Elsevier

Primary Care Diabetes

Volume 9, Issue 6, December 2015, Pages 458-464
Primary Care Diabetes

Original research
Role of HbA1c in predicting risk for congenital malformations

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pcd.2015.01.004Get rights and content

Highlights

  • HbA1c was assessed at first antenatal visit.

  • Presence of congenital malformation (CM) was noted at delivery among live births.

  • HbA1c at first antenatal visit was associated with CM.

  • Higher levels of HbA1c indicated risk for GDM.

  • HbA1c regardless of GDM identified risk for CM.

Abstract

Aims

Association between conventionally identified hyperglycemias and rates of congenital abnormalities is known; however there is less information about role of HbA1c in determining gestational hyperglycemias and associated risks.

This study tried to explore the association between HbA1c in women without known diabetes at first antenatal visit and risk of congenital malformations (CM) among Saudi women living at Al-Madinah Al-Monawarah.

Methods

Eleven hundred and eighty (1180), healthy, first-trimester pregnant Saudi females without known diabetes, were selected from various antenatal care clinics of Al-Madinah Al-Monawarah city. General clinical and biochemical data was collected for this study by researchers at first visit and the time of delivery.

Results

Nearly one fifth (19.6%) of mothers had above normal HbA1c (>5.7) at first visit. Rates of CM had significant positive association with level of HbA1c. Rate of CM among those who had HbA1c in diabetes range, pre-diabetes range or normal range was 27.8%, 9.8% and 3.0%, respectively. The difference was significant between normal and pre-diabetes at the level P = 0.000 and between pre-diabetes and diabetes at level P = 0.038.

Conclusion

In this study HbA1c is found to be a valuable predictor of risk of congenital malformations. This observation calls for further studies and establishment of policies for care of pregnant mothers having higher than normal HbA1c at first visit.

Introduction

Association between pre-existing and gestational diabetes and rates of congenital abnormalities is well known [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] and among persons with known diabetes or GDM, role of good glycemic control in preventing birth defects is well documented [6], [7]. Utilization of these research observations in prevention of hyperglycemia-related negative outcomes of pregnancy is limited due to variability in diagnostic criteria and practical difficulties in implementation of those criteria.

Traditionally GDM used to be defined as any degree of glucose intolerance with onset or first recognition during pregnancy [8]. This definition did not differentiate between pre-existing diabetes diagnosed during pregnancy and the one that is developed during pregnancy. Its limitations were recognized for many years and in 2008–2009, the International Association of the Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG), that represents many relevant organizations, including the American Diabetes Association (ADA), recommended that diabetes diagnosed at initial prenatal visit, using standard criteria, should be categorized as overt and not gestational, diabetes [9].

Diagnosis of GMD has always been variable and still is. After several international workshops and many decades of research, in practice, there is still no unified global approach to GDM. IADPSG recommends “One-step” approach that requires performing a 75-g OGTT, with plasma glucose measurement fasting and at 1 and 2 h, at 24–28 weeks of gestation in women not previously diagnosed with overt diabetes. NIH recommends the “Two-step” approach (NIH consensus) that requires performing a 50-g GLT (non-fasting), with plasma glucose measurement at 1 h (Step 1), at 24–28 weeks of gestation in women not previously diagnosed with overt diabetes. If the plasma glucose level measured 1 h after the load is $140 mg/dL × (7.8 mmol/L), proceed to 100-g OGTT (Step 2). The 100-g OGTT should be performed when the patient is fasting. The reason for difference in recommendations is that glycemic dysregulation exists on a continuum and the differences in decision reflect the different views while balancing the harms and benefits [10]. Experts agree that there are insufficient data to strongly demonstrate the superiority of one strategy over the other in diagnosis of GDM [10].

Any of the abovementioned recommendations, if universally applied, could be of great help in decreasing maternal hyperglycemia-related risk, but there have been reservations about its implementation by clinicians and hindrances in application due to logistic reasons. Regardless of superiority of one method over the other for the diagnosis of GDM for a large number of pregnant mothers in Asian countries compliance to these recommendations is restricted by economic and cultural constraints. In many cultures, delays in registration of pregnancy and regularity in antenatal visits are very common [11]. For example in Saudi Arabia, testing of HbA1c is not routinely done in antennal clinics, most of the women do not attend antennal clinics as per schedule for various personal and practical reasons and they find it difficult to come to the health care facility in fasting state. Testing of fasting blood sugar is not feasible in many cases as women do not come prepared for it and physicians usually depend on random blood sugar for initial assessment. As the time and size of last meal and activity prior to the test varies, a large number of potential cases of hyperglycemia are likely to be missed out. For many women, their first antenatal visit to the health care facility is the only pre-delivery visit they make. This makes diagnosis of both overt and gestational diabetes difficult. As postprandial hyperglycemia precedes fasting hyperglycemia many cases existing or gestation pre-diabetes may remain undiagnosed when identified on the basis of FBS alone [12]. At present, there is limited information about role of using other methods for identifying maternal hyperglycemia and its association with risk of congenital abnormalities.

Performing HbA1c test at first antenatal visit could identify a large proportion of unknown pre-existing overt diabetes and may also help in better identification of women who are at high risk of maternal hyperglycemia during later stages of pregnancy and subsequent higher risk of negative birth outcomes. Use of HbA1c in postpartum screening of women with GDM detected an additional 10.6% of patients with pre-diabetes but observations are limited and controversial in relation to use of HbA1c at first antennal visit [13], [14] and are rare about its association with pregnancy outcomes. It has also been noticed that normal OGTT does not always exclude GDM. One group of researcher suggest that women with above normal hab1c and normal OGTT needs to be considered as a separate group of hyperglycemic pregnant women [15]. Authors suggest further research for determining benefits of measuring HbA1c and establishing thresholds keeping mind differences in ethnicity and iron status or any other factors the a may affect glycosylation or red cell turnover [15].

In this study, we tried to explore the association of HbA1c at first antenatal visit and diagnosis of GDM with presence of congenital malformations in live births.

Section snippets

Study design

Prospective observational study.

Subjects and sampling

Subjects were recruited from the outpatient clinics of Ohoud hospital (governmental), Al-Safa hospital (private) and 21 primary health care centers.

Eleven hundred and eighty (1180), native Saudi pregnant women were randomly chosen from those attending the antenatal care clinics.

  • The criteria for eligibility were: Willing to participate and attend for follow-up.

  • In the first trimester.

  • Exclusion criteria: Presence of systemic diseases that are known to cause birth

Characteristics of the subjects

Eleven hundred and eighty (1180), native Saudi pregnant women, were enrolled in the study. Seventy-four cases (6.3%) dropped out for different reasons and a total of 1106 were followed till the end of pregnancy. Mean age of the participants was 27.9 years (range 15–52). More than half (56.0%) of the studied couples were unrelated while (44%) were first-degree cousins. There was no significant difference between both groups.

Outcome of pregnancy

Outcome of pregnancy in 1106 recruited women is shown in Fig. 1. A total

Discussion

This study has evidenced association between HbA1c at first parental visit and risk for congenital malformations. According to guidelines, these women would be labeled as having overt diabetes pre-diabetes [10]. However, as there are controversies about using HbA1c for diagnosis of diabetes, they were not categorizes as diabetics by the healthcare facilities. The results of this paper highlight the fact that in spite of limitations in using HbA1c as a diagnostic criterion in certain groups it

Conclusion

We observed that estimating HbA1c at first antenatal visit can be used as a screening test to identify women at high risk of delivering babies with CM. The observations made in this study provide strong support to the suggestion that “HbA1c be used universally to identify women requiring specialized care for avoiding and detecting gestational hyperglycemia”. This suggestion is particularly relevant for communities where irregularity in antenatal visits is a common practice and feasibility of

Conflict of interest

The authors state that they have no conflict of interest.

Acknowledgement

Funding for this project was provided by King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology (KACST), Saudi Arabia by grant number AT-28-113.

References (22)

  • M.J. Lucas et al.

    Early pregnancy glycosylated hemoglobin, severity of diabetes, and fetal malformations

    Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol.

    (1989)
  • D. Rafat et al.

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

    Diabetes Metab. Syndr.

    (2012)
  • H.A. Wahabi et al.

    Pre-pregnancy care for women with pre-gestational diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis

    BMC Public Health

    (2012)
  • H.A. Wahabi et al.

    Pre-existing diabetes mellitus and adverse pregnancy outcomes

    BMC Res. Notes

    (2012)
  • A. Handisurya et al.

    Risk factor profile and pregnancy outcome in women with type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus

    J. Womens Health (Larchmt)

    (2011)
  • B. Groen et al.

    Similar adverse pregnancy outcome in native and nonnative dutch women with pregestational type 2 diabetes: a multicentre retrospective study

    ISRN Obstet. Gynecol.

    (2013)
  • M. Balsells et al.

    Major congenital malformations in women with gestational diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis

    Diabetes Metab. Res. Rev.

    (2012)
  • M. Mironiuk et al.

    A class of diabetes in mother, glycemic control in early pregnancy and occurrence of congenital malformations in newborn infants

    Clin. Exp. Obstet. Gynecol.

    (1997)
  • B.E. Metzger et al.

    Summary and recommendations of the Fourth International Workshop—conference on gestational diabetes mellitus

    Diabetes Care

    (1998)
  • B.E. Metzger et al.

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

    Diabetes Care

    (2010)
  • American Diabetes Association

    Diagnosis and classification of diabetes mellitus

    Diabetes Care

    (2014)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text