S'abonner

Specific birth defects in pregnancies of women with diabetes: National Birth Defects Prevention Study, 1997–2011 - 28/01/20

Doi : 10.1016/j.ajog.2019.08.028 
Sarah C. Tinker, PhD a, , Suzanne M. Gilboa, PhD a, Cynthia A. Moore, MD, PhD a, D. Kim Waller, PhD b, Regina M. Simeone, MPH a, Shin Y. Kim, MPH a, Denise J. Jamieson, MD c, Lorenzo D. Botto, MD d, Jennita Reefhuis, PhD a
and the

National Birth Defects Prevention Study

a National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA 
b UTHealth, School of Public Health, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX 
c Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA 
d Division of Medical Genetics, Department of Pediatrics, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT 

Corresponding author: Sarah C. Tinker, PhD.

Abstract

Background

Diabetes is associated with an increased risk for many birth defects and is likely to have an increasing impact on birth defect prevalence because of the rise in diabetes in the United States in recent decades. One of the first analyses in which specific birth defects were assessed for their relationship with both pregestational and gestational diabetes used data from the initial 6 years of the National Birth Defects Prevention Study. That analysis reported strong associations for pregestational diabetes with several birth defects, but few exposures among some of the less common birth defects led to unstable estimates with wide confidence intervals. Since that analysis, the study continued to collect data for another 8 years, including information on approximately 19,000 additional cases and 6900 additional controls.

Objective

Our objective was to use data from the National Birth Defects Prevention Study, the largest population-based birth defects case-control study in the United States, to provide updated and more precise estimates of the association between diabetes and birth defects, including some defects not previously assessed.

Study Design

We analyzed data on deliveries from October 1997 through December 2011. Mothers of case and control infants were interviewed about their health conditions and exposures during pregnancy, including diagnosis of pregestational (type 1 or type 2) diabetes before the index pregnancy or gestational diabetes during the index pregnancy. Using logistic regression, we separately assessed the association between pregestational and gestational diabetes with specific categories of structural birth defects for which there were at least 3 exposed case infants. For birth defect categories for which there were at least 5 exposed case infants, we calculated odds ratios adjusted for maternal body mass index, age, education, race/ethnicity, and study site; for defect categories with 3 or 4 exposed cases, we calculated crude odds ratios.

Results

Pregestational diabetes was reported by 0.6% of mothers of control infants (71 of 11,447) and 2.5% of mothers of case infants (775 of 31,007). Gestational diabetes during the index pregnancy was reported by 4.7% of mothers of control infants (536 of 11,447) and 5.3% of mothers of case infants (1,653 of 31,007). Pregestational diabetes was associated with strong, statistically significant odds ratios (range, 2.5–80.2) for 46 of 50 birth defects considered. The largest odds ratio was observed for sacral agenesis (adjusted odds ratio, 80.2; 95% confidence interval, 46.1–139.3). A greater than 10-fold increased risk was also observed for holoprosencephaly (adjusted odds ratio, 13.1; 95% confidence interval, 7.0–24.5), longitudinal limb deficiency (adjusted odds ratio, 10.1; 95% confidence interval, 6.2–16.5), heterotaxy (adjusted odds ratio, 12.3; 95% confidence interval, 7.3–20.5), truncus arteriosus (adjusted odds ratio, 14.9; 95% confidence interval, 7.6–29.3), atrioventricular septal defect (adjusted odds ratio, 10.5; 95% confidence interval, 6.2–17.9), and single ventricle complex (adjusted odds ratio, 14.7; 95% confidence interval, 8.9–24.3). For gestational diabetes, statistically significant odds ratios were fewer (12 of 56) and of smaller magnitude (range, 1.3– 2.1; 0.5 for gastroschisis).

Conclusion

Pregestational diabetes is associated with a markedly increased risk for many specific births defects. Because glycemic control before pregnancy is associated with a reduced risk for birth defects, ongoing quality care for persons with diabetes is an important opportunity for prevention.

Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.

Key words : atrioventricular septal defect, birth defect, case control study, epidemiology, gestational diabetes, heterotaxy, holoprosencephaly, longitudinal limb deficiency, pregestational diabetes, pregnancy, sacral agenesis, single ventricle complex, truncus arteriosus, type 1 diabetes, type 2 diabetes


Plan


 The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
 This work was supported through Centers for Disease Control and Prevention cooperative agreements under PA 96043, PA 02081, FOA DD09-001, FOA DD13-003, and NOFO DD18-001 to the Centers for Birth Defects Research and Prevention participating in the National Birth Defects Prevention Study and/or the Birth Defects Study to Evaluate Pregnancy exposureS.
 The authors report no conflicts of interest.
 Cite this article as: Tinker SC, Gilboa SM, Moore CA, et al. Specific birth defects in pregnancies of women with diabetes: National Birth Defects Prevention Study, 1997–2011. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2020;222:176.e1-11.


© 2019  Publié par Elsevier Masson SAS.
Ajouter à ma bibliothèque Retirer de ma bibliothèque Imprimer
Export

    Export citations

  • Fichier

  • Contenu

Vol 222 - N° 2

P. 176.e1-176.e11 - février 2020 Retour au numéro
Article précédent Article précédent
  • Intrauterine growth discordance across gestation and birthweight discordance in dichorionic twins
  • Melissa M. Amyx, Paul S. Albert, Alaina M. Bever, Stefanie N. Hinkle, John Owen, William A. Grobman, Roger B. Newman, Edward K. Chien, Robert E. Gore-Langton, Germaine M. Buck Louis, Katherine L. Grantz
| Article suivant Article suivant
  • Outcomes following a clinical algorithm allowing for delayed hysterectomy in the management of severe placenta accreta spectrum
  • Lisa C. Zuckerwise, Amanda M. Craig, JM. Newton, Shillin Zhao, Kelly A. Bennett, Marta A. Crispens

Bienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
L’accès au texte intégral de cet article nécessite un abonnement.

Déjà abonné à cette revue ?

Mon compte


Plateformes Elsevier Masson

Déclaration CNIL

EM-CONSULTE.COM est déclaré à la CNIL, déclaration n° 1286925.

En application de la loi nº78-17 du 6 janvier 1978 relative à l'informatique, aux fichiers et aux libertés, vous disposez des droits d'opposition (art.26 de la loi), d'accès (art.34 à 38 de la loi), et de rectification (art.36 de la loi) des données vous concernant. Ainsi, vous pouvez exiger que soient rectifiées, complétées, clarifiées, mises à jour ou effacées les informations vous concernant qui sont inexactes, incomplètes, équivoques, périmées ou dont la collecte ou l'utilisation ou la conservation est interdite.
Les informations personnelles concernant les visiteurs de notre site, y compris leur identité, sont confidentielles.
Le responsable du site s'engage sur l'honneur à respecter les conditions légales de confidentialité applicables en France et à ne pas divulguer ces informations à des tiers.


Tout le contenu de ce site: Copyright © 2024 Elsevier, ses concédants de licence et ses contributeurs. Tout les droits sont réservés, y compris ceux relatifs à l'exploration de textes et de données, a la formation en IA et aux technologies similaires. Pour tout contenu en libre accès, les conditions de licence Creative Commons s'appliquent.