Translating HbA1c measurements into estimated average glucose values in pregnant women with diabetes

Aims/hypothesis This study aimed to examine the relationship between average glucose levels, assessed by continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), and HbA1c levels in pregnant women with diabetes to determine whether calculations of standard estimated average glucose (eAG) levels from HbA1c measurements are applicable to pregnant women with diabetes. Methods CGM data from 117 pregnant women (89 women with type 1 diabetes; 28 women with type 2 diabetes) were analysed. Average glucose levels were calculated from 5–7 day CGM profiles (mean 1275 glucose values per profile) and paired with a corresponding (±1 week) HbA1c measure. In total, 688 average glucose–HbA1c pairs were obtained across pregnancy (mean six pairs per participant). Average glucose level was used as the dependent variable in a regression model. Covariates were gestational week, study centre and HbA1c. Results There was a strong association between HbA1c and average glucose values in pregnancy (coefficient 0.67 [95% CI 0.57, 0.78]), i.e. a 1% (11 mmol/mol) difference in HbA1c corresponded to a 0.67 mmol/l difference in average glucose. The random effects model that included gestational week as a curvilinear (quadratic) covariate fitted best, allowing calculation of a pregnancy-specific eAG (PeAG). This showed that an HbA1c of 8.0% (64 mmol/mol) gave a PeAG of 7.4–7.7 mmol/l (depending on gestational week), compared with a standard eAG of 10.2 mmol/l. The PeAG associated with maintaining an HbA1c level of 6.0% (42 mmol/mol) during pregnancy was between 6.4 and 6.7 mmol/l, depending on gestational week. Conclusions/interpretation The HbA1c–average glucose relationship is altered by pregnancy. Routinely generated standard eAG values do not account for this difference between pregnant and non-pregnant individuals and, thus, should not be used during pregnancy. Instead, the PeAG values deduced in the current study are recommended for antenatal clinical care

Hysterectomy at a Canadian tertiary care facility: results of a one year retrospective review

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to investigate the indications for and approach to hysterectomy at Kingston General Hospital (KGH), a teaching hospital affiliated with Queen's University at Kingston, Ontario. In particular, in light of current literature and government standards suggesting the superiority of vaginal versus abdominal approaches and a high number of concurrent oophorectomies, the aim was to examine the circumstances in which concurrent oophorectomies were performed and to compare abdominal and vaginal hysterectomy outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective chart audit of 372 consecutive hysterectomies performed in 2001 was completed. Data regarding patient characteristics, process of care and outcomes were collected. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, t-tests and linear and logistic regression. RESULTS: Average age was 48.5 years, mean body mass index (BMI) was 28.6, the mean length of stay (LOS) was 5.2 days using an abdominal approach and 3.0 days using a vaginal approach without laparoscopy. 14% of hysterectomies were performed vaginally, 5.9% were laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomies and the rest were abdominal hysterectomies. The most common indication was dysfunctional or abnormal uterine bleeding (37%). The average age of those that had an oophorectomy (removal of both ovaries) was 50.8 years versus 44.3 years for those that did not (p < .05). Factors associated with LOS included surgical approach, age and the number of concurrent procedures. CONCLUSIONS: A significant reduction in LOS was found using the vaginal approach. Both the patient and the health care system may benefit from the tendency towards an increased use of vaginal hysterectomies. The audit process demonstrated the usefulness of an on-going review mechanism to examine trends associated with common surgical procedures

A cost effectiveness comparison of the NICE 2015 and WHO 2013 diagnostic criteria for women with gestational diabetes with and without risk factors

Objectives To compare the cost-effectiveness (CE) of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) 2015 and the WHO 2013 diagnostic thresholds for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). Setting The analysis was from the perspective of the National Health Service in England and Wales. Participants 6221 patients from four of the Hyperglycaemia and Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes (HAPO) study centres (two UK, two Australian), 6308 patients from the Atlantic Diabetes in Pregnancy study and 12 755 patients from UK clinical practice. Primary and secondary outcome measures planned The incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY), net monetary benefit (NMB) and the probability of being cost-effective at CE thresholds of £20 000 and £30 000 per QALY. Results In a population of pregnant women from the four HAPO study centres and using NICE-defined risk factors for GDM, diagnosing GDM using NICE 2015 criteria had an NMB of £239 902 (relative to no treatment) at a CE threshold of £30 000 per QALY compared with WHO 2013 criteria, which had an NMB of £186 675. NICE 2015 criteria had a 51.5% probability of being cost-effective compared with the WHO 2013 diagnostic criteria, which had a 27.6% probability of being cost-effective (no treatment had a 21.0% probability of being cost-effective). For women without NICE risk factors in this population, the NMBs for NICE 2015 and WHO 2013 criteria were both negative relative to no treatment and no treatment had a 78.1% probability of being cost-effective. Conclusion The NICE 2015 diagnostic criteria for GDM can be considered cost-effective relative to the WHO 2013 alternative at a CE threshold of £30 000 per QALY. Universal screening for GDM was not found to be cost-effective relative to screening based on NICE risk factors