Thanin Chattrapiban1, Henriette A Smit1, Alet H Wijga2, Bert Brunekreef3, Judith M Vonk4, Ulrike Gehring3, Lenie van Rossem5,6. 1. Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Universiteitsweg 100, STR 6.118, Utrecht, 3508, GA, The Netherlands. 2. Center for Prevention and Health Services Research, National Institute of Public Health and the Environment, P.O Box 1, 3720, BA, Bilthoven, The Netherlands. 3. Institute for Risk Assessment Science (IRAS), Utrecht University, Yalelaan 2, 3584, CM, Utrecht, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Epidemiology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, 9713, GZ, Groningen, The Netherlands. 5. Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Universiteitsweg 100, STR 6.118, Utrecht, 3508, GA, The Netherlands. L.vanRossem@umcutrecht.nl. 6. Department of Obstretrics and Gynecology, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Dr. Molewaterplein 50, 3015, GD, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. L.vanRossem@umcutrecht.nl.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It is well known that maternal smoking during pregnancy and maternal pre-pregnancy overweight have opposite effects on the infants' birth weight. We report on the association of the combination between both risk factors and the infants' birth weight. METHODS: We studied 3241 infants born at term in the PIAMA birth cohort. Maternal smoking during pregnancy and pre-pregnancy height and weight were self-reported. Multivariable regression analysis was performed to assess the associations between infants of mothers who only smoked during pregnancy, who only had pre-pregnancy overweight and who had both risk factors simultaneously, on term birth weight and the risk of being SGA or LGA. RESULTS: Of 3241 infants, 421 infants (13%) were born to smoking, non-overweight mothers, 514 (15.8%) to non-smoking, overweight mothers, 129 (4%) to smoking and overweight mothers and 2177 (67%) to non-smoking, non-overweight mothers (reference group). Infants of mothers who smoked and also had pre-pregnancy overweight had similar term birth weight (- 26.6 g, 95%CI: - 113.0, 59.8), SGA risk (OR = 1.06, 95%CI: 0.56, 2.04), and LGA risk (OR = 1.09, 95%CI: 0.61, 1.96) as the reference group. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggested that the effects of maternal smoking during pregnancy and maternal pre-pregnancy overweight on infants' birth weight cancel each other out. Therefore, birth weight may not be a good indicator of an infant's health status in perinatal practice because it may mask potential health risks due to these maternal risk factors when both present together.
BACKGROUND: It is well known that maternal smoking during pregnancy and maternal pre-pregnancy overweight have opposite effects on the infants' birth weight. We report on the association of the combination between both risk factors and the infants' birth weight. METHODS: We studied 3241 infants born at term in the PIAMA birth cohort. Maternal smoking during pregnancy and pre-pregnancy height and weight were self-reported. Multivariable regression analysis was performed to assess the associations between infants of mothers who only smoked during pregnancy, who only had pre-pregnancy overweight and who had both risk factors simultaneously, on term birth weight and the risk of being SGA or LGA. RESULTS: Of 3241 infants, 421 infants (13%) were born to smoking, non-overweight mothers, 514 (15.8%) to non-smoking, overweight mothers, 129 (4%) to smoking and overweight mothers and 2177 (67%) to non-smoking, non-overweight mothers (reference group). Infants of mothers who smoked and also had pre-pregnancy overweight had similar term birth weight (- 26.6 g, 95%CI: - 113.0, 59.8), SGA risk (OR = 1.06, 95%CI: 0.56, 2.04), and LGA risk (OR = 1.09, 95%CI: 0.61, 1.96) as the reference group. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggested that the effects of maternal smoking during pregnancy and maternal pre-pregnancy overweight on infants' birth weight cancel each other out. Therefore, birth weight may not be a good indicator of an infant's health status in perinatal practice because it may mask potential health risks due to these maternal risk factors when both present together.
Authors: Jose Miguel Sequí-Canet; Jose Miguel Sequí-Sabater; Ana Marco-Sabater; Francisca Corpas-Burgos; Jose Ignacio Collar Del Castillo; Nelson Orta-Sibú Journal: J Clin Transl Res Date: 2022-01-03
Authors: Georgina Fuentes-Paez; Geòrgia Escaramís; Sofía Aguilar-Lacasaña; Sandra Andrusaityte; Anne Lise Brantsæter; Maribel Casas; Marie-Aline Charles; Leda Chatzi; Johanna Lepeule; Regina Grazuleviciene; Kristine B Gützkow; Barbara Heude; Léa Maitre; Carlos Ruiz-Arenas; Jordi Sunyer; Jose Urquiza; Tiffany C Yang; John Wright; Martine Vrijheid; Natàlia Vilor-Tejedor; Mariona Bustamante Journal: Front Genet Date: 2022-05-12 Impact factor: 4.772