Links between risk factors and adverse pregnancy outcomes among Utah mothers with gestational diabetes

2009 ◽  
Vol 33 (3) ◽  
pp. 260-261
Author(s):  
E. Tavake-Pasi ◽  
I. Nash ◽  
K. Lui ◽  
B. Ralls ◽  
W. Stinner ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Gestational Diabetes ◽  
Pregnancy Outcomes ◽  
Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes ◽  
Adverse Pregnancy

scholarly journals Burden, risk factors and outcomes associated with gestational diabetes in a population-based cohort of pregnant women from North India

2022 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Stuti Bahl ◽  
Neeta Dhabhai ◽  
Sunita Taneja ◽  
Pratima Mittal ◽  
Rupali Dewan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Caesarean Section ◽  
Gestational Diabetes ◽  
Pregnant Women ◽  
Pregnancy Outcomes ◽  
Population Based ◽  
Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes ◽  
Oral Glucose ◽  
Adverse Pregnancy

Abstract Background The burden of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) appears to be increasing in India and may be related to the double burden of malnutrition. The population-based incidence and risk factors of GDM, particularly in lower socio-economic populations, are not known. We conducted analyses on data from a population-based cohort of pregnant women in South Delhi, India, to determine the incidence of GDM, its risk factors and association with adverse pregnancy outcomes (stillbirth, preterm birth, large for gestational age babies) and need for caesarean section. Methods We analyzed data from the intervention group of the Women and Infants Integrated Interventions for Growth Study (WINGS), an individually randomized factorial design trial. An oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) was performed at the time of confirmation of pregnancy, and for those who had a normal test (≤140 mg), it was repeated at 24–28 and at 34–36 weeks. Logistic regression was performed to ascertain risk factors associated with GDM. Risk ratios (RR) were calculated to find association between GDM and adverse pregnancy outcomes and need for caesarean section. Results 19.2% (95% CI: 17.6 to 20.9) pregnant women who had at least one OGTT were diagnosed to have GDM. Women who had prediabetes at the time of confirmation of pregnancy had a significantly higher risk of developing GDM (RR 2.08, 95%CI 1.45 to 2.97). Other risk factors independently associated with GDM were woman’s age (adjusted OR (AOR) 1.10, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.15) and BMI (AOR 1.04, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.07). Higher maternal height was found to be protective factor for GDM (AOR 0.98, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.00). Women with GDM, received appropriate treatment did not have an increase in adverse outcomes and no increased need for caesarean section Conclusions A substantial proportion of pregnant women from a low to mid socio-economic population in Delhi had GDM, with older age, higher BMI and pre-diabetes as important risk factors. These findings highlight the need for interventions for prevention and provision of appropriate management of GDM in antenatal programmes. Clinical trial registration Clinical Trial Registry – India, #CTRI/2017/06/008908 (http://ctri.nic.in/Clinicaltrials/pmaindet2.php?trialid=19339&EncHid=&userName=society%20for%20applied%20studies).

scholarly journals Burden, Risk Factors and Outcomes Associated with Gestational Diabetes in A Population-Based Cohort of Pregnant Women from North India

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stuti Bahl ◽  
Neeta Dhabhai ◽  
Sunita Taneja ◽  
Pratima Mittal ◽  
Rupali Dewan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Caesarean Section ◽  
Gestational Diabetes ◽  
Pregnant Women ◽  
Pregnancy Outcomes ◽  
Population Based ◽  
Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes ◽  
Oral Glucose ◽  
Adverse Pregnancy

Abstract Background: The burden of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) appears to be increasing in India and may be related to the double burden of malnutrition. The population-based incidence and risk factors of GDM, particularly in lower socio-economic populations, are not known. We conducted analyses on data from a population-based cohort of pregnant women in South Delhi, India, to determine the incidence of GDM, its risk factors and association with adverse pregnancy outcomes (stillbirth, preterm birth, large for gestational age babies) and need for caesarean section. Methods: We analyzed data from the intervention group of the Women and Infants Integrated Interventions for Growth Study (WINGS), an individually randomized factorial design trial. An oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) was performed at the time of confirmation of pregnancy, and for those who had a normal test (≤140 mg), it was repeated at 24-28 and at 34-36 weeks. Logistic regression was performed to ascertain risk factors associated with GDM. Risk ratios (RR) were calculated to find association between GDM and adverse pregnancy outcomes and need for caesarean section. Results: 19.2% (95% CI: 17.6 to 20.9) pregnant women who had at least one OGTT were diagnosed to have GDM. Women who had prediabetes at the time of confirmation of pregnancy had a significantly higher risk of developing GDM (RR 2.08, 95%CI 1.45 to 2.97). Other risk factors independently associated with GDM were woman’s age (adjusted OR (AOR) 1.10, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.15) and BMI (AOR 1.04, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.07). Higher maternal height was found to be protective factor for GDM (AOR 0.98, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.00). Women with GDM, received appropriate treatment did not have an increase in adverse outcomes. However, GDM increased the need for caesarean section (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.36).Conclusions: A substantial proportion of pregnant women from a low to mid socio-economic population in Delhi had GDM, with older age, higher BMI and pre-diabetes as important risk factors. These findings highlight the need for interventions for prevention and provision of appropriate management of GDM in antenatal programmes.Clinical Trial registration: Clinical Trial Registry – India, #CTRI/2017/06/008908 (http://ctri.nic.in/Clinicaltrials/pmaindet2.php?trialid=19339&EncHid=&userName=society%20for%20applied%20studies)

The impact of fetal sex on risk factors for gestational diabetes and related adverse pregnancy outcomes

2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giuseppe Seghieri ◽  
Graziano Di Cianni ◽  
Elisa Gualdani ◽  
Alessandra De Bellis ◽  
Flavia Franconi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Gestational Diabetes ◽  
Pregnancy Outcomes ◽  
Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes ◽  
Fetal Sex ◽  
Adverse Pregnancy ◽  
The Impact

The Need for Personalized Risk-Stratified Approaches to Treatment for Gestational Diabetes: A Narrative Review

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shamil D. Cooray ◽  
Jacqueline A. Boyle ◽  
Georgia Soldatos ◽  
Shakila Thangaratinam ◽  
Helena J. Teede
Keyword(s):  
Gestational Diabetes ◽  
Pregnancy Outcomes ◽  
Population Based ◽  
Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes ◽  
Therapeutic Interventions ◽  
Clinical Prediction Model ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Adverse Pregnancy ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Personalized Risk

AbstractGestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is common and is associated with an increased risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes. However, the prevailing one-size-fits-all approach that treats all women with GDM as having equivalent risk needs revision, given the clinical heterogeneity of GDM, the limitations of a population-based approach to risk, and the need to move beyond a glucocentric focus to address other intersecting risk factors. To address these challenges, we propose using a clinical prediction model for adverse pregnancy outcomes to guide risk-stratified approaches to treatment tailored to the individual needs of women with GDM. This will allow preventative and therapeutic interventions to be delivered to those who will maximally benefit, sparing expense, and harm for those at a lower risk.

scholarly journals Maternal obesity influences birth weight more than gestational diabetes

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Eman M Alfadhli
Keyword(s):  
Birth Weight ◽  
Gestational Diabetes ◽  
Pregnancy Outcomes ◽  
Maternal Obesity ◽  
Reference Group ◽  
Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes ◽  
Antenatal Visit ◽  
Oral Glucose ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Adverse Pregnancy

Abstract Background Maternal obesity and gestational diabetes (GDM) are commonly encountered during pregnancy. Both conditions are independently associated with unfavorable pregnancy consequences. The objective of this study was to compare the effects of obesity and GDM on birth weight, macrosomia, and other adverse pregnancy outcomes. Methods This cohort study involved 531 women with a singleton pregnancy attending the Maternity and Children’s Hospital, Medina, Saudi Arabia, between June 2014 and June 2015. Participants underwent a 75-g oral glucose tolerance test between 24 and 28 weeks. The International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups criteria were used for GDM diagnosis. BMI was assessed at the first antenatal visit, and obesity was defined as a BMI ≥30.0 kg/m2. All women were followed up until delivery. Women were divided into 4 groups: non-GDM nonobese (reference group), GDM nonobese, obese non-GDM, and obese GDM. Clinical characteristics and adverse pregnancy outcomes were compared. Results The mean age and BMI of the participants were 30.5 years and 29.3 kg/m2, respectively. GDM was diagnosed in 50.2% of the participants, and obesity was diagnosed in 47.8% of the participants. Obese women with GDM were the oldest and heaviest among all women. The mean birth weight increased in order among the four groups; it was highest in the infants in the obese GDM group, followed by those in the obese non-GDM, GDM nonobese and reference groups. Obesity and GDM alone or in combination were associated with higher rates of macrosomia and cesarean deliveries than the reference group. Neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission was higher in infants in the GDM nonobese and obese GDM groups. The frequency of low Apgar score was significantly higher in infants in the obese GDM group than in infants in the reference group. Conclusions Maternal obesity seems to influence birth weight more than GDM, while GDM is associated with a greater risk of admission to the NICU. The combination of both conditions is associated with the greatest risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes.

scholarly journals Association between neighbourhood deprivation, fetal growth, small-for-gestational age and preterm birth: a population-based prospective cohort study

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (11) ◽  
pp. e049075
Author(s):  
Dionne V Gootjes ◽  
Anke G Posthumus ◽  
Vincent W V Jaddoe ◽  
Eric A P Steegers
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Cohort Study ◽  
Preterm Birth ◽  
Fetal Growth ◽  
Gestational Age ◽  
Pregnancy Outcomes ◽  
First Trimester ◽  
Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes ◽  
Neighbourhood Deprivation ◽  
Adverse Pregnancy

ObjectiveTo study the associations between neighbourhood deprivation and fetal growth, including growth in the first trimester, and adverse pregnancy outcomes.DesignProspective cohort study.SettingThe Netherlands, Rotterdam.Participants8617 live singleton births from the Generation R cohort study.ExpositionLiving in a deprived neighbourhood.Main outcome measuresFetal growth trajectories of head circumference, weight and length.Secondary outcomes measuresSmall-for-gestational age (SGA) and preterm birth (PTB).ResultsNeighbourhood deprivation was not associated with first trimester growth. However, a higher neighbourhood status score (less deprivation) was associated with increased fetal growth in the second and third trimesters (eg, estimated fetal weight; adjusted regression coefficient 0.04, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.06). Less deprivation was also associated with decreased odds of SGA (adjusted OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.86 to 0.97, p=0.01) and PTB (adjusted OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.96, p=0.01).ConclusionsWe found an association between neighbourhood deprivation and fetal growth in the second and third trimester pregnancy, but not with first trimester growth. Less neighbourhood deprivation is associated with lower odds of adverse pregnancy outcomes. The associations remained after adjustment for individual-level risk factors. This supports the hypothesis that living in a deprived neighbourhood acts as an independent risk factor for fetal growth and adverse pregnancy outcomes, above and beyond individual risk factors.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document