-
Alcoholism, Clinical and Experimental... Aug 2019To systematically review and critically evaluate studies reporting alcohol exposure during pregnancy and miscarriage. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and ProQuest... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
To systematically review and critically evaluate studies reporting alcohol exposure during pregnancy and miscarriage. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and ProQuest Theses for publications from January 1970 to January 2019. We identified studies about alcohol exposure during pregnancy and miscarriage. Information about study population, alcohol exposure assessment, outcome definition, covariates, and measures of association was collected. We assessed study quality using an adapted Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Data were abstracted by 2 investigators independently. We conducted a random-effects meta-analysis to calculate the association between alcohol exposure and miscarriage risk and performed subgroup analyses to determine robustness of results to study differences. For studies reporting dose-specific effects, a pooled dose-response association was estimated using generalized least squares regression with and without restricted cubic spline terms for number of drinks consumed per week. Of 2,164 articles identified, 24 were eligible for inclusion. Meta-analysis of data from 231,808 pregnant women finds those exposed to alcohol during pregnancy have a greater risk of miscarriage compared to those who abstained (odds ratio [OR] 1.19, 95% confidence intervals [CI] 1.12, 1.28). Estimates did not vary by study design, study country, or method of alcohol ascertainment. For alcohol use of 5 or fewer drinks per week, each additional drink per week was associated with a 6% increase in miscarriage risk (OR 1.06, 95% CI 1.01, 1.10). Common study limitations reflect challenges inherent to this research, including difficulty recruiting participants early enough in pregnancy to observe miscarriage and collecting and quantifying information about alcohol consumption during pregnancy that accurately reflects use. This review provides evidence that alcohol consumption during pregnancy is associated with a dose-mediated increase in miscarriage risk. Future studies evaluating change in alcohol use in pregnancy are needed to provide insight into how alcohol consumption prior to pregnancy recognition impacts risk.
Topics: Abortion, Spontaneous; Alcohol Drinking; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Female; Humans; Pregnancy
PubMed: 31194258
DOI: 10.1111/acer.14124 -
Endocrinology, Diabetes & Metabolism Oct 2021The prevalence of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is increasing in developing countries including the South Asian Nations. The current study aimed to examine the... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
The prevalence of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is increasing in developing countries including the South Asian Nations. The current study aimed to examine the association of GDM with adverse pregnancy outcomes from foetal and maternal perspectives in South Asia.
METHODS
A systematic review was conducted including primary studies published since January 2020 from South Asian countries. Following electronic databases were searched to locate the articles: MEDLINE, EMBASE and EMCARE. Data were extracted using a customized extraction tool and methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using modified Effective Public Health Practice Project (EPHPP) quality assessment tool. Narrative synthesis was performed as statistical pooling was not possible due to the heterogeneous nature of the studies.
RESULTS
Eight studies were included in the review. Overall, the review found a positive correlation between GDM and adverse foetal outcomes such as macrosomia, neonatal hyperglycaemia, intrauterine growth retardation (IUGR), stillbirths and low birthweight (LBW), but the findings were not conclusive. GDM was also positively associated with preeclampsia but the association between GDM and C-section delivery was not conclusive.
CONCLUSION
Policymakers, public health practitioners and researchers in South Asia should take in to account the link between GDM and adverse pregnancy outcomes while designing interventions to promote maternal health in South Asia. Researchers should focus on conducting longitudinal studies in future to clearly understand the epidemiology and pathobiology of this issue.
Topics: Asia; Diabetes, Gestational; Female; Fetal Macrosomia; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Pre-Eclampsia; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Outcome
PubMed: 34505412
DOI: 10.1002/edm2.285 -
International Journal of Environmental... Aug 2022Exercise is often recommended in addition to diet and medication in the management of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). Our aim was to determine if strength training... (Review)
Review
Exercise is often recommended in addition to diet and medication in the management of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). Our aim was to determine if strength training compared with aerobic exercise had an impact on glycaemic control, maternal and neonatal outcomes. The Cochrane library, Embase, PubMed, CINAHL, Medline, Google Scholar, and OpenGrey were searched. Over 758 pregnant women (mother-baby pairs) from 14 studies are included in this systematic review. Interventions ranged from cycling, aerobic exercises, walking, yoga, or combined aerobic and resistance exercises. Of the studies identified, none directly compared aerobic exercise with strength training. Half of the studies showed benefit in glycaemic control with additional exercise compared with usual physical activity. There was largely no impact on obstetric or neonatal outcomes. Studies on exercise in GDM have reiterated the safety of exercise in pregnancy and shown mixed effects on maternal glycaemic control, with no apparent impact on pregnancy outcomes. The heterogenicity of reported studies make it difficult to make specific recommendations on the optimum exercise modality for the management of GDM. The use of a core outcome set for GDM may improve reporting of studies on the role of exercise in its management.
Topics: Diabetes, Gestational; Exercise; Female; Glycemic Control; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Outcome; Resistance Training
PubMed: 36078508
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph191710791 -
Global Health Action Dec 2022Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is a temporary form of diabetes induced by pregnancy and is potentially harmful to both the mother and fetus The impact of GDM... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is a temporary form of diabetes induced by pregnancy and is potentially harmful to both the mother and fetus The impact of GDM diagnosis on pregnant women needs to be taken into account. This is related to the capacity for self-management of GDM, for which quality evidence is still lacking.
OBJECTIVE
to identify several aspects of self-management and self- efficacy for women with GDM.
METHOD
Electronic databases were searched for studies related to the self-management, self-efficacy, and glycemic control of women with GDM, from January 2012 to January 2021. The extraction of study features was based on study location, reported research aims, study design, methodology, and the analytical approach, using Endnote Version X7.7.1. The Critical Appraisal Skills Program Qualitative Checklist (CASP) was used to assess quality, as recommended by the Cochrane Qualitative Research Methods Group.
RESULTS
Ten out of 70 studies were identified as meeting the established criteria and including a diverse population. The synthesis revealed seven major themes: preliminary psychological impact, communicating the diagnosis, knowledge of GDM, self-efficacy and self-management of GDM, risk perception, the burden of GDM, and gaining control. The benefits of a diagnosis were behavioral and were mostly crystalized if a particular level of self-management and self-efficacy was reached and women were able to have specific control over their diet and body weight. On the other hand, women reported that the diagnosis increased their responsibility, as they had to take extra precautions regarding their dietary regimen.
CONCLUSION
Self-management and self-efficacy for GDM management are possible, despite the psychological hurdles that most women confront. There is still potential for improvement in terms of developing a healthy lifestyle that not only manages GDM for the best pregnancy result, but also prevents diabetes after pregnancy.
Topics: Diabetes, Gestational; Diet; Female; Humans; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Outcome; Self Efficacy; Self-Management
PubMed: 35867537
DOI: 10.1080/16549716.2022.2087298 -
International Journal of Gynaecology... Oct 2022To evaluate the risk levels for maternal and perinatal complications at > 40, > 45 and > 50 years old compared with younger controls. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the risk levels for maternal and perinatal complications at > 40, > 45 and > 50 years old compared with younger controls.
METHODS
Electronic databases were searched from their inception until March 2021. We included studies reporting pregnancy outcome in pregnant women aged 40, 45, and 50 years or older compared with controls at the time of delivery. Case reports and case series were excluded. The primary outcome was the incidence of stillbirth. Meta-analysis was performed using the random effects model of DerSimonian and Laird, to produce summary treatment effects in terms of relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Heterogeneity was measured using I (Higgins I ). Subgroup analyses in women older than 45 years and in those older than 50 years were performed.
RESULTS
Twenty-seven studies, including 31 090 631 women, were included in the meta-analysis. The overall quality of the included studies was moderate to high. Most of the included studies were retrospective cohort studies (21/27), four were population-based studies, and two were cross-sectional studies. Women aged ≥40 years had significantly higher risk of stillbirth (RR 2.16, 95% CI 1.86-2.51), perinatal mortality, intrauterine growth restriction, neonatal death, admission to neonatal intensive care unit, pre-eclampsia, preterm delivery, cesarean delivery, and maternal mortality compared with women younger than 40 years old (RR 3.18, 95% CI 1.68-5.98). The increased risks for maternal mortality were 42.76 and 11.60 for women older than 50 years and for those older than 45 years, respectively, whereas those for stillbirth were 3.72 and 2.32. The risk of stillbirth and cesarean delivery was significantly higher in women >45 years compared with those aged 40-45 years, and in those aged >50 years compared with those aged 45-50 years. The risk of maternal mortality was significantly higher in women aged >50 years compared with those aged 40-45 (RR 60.40, 95% CI 13.28-274.74).
CONCLUSION
The risk of stillbirth, cesarean delivery, and maternal mortality increases with advancing maternal age. The risk ratios for maternal mortality were 3.18, 11.60, and 42.76 in women older than 40, older than 45, and older than 50 years, respectively. These data should be used when women with advanced maternal age are counseled regarding their risk in pregnancy.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
The review was registered with the PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (registration No.: CRD42020208788).
Topics: Adult; Female; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Maternal Age; Middle Aged; Perinatal Death; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Outcome; Premature Birth; Retrospective Studies; Stillbirth
PubMed: 35044694
DOI: 10.1002/ijgo.14100 -
Advances in Therapy Jan 2020International guidelines support the use of low molecular weight heparins for the treatment of thromboembolism and thromboprophylaxis during pregnancy. However, evidence... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
International guidelines support the use of low molecular weight heparins for the treatment of thromboembolism and thromboprophylaxis during pregnancy. However, evidence of the benefit and harm associated with specific low molecular weight heparins such as enoxaparin is dated. No current systematic review and meta-analysis describing the safety and efficacy of enoxaparin for thromboembolism and thromboprophylaxis during pregnancy exists.
METHODS
PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched on August 17, 2018 for clinical trials or observational studies in pregnant women receiving enoxaparin; patients with a prosthetic heart valve were excluded. Risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using a random effects model, and heterogeneity was measured using the I statistic.
RESULTS
Of the 485 records identified in the search, 24 studies published clinical trials, and observational studies were found dating back to 2000. Only one observational cohort and one randomized control trial focused on the use of enoxaparin for thromboprophylaxis and therefore efficacy was not assessed; the other studies included women with recurrent pregnancy loss (15 studies), history of placental vascular complications (five studies), and recurrent in vitro fertilization failure (two studies) and were therefore analyzed in terms of safety only. Bleeding events were non-significantly more often reported for enoxaparin compared to untreated controls (RR 1.35 [0.88-2.07]) but less often reported for enoxaparin versus aspirin (RR 0.93 [0.62-1.39]); thromboembolic events, thrombocytopenia, and teratogenicity were rarely reported events; in patients with a history of recurrent pregnancy loss, encouragingly the rates of pregnancy loss were significantly lower for enoxaparin compared to untreated controls (RR 0.58 [0.34-0.96]) and enoxaparin + aspirin versus aspirin alone (RR 0.42 [0.32-0.56]) as well as observably lower for enoxaparin versus aspirin alone (RR 0.39 [0.15-1.01]), though significant heterogeneity was observed (I > 60).
CONCLUSION
Literature on the efficacy and safety of enoxaparin for thromboembolism and thromboprophylaxis remains scanty, and therefore efficacy was not assessed; in terms of safety, when including other indications for enoxaparin in pregnancy, we found that enoxaparin was associated with significantly lower complications than aspirin. Given differences in study design and study heterogeneity, pregnancy loss results should be interpreted with caution. Moreover, reports of thromboembolic events, thrombocytopenia, and congenital malformations were rare.
FUNDING
Sanofi.
Topics: Anticoagulants; Aspirin; Enoxaparin; Female; Hemorrhage; Humans; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications; Pregnancy Outcome; Venous Thromboembolism
PubMed: 31673991
DOI: 10.1007/s12325-019-01124-z -
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics Dec 2022There is a lack of sufficient evidence regarding efficacy and safety of amlodipine on treating hypertension during pregnancy. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
There is a lack of sufficient evidence regarding efficacy and safety of amlodipine on treating hypertension during pregnancy.
OBJECTIVE
To compare antihypertensive efficacy, pregnancy outcome and safety of amlodipine with nifedipine on hypertension during pregnancy.
METHODS
A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, clinicaltrials.gov, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Database and China Biology Medicine disc of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) up to April l5, 2021 was conducted on RCTs comparing amlodipine to nifedipine for the treatment of hypertension during pregnancy. Screening, data extraction, and quality assessment were done by two independent reviewers. To estimate relative effects from all available evidence, a meta-analysis was conducted.
RESULTS
Seventeen RCTs were included. Amlodipine was found the efficacy is slightly superior to nifedipine on treating hypertension during pregnancy (RR 1.06, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.10) with a decreased risk for maternal side effects (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.61). Subgroup analysis found amlodipine can get a better control on SBP (RR - 11.68, 95% CI - 17.98 to - 5.37) and DBP (RR - 7.44, 95% CI - 13.81 to - 1.06) compared with intermediate-/long-acting nifedipine. In addition, there was no difference between amlodipine and nifedipine on pregnancy outcomes including caesarean section, premature labour, placental abruption, FGR, fetal distress, neonatal asphyxia.
CONCLUSIONS
Given the results of this systematic review and meta-analysis, amlodipine can be effectively and safely used for hypertension during pregnancy.
Topics: Infant, Newborn; Female; Pregnancy; Humans; Nifedipine; Amlodipine; Hypertension; Pregnancy Outcome; Obstetric Labor, Premature
PubMed: 35305140
DOI: 10.1007/s00404-022-06504-5 -
PLoS Medicine Aug 2019Women who undergo bariatric surgery prior to pregnancy are less likely to experience comorbidities associated with obesity such as gestational diabetes and hypertension.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Women who undergo bariatric surgery prior to pregnancy are less likely to experience comorbidities associated with obesity such as gestational diabetes and hypertension. However, bariatric surgery, particularly malabsorptive procedures, can make patients susceptible to deficiencies in nutrients that are essential for healthy fetal development. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to investigate the association between pregnancy after bariatric surgery and adverse perinatal outcomes.
METHODS AND FINDINGS
Searches were conducted in Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Scopus, and Google Scholar from inception to June 2019, supplemented by hand-searching reference lists, citations, and journals. Observational studies comparing perinatal outcomes post-bariatric surgery to pregnancies without prior bariatric surgery were included. Outcomes of interest were perinatal mortality, congenital anomalies, preterm birth, postterm birth, small and large for gestational age (SGA/LGA), and neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission. Pooled effect sizes were calculated using random-effects meta-analysis. Where data were available, results were subgrouped by type of bariatric surgery. We included 33 studies with 14,880 pregnancies post-bariatric surgery and 3,979,978 controls. Odds ratios (ORs) were increased after bariatric surgery (all types combined) for perinatal mortality (1.38, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03-1.85, p = 0.031), congenital anomalies (1.29, 95% CI 1.04-1.59, p = 0.019), preterm birth (1.57, 95% CI 1.38-1.79, p < 0.001), and NICU admission (1.41, 95% CI 1.25-1.59, p < 0.001). Postterm birth decreased after bariatric surgery (OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.35-0.60, p < 0.001). ORs for SGA increased (2.72, 95% CI 2.32-3.20, p < 0.001) and LGA decreased (0.24, 95% CI 0.14-0.41, p < 0.001) after gastric bypass but not after gastric banding. Babies born after bariatric surgery (all types combined) weighed over 200 g less than those born to mothers without prior bariatric surgery (weighted mean difference -242.42 g, 95% CI -307.43 to -177.40 g, p < 0.001). There was low heterogeneity for all outcomes (I2 < 40%) except LGA. Limitations of our study are that as a meta-analysis of existing studies, the results are limited by the quality of the included studies and available data, unmeasured confounders, and the small number of studies for some outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS
In our systematic review of observational studies, we found that bariatric surgery, especially gastric bypass, prior to pregnancy was associated with increased risk of some adverse perinatal outcomes. This suggests that women who have undergone bariatric surgery may benefit from specific preconception and pregnancy nutritional support and increased monitoring of fetal growth and development. Future studies should explore whether restrictive surgery results in better perinatal outcomes, compared to malabsorptive surgery, without compromising maternal outcomes. If so, these may be the preferred surgery for women of reproductive age.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42017051537.
Topics: Bariatric Surgery; Birth Weight; Female; Gestational Age; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Intensive Care Units, Neonatal; Perinatal Mortality; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Outcome
PubMed: 31386658
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002866 -
The Lancet. Global Health Jun 2021The COVID-19 pandemic has had a profound impact on health-care systems and potentially on pregnancy outcomes, but no systematic synthesis of evidence of this effect has... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The COVID-19 pandemic has had a profound impact on health-care systems and potentially on pregnancy outcomes, but no systematic synthesis of evidence of this effect has been undertaken. We aimed to assess the collective evidence on the effects on maternal, fetal, and neonatal outcomes of the pandemic.
METHODS
We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies on the effects of the pandemic on maternal, fetal, and neonatal outcomes. We searched MEDLINE and Embase in accordance with PRISMA guidelines, from Jan 1, 2020, to Jan 8, 2021, for case-control studies, cohort studies, and brief reports comparing maternal and perinatal mortality, maternal morbidity, pregnancy complications, and intrapartum and neonatal outcomes before and during the pandemic. We also planned to record any additional maternal and offspring outcomes identified. Studies of solely SARS-CoV-2-infected pregnant individuals, as well as case reports, studies without comparison groups, narrative or systematic literature reviews, preprints, and studies reporting on overlapping populations were excluded. Quantitative meta-analysis was done for an outcome when more than one study presented relevant data. Random-effects estimate of the pooled odds ratio (OR) of each outcome were generated with use of the Mantel-Haenszel method. This review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020211753).
FINDINGS
The search identified 3592 citations, of which 40 studies were included. We identified significant increases in stillbirth (pooled OR 1·28 [95% CI 1·07-1·54]; I=63%; 12 studies, 168 295 pregnancies during and 198 993 before the pandemic) and maternal death (1·37 [1·22-1·53; I=0%, two studies [both from low-income and middle-income countries], 1 237 018 and 2 224 859 pregnancies) during versus before the pandemic. Preterm births before 37 weeks' gestation were not significantly changed overall (0·94 [0·87-1·02]; I=75%; 15 studies, 170 640 and 656 423 pregnancies) but were decreased in high-income countries (0·91 [0·84-0·99]; I=63%; 12 studies, 159 987 and 635 118 pregnancies), where spontaneous preterm birth was also decreased (0·81 [0·67-0·97]; two studies, 4204 and 6818 pregnancies). Mean Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale scores were higher, indicating poorer mental health, during versus before the pandemic (pooled mean difference 0·42 [95% CI 0·02-0·81; three studies, 2330 and 6517 pregnancies). Surgically managed ectopic pregnancies were increased during the pandemic (OR 5·81 [2·16-15·6]; I=26%; three studies, 37 and 272 pregnancies). No overall significant effects were identified for other outcomes included in the quantitative analysis: maternal gestational diabetes; hypertensive disorders of pregnancy; preterm birth before 34 weeks', 32 weeks', or 28 weeks' gestation; iatrogenic preterm birth; labour induction; modes of delivery (spontaneous vaginal delivery, caesarean section, or instrumental delivery); post-partum haemorrhage; neonatal death; low birthweight (<2500 g); neonatal intensive care unit admission; or Apgar score less than 7 at 5 min.
INTERPRETATION
Global maternal and fetal outcomes have worsened during the COVID-19 pandemic, with an increase in maternal deaths, stillbirth, ruptured ectopic pregnancies, and maternal depression. Some outcomes show considerable disparity between high-resource and low-resource settings. There is an urgent need to prioritise safe, accessible, and equitable maternity care within the strategic response to this pandemic and in future health crises.
FUNDING
None.
Topics: COVID-19; Female; Global Health; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Outcome
PubMed: 33811827
DOI: 10.1016/S2214-109X(21)00079-6 -
JAMA Internal Medicine Feb 2022Excessive gestational weight gain (GWG) is common and associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes. Antenatal lifestyle interventions limit GWG; yet benefits of different... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Excessive gestational weight gain (GWG) is common and associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes. Antenatal lifestyle interventions limit GWG; yet benefits of different intervention types and specific maternal and neonatal outcomes are unclear.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the association of different types of diet and physical activity-based antenatal lifestyle interventions with GWG and maternal and neonatal outcomes.
DATA SOURCES
A 2-stage systematic literature search of MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Health Technology Assessment Database was conducted from February 1, 2017, to May 31, 2020. Search results from the present study were integrated with those from a previous systematic review from 1990 to February 2017.
STUDY SELECTION
Randomized trials reporting GWG and maternal and neonatal outcomes.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Data were extracted for random-effects meta-analyses to calculate the summary effect estimates and 95% CIs.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Outcomes were clinically prioritized, with mean GWG as the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included gestational diabetes, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, cesarean section, preterm delivery, large or small for gestational age neonates, neonatal intensive care unit admission, or fetal death.
RESULTS
A total of 117 randomized clinical trials of antenatal lifestyle interventions (involving 34 546 women) were included. Overall lifestyle intervention was associated with reduced GWG (-1.15 kg; 95% CI, -1.40 to -0.91), risk of gestational diabetes (odds ratio [OR], 0.79; 95% CI, 0.70-0.89), and total adverse maternal outcomes (OR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.84-0.94) vs routine care. Compared with routine care, diet was associated with less GWG (-2.63 kg; 95% CI, -3.87 to -1.40) than physical activity (-1.04 kg; 95% CI, -1.33 to -0.74) or mixed interventions (eg, unstructured lifestyle support, written information with weight monitoring, or behavioral support alone) (-0.74 kg; 95% CI, -1.06 to -0.43). Diet was associated with reduced risk of gestational diabetes (OR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.45-0.82), preterm delivery (OR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.22-0.84), large for gestational age neonate (OR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.08-0.47), neonatal intensive care admission (OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.48-0.95), and total adverse maternal (OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.61-0.92) and neonatal outcomes (OR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.26-0.72). Physical activity was associated with reduced GWG and reduced risk of gestational diabetes (OR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.47-0.75), hypertensive disorders (OR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.48-0.90), cesarean section (OR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.75-0.95), and total adverse maternal outcomes (OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.71-0.86). Diet with physical activity was associated with reduced GWG (-1.35 kg; 95% CI, -1.95 to -0.75) and reduced risk of gestational diabetes (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.54-0.96) and total adverse maternal outcomes (OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.69-0.95). Mixed interventions were associated with reduced GWG only.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
This systematic review and meta-analysis found level 1 evidence that antenatal structured diet and physical activity-based lifestyle interventions were associated with reduced GWG and lower risk of adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes. The findings support the implementation of such interventions in routine antenatal care and policy around the world.
Topics: Cesarean Section; Diabetes, Gestational; Diet; Exercise; Female; Gestational Weight Gain; Humans; Hypertension; Infant, Newborn; Male; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Outcome; Premature Birth; Weight Gain
PubMed: 34928300
DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2021.6373