GDM: Prevention of GDM Diagnosis (2008)

Citation:
 
Study Design:
Class:
- Click here for explanation of classification scheme.
Quality Rating:
Research Purpose:

To investigate the association of maternal plasma acid concentration with subsequent risk of gestational diabetes.

Inclusion Criteria:
  • initiated pregnancy before 16 weeks of gestation
  • nulliparious
Exclusion Criteria:
  • women who experienced a spontaneous abortion or other fetal demise or who induced abortion
  • those women for whom the outcome of pregnancy was unknown because the woman moved, delivered elsewhere, or were missing medical records.
  • women with pregestational diabetes mellitus
Description of Study Protocol:

Recruitment : The population was drawn from participants of the ongoing OMEGA Study(Washington State), a prospective cohort study of maternal dietary risk factors of preeclampsia. The researchers primarily approached and enrolled nulliparous women.

Design : prospective cohort

Blinding used -All assays were performed without knowledge of pregnancy outcome.

Intervention:  not applicable

Statistical Analysis :

  • continuous variables were presented as means ± standard error of mean (SE)
  • women were grouped according to quartiles determined by the distribution of plasma ascorbic acid concnetrations among the entire cohort
  • created a dichotomous variable for dietary vitamin C intake using the Institute of Medicine estimated average requirement for pregnant women (<70 vs. >= 70 mg/day-EAR) as the cutoff value
  • frequency distributions were utilized to examine maternal sociodemographic characteristics and medical and reproductive histories according to plasma ascorbic acid concentrations
  • generalized linear models were fitted, using a log-link function. These were utilized to derive risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs)
  • explored the possibility of nonlinear relation between plasma ascorbic acid concentrations and diabetes risk using generalized additive modeling (GAM) procedures by using S-PLUS (version 6.1; Insightful Corp., Seattle, WA)
  • multivariate analysis-evaluated linear trends in risk by treating 4 quartiles of plasma ascorbic acid concentrations as a continuous variable after assigning a score (1, 2, 3, and 4) as its value.
  • dietary vitamin C was adjusted for total energy intake
  • to assess confounding, variables were entered into a generalized linear model. Final generalized linear models included covariates that altered unadjusted risk ratios by at least 10%, as well as those covariates of a priori interest (eg, advanced maternal age and prepregnancy adiposity).

 

Data Collection Summary:

Timing of Measurements

  • Maternal age was determined at the time of the interview.
  • Nonfasting blood samples were collected in EDTA 10-ml Vacutainer tubes at 13 weeks gestation, on average (interquartile range =11-16 weeks gestation). 
  • Maternal and infant medical records were reviewed  approximately 7-9 months after participants were enrolled in the study to collect detailed information concerning antepartum, labor and delivery characteristics, and conditions of the newborn.

Dependent Variables

Maternal plasma ascorbic acid

  • Nonfasting blood samples were collected in EDTA 10-ml Vacutainer tubes at 13 weeks gestation, on average (interquartile range =11-16 weeks gestation. 
  • The samples were protected from ultraviolet light , kept on wet ice, and processed within 20 minutes of phlebotomy. The median time between participants' last meal and phlebotomy was 2.5 for both cases and controls.
  • Plasma decanted into cryovials was preserved with metaphosphoric acid/dithiothreitol solution frozen at -80 degrees until analysis.
  • Laboratory analyses were performed within 24 months of blood collection. Ascorbic acid concentrations have been shown to be stable for more than 57 months under these storage conditions.
  • Plasma ascorbic acid (ie, total ascorbate) was determined on a Roche Cobas(Branchburg, NJ) Mira Plus Chemistry analyzer using a colorimetric procedure.
  • The intra-and interassay coefficients of variation for the assay used were both less than 10%.

Pregnancy Outcome

  • Maternal and infant medical records were reviewed approximately 7-9 months after participants were enrolled in the study to collect detailed information concerning antepartum, labor and delivery characteristics, and conditions of the newborn.
  • Laboratory results were extracted from medical records for participants' 50-g 1-hour oral glucose tolerance test and from the diagnostic 100-g 3-hour oral glucose tolerance test.
  • Women were classified as having a pregnancy complicated by gestational diabetes if results from their diagnostic test met the then-current National Diabetes Data Group criteria. Women were classified as having gestational diabetes mellitus if 2 or more of the following plasma glucose concentrations were abnormal according to these criteria: fasting>= 105 mg/dl, 1-hour >=190 mg/dL, 2-hour>=165 mg/dl, 3-hour>=145 mg/dL.

Independent Variables

  • maternal age*
  • height
  • reproductive and medical history
  • race*
  • age*
  • smoking during pregnancy*
  • first degree family history of type 2 diabetes*
  • prepregnancy adiposity*- prepregnancy body mass index (BMI), used as a measure of overall maternal adiposity, was calculated as weight (kg) divided by height (m) squared. All participants reported their maximum height and weight 3 months before the index pregnancy
  • annnual household income*
  • parity was reported as the number of previous pregnancies lasting beyond 20 weeks of pregnancy.
  • Maternal habitual dietary intake during the peri period and early pregnancy were ascertained at 12 weeks gestation, on average , using the self-administered , 121 item semiquantitative food frequency questionnaire developed for the Women's Health Initiative Clinical Trial. Food composition values for vitamin C and other nutrients were obtained from the University of Minnesota Nutrition Coding Center nutrient data base (Nutrition Coordinating Center), Minneapolis, MN. 

* possible confounders

Control Variables

 

Description of Actual Data Sample:

Initial N: 755

Attrition (final N):  755

Age: see Table 1

Ethnicity: see Results

Other relevant demographics: see Results 

Anthropometrics

Location: Department of Epidemiology, University of Washington School of Public Health and Community Medicine, Seattle, Washington.

 

Summary of Results:

Table 1 shows the characteristics of members of the study cohort according to quartile of plasma ascorbic acid concentrations. Overall, participants included in the analysis were primarily white, well-educated, and employed during pregnancy.

Table 1 Characteristics* of Study Cohort Members (n=755) According to Maternal Plasma Ascorbic Concentrations Measured in Early Pregnancy, Seattle and Tacoma, Washington , USA 1996-2000. 

 

-

Quartiles of >

Maternal Plasma >

Ascorbic Acid>

Concentrations

-

-

(µmol/L)

-

-

-

1(Low)

2

3

(4 High)

 -

(n=189)

(n=189)

(n=189)

(n=188)

Plasma ascorbic acid concentrations

 -

 -

 -

 -

Quartile mean±SE

46.7±0.6

60.8±0.2

69.2±0.2

85.0±0.7

 Quartile median

 49.8

 61.2

 68.9

 82.2

 Quartile range

 11.2-55.9

 56.0-65.0

 65.1-74.5

 74.6±128.5

Dietary vitamin c intake(mg/d);mean±SE

-

-

 -

 -

 Maternal age(y)

113.8±4.7

 125.2±5.1

 127.9±5.0

 138.2±0.7

 <20

 2(1)

 1(1)

 2(1)

 3(2)

20-34

 133(70)

 134(71)

 142(75)

 135(72)

35-39

 45(23)

 42(22)

 40(21)

 41(22)

>=40

 9(5)

 12(6)

 5(3)

 9(5)

Maternal Race/Ethnicity

 -

 -

 -

 -

European ancestry

 140(74)

 161(86)

 171(90)

 167(89)

African ancestry

 6(3)

 5(3)

 2(1)

 6(3)

Asian ancestry

 26(14)

 13(7)

 8(4)

 6(3)

Other

 17(9)

 9(5)

 8(4)

 9(5)

Unknown

 -

 1

 -

 -

Unmarried

 23(12)

19(10)

 25(13)

 27(14)

=< 12 years education

 9(5)

 5(3)

 9(5)

 9(5)

Nulliparous

 150(79)

 167(88)

 168(89)

 169(90)

No prenatal vitamins

 10(5)

 2(1)

 5(3)

 5(3)

Smoked in pregnancy

 12(6)

 13(7)

 9(5)

 11(6)

First degree family history of diabetes

 35(18)

 27(14)

 168(89)

 25(13)

Pre-pregnancy body mass index( kg/m2)

-

 -

 -

 -

<20.0

 38(20)

 35(19)

 5(3)

 43(23)

20.0-24.9

 89(47)

 108(57)

 9(5)

 105(56)

25.0-29.9

 31(16)

 29(15)

20(11) 

 32(17)

>= 30.00

 31(16)

 17(9)

 44(23)

 8(4)

Worked during pregnancy

 168(89)

 171(91)

 103(55)

 172(92)

Annual household income  ( US $)

-

 -

 -

 -

<30,000

 8(4)

 10(5)

 10(6)

 8(4)

30,000-69,999

 51(27)

58(38) 

 58(32)

66(36) 

>= 70,000

 127(68)

 118(63)

 115(63)

 108(59)

Not reported

 3

 3

 6

 6

Calendar month at blood collections

 -

 -

 -

 -

March-May

 44(23)

 44(24)

 49(26)

 63(34)

June-August

 41(22)

 46(24)

 50(27)

39(21)

September-November

 48(25)

 51(27)

 39(21)

39(21) 

December-February

 56(30)

 48(25)

 51(27)

 47(25)

Gestational age at blood collection(weeks) ; mean ±SE

 13.3±0.3

 13.0±0.3

 13.4±0.3

 13.2±0.2

*Number(%) except where indicated        

Women with plasma ascorbic concentrations less than 55.9 µmol/L (lowest quartile)experienced a 3.4 -fold increased risk of diabetes (CI=1.2-9.2) as compared with women whose plasma concentrations were 74.6 µmol/L or higher (highest quartile) (Table 2).

Table 2  Association of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus (based on 1997 NDDG Criteria) with Maternal Plasma Ascorbic Acid Concentrations Measured in Early Pregnancy

 

 

-

Quartiles of >

Maternal Plasma >

Ascorbic Acid>

Concentrations

-

-

(µmol/L)

-

-

-

1(Low)

2

3

(4 High)*

 -

(n=189)

(n=189)

(n=189)

(n=188)

Quartile median

 49.8

 61.2

 68.9

 82.2

Quatile range

11.2-55.9

56.0-65.0

65.1-74.5

74.6-128.5

Cases; no. (%)

17(9.0)

7(3.7)

4(2.1)

5(2.7)

RR(95% CI)

3.4(1.2-9.2)

1.4(0.4-4.4)

0.8(0.2-2.9)

1.0

Adj. RR¶  (95% CI)

3.1(1.0-9.7)

1.6(0.5-5.5)

0.8(0.2-3.5)

1.0

Adj. RR € (95% CI)

2.9(0.9-9.2)

1.6(0.5-5.4)

0.8(0.2-3.4)

1.0

NDDG indicates National Diabets Data Group * Reference category

¶ Adjusted for maternal age (continous) , race/ethnicity, first degree family history of diabetes, parity, pre-pregnancy body mass index (grouped linear), and annual household income.

€ Adjusted for same variable as in first adjustment model, plus dietary fiber intake(continous).

Women whose daily vitamin C intake was <70 mg, as compared with those consuming more vitamin C experienced a 2.2-fold increased risk of diabetes (95% CI=1.0-4.6) (Table 3). 

Table 3 Asssociation of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus with Maternal Daily Dietary Vitamin C Intake

 

-

Dietary Vitamin C>>

>>>Intake*♦ (mg/d)

 -

<70(n=153)

>= 70¶ (N=576)

Cases; no.(%)

11(7.2)

19(3.3)

RR(95% CI)

2.2(1.0-4.6)

1.0

Adj. RR ¶(95% CI)

1.8(0.8-4.4)

1.0

* based on 729 women (30 cases).

♦ A dichotomous variable for dietary vitamin C intake was created using the Institute of Medicine estimated average requirement for pregnant women (<70 vs. >70 mg/d) as the cut-off value.

§ Reference Category

¶ Adjusted for maternal age (continous) , race/ethnicity, family history of type 2 diabetes, parity, pre-pregnancy body mass index (grouped linear), annual household income, and total calories intake (continous).

Inferences regarding the relatinship between maternal ascorbic acid concentrations and gestational diabetes risk were largely similar in direction and magnitude when analyses were repeated using the less stringent diagnostic criteria that was being advocated by the NDDG at the time of the study(Table 4).

Table 4  Association of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus (Based on 2002 NDDG Criteria ) with   Maternal Plasma Ascorbic Acid Concentrations Measured in Early Pregnancy

 

-

Quartiles of >

Maternal Plasma >

Ascorbic Acid>

Concentrations

-

1(Low)

2

3

(4 High)*

Quartile Median

 49.8

 61.2

 68.9

 82.2

Quartile Range

11.2-55.9

 56.0-65.0

 65.1-74.5

74.6-128.5

Cases;No. (%)

19(10.0)

11(5.8)

5 (2.6)

6(3.2)

Total Population, N

189

189

189

188

RR (95% CI)

3.2(1.3-7.7)

1.8(0.7-4.8)

0.9(0.3-2.8)

1.0

Adj RR¶(95% CI)

2.9(1.1-7.9)

1.7(0.6-4.9)

0.8(0.3-3.1)

1.0

Adj RR € (95% CI)

2.8(1.0-7.7)

1.7(0.6-4.8)

0.8(0.3-3.0)

1.0

NDDG indicates National Diabets Data Group * Reference category

¶ Adjusted for maternal age (continous) , race/ethnicity, first degree family history of diabetes, parity, pre-pregnancy body mass index (grouped linear), and annual household income.

€ Adjusted for same variable as in first adjustment model, plus dietary fiber intake(continous).

Other Findings

The researchers noted that the generalized additive model resulted in an approximately inverse  linear relationsship between the log-odds of diabetes risk and plasma ascorbic acid, particularly among those women with concentrations between 40 and 100 µmol/L.

Author Conclusion:

In this prospective cohort of pregnant women, the researchers observed an inverse relationship between plasma ascorbic acid concentrations and incidence of gestational diabetes mellitus.

Concerns remain about the paucity of empiric evidence concerning dietary patterns associated with optimal pregnancy outcomes.

Limitations:

1. Missclassification of maternal vitamin C intake (or plasma ascorbic acid concentrations) could have resulted in diluting their associations with diabetes.

2. Inability to assess the independent effects of multivitamin use and diabetes risk because of the near-universal use of prenatal vitamins by the study population.

3. Researchers could not exclude the possibility of residual confounding.

4. The relatively small size of the study cohort, the estimated effect measures were imprecise.

5. The small sample size also impeded the efforts to examine the risk of diabetes in relation to maternal dietary intake patterns.

6. Another concern relates to the misclassification of maternal anthropometric status.

7. Generaliizability of results could be limited. The study focused primarily on nulliparous women, and cohort members were predominantly white, well-educated women.

 

Funding Source:
Reviewer Comments:

The limitations and critique of the study, as stated by the authors appear to be very appropriate.

Analytical longitudinal surveys refer to what epidemiologists term prospective or cohort studies. A Cohort Study is a study in which patients who presently have a certain condition and/or receive a particular treatment are followed over time and compared with another group who are not affected by the condition under investigation. Studies of this kind provide a better opportunity than one time cross sectional studies to examine whether certain behaviors do in fact lead to (or cause) the disease.

 

                 

 

Quality Criteria Checklist: Primary Research
Relevance Questions
  1. Would implementing the studied intervention or procedure (if found successful) result in improved outcomes for the patients/clients/population group? (Not Applicable for some epidemiological studies) Yes
  2. Did the authors study an outcome (dependent variable) or topic that the patients/clients/population group would care about? Yes
  3. Is the focus of the intervention or procedure (independent variable) or topic of study a common issue of concern to dieteticspractice? Yes
  4. Is the intervention or procedure feasible? (NA for some epidemiological studies) Yes
 
Validity Questions
1. Was the research question clearly stated? Yes
  1.1. Was (were) the specific intervention(s) or procedure(s) [independent variable(s)] identified? Yes
  1.2. Was (were) the outcome(s) [dependent variable(s)] clearly indicated? Yes
  1.3. Were the target population and setting specified? Yes
2. Was the selection of study subjects/patients free from bias? ???
  2.1. Were inclusion/exclusion criteria specified (e.g., risk, point in disease progression, diagnostic or prognosis criteria), and with sufficient detail and without omitting criteria critical to the study? Yes
  2.2. Were criteria applied equally to all study groups? Yes
  2.3. Were health, demographics, and other characteristics of subjects described? Yes
  2.4. Were the subjects/patients a representative sample of the relevant population? ???
3. Were study groups comparable? Yes
  3.1. Was the method of assigning subjects/patients to groups described and unbiased? (Method of randomization identified if RCT) Yes
  3.2. Were distribution of disease status, prognostic factors, and other factors (e.g., demographics) similar across study groups at baseline? Yes
  3.3. Were concurrent controls or comparisons used? (Concurrent preferred over historical control or comparison groups.) Yes
  3.4. If cohort study or cross-sectional study, were groups comparable on important confounding factors and/or were preexisting differences accounted for by using appropriate adjustments in statistical analysis? Yes
  3.5. If case control study, were potential confounding factors comparable for cases and controls? (If case series or trial with subjects serving as own control, this criterion is not applicable.) N/A
  3.6. If diagnostic test, was there an independent blind comparison with an appropriate reference standard (e.g., "gold standard")? N/A
4. Was method of handling withdrawals described? N/A
  4.1. Were follow-up methods described and the same for all groups? N/A
  4.2. Was the number, characteristics of withdrawals (i.e., dropouts, lost to follow up, attrition rate) and/or response rate (cross-sectional studies) described for each group? (Follow up goal for a strong study is 80%.) N/A
  4.3. Were all enrolled subjects/patients (in the original sample) accounted for? N/A
  4.4. Were reasons for withdrawals similar across groups? N/A
  4.5. If diagnostic test, was decision to perform reference test not dependent on results of test under study? N/A
5. Was blinding used to prevent introduction of bias? Yes
  5.1. In intervention study, were subjects, clinicians/practitioners, and investigators blinded to treatment group, as appropriate? N/A
  5.2. Were data collectors blinded for outcomes assessment? (If outcome is measured using an objective test, such as a lab value, this criterion is assumed to be met.) N/A
  5.3. In cohort study or cross-sectional study, were measurements of outcomes and risk factors blinded? Yes
  5.4. In case control study, was case definition explicit and case ascertainment not influenced by exposure status? N/A
  5.5. In diagnostic study, were test results blinded to patient history and other test results? N/A
6. Were intervention/therapeutic regimens/exposure factor or procedure and any comparison(s) described in detail? Were interveningfactors described? N/A
  6.1. In RCT or other intervention trial, were protocols described for all regimens studied? N/A
  6.2. In observational study, were interventions, study settings, and clinicians/provider described? N/A
  6.3. Was the intensity and duration of the intervention or exposure factor sufficient to produce a meaningful effect? N/A
  6.4. Was the amount of exposure and, if relevant, subject/patient compliance measured? N/A
  6.5. Were co-interventions (e.g., ancillary treatments, other therapies) described? N/A
  6.6. Were extra or unplanned treatments described? N/A
  6.7. Was the information for 6.4, 6.5, and 6.6 assessed the same way for all groups? N/A
  6.8. In diagnostic study, were details of test administration and replication sufficient? N/A
7. Were outcomes clearly defined and the measurements valid and reliable? ???
  7.1. Were primary and secondary endpoints described and relevant to the question? Yes
  7.2. Were nutrition measures appropriate to question and outcomes of concern? Yes
  7.3. Was the period of follow-up long enough for important outcome(s) to occur? Yes
  7.4. Were the observations and measurements based on standard, valid, and reliable data collection instruments/tests/procedures? ???
  7.5. Was the measurement of effect at an appropriate level of precision? ???
  7.6. Were other factors accounted for (measured) that could affect outcomes? Yes
  7.7. Were the measurements conducted consistently across groups? Yes
8. Was the statistical analysis appropriate for the study design and type of outcome indicators? Yes
  8.1. Were statistical analyses adequately described and the results reported appropriately? Yes
  8.2. Were correct statistical tests used and assumptions of test not violated? Yes
  8.3. Were statistics reported with levels of significance and/or confidence intervals? Yes
  8.4. Was "intent to treat" analysis of outcomes done (and as appropriate, was there an analysis of outcomes for those maximally exposed or a dose-response analysis)? N/A
  8.5. Were adequate adjustments made for effects of confounding factors that might have affected the outcomes (e.g., multivariate analyses)? Yes
  8.6. Was clinical significance as well as statistical significance reported? N/A
  8.7. If negative findings, was a power calculation reported to address type 2 error? N/A
9. Are conclusions supported by results with biases and limitations taken into consideration? Yes
  9.1. Is there a discussion of findings? Yes
  9.2. Are biases and study limitations identified and discussed? Yes
10. Is bias due to study's funding or sponsorship unlikely? Yes
  10.1. Were sources of funding and investigators' affiliations described? Yes
  10.2. Was the study free from apparent conflict of interest? Yes