTION: Diet and exercise therapy on diagnosis of GDM were prescribed and multiple maternal and neonatal outcomes were examined. RESULTS: Infants of women with GDM were more likely to be hypoglycemic (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 7.25; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.94-17.9) at birth. They were more likely to be admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit (aOR, 2.16; 95% CI, 1.60-2.91). Macrosomia and large-for-gestational-age rates were lower in the GDM group (aOR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.37-0.64 and aOR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.46-0.82, respectively). There was no increase in small for gestational age among offspring of women with GDM (aOR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.49-1.34). Women with diet-treated GDM and body mass index (BMI) < 25 kg/m(2) had similar outcomes to those with NGT of the same BMI group. Obesity increased risk for poor pregnancy outcomes regardless of diabetes status. CONCLUSION: Medical nutritional therapy and exercise for women with GDM may be successful in lowering rates of large for gestational age and macrosomia without increasing small-for-gestational-age rates. Women with GDM and a BMI less than 25 kg/m(2) had outcomes similar to those with NGT suggesting that these women could potentially be treated in a less resource intensive setting.

Feasibility, acceptability and uptake rates of gestational diabetes mellitus screening in primary care vs secondary care: findings from a randomised controlled mixed methods trial.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: It is postulated that uptake rates for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) screening would be improved if offered in a setting more accessible to the patient. The aim of this study was to evaluate the proportion of uptake of GDM screening in the primary vs secondary care setting, and to qualitatively explore the providers' experiences of primary care screening provision. METHODS: This mixed methods study was composed of a quantitative unblinded parallel group randomised controlled trial and qualitative interview trial. The primary outcome was the proportion of uptake of screening in both the primary and secondary care settings. All pregnant women aged 18 years or over, with sufficient English and without a diagnosis or diabetes or GDM, who attended for their first antenatal appointment at one of three hospital sites along the Irish Atlantic seaboard were eligible for inclusion in this study. Seven hundred and eighty-one pregnant women were randomised using random permutated blocks to receive a 2 h 75 g OGTT in either a primary (n = 391) or secondary care (n = 390) setting. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 13 primary care providers. Primary care providers who provided care to the population covered by the three hospital sites involved were eligible for inclusion. RESULTS: Statistically significant differences were found between the primary care (n = 391) and secondary care (n = 390) arms for uptake (52.7% vs 89.2%, respectively; effect size 36.5 percentage points, 95% CI 30.7, 42.4; p < 0.001), crossover (32.5% vs 2.3%, respectively; p < 0.001) and non-uptake (14.8% vs 8.5%, respectively; p = 0.005). There were no significant differences in uptake based on the presence of a practice nurse or the presence of multiple general practitioners in the primary care setting. There was evidence of significant relationship between probability of uptake of screening and age (p < 0.001). Primary care providers reported difficulties with the conduct of GDM screening, despite recognising that the community was the most appropriate location for screening. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: Currently, provision of GDM screening in primary care in Ireland, despite its acknowledged benefits, is unfeasible due to poor uptake rates, poor rates of primary care provider engagement and primary care provider concerns. TRIAL REGISTRATION: http://isrctn.org ISRCTN02232125 FUNDING: This study was funded by the Health Research Board (ICE2011/03).

Diabetic retinopathy in pregnancy: a population-based study of women with pregestational diabetes.

The aim of this observational study was to evaluate screening and progression of diabetic retinopathy during pregnancy in women with pregestational diabetes attending five antenatal centres along the Irish Atlantic seaboard. An adequate frequency of screening was defined as at least two retinal evaluations in separate trimesters. Progression was defined as at least one stage of deterioration of diabetic retinopathy and/or development of diabetic macular edema on at least one eye. Women with pregestational diabetes who delivered after 22 gestational weeks (n = 307) were included. In total, 185 (60.3%) had an adequate number of retinal examinations. Attendance at prepregnancy care was associated with receiving adequate screening (odds ratio 6.23; CI 3.39-11.46 (P < 0.001)). Among those who received adequate evaluations (n = 185), 48 (25.9%) had retinopathy progression. Increasing booking systolic blood pressure (OR 1.03, CI 1.01-1.06, P = 0.02) and greater drop in HbA1c between first and third trimesters of pregnancy (OR 2.05, CI 1.09-3.87, P = 0.03) significantly increased the odds of progression. A significant proportion of women continue to demonstrate retinopathy progression during pregnancy. This study highlights the role of prepregnancy care and the importance of close monitoring during pregnancy and identifies those patients at the highest risk for retinopathy progression.

Comparing type 1 and type 2 diabetes in pregnancy- similar conditions or is a separate approach required?

BACKGROUND: Pregnancy in women with type 1 (T1DM) or type 2 diabetes (T2DM) is associated with increased risk. These conditions are managed similarly during pregnancy, and compared directly in analyses, however they affect women of different age, body mass index and ethnicity. METHODS: We assess if differences exist in pregnancy outcomes between T1DM and T2DM by comparing them directly and with matched controls. We also analyze the effect of glycemic control on pregnancy outcomes and analyze predictive variables for poor outcome. RESULTS: We include 323 women with diabetes and 660 glucose-tolerant controls. T2DM women had higher BMI, age and parity with a shorter duration of diabetes and better glycemic control. Preeclampsia occurred more in women with T1DM only. Rates of elective cesarean section were similar between groups but greater than in controls, emergency cesarean section was increased in women with type 1 diabetes. Maternal morbidity in T1DM was double that of matched controls but T2DM was similar to controls. Babies of mothers with diabetes were more likely to be delivered prematurely. Neonatal hypoglycemia occurred more in T1DM than T2DM and contributed to a higher rate of admission to neonatal intensive care for both groups. Adverse neonatal outcomes including stillbirths and congenital abnormalities were seen in both groups but were more common in T1DM pregnancies. HbA1C values at which these poor outcomes occurred differed between T1 and T2DM. CONCLUSIONS: Pregnancy outcomes in T1DM and T2DM are different and occur at different levels of glycemia. This should be considered when planning and managing pregnancy and when counseling women.

ATLANTIC-DIP: prevalence of metabolic syndrome and insulin resistance in women with previous gestational diabetes mellitus by International Association of Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Groups criteria.

Women with previous gestational diabetes (GDM) are a high-risk group for future development of diabetes, metabolic syndrome, and cardiovascular disease. The new International Association of Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) criteria significantly increase the number of women diagnosed with GDM. The long-term metabolic outcome in these women is unknown. We set out to determine the prevalence of metabolic syndrome, using adult treatment panel-III criteria; and insulin resistance, using HOMA2-IR, in white European women with previous GDM. Using a cohort design, we invited women meeting IADPSG GDM criteria across four Irish antenatal centres between 2007 and 2010 to participate. Two hundred and sixty-five women with previous values meeting IADPSG criteria for GDM participated (44 % of the population eligible for participation). Mean age was 36.7 years (SD 5.0). These women were compared with a randomly selected control group of 378 women (mean age 37.6 years, SD 5.1) known to have normal glucose tolerance (NGT) in pregnancy during the same period. A total of 25.3 % of women with previous IADPSG-defined GDM met metabolic syndrome criteria, compared to 6.6 % of women with NGT [at 2.6 (SD 1.0) vs. 3.3 years (SD 0.7) post-partum]. The prevalence of HOMA2-IR >1.8 was higher in women with previous IADPSG-defined GDM (33.6 vs. 9.1 % with NGT, p < 0.001). Women with previous GDM by IADPSG criteria demonstrate a greater than threefold prevalence of metabolic syndrome compared to women with NGT in pregnancy. Efforts to prevent projected long-term consequences of this should focus on interventions both in the preconception and post-partum periods.

The changing diagnosis of gestational diabetes mellitus: does anyone miss out?

Our aim was to identify women diagnosed with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) using 1999 WHO diagnostic criteria but who would be now classified as normal glucose tolerance (NGT) using updated criteria. We demonstrate that this category change affected 3.3% women and they have a limited increased risk of adverse outcomes.

ATLANTIC DIP: closing the loop: a change in clinical practice can improve outcomes for women with pregestational diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: Prospective evaluation of pregnancy outcomes in women with pregestational diabetes over 6 years. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The ATLANTIC Diabetes in Pregnancy group provides care for women with diabetes throughout pregnancy. In 2007, the group identified that women were poorly prepared for pregnancy and outcomes were suboptimal. A change in practice occurred, offering women specialist-led, hub-and-spoke evidence-based care. We now compare outcomes from 2005 to 2007 with those from 2008 to 2010. RESULTS: There was an increase in the numbers attending preconception care (28-52%, P = 0.01). Glycemic control before and throughout pregnancy improved. There was an overall increase in live births (74-92%, P < 0.001) and decrease in perinatal mortality rate (6.2-0.65%, P < 0.001). There was a decrease in large-for-gestational-age babies in mothers with type 1 diabetes mellitus (30-26%, P = 0.02). Elective caesarean section rates increased, while emergency section rates decreased. CONCLUSIONS: Changing the process of clinical care delivery can improve outcomes in women with pregestational diabetes.

Trimester-specific reference intervals for haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) in pregnancy.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes in pregnancy imposes additional risks to both mother and infant. These increased risks are considered to be primarily related to glycaemic control which is monitored by means of glycated haemoglobin (HbA(1c)). The correlation of HbA(1c) with clinical outcomes emphasises the need to measure HbA(1c) accurately, precisely and for correct interpretation, comparison to appropriately defined reference intervals. Since July 2010, the HbA(1c) assay in Irish laboratories is fully metrologically traceable to the IFCC standard. The objective was to establish trimester-specific reference intervals in pregnancy for IFCC standardised HbA(1c) in non-diabetic Caucasian women. METHODS: The authors recruited 311 non-diabetic Caucasian pregnant (n=246) and non-pregnant women (n=65). A selective screening based on risk factors for gestational diabetes was employed. All subjects had a random plasma glucose <7.7 mmol/L and normal haemoglobin level. Pregnancy trimester was defined as trimester 1 (T1, n=40) up to 12 weeks +6 days, trimester 2 (T2, n=106) 13-27 weeks +6 days, trimester 3 (T3, n=100) >28 weeks to term. RESULTS: The normal HbA(1c) reference interval for Caucasian non-pregnant women was 29-37 mmol/mol (Diabetes Control and Complications Trial; DCCT: 4.8%-5.5%), T1: 24-36 mmol/mol (DCCT: 4.3%-5.4%), T2: 25-35 mmol/mol (DCCT: 4.4%-5.4%) and T3: 28-39 mmol/mol (DCCT: 4.7%-5.7%). HbA(1c) was significantly decreased in trimesters 1 and 2 compared to non-pregnant women. CONCLUSIONS: HbA(1c) trimester-specific reference intervals are required to better inform the management of pregnancies complicated by diabetes.

ATLANTIC DIP: pregnancy outcome for women with pregestational diabetes along the Irish Atlantic seaboard.

OBJECTIVE: Prospective evaluation of pregnancy outcomes in pregestational diabetes along the Atlantic seaboard 2006-2007. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The Atlantic Diabetes in Pregnancy group, representing five antenatal centers in a wide geographical location, was established in 2005. All women with diabetes for >6 months before the index pregnancy were included. Results were collected electronically via the DIAMOND Diabetes Information System. Pregnancy outcome was compared with background rates. RESULTS: There were 104 singleton pregnancies. The stillbirth rate (25/1,000) was 5 times, perinatal mortality rate (25/1,000) 3.5 times, and congenital malformation rate (24/1,000) 2 times that of the background population. A total of 28% of women received prepregnancy care, 43% received prepregnancy folic acid, and 51% achieved an A1C