Association of Gestational Weight Gain With Adverse Maternal and Infant Outcomes. JAMA Importance:Both low and high gestational weight gain have been associated with adverse maternal and infant outcomes, but optimal gestational weight gain remains uncertain and not well defined for all prepregnancy weight ranges. Objectives:To examine the association of ranges of gestational weight gain with risk of adverse maternal and infant outcomes and estimate optimal gestational weight gain ranges across prepregnancy body mass index categories. Design, Setting, and Participants:Individual participant-level meta-analysis using data from 196 670 participants within 25 cohort studies from Europe and North America (main study sample). Optimal gestational weight gain ranges were estimated for each prepregnancy body mass index (BMI) category by selecting the range of gestational weight gain that was associated with lower risk for any adverse outcome. Individual participant-level data from 3505 participants within 4 separate hospital-based cohorts were used as a validation sample. Data were collected between 1989 and 2015. The final date of follow-up was December 2015. Exposures:Gestational weight gain. Main Outcomes and Measures:The main outcome termed any adverse outcome was defined as the presence of 1 or more of the following outcomes: preeclampsia, gestational hypertension, gestational diabetes, cesarean delivery, preterm birth, and small or large size for gestational age at birth. Results:Of the 196 670 women (median age, 30.0 years [quartile 1 and 3, 27.0 and 33.0 years] and 40 937 were white) included in the main sample, 7809 (4.0%) were categorized at baseline as underweight (BMI <18.5); 133 788 (68.0%), normal weight (BMI, 18.5-24.9); 38 828 (19.7%), overweight (BMI, 25.0-29.9); 11 992 (6.1%), obesity grade 1 (BMI, 30.0-34.9); 3284 (1.7%), obesity grade 2 (BMI, 35.0-39.9); and 969 (0.5%), obesity grade 3 (BMI, ≥40.0). Overall, any adverse outcome occurred in 37.2% (n = 73 161) of women, ranging from 34.7% (2706 of 7809) among women categorized as underweight to 61.1% (592 of 969) among women categorized as obesity grade 3. Optimal gestational weight gain ranges were 14.0 kg to less than 16.0 kg for women categorized as underweight; 10.0 kg to less than 18.0 kg for normal weight; 2.0 kg to less than 16.0 kg for overweight; 2.0 kg to less than 6.0 kg for obesity grade 1; weight loss or gain of 0 kg to less than 4.0 kg for obesity grade 2; and weight gain of 0 kg to less than 6.0 kg for obesity grade 3. These gestational weight gain ranges were associated with low to moderate discrimination between those with and those without adverse outcomes (range for area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.55-0.76). Results for discriminative performance in the validation sample were similar to the corresponding results in the main study sample (range for area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.51-0.79). Conclusions and Relevance:In this meta-analysis of pooled individual participant data from 25 cohort studies, the risk for adverse maternal and infant outcomes varied by gestational weight gain and across the range of prepregnancy weights. The estimates of optimal gestational weight gain may inform prenatal counseling; however, the optimal gestational weight gain ranges had limited predictive value for the outcomes assessed. 10.1001/jama.2019.3820

Clinical risk factors for pre-eclampsia determined in early pregnancy: systematic review and meta-analysis of large cohort studies. Bartsch Emily,Medcalf Karyn E,Park Alison L,Ray Joel G, BMJ (Clinical research ed.) OBJECTIVE:To develop a practical evidence based list of clinical risk factors that can be assessed by a clinician at ≤ 16 weeks' gestation to estimate a woman's risk of pre-eclampsia. DESIGN:Systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies. DATA SOURCES:PubMed and Embase databases, 2000-15. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES:Cohort studies with ≥ 1000 participants that evaluated the risk of pre-eclampsia in relation to a common and generally accepted clinical risk factor assessed at ≤ 16 weeks' gestation. DATA EXTRACTION:Two independent reviewers extracted data from included studies. A pooled event rate and pooled relative risk for pre-eclampsia were calculated for each of 14 risk factors. RESULTS:There were 25,356,688 pregnancies among 92 studies. The pooled relative risk for each risk factor significantly exceeded 1.0, except for prior intrauterine growth restriction. Women with antiphospholipid antibody syndrome had the highest pooled rate of pre-eclampsia (17.3%, 95% confidence interval 6.8% to 31.4%). Those with prior pre-eclampsia had the greatest pooled relative risk (8.4, 7.1 to 9.9). Chronic hypertension ranked second, both in terms of its pooled rate (16.0%, 12.6% to 19.7%) and pooled relative risk (5.1, 4.0 to 6.5) of pre-eclampsia. Pregestational diabetes (pooled rate 11.0%, 8.4% to 13.8%; pooled relative risk 3.7, 3.1 to 4.3), prepregnancy body mass index (BMI) >30 (7.1%, 6.1% to 8.2%; 2.8, 2.6 to 3.1), and use of assisted reproductive technology (6.2%, 4.7% to 7.9%; 1.8, 1.6 to 2.1) were other prominent risk factors. CONCLUSIONS:There are several practical clinical risk factors that, either alone or in combination, might identify women in early pregnancy who are at "high risk" of pre-eclampsia. These data can inform the generation of a clinical prediction model for pre-eclampsia and the use of aspirin prophylaxis in pregnancy. 10.1136/bmj.i1753

Prediction of uncomplicated pregnancies in obese women: a prospective multicentre study. Vieira Matias C,White Sara L,Patel Nashita,Seed Paul T,Briley Annette L,Sandall Jane,Welsh Paul,Sattar Naveed,Nelson Scott M,Lawlor Debbie A,Poston Lucilla,Pasupathy Dharmintra, BMC medicine BACKGROUND:All obese pregnant women are considered at equal high risk with respect to complications in pregnancy and birth, and are commonly managed through resource-intensive care pathways. However, the identification of maternal characteristics associated with normal pregnancy outcomes could assist in the management of these pregnancies. The present study aims to identify the factors associated with uncomplicated pregnancy and birth in obese women, and to assess their predictive performance. METHODS:Data form obese women (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m) with singleton pregnancies included in the UPBEAT trial were used in this analysis. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify sociodemographic, clinical and biochemical factors at 15 to 18 weeks' gestation associated with uncomplicated pregnancy and birth, defined as delivery of a term live-born infant without antenatal or labour complications. Predictive performance was assessed using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). Internal validation and calibration were also performed. Women were divided into fifths of risk and pregnancy outcomes were compared between groups. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were calculated using the upper fifth as the positive screening group. RESULTS:Amongst 1409 participants (BMI 36.4, SD 4.8 kg/m), the prevalence of uncomplicated pregnancy and birth was 36% (505/1409). Multiparity and increased plasma adiponectin, maternal age, systolic blood pressure and HbA1c were independently associated with uncomplicated pregnancy and birth. These factors achieved an AUROC of 0.72 (0.68-0.76) and the model was well calibrated. Prevalence of gestational diabetes, preeclampsia and other hypertensive disorders, preterm birth, and postpartum haemorrhage decreased whereas spontaneous vaginal delivery increased across the fifths of increasing predicted risk of uncomplicated pregnancy and birth. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were 38%, 89%, 63% and 74%, respectively. A simpler model including clinical factors only (no biomarkers) achieved an AUROC of 0.68 (0.65-0.71), with sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of 31%, 86%, 56% and 69%, respectively. CONCLUSION:Clinical factors and biomarkers can be used to help stratify pregnancy and delivery risk amongst obese pregnant women. Further studies are needed to explore alternative pathways of care for obese women demonstrating different risk profiles for uncomplicated pregnancy and birth. 10.1186/s12916-017-0956-8

Postpregnancy BMI in the Progression From Hypertensive Disorders of Pregnancy to Type 2 Diabetes. Timpka Simon,Stuart Jennifer J,Tanz Lauren J,Hu Frank B,Franks Paul W,Rich-Edwards Janet W Diabetes care OBJECTIVE:To study the extent to which BMI after pregnancy adds to the elevated risk of postpregnancy type 2 diabetes in women with a history of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP) (preeclampsia or gestational hypertension). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS:We used data from the Nurses' Health Study II, a prospective cohort study. In women aged 45-54 years without prior gestational diabetes mellitus, we investigated the interaction between BMI and HDP history on the risk of type 2 diabetes. For clinical and public health relevance, we focused on additive interaction. The main outcome measure was the relative excess risk due to interaction calculated from multivariable Cox proportional hazards models using normal weight as the reference group. RESULTS:In total, 6,563 (11.7%) of 56,159 participants had a history of HDP and 1,341 women developed type 2 diabetes during 436,333 person-years. BMI was a strong risk factor for type 2 diabetes regardless of HDP history. However, there was evidence of an additive interaction between BMI and HDP for the risk of type 2 diabetes ( = 0.004). The attributable proportion of risk due to the interaction ranged from 0.12 (95% CI -0.22, 0.46) in women who were overweight to 0.36 (95% CI 0.13, 0.59) in women with obesity class I. CONCLUSIONS:Maintaining a healthy weight may be of even greater importance in women with a history of HDP, compared with other women with a history of only normotensive pregnancies, to reduce midlife risk of type 2 diabetes. 10.2337/dc18-1532