Optimal glycaemic control, pre-eclampsia and gestational hypertension in women with type 1 diabetes in the Diabetes and Pre-Eclampsia Intervention Trial

OBJECTIVE
To assess the relationship between glycemic control, pre-eclampsia, and gestational hypertension in women with type 1 diabetes.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS
Pregnancy outcome (pre-eclampsia or gestational hypertension) was assessed prospectively in 749 women from the randomized controlled Diabetes and Pre-eclampsia Intervention Trial (DAPIT). HbA1c (A1C) values were available up to 6 months before pregnancy (n = 542), at the first antenatal visit (median 9 weeks) (n = 721), at 26 weeks’ gestation (n = 592), and at 34 weeks’ gestation (n = 519) and were categorized as optimal (<6.1%: referent), good (6.1–6.9%), moderate (7.0–7.9%), and poor (=8.0%) glycemic control, respectively.

RESULTS
Pre-eclampsia and gestational hypertension developed in 17 and 11% of pregnancies, respectively. Women who developed pre-eclampsia had significantly higher A1C values before and during pregnancy compared with women who did not develop pre-eclampsia (P < 0.05, respectively). In early pregnancy, A1C =8.0% was associated with a significantly increased risk of pre-eclampsia (odds ratio 3.68 [95% CI 1.17–11.6]) compared with optimal control. At 26 weeks’ gestation, A1C values =6.1% (good: 2.09 [1.03–4.21]; moderate: 3.20 [1.47–7.00]; and poor: 3.81 [1.30–11.1]) and at 34 weeks’ gestation A1C values =7.0% (moderate: 3.27 [1.31–8.20] and poor: 8.01 [2.04–31.5]) significantly increased the risk of pre-eclampsia compared with optimal control. The adjusted odds ratios for pre-eclampsia for each 1% decrement in A1C before pregnancy, at the first antenatal visit, at 26 weeks’ gestation, and at 34 weeks’ gestation were 0.88 (0.75–1.03), 0.75 (0.64–0.88), 0.57 (0.42–0.78), and 0.47 (0.31–0.70), respectively. Glycemic control was not significantly associated with gestational hypertension.

CONCLUSIONS
Women who developed pre-eclampsia had significantly higher A1C values before and during pregnancy. These data suggest that optimal glycemic control both early and throughout pregnancy may reduce the risk of pre-eclampsia in women with type 1 diabetes.

Management of varicella contacts in pregnancy: VZIG or Vaccination?

Background Varicella infection during pregnancy poses a serious risk for both foetus and mother. It has been suggested that it would be more cost-effective to screen antenatally with post-partum vaccination, which occurs in the US, than the current policy of checking immune status post varicella exposure, with VZIG administration where necessary. Additionally, it is doubtful whether the current policy provides best patient care, when a vaccine is available. Objectives The study aims to retrospectively compare the cost of the current policy with a cost estimate for antenatal screening with post-partum vaccination in NI. Study design A cost estimate of antenatal screening of primigravidas, with post-partum vaccination, was calculated for two models: (1) verbal screening, with serological testing of those with no history of varicella infection and (2) serological screening of all primigravidas. Results The cost of VZIG issued to pregnant women in 2006 was £100,800; 43% of births were to primigravidas therefore the estimated cost of VZIG issued to multigravidas was £58,100. The cost of verbal screening with post-partum vaccination is estimated at £23,750 p.a., saving £34,350 over current policy. The estimated cost of screening all primigravidas with post-partum vaccination is £43,000, saving £15,100. Conclusions This retrospective study suggests that in NI either of the proposed antenatal screening strategies would be less costly than current practice. This finding supports the suggestion that varicella immunity testing should be included in the Antenatal Infectious Diseases Screening Programme, either as part of the universal vaccination programme or solely as an antenatal programme.