Paola Soledad Mosquera1, Maíra Barreto Malta1, Ana Alice de Araújo Damasceno1, Paulo Augusto Ribeiro Neves1,2, Alicia Matijasevich3, Marly Augusto Cardoso4. 1. Department of Nutrition, School of Public Health, Universidade de São Paulo, Av Dr Arnaldo 715, São Paulo, 01246-904, Brazil. 2. Postgraduate Program in Epidemiology, Federal University of Pelotas, Pelotas, Brazil. 3. Departamento de Medicina Preventiva, Faculdade de Medicina FMUSP, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil. 4. Department of Nutrition, School of Public Health, Universidade de São Paulo, Av Dr Arnaldo 715, São Paulo, 01246-904, Brazil. marlyac@usp.br.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the association between gestational weight gain (GWG) and perinatal outcomes in pregnant Amazonian women. METHODS: Data from 1305 mother-child pairs from the MINA-Brazil population-based birth cohort study were used. GWG was classified according to two methods, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) guidelines and INTERGROWTH-21st standards. Poisson and linear regression analyses were conducted to evaluate associations with perinatal outcomes. RESULTS: Following IOM guidelines (n = 1305), the rates of insufficient and excessive GWG were found to be similar (32%). Excessive GWG was associated with higher new-born birthweight (BW) z-scores; increased risks of macrosomia, large for gestational age (LGA), and caesarean delivery; and lower risks of low birthweight (LBW) and being small for gestational age (SGA). Insufficient GWG was associated with lower new-born BW z-scores. Among women with normal pre-pregnancy body mass indices (BMIs, n = 658), inappropriate GWG was high following both methods (IOM: 41.2% insufficient, 24.8% excessive; INTERGROWTH-21st: 25.2% below - 1 z-score, 16.9% above 1 z-score). Both methods also indicated that new-borns of women with excessive GWG had higher BW z-scores and increased risk of macrosomia and LGA. Women with GWG below the INTERGROWTH-21st standards were more likely to deliver an infant SGA and with lower BW z-scores. CONCLUSIONS: Inappropriate GWG remains a health concern irrespective of the method used to classify weight gain. GWG above the recommendations of both methods and below the INTERGROWTH-21st standard was associated with adverse perinatal outcomes. Therefore, INTERGROWTH-21st standards seem to be a better fit for healthy women in this population.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the association between gestational weight gain (GWG) and perinatal outcomes in pregnant Amazonian women. METHODS: Data from 1305 mother-child pairs from the MINA-Brazil population-based birth cohort study were used. GWG was classified according to two methods, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) guidelines and INTERGROWTH-21st standards. Poisson and linear regression analyses were conducted to evaluate associations with perinatal outcomes. RESULTS: Following IOM guidelines (n = 1305), the rates of insufficient and excessive GWG were found to be similar (32%). Excessive GWG was associated with higher new-born birthweight (BW) z-scores; increased risks of macrosomia, large for gestational age (LGA), and caesarean delivery; and lower risks of low birthweight (LBW) and being small for gestational age (SGA). Insufficient GWG was associated with lower new-born BW z-scores. Among women with normal pre-pregnancy body mass indices (BMIs, n = 658), inappropriate GWG was high following both methods (IOM: 41.2% insufficient, 24.8% excessive; INTERGROWTH-21st: 25.2% below - 1 z-score, 16.9% above 1 z-score). Both methods also indicated that new-borns of women with excessive GWG had higher BW z-scores and increased risk of macrosomia and LGA. Women with GWG below the INTERGROWTH-21st standards were more likely to deliver an infant SGA and with lower BW z-scores. CONCLUSIONS: Inappropriate GWG remains a health concern irrespective of the method used to classify weight gain. GWG above the recommendations of both methods and below the INTERGROWTH-21st standard was associated with adverse perinatal outcomes. Therefore, INTERGROWTH-21st standards seem to be a better fit for healthy women in this population.
Authors: Andrea L Deierlein; Mary Jo Messito; Michelle Katzow; Lauren Thomas Berube; Cara D Dolin; Rachel S Gross Journal: Pediatr Obes Date: 2019-11-06 Impact factor: 4.000
Authors: Robert E Black; Cesar G Victora; Susan P Walker; Zulfiqar A Bhutta; Parul Christian; Mercedes de Onis; Majid Ezzati; Sally Grantham-McGregor; Joanne Katz; Reynaldo Martorell; Ricardo Uauy Journal: Lancet Date: 2013-06-06 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Rebecca F Goldstein; Sally K Abell; Sanjeeva Ranasinha; Marie Misso; Jacqueline A Boyle; Mary Helen Black; Nan Li; Gang Hu; Francesco Corrado; Line Rode; Young Ju Kim; Margaretha Haugen; Won O Song; Min Hyoung Kim; Annick Bogaerts; Roland Devlieger; Judith H Chung; Helena J Teede Journal: JAMA Date: 2017-06-06 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Seth Adu-Afarwuah; Anna Lartey; Harriet Okronipa; Per Ashorn; Ulla Ashorn; Mamane Zeilani; Mary Arimond; Stephen A Vosti; Kathryn G Dewey Journal: J Nutr Date: 2017-03-08 Impact factor: 4.798
Authors: Hamid Jan Jan Mohamed; See Ling Loy; Amal K Mitra; Satvinder Kaur; Ai Ni Teoh; Siti Hamizah Abd Rahman; Maria Sofia Amarra Journal: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth Date: 2022-04-06 Impact factor: 3.007