King's College London

Research portal

Effects of antenatal diet and physical activity on maternal and fetal outcomes: Individual patient data meta-analysis and health economic evaluation

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Ewelina Rogozińska, Nadine Marlin, Louise Jackson, Girish Rayanagoudar, Anneloes E Ruifrok, Julie Dodds, Emma Molyneaux, Mireille NM van Poppel, Lucilla Poston, Christina A Vinter, Fionnuala McAuliffe, Jodie M Dodd, Julie Owens, Ruben Barakat, Maria Perales, Jose G Cecatti, Fernanda Surita, SeonAe Yeo, Annick Bogaerts, Roland Devlieger & 37 more Helena Teede, Cheryce Harrison, Lene Haakstad, Garry X Shen, Alexis Shub, Nermeen El Beltagy, Narges Motahari, Janette Khoury, Serena Tonstad, Riitta Luoto, Tarja I Kinnunen, Kym Guelfi, Fabio Facchinetti, Elisabetta Petrella, Suzanne Phelan, Tânia T Scudeller, Kathrin Rauh, Hans Hauner, Kristina Renault, Christianne JM de Groot, Linda R Sagedal, Ingvild Vistad, Signe Nilssen Stafne, Siv Mørkved, Kjell Å Salvesen, Dorte M Jensen, Márcia Vitolo, Arne Astrup, Nina RW Geiker, Sally Kerry, Pelham Barton, Tracy Roberts, Richard D Riley, Arri Coomarasamy, Ben Willem Mol, Khalid S Khan, Shakila Thangaratinam

Original languageEnglish
JournalHealth technology assessment (Winchester, England)
Volume21
Issue number41
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 20 Jul 2017

Documents

  • Effects of antenatal diet_ROGOZINSKA_PublishedonlineAugust2017_GREEN VoR

    Effects_of_antenatal_diet_ROGOZINSKA_PublishedonlineAugust2017_GREEN_VoR.pdf, 2.61 MB, application/pdf

    1/09/2017

    Final published version

    Other

    Published in Health Technology Assessment, vol. 21, issue 41, © Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2017. Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.3310/hta21410

King's Authors

Abstract

Background: Diet- and physical activity-based interventions in pregnancy have the potential to alter maternal and child outcomes. 

Objectives: To assess whether or not the effects of diet and lifestyle interventions vary in subgroups of women, based on maternal body mass index (BMI), age, parity, Caucasian ethnicity and underlying medical condition(s), by undertaking an individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis. We also evaluated the association of gestational weight gain (GWG) with adverse pregnancy outcomes and assessed the cost-effectiveness of the interventions. 

Data sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects and Health Technology Assessment database were searched from October 2013 to March 2015 (to update a previous search). 

Review methods: Researchers from the International Weight Management in Pregnancy Collaborative Network shared the primary data. For each intervention type and outcome, we performed a two-step IPD random-effects meta-analysis, for all women (except underweight) combined and for each subgroup of interest, to obtain summary estimates of effects and 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and synthesised the differences in effects between subgroups. In the first stage, we fitted a linear regression adjusted for baseline (for continuous outcomes) or a logistic regression model (for binary outcomes) in each study separately; estimates were combined across studies using random-effects meta-analysis models. We quantified the relationship between weight gain and complications, and undertook a decision-analytic model-based economic evaluation to assess the cost-effectiveness of the interventions. Results: Diet and lifestyle interventions reduced GWG by an average of 0.70 kg (95% CI-0.92 to-0.48 kg; 33 studies, 9320 women). The effects on composite maternal outcome [summary odds ratio (OR) 0.90, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.03; 24 studies, 8852 women] and composite fetal/neonatal outcome (summary OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.08; 18 studies, 7981 women) were not significant. The effect did not vary with baseline BMI, age, ethnicity, parity or underlying medical conditions for GWG, and composite maternal and fetal outcomes. Lifestyle interventions reduce Caesarean sections (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.99), but not other individual maternal outcomes such as gestational diabetes mellitus (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.10), pre-eclampsia or pregnancy-induced hypertension (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.16) and preterm birth (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.13). There was no significant effect on fetal outcomes. The interventions were not cost-effective. GWG, including adherence to the Institute of Medicine-recommended targets, was not associated with a reduction in complications. Predictors of GWG were maternal age (summary estimate-0.10 kg, 95% CI-0.14 to-0.06 kg) and multiparity (summary estimate-0.73 kg, 95% CI-1.24 to-0.23 kg). Limitations: The findings were limited by the lack of standardisation in the components of intervention, residual heterogeneity in effects across studies for most analyses and the unavailability of IPD in some studies.

 Conclusion: Diet and lifestyle interventions in pregnancy are clinically effective in reducing GWG irrespective of risk factors, with no effects on composite maternal and fetal outcomes. 

Future work: The differential effects of lifestyle interventions on individual pregnancy outcomes need evaluation. 

Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013003804.

Download statistics

No data available

View graph of relations

© 2018 King's College London | Strand | London WC2R 2LS | England | United Kingdom | Tel +44 (0)20 7836 5454