The utility of plasma glycated CD59 in predicting postpartum glucose intolerance: A prospective study of women diagnosed with GDM during a period of universal GDM screening.

AIMS: Gestational diabetes (GDM) is associated with the development of postpartum (PP) glucose intolerance. Plasma glycated CD59 (pGCD59) is an emerging biomarker for the detection of hyperglycaemia. The aim of this study was to assess the ability of PP pGCD59 to predict the development of PP GI as defined by the 2 h 75 g OGTT using the ADA criteria, in a cohort of women diagnosed with prior GDM in the index pregnancy using the 2 h 75 g OGTT at 24-28 weeks of gestation according to the World Health Organization (WHO) 2013 criteria. METHODS: Of the 2017 pregnant women recruited prospectively 140 women with gestational diabetes had samples for pGCD59 taken PP at the time of the OGTT. The ability of pGCD59 to predict the results of the PP OGTT was assessed using nonparametric receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. RESULTS: Women with PP glucose intolerance had significantly higher PP pGCD59 levels compared to women with normal glucose tolerance PP (3.8 vs. 2.7 SPU). PP pGCD59 identified women who developed glucose intolerance PP with an AUC of 0.80 (95% CI: 0.70-0.91). A PP pGCD59 cut-off value of 1.9 SPU generated a sensitivity of 100% (95% CI: 83.9-100), specificity of 16.9% (95% CI: 9.8-26.3), positive predictive value of 22.1% (95% CI: 21.0-22.6), and negative predictive value of 100% (95% CI: 87.4-100). PP fasting plasma glucose generated an AUC of 0.96 (95% CI: 0.89-0.99) for the identification of PP glucose intolerance. CONCLUSION: Our study found that PP pGCD9 may be a promising biomarker to identify women not requiring PP glucose intolerance screening using the traditional OGTT. While the diagnostic accuracy of pGCD59 is good, fasting plasma glucose remains a better test for the identification of PP glucose intolerance.

The ability of pGCD59 to predict adverse pregnancy outcomes: a prospective study of non-diabetic pregnant women in Ireland.

AIM: Even though most pregnancies are uneventful, occasionally complications do occur. Gestational diabetes is linked to an increased risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes. Early identification of women at risk of experiencing adverse outcomes, ideally through a single blood test, would facilitate early intervention. Plasma glycated CD59 (pGCD59) is an emerging biomarker which has shown promise in identifying hyperglycaemia during pregnancy and has been associated with the risk of delivering an LGA infant. The aim of this study was to explore the ability of the first- and second-trimester pGCD59 to predict adverse pregnancy outcomes. METHODS: This was a prospective study of 378 pregnant women. Samples for pGCD59 were taken at the first antenatal visit and at the time of the 2 h 75 g OGTT (24-28 weeks of gestation). Adjusted receiver operating characteristic curves were used to evaluate the ability of pGCD59 to predict maternal and neonatal outcomes. RESULTS: First-trimester pGCD59 levels were higher in women with gestational diabetes who delivered a macrosomic infant (4.2 ± 0.7 vs. 3.5 ± 1.0 SPU, p < 0.01) or an LGA infant (4.3 ± 0.3 vs. 3.6 ± 1.0 SPU, p = 0.01) compared to women with GDM that did not experience these outcomes. Second-trimester pGCD59 levels were higher in women that developed polyhydramnios (2.9 ± 0.4 vs. 2.5 ± 1.1 SPU, p = 0.03). First- and second-trimester pGCD59 predicted pregnancy-induced hypertension with good accuracy (AUC:0.85, 95%CI:0.78-0.91; AUC: 0.80, 95%CI: 0.73-0.88, respectively) and neonatal hypoglycaemia with fair to good accuracy (AUC:0.77, 95%CI: 0.54-0.99, AUC:0.81, 95%CI:0.62-0.99). CONCLUSIONS: This study has shown that pGCD59 has the potential to predict adverse pregnancy outcomes. Prospective studies with a larger number of cases are necessary to fully explore and validate the potential of this emerging biomarker in predicting adverse pregnancy outcomes.

Reference intervals for clinical biochemistry and haematology tests during normal pregnancy.

BACKGROUND: Pregnancy induces physiological changes which affect biochemical and haematological parameters. As the significance of laboratory test results change throughout pregnancy, the reference interval (RI) or key result interpretive guide should be specific to pregnancy. This study sought to establish trimester-specific-RIs for routine biochemical and haematological tests in healthy white European women with singleton pregnancies with comparison to RIs for non-pregnant European adults. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of a prospective longitudinal single-centre study of healthy pregnant women conducted between November 2018 and December 2020 in a tertiary academic hospital with approximately 3000 births annually. Inclusion criteria: signed informed consent, age ≥18 years, white European, body mass index (BMI) <25 kg/m2, blood pressure <140/90mmHg, non-smoker, no previous pathology or gestational diabetes. Trimester defined as T1: up to 13 weeks + 6 days, T2: 14-27 weeks + 6 days and T3: ≥28-41 weeks + 6 days. Baseline demographics, anthropometric and laboratory measurements were recorded. In total, 31 biochemical and 10 haematological ISO15189:2012 accredited tests were measured using Roche Cobas® and Sysmex XN-9100™ analysers, respectively. RIs were established according to the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry (IFCC) recommended method. RESULTS: Apparently healthy pregnant women (n = 124) with bio-banked serum samples in each trimester were recruited. At the booking visit, 49.2% (n = 61) of participants were nulliparous, with median age of 34.4 (IQR: 31.3-37.3) years, gestational age of 89 (IQR: 84-93) days, BMI of 22.5 (IQR: 21.0-23.7) kg/m2 and systolic and diastolic blood pressure of 116 (110-125) mmHg and 67 (61-75) mmHg, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Normative trimester-specific biological intervals for routinely requested biochemical and haematological medical laboratory tests were established. These RIs will be invaluable to result interpretation and the management of pregnant women.

The utility of first trimester plasma glycated CD59 (pGCD59) in predicting gestational diabetes mellitus: A prospective study of non-diabetic pregnant women in Ireland.

AIMS: To evaluate the ability of first trimester plasma glycated CD59 (pGCD59) to predict gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) at 24-28 weeks of gestation. METHODS: Prospectively, in 378 pregnant women, GDM was diagnosed using the one step 2 h 75 g oral glucose tolerance test adjudicated by the World Health Organisation (WHO) 2013 criteria. The ability of pGCD59 to predict GDM was assessed using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves adjusted for maternal age, body mass index (BMI), maternal ethnicity, parity, previous GDM, family history of diabetes mellitus and week of gestation at time of pGCD59 sampling. RESULTS: pGCD59 generated an adjusted area under the curve (AUC) of (a) 0.63 (95 %CI:0.56-0.70, p < 0.001) for predicting GDM, and (b) 0.71 (95 %CI:0.62-0.79, p < 0.001 for GDM diagnosed with a fasting plasma glucose (FPG) ≥ 5.1 mmol/L. Sensitivity analysis of BMI subgroups showed that pGCD59 generated the highest AUC in the 35 kg/m2 ≤ BMI < 40 kg/m2 (AUC:0.85, 95 %CI:0.70-0.98) and BMI ≥ 40 kg/m2 (AUC:0.88, 95 %CI:0.63-0.99) categories. CONCLUSIONS: Early in pregnancy, pGCD59 may be a good predictor of GDM in women with a high BMI and a fair predictor of GDM diagnosed by an elevated FPG independent of BMI.

The Diagnostic Accuracy of Second Trimester Plasma Glycated CD59 (pGCD59) to Identify Women with Gestational Diabetes Mellitus Based on the 75 g OGTT Using the WHO Criteria: A Prospective Study of Non-Diabetic Pregnant Women in Ireland.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the ability of second trimester plasma glycated CD59 (pGCD59), a novel biomarker, to predict the results of the 2 h 75 g oral glucose tolerance test at 24−28 weeks of gestation, employing the 2013 World Health Organisation criteria. This was a prospective study of 378 pregnant women. The ability of pGCD59 to predict gestational diabetes (GDM) was assessed using adjusted ROC curves for maternal age, BMI, maternal ethnicity, parity, previous GDM, and family history of diabetes. The pGCD59 levels were significantly higher in women with GDM compared to women with normal glucose tolerance (p = 0.003). The pGCD59 generated an adjusted AUC for identifying GDM cases of 0.65 (95%CI: 0.58−0.71, p < 0.001). The pGCD59 predicted GDM status diagnosed by a fasting glucose value of 5.1 mmol/L with an adjusted AUC of 0.74 (95%CI: 0.65−0.81, p < 0.001). Analysis of BMI subgroups determined that pGCD59 generated the highest AUC in the 35 kg/m2 ≤ BMI < 40 kg/m2 (AUC: 0.84 95%CI: 0.69−0.98) and BMI ≥ 40 kg/m2 (AUC: 0.96 95%CI: 0.86−0.99) categories. This study found that second trimester pGCD59 is a fair predictor of GDM status diagnosed by elevated fasting glucose independent of BMI and an excellent predictor of GDM in subjects with a very high BMI.

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in randomised controlled trials in diabetes and pregnancy: protocol for a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Diabetes mellitus is the most common metabolic complication of pregnancy and its prevalence worldwide is rising. The number of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) being conducted in people with diabetes is also increasing. Many studies preferentially publish findings on clinical endpoints and do not report patient-reported outcomes (PROs). In studies that do include PROs, PRO reporting is often of poor quality. METHODS: We will conduct this systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Using a combination of medical subject headings and keywords (combined using Boolean operators), we will search web-based databases (PubMed, Cochrane and EMBASE) for RCTs published in English between 2013 and 2021. Two reviewers will review titles and abstracts. We will review the full texts of any relevant abstracts and extract the following data: date of publication or recruitment period, journal of publication, country of study, multicentre or single centre, population and number of participants, type of intervention, frequency of PRO assessment and type of PRO (or PRO measurement) used. We will also record if the PRO was a primary, secondary or exploratory outcome. We will exclude reviews, observational studies, unpublished data for example, conference abstracts and trial protocols. Any published RCT that includes data on a PRO as a primary or secondary outcome will then be compared against the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials-Patient-Reported Outcome extension checklist, a structured and approved framework for the publication of results of PROs. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval to conduct this study was obtained from the ethics committee at Galway University Hospitals on 24 March 2021 (CA 2592). We aim to publish our findings in a peer-reviewed journal and present our findings at national and international conferences. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: This systematic review was registered prospectively with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO). Registration number CRD42021234917.