New haemoglobin A1c: the way it is reported is about to change

Investigating Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte and C-Reactive Protein-to-Albumin Ratios in Type 2 Diabetic Patients with Dry Eye Disease

BACKGROUND

Patients with Diabetes mellitus (DM) are at risk of developing dry eye disease (DED). We investigated routine laboratory parameters in patients with type 2 DM (T2D) and T2D-DED to identify potential inflammatory markers.

METHODS

A retrospective study of 241 randomly selected patients (30 DED non-diabetic, 120 T2D, and 91 with T2D-DED). The neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratios (NLR), CRP-to-albumin ratios (CAR), and the glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) results were correlated between groups.

RESULTS

The NLR and HbA1c were significantly higher in the T2D-DED group (p≤0.001 and 0.0001, respectively) when compared with T2D and DED non-diabetic groups. CAR was insignificantly high in the three groups (p=0.192). A positive correlation was identified between CAR and NLR in T2D-DED patients (p= 0.008).

CONCLUSION

In T2D-DED patients, NLR was significantly high and positively correlate with CAR. These results predicate diabetes with dry eye complications, and biomarker-mediated inflammation may have important roles in DED pathogenesis.

Different intensities of glycaemic control for pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes

BACKGROUND

The optimal glycaemic control target in pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes is unclear, although there is a clear link between high glucose concentrations and adverse birth outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of different intensities of glycaemic control in pregnant women with pre-existing type 1 or type 2 diabetes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 January 2016) and planned to search reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials comparing different glycaemic control targets in pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, conducted data extraction, assessed risk of bias and checked for accuracy. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included three trials, all in women with type 1 diabetes (223 women and babies). All three trials were at high risk of bias due to lack of blinding, unclear methods of randomisation and selective reporting of outcomes. Two trials compared very tight (3.33 to 5.0 mmol/L fasting blood glucose (FBG)) with tight-moderate (4.45 to 6.38 mmol/L) glycaemic control targets, with one trial of 22 babies reporting no perinatal deaths orserious perinatal morbidity (evidence graded low for both outcomes). In the same trial, there were two congenital anomalies in the very tight, and none in the tight-moderate group, with no significant differences in caesarean section between groups (risk ratio (RR) 0.92, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 1.73; evidence graded very low). In these two trials, glycaemic control was not significantly different between the very tight and tight-moderate groups by the third trimester, although one trial of 22 women found significantly less maternal hypoglycaemia in the tight-moderate group.In a trial of 60 women and babies comparing tight (≤ 5.6 mmol/L FBG); moderate (5.6 to 6.7 mmol/L); and loose (6.7 to 8.9 mmol/L) glycaemic control targets, there were two neonatal deaths in the loose and none in the tight or moderate groups (evidence graded very low). There were significantly fewer women with pre-eclampsia (evidence graded low), fewer caesarean sections (evidence graded low) and fewer babies with birthweights greater than 90th centile (evidence graded low) in the combined tight-moderate compared with the loose group.The quality of the evidence was graded low or very low for important outcomes, because of design limitations to the studies, the small numbers of women included, and wide confidence intervals crossing the line of no effect. Many of the important outcomes were not reported in these studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In a very limited body of evidence, few differences in outcomes were seen between very tight and tight-moderate glycaemic control targets in pregnant women with pre-existing type 1 diabetes, including actual glycaemic control achieved. There is evidence of harm (increased pre-eclampsia, caesareans and birthweights greater than 90th centile) for 'loose' control (FBG above 7 mmol/L). Future trials comparing interventions, rather than glycaemic control targets, may be more feasible. Trials in pregnant women with pre-existing type 2 diabetes are required.

Different intensities of glycaemic control for pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes

BACKGROUND

The optimal glycaemic control target in pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes is unclear, although there is a clear link between high glucose concentrations and adverse birth outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of different intensities of glycaemic control in pregnant women with pre-existing type 1 or type 2 diabetes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 April 2012).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials comparing different glycaemic control targets in pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias, and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included three trials all in women with type 1 diabetes (223 women and babies), and all with a high risk of bias. Two trials compared very tight (3.33 to 5.0 mmol/L fasting blood glucose (FBG)) with tight-moderate (4.45 to 6.38) glycaemic control targets, with one trial of 22 babies reporting no perinatal deaths or serious perinatal morbidity. In the same trial, there were two birth defects in the very tight and none in the tight-moderate group with no significant differences in caesarean section between groups (risk ratio 0.92, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 1.73). In these two trials glycaemic control was not significantly different between the very tight and tight-moderate groups by the third trimester, although one trial of 22 women found significantly less maternal hypoglycaemia in the tight-moderate group.In a trial of 60 women and babies comparing tight (≤ 5.6 mmol/L FBG); moderate (5.6 to 6.7); and loose (6.7 to 8.9) glycaemic control targets, there were two neonatal deaths in the loose and none in the tight or moderate groups. There were significantly fewer women with pre-eclampsia, fewer caesareans and fewer birthweights greater than 90th centile in the combined tight-moderate compared with the loose group.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In a very limited body of evidence, few differences in outcomes were seen between very tight and tight-moderate glycaemic control targets in pregnant women with pre-existing type 1 diabetes, including actual glycaemic control achieved. There is evidence of harm (increased pre-eclampsia, caesareans and birthweights greater than 90th centile) for 'loose' control (FBG above 7 mmol/L). Future trials comparing interventions, rather than glycaemic control targets, may be more feasible particularly for pregnant women with type 2 diabetes.

Comparison of IFCC and NGSP methods for determination of glycated haemoglobin using advanced regression techniques

The objective of this work was a correct statistical comparison of two assay methods for determination of glycated haemoglobin HbA1c. The immunoturbidimetric determination of HbA1c was performed in two ways: using an automatic analyser Hitachi 912, calibrated according to the IFCC reference system (International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine) and using an analyser Advia 1200 and the NGSP reference system (National Glycohaemoglobin Standardization Program). For statistical comparison of these two analytical methods several advanced regression methods were used, which respect random errors of both compared methods. Specifically, Deming regression with and without weights, orthogonal regression, and Passing-Bablok regression were employed. The results demonstrate that the investigated analytical assay methods do not correspond to each other. The summarized results indicate usefulness of better harmonisation of two existing reference systems.

Different intensities of glycaemic control for pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes

BACKGROUND

The optimal glycaemic control target in pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes is unclear, although there is a clear link between high glucose concentrations and adverse birth outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of different intensities of glycaemic control in pregnant women with pre-existing type 1 or type 2 diabetes.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (7 May 2010).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials comparing different glycaemic control targets in pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias, and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included three trials all in women with type 1 diabetes (223 women and babies), and all with a high risk of bias. Two trials compared very tight (3.33 to 5.0 mmol/L fasting blood glucose (FBG)) with tight-moderate (4.45 to 6.38) glycaemic control targets, with one trial of 22 babies reporting no perinatal deaths or serious perinatal morbidity. In the same trial, there were two birth defects in the very tight and none in the tight-moderate group with no significant differences in caesarean section between groups (risk ratio 0.92, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 1.73). In these two trials glycaemic control was not significantly different between the very tight and tight-moderate groups by the third trimester, although one trial of 22 women found significantly less maternal hypoglycaemia in the tight-moderate group.In a trial of 60 women and babies comparing tight (</= 5.6 mmol/L FBG); moderate (5.6 to 6.7); and loose (6.7 to 8.9) glycaemic control targets, there were two neonatal deaths in the loose and none in the tight or moderate groups. There were significantly fewer women with pre-eclampsia, fewer caesareans and fewer birthweights greater than 90th centile in the combined tight-moderate compared with the loose group.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In a very limited body of evidence, few differences in outcomes were seen between very tight and tight-moderate glycaemic control targets in pregnant women with pre-existing type 1 diabetes, including actual glycaemic control achieved. There is evidence of harm (increased pre-eclampsia, caesareans and birthweights greater than 90th centile) for 'loose' control (FBG above 7 mmol/L). Future trials comparing interventions, rather than glycaemic control targets, may be more feasible particularly for pregnant women with type 2 diabetes.

Hemoglobin A1c: past, present and future

Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) has been used for decades to monitor the control of glycemia in diabetes. Although HbA1cis currently undergoing a reassessment, and major developments have been underway in recent years, HbA1c is not recommended at present for diabetes screening or diagnosis. The objective of this review is to summarize the recent developments and to review a potential diagnostic role for HbA1c. Implementation of changes in HbA1c results and units of measurements have been suggested for the purpose of test standardization. These include lower reference ranges (by about 1.5-2 points) and measurement units expressed in percentage (%), as mg/dL (mmol/L) or mmol/mol (or a combination of these units). In diabetes screening and diagnosis, the current diagnostic guidelines use measurement of plasma glucose either fasting or after glucose load. These diagnostic methods have shortcomings warranting a potential diagnostic role for HbA1c. While recent developments in HbA1c methodologies are acknowledged, it is not yet known which changes will be implemented, and how soon. Given the recent literature supporting HbA1c diagnostic abilities, and given the shortcomings of the current guidelines, it is possible that a diagnostic role for HbA1c may be considered in future practice guidelines, globally. Very recently, the first of such recommendations has been proposed by an expert panel, as announced by the US Endocrine Society.

Hemoglobin A1c in Muscat, Oman - A 3 year study

BACKGROUND

Glycosylated Hemoglobin (HbA1c) reflects the average blood glucose level during the previous 2-3 months. HbA1c is used as marker for long term blood glucose control in diabetic patients. In this retrospective study, the prevalence of diabetic control was evaluated from HbA1c tests of diabetic patients over a period of 3 years (January 2005-December 2007) from Muscat Region, Sultanate of Oman. Blood samples from a total number of 7442 patients were analysed at Al Nahdha Hospital Laboratory received from different Primary Health Care Centers and Hospitals of Muscat region as this hospital was the referral hospital for HbA1c testing.

METHODS

The method used for the estimation of HbA1c was Turbidimetric inhibition immunoassay and the test was carried out in Hitachi 902 an automated chemistry analyzer.

RESULTS

The results show that only 22.8% of patients had good glycemic control and 77.2% had bad glycemic control.

CONCLUSION

Diabetic patients should be informed of the fact that maintaining HbA1c below 7% will minimize their risk of developing the complications.