Impact of maternal education on response to lifestyle interventions to reduce gestational weight gain: individual participant data meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To identify if maternal educational attainment is a prognostic factor for gestational weight gain (GWG), and to determine the differential effects of lifestyle interventions (diet based, physical activity based or mixed approach) on GWG, stratified by educational attainment. DESIGN: Individual participant data meta-analysis using the previously established International Weight Management in Pregnancy (i-WIP) Collaborative Group database (https://iwipgroup.wixsite.com/collaboration). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis of Individual Participant Data Statement guidelines were followed. DATA SOURCES: Major electronic databases, from inception to February 2017. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials on diet and physical activity-based interventions in pregnancy. Maternal educational attainment was required for inclusion and was categorised as higher education (≥tertiary) or lower education (≤secondary). RISK OF BIAS: Cochrane risk of bias tool was used. DATA SYNTHESIS: Principle measures of effect were OR and regression coefficient. RESULTS: Of the 36 randomised controlled trials in the i-WIP database, 21 trials and 5183 pregnant women were included. Women with lower educational attainment had an increased risk of excessive (OR 1.182; 95% CI 1.008 to 1.385, p =0.039) and inadequate weight gain (OR 1.284; 95% CI 1.045 to 1.577, p =0.017). Among women with lower education, diet basedinterventions reduced risk of excessive weight gain (OR 0.515; 95% CI 0.339 to 0.785, p = 0.002) and inadequate weight gain (OR 0.504; 95% CI 0.288 to 0.884, p=0.017), and reduced kg/week gain (B -0.055; 95% CI -0.098 to -0.012, p=0.012). Mixed interventions reduced risk of excessive weight gain for women with lower education (OR 0.735; 95% CI 0.561 to 0.963, p=0.026). Among women with high education, diet based interventions reduced risk of excessive weight gain (OR 0.609; 95% CI 0.437 to 0.849, p=0.003), and mixed interventions reduced kg/week gain (B -0.053; 95% CI -0.069 to -0.037,p<0.001). Physical activity based interventions did not impact GWG when stratified by education. CONCLUSIONS: Pregnant women with lower education are at an increased risk of excessive and inadequate GWG. Diet based interventions seem the most appropriate choice for these women, and additional support through mixed interventions may also be beneficial.

Effects of an antenatal dietary intervention in overweight and obese women on 6 month infant outcomes: follow-up from the LIMIT randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: The immediate impact of providing an antenatal dietary intervention during pregnancy has been extensively studied, but little is known of the effects beyond the neonatal period. Our objective was to evaluate the effect of an antenatal dietary intervention in overweight or obese women on infant outcomes 6 months after birth. METHODS: We conducted a follow up study of infants born to women who participated in the LIMIT trial during pregnancy. Live-born infants at 6-months of age, and whose mother provided consent to ongoing follow-up were eligible. The primary follow-up study endpoint was the incidence of infant BMI z-score ≥90th centile for infant sex and age. Secondary study outcomes included a range of infant anthropometric measures, neurodevelopment, general health, and infant feeding. Analyses used intention to treat principles according to the treatment group allocated in pregnancy. Missing data were imputed and analyses adjusted for maternal early pregnancy BMI, parity, study centre, socioeconomic status, age, and smoking status. Outcome assessors were blinded to the allocated treatment group. RESULTS: A total of 1754 infants were assessed at age 6 months (Lifestyle Advice n = 869; Standard Care n = 885), representing 82.1% of the eligible sample (n = 2136). There were no statistically significant differences in the incidence of infant BMI z-score ≥90th centile for infants born to women in the Lifestyle Advice group, compared with the Standard Care group (Lifestyle Advice 233 (21.71%) vs. Standard Care 233 (21.90%); adjusted relative risk (aRR) 0.99; 95% confidence interval 0.82 to 1.18; p = 0.88). There were no other effects on infant growth, adiposity, or neurodevelopment. CONCLUSION: Providing pregnant women who were overweight or obese with an antenatal dietary and lifestyle intervention did not alter 6-month infant growth and adiposity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12607000161426).

Optimising gestational weight gain and improving maternal and infant health outcomes through antenatal dietary, lifestyle and physical activity advice: the OPTIMISE randomised controlled trial protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Obesity represents a significant health burden, and WHO recognises the importance of preventing weight gain and subsequent development of obesity among adults who are within the healthy weight range. Women of reproductive age have demonstrated high rates of weight gain during pregnancy placing them at risk of becoming overweight or obese. We will evaluate the effects of dietary and physical activity advice on maternal, fetal and infant health outcomes, among pregnant women of normal body mass index (BMI). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a randomised controlled trial, consenting and randomising women with a live singleton pregnancy between 10+0 and 20+0 weeks and BMI 18.5-24.9 kg/m2 at first antenatal visit, from a tertiary maternity hospital. Women randomised to the Lifestyle Advice Group will receive three face-to-face sessions (two with a research dietitian and one with a trained research assistant) and three telephone calls over pregnancy, in which they will be provided with dietary and lifestyle advice and encouraged to make change using a SMART goals approach. Women randomised to the Standard Care Group will receive routine antenatal care. The primary outcome is infant birth weight >4 kg. Secondary outcomes will include adverse infant and maternal outcomes, maternal weight change, maternal diet and physical activity changes, maternal quality of life and emotional well-being, fetal growth and costs of healthcare. We will recruit 624 women to detect a reduction from 8.72% to 3.87% (alpha 0.05 (two-tailed); power 70%) in infants with birth weight >4 kg. Analyses will be intention to treat with estimates reported as relative risks and 95% CIs. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been obtained from the Women's and Children's Hospital ethics committee. Findings will be disseminated widely via journal publication and conference presentation(s), and participants informed of results. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12614000583640.

Evaluation of a smartphone nutrition and physical activity application to provide lifestyle advice to pregnant women: The SNAPP randomised trial.

Our objective was to evaluate the impact of a smartphone application as an adjunct to face-to-face consultations in facilitating dietary and physical activity change among pregnant women. This multicentre, nested randomised trial involved pregnant women with a body mass index ≥18.5 kg/m2 , with a singleton pregnancy between 10 and 20 weeks' gestation, and participating in 2 pregnancy nutrition-based randomised trials across metropolitan Adelaide, South Australia. All women participating in the SNAPP trial received a comprehensive dietary, physical activity, and behavioural intervention, as part of the GRoW or OPTIMISE randomised trials. Women were subsequently randomised to either the "Lifestyle Advice Only Group," where women received the above intervention, or the "Lifestyle Advice plus Smartphone Application Group," where women were additionally provided access to the smartphone application. The primary outcome was healthy eating index (HEI) assessed by maternal food frequency questionnaire completed at trial entry, and 28 and 36 weeks' gestation. Analyses were performed using intention-to-treat principles, with statistical significance at p = .05. One hundred sixty-two women participated: 77 allocated to the Lifestyle Advice plus Smartphone Application Group and 85 to the Lifestyle Advice Only Group. Mean difference in HEI score at 28 weeks of pregnancy was 0.01 (CI [-2.29, 2.62]) and at 36 weeks of pregnancy -1.16 (CI [-4.60, 2.28]). There was no significant additional benefit from the provision of the smartphone application in improving HEI score (p = .452). Although all women improved dietary quality across pregnancy, use of the smartphone application was poor. Our findings do not support addition of the smartphone application.

The More, the Better? Combining Interventions to Prevent Preterm Birth in Women at Risk: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To systematically examine the evidence around the combination of interventions to prevent preterm birth. METHODS: Without language restrictions, we searched clinicaltrials.gov and five electronic databases (Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Web of Science) up to July 7, 2016. We included randomized and non-randomized studies where asymptomatic women at risk of preterm birth received any combination of progesterone, cerclage, or pessary compared with either one or no intervention. Primary outcomes were preterm birth <34 and <37 weeks and neonatal death. Two independent reviewers extracted data using a piloted form and assessed risk and direction of bias. We pooled data with unlikely or unclear bias using random-effects meta-analyses. Comparisons with likely bias (e.g., confounding by indication) were not pooled. RESULTS: We screened 1335 results and assessed 154 full texts, including seven studies. In singletons, we found no differences in preterm birth <34 weeks when comparing pessary & progesterone with pessary alone (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.70-2.42) or progesterone alone (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.79-1.72). Similarly, we found no differences in preterm birth <37 weeks when comparing cerclage & progesterone with cerclage alone (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.56-1.93) or with progesterone alone (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.57-1.19) nor between pessary & progesterone and pessary alone (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.62-1.74). No data were available for neonatal death in singletons. CONCLUSIONS: Despite being a common clinical practice, evidence to support the combined use of multiple versus single interventions for preventing preterm birth is scarce.

Prenatal administration of progestogens for preventing spontaneous preterm birth in women with a multiple pregnancy.

BACKGROUND: Multiple pregnancy is a strong risk factor for preterm birth, and more than 50% of women with a twin pregnancy will give birth prior to 37 weeks' gestation. Infants born preterm are recognised to be at increased risk of many adverse health outcomes, contributing to more than half of overall perinatal mortality. Progesterone is produced naturally in the body and has a role in maintaining pregnancy, although it is not clear whether administering progestogens to women with multiple pregnancy at high risk of early birth is effective and safe. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of progesterone administration for the prevention of preterm birth in women with a multiple pregnancy. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (1 November 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials examining the administration of a progestogen by any route for the prevention of preterm birth in women with multiple pregnancy. We did not include quasi-randomised or cross-over studies. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed reports identified by the search for eligibility, extracted data, assessed risk of bias and graded the quality of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included 17 trials, which all compared either vaginal or intramuscular (IM) progesterone with a placebo or no treatment, and involved a total of 4773 women. The risk of bias for the majority of included studies was low, with the exception of four studies that had inadequate blinding, or significant loss to follow-up or both, or were not reported well enough for us to make a judgement. We graded the evidence low to high quality, with downgrading for statistical heterogeneity, design limitations in some of the studies contributing data, and imprecision of the effect estimate. 1 IM progesterone versus no treatment or placeboMore women delivered at less than 34 weeks' gestation in the IM progesterone group compared with placebo (risk ratio (RR) 1.54, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.06 to 2.26; women = 399; studies = 2; low-quality evidence). Although the incidence of perinatal death in the progesterone group was higher, there was considerable uncertainty around the effect estimate and high heterogeneity between studies (average RR 1.45, 95% CI 0.60 to 3.51; infants = 3089; studies = 6; I2 = 71%; low-quality evidence). No studies reported maternal mortality or major neurodevelopmental disability at childhood follow-up.There were no clear group differences found in any of the other maternal or infant outcomes (preterm birth less than 37 weeks (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.13; women = 2010; studies = 5; high-quality evidence); preterm birth less than 28 weeks (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.55; women = 1920; studies = 5; moderate-quality evidence); infant birthweight less than 2500 g (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.08; infants = 4071; studies = 5; I2 = 76%, moderate-quality evidence)). No childhood outcomes were reported in the trials. 2 Vaginal progesterone versus no treatment or placebo by doseThere were no clear group differences in incidence of preterm birth before 34 weeks (average RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.09; women = 1727; studies = 6; I2 = 46%; low-quality evidence). Although fewer births before 34 weeks appeared to occur in the progesterone group, the CIs crossed the line of no effect. Incidence of perinatal death was higher in the progesterone group, although there was considerable uncertainty in the effect estimate and the quality of the evidence was low for this outcome (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.74 to 2.06; infants = 2287; studies = 3; low-quality evidence). No studies reported maternal mortality or major neurodevelopmental disability at childhood follow-up.There were no clear group differences found in any of the other maternal or infant outcomes (preterm birth less than 37 weeks (average RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.06; women = 1597; studies = 6; moderate-quality evidence); preterm birth less than 28 weeks (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.68 to 2.21; women = 1569; studies = 4; low-quality evidence); infant birthweight less than 2500 g (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.03; infants = 3079; studies = 4; I2 = 49%, moderate-quality evidence)). No childhood outcomes were reported in the trials.For secondary outcomes, there were no clear group differences found in any of the other maternal outcomes except for caesarean section, where women who received vaginal progesterone did not have as many caesarean sections as those in the placebo group, although the difference between groups was not large (7%) (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.88 to 0.98; women = 2143; studies = 6; I2 = 0%). There were no clear group differences found in any of the infant outcomes except for mechanical ventilation, which was required by fewer infants whose mothers had received the vaginal progesterone (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.77; infants = 3134; studies = 5). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Overall, for women with a multiple pregnancy, the administration of progesterone (either IM or vaginal) does not appear to be associated with a reduction in risk of preterm birth or improved neonatal outcomes.Future research could focus on a comprehensive individual participant data meta-analysis including all of the available data relating to both IM and vaginal progesterone administration in women with a multiple pregnancy, before considering the need to conduct trials in subgroups of high-risk women (for example, women with a multiple pregnancy and a short cervical length identified on ultrasound).

Vaginal progesterone pessaries for pregnant women with a previous preterm birth to prevent neonatal respiratory distress syndrome (the PROGRESS Study): A multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Neonatal respiratory distress syndrome, as a consequence of preterm birth, is a major cause of early mortality and morbidity. The withdrawal of progesterone, either actual or functional, is thought to be an antecedent to the onset of labour. There remains limited information on clinically relevant health outcomes as to whether vaginal progesterone may be of benefit for pregnant women with a history of a previous preterm birth, who are at high risk of a recurrence. Our primary aim was to assess whether the use of vaginal progesterone pessaries in women with a history of previous spontaneous preterm birth reduced the risk and severity of respiratory distress syndrome in their infants, with secondary aims of examining the effects on other neonatal morbidities and maternal health and assessing the adverse effects of treatment. METHODS: Women with a live singleton or twin pregnancy between 18 to <24 weeks' gestation and a history of prior preterm birth at less than 37 weeks' gestation in the preceding pregnancy, where labour occurred spontaneously or in association with cervical incompetence or following preterm prelabour rupture of the membranes, were eligible. Women were recruited from 39 Australian, New Zealand, and Canadian maternity hospitals and assigned by randomisation to vaginal progesterone pessaries (equivalent to 100 mg vaginal progesterone) (n = 398) or placebo (n = 389). Participants and investigators were masked to the treatment allocation. The primary outcome was respiratory distress syndrome and severity. Secondary outcomes were other respiratory morbidities; other adverse neonatal outcomes; adverse outcomes for the woman, especially related to preterm birth; and side effects of progesterone treatment. Data were analysed for all the 787 women (100%) randomised and their 799 infants. FINDINGS: Most women used their allocated study treatment (740 women, 94.0%), with median use similar for both study groups (51.0 days, interquartile range [IQR] 28.0-69.0, in the progesterone group versus 52.0 days, IQR 27.0-76.0, in the placebo group). The incidence of respiratory distress syndrome was similar in both study groups-10.5% (42/402) in the progesterone group and 10.6% (41/388) in the placebo group (adjusted relative risk [RR] 0.98, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.64-1.49, p = 0.912)-as was the severity of any neonatal respiratory disease (adjusted treatment effect 1.02, 95% CI 0.69-1.53, p = 0.905). No differences were seen between study groups for other respiratory morbidities and adverse infant outcomes, including serious infant composite outcome (155/406 [38.2%] in the progesterone group and 152/393 [38.7%] in the placebo group, adjusted RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.82-1.17, p = 0.798). The proportion of infants born before 37 weeks' gestation was similar in both study groups (148/406 [36.5%] in the progesterone group and 146/393 [37.2%] in the placebo group, adjusted RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.81-1.17, p = 0.765). A similar proportion of women in both study groups had maternal morbidities, especially those related to preterm birth, or experienced side effects of treatment. In 9.9% (39/394) of the women in the progesterone group and 7.3% (28/382) of the women in the placebo group, treatment was stopped because of side effects (adjusted RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.85-2.15, p = 0.204). The main limitation of the study was that almost 9% of the women did not start the medication or forgot to use it 3 or more times a week. CONCLUSIONS: Our results do not support the use of vaginal progesterone pessaries in women with a history of a previous spontaneous preterm birth to reduce the risk of neonatal respiratory distress syndrome or other neonatal and maternal morbidities related to preterm birth. Individual participant data meta-analysis of the relevant trials may identify specific women for whom vaginal progesterone might be of benefit. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Clinical Trials ISRCTN20269066.

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

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. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Variations in reporting of outcomes in randomized trials on diet and physical activity in pregnancy: A systematic review.

AIM: Trials on diet and physical activity in pregnancy report on various outcomes. We aimed to assess the variations in outcomes reported and their quality in trials on lifestyle interventions in pregnancy. METHODS: We searched major databases without language restrictions for randomized controlled trials on diet and physical activity-based interventions in pregnancy up to March 2015. Two independent reviewers undertook study selection and data extraction. We estimated the percentage of papers reporting 'critically important' and 'important' outcomes. We defined the quality of reporting as a proportion using a six-item questionnaire. Regression analysis was used to identify factors affecting this quality. RESULTS: Sixty-six randomized controlled trials were published in 78 papers (66 main, 12 secondary). Gestational diabetes (57.6%, 38/66), preterm birth (48.5%, 32/66) and cesarian section (60.6%, 40/66), were the commonly reported 'critically important' outcomes. Gestational weight gain (84.5%, 56/66) and birth weight (87.9%, 58/66) were reported in most papers, although not considered critically important. The median quality of reporting was 0.60 (interquartile range 0.25, 0.83) for a maximum score of one. Study and journal characteristics did not affect quality. CONCLUSION: Many studies on lifestyle interventions in pregnancy do not report critically important outcomes, highlighting the need for core outcome set development.

Paternal obesity modifies the effect of an antenatal lifestyle intervention in women who are overweight or obese on newborn anthropometry.

The contribution of paternal obesity to pregnancy outcomes has been little described. Our aims were to determine whether the effect of an antenatal maternal dietary and lifestyle intervention among women who are overweight or obese on newborn adiposity, was modified by paternal obesity. We conducted a secondary analysis of a multicenter randomised trial. Pregnant women with BMI ≥25 kg/m2 received either Lifestyle Advice or Standard Care. Paternal anthropometric measures included height, weight, BMI; waist, hip, calf and mid-upper arm circumferences; biceps and calf skinfold thickness measurements (SFTM); and percentage body fat. Newborn anthropometric outcomes included length; weight; head, arm, abdominal, and chest circumferences; biceps, triceps, subscapular, suprailiac, thigh, and lateral abdominal wall SFTM; and percentage body fat. The effect of an antenatal maternal dietary and lifestyle intervention among women who were overweight or obese on neonatal anthropometric measures, was significantly modified by paternal BMI ≥35.0 kg/m2, with a significantly smaller infant triceps, suprailiac, and thigh SFTM, and percent fat mass, compared with that observed in offspring of lean fathers. Further research is required to determine whether our observed associations are causal, and whether paternal weight loss prior to conception is a potential strategy to reduce the intergenerational effects of obesity.

The effect of a lifestyle intervention on pregnancy and postpartum dietary patterns determined by factor analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Optimizing maternal diet during pregnancy improves maternal and infant health. This study assessed the effect of an antenatal lifestyle intervention for women with overweight or obesity on dietary patterns during pregnancy and post partum. METHODS: This study is a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial in which pregnant women (BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2 ) received lifestyle advice (n = 943) or standard care (n = 924). Dietary pattern analysis was undertaken using factor analysis with comparisons between trial entry and 28 weeks, 36 weeks, and 4 months post partum. RESULTS: The dietary pattern analysis revealed two distinct patterns: "prudent" and "Western." There was a significant difference between groups in the change over time for both patterns (P < 0.001). For the prudent score, the lifestyle group had higher scores at all times after trial entry compared with standard care, while for the Western score, the lifestyle group had a lower score at 28 weeks. The intervention effect differed based on trial entry BMI (P = 0.043) and smoking (P = 0.019), with higher prudent scores for women with obesity compared with overweight and smokers compared with nonsmokers. CONCLUSIONS: The provision of an antenatal lifestyle intervention for women with overweight and obesity was associated with an improvement in dietary patterns that persisted post partum. This has important implications for the future consideration of optimal dietary intervention components to include in antenatal lifestyle interventions.

The effects of dietary and lifestyle interventions among pregnant women who are overweight or obese on longer-term maternal and early childhood outcomes: protocol for an individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this individual participant data meta-analysis (IPDMA) is to evaluate the effects of dietary and lifestyle interventions among pregnant women who are overweight or obese on later maternal and early childhood outcomes at ages 3-5 years. METHODS/DESIGN: We will build on the established International Weight Management in Pregnancy (i-WIP) IPD Collaborative Network, having identified researchers who have conducted randomised dietary and lifestyle interventions among pregnant women who are overweight or obese, and where ongoing childhood follow-up of participants has been or is being undertaken. The primary maternal outcome is a diagnosis of maternal metabolic syndrome. The primary childhood outcome is BMI above 90%. We have identified 7 relevant trials, involving 5425 women who were overweight or obese during pregnancy, with approximately 3544 women and children with follow-up assessments available for inclusion in the meta-analysis. DISCUSSION: The proposed IPDMA provides an opportunity to evaluate the effect of dietary and lifestyle interventions among pregnant women who are overweight or obese on later maternal and early childhood health outcomes, including risk of obesity. This knowledge is essential to effectively translate research findings into clinical practice and public health policy. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: This IPD has been prospectively registered (PROSPERO), ID number CRD42016047165 .

Delivery of Dietary and Lifestyle Interventions in Pregnancy: is it Time to Promote the Use of Electronic and Mobile Health Technologies?

Fifty percent of women who enter pregnancy are overweight or obese, increasing complications for both the mother and the infant, along with significant burden on individuals and the health care system. Pregnancy represents a "teachable moment" in a woman's life, however, antenatal interventions focusing on improving dietary and physical activity patterns have been associated with modest behavior change. There are many barriers that need to be overcome, including lack of knowledge, access and time pressures. Advancing mobile and electronic health technologies may represent an adjunct tool to support traditional face-to-face consultations and facilitate behavior change, but further rigorous evaluation of the technologies and their impact on health outcomes is required. Well-designed antenatal intervention trials with particular attention to the structure and method of information provision are required to further assess the feasibility of such technology.

Systematic review of antenatal dietary and lifestyle interventions in women with a normal body mass index.

INTRODUCTION: Women who commence pregnancy with a normal body mass index (BMI) are at the greatest risk of excessive gestational weight gain, impacting on infant birthweight, pregnancy-related complications and postpartum weight retention. Our aim was to review systematically the effect of antenatal dietary and lifestyle interventions in pregnant women with a normal BMI on maternal and infant outcomes. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, PubMed, Medline, and the Australian and International Clinical Trials Registry with the date of the last search in July 2015. We included all published, unpublished and ongoing randomized trials recruiting women of a normal BMI, comparing dietary and/or lifestyle interventions with standard antenatal care. RESULTS: Twelve randomized controlled trials were identified, involving a total of 2713 pregnant women, with five studies reporting clinical data for 714 women with a normal BMI. Women who received a dietary and lifestyle intervention were less likely to experience gestational weight gain [four studies, 446 women; mean difference -1.25 kg; 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.39 to -0.11], weight gain above the Institute of Medicine guidelines (four studies, 446 women; risk ratio 0.66; 95% CI 0.53-0.83) and hypertension (two studies; 243 women; risk ratio 0.34; 95% CI 0.13-0.91). There were no statistically significant differences in the occurrence of gestational diabetes, cesarean section or birthweight greater than 4 kg. CONCLUSIONS: While providing an antenatal dietary and lifestyle intervention for pregnant women of normal BMI appears to reduce gestational weight gain, the review was limited by the relatively small available sample size. Further well-designed randomized controlled trials are required.

The effect of antenatal dietary and lifestyle advice for women who are overweight or obese on emotional well-being: the LIMIT randomized trial.

INTRODUCTION: Our aim was to evaluate the effect of dietary and lifestyle advice given to women who were overweight or obese during pregnancy on maternal quality of life, anxiety and risk of depression, and satisfaction with care. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We conducted a randomized trial, involving pregnant women with body mass index ≥25 kg/m(2) , recruited from maternity units in South Australia. Women were randomized to Lifestyle Advice or Standard Care, and completed questionnaires assessing risk of depression (Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale), anxiety (Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory), and quality of life (SF-36) at trial entry, 28 and 36 weeks' gestation, and 4 months postpartum. Secondary trial outcomes assessed for this analysis were risk of depression, anxiety, maternal quality of life, and satisfaction with care. RESULTS: One or more questionnaires were completed by 976 of 1108 (90.8%) women receiving Lifestyle Advice and 957 of 1104 (89.7%) women receiving Standard Care. The risk of depression [adjusted risk ratio 1.01; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82-1.24; p = 0.95], anxiety (adjusted risk ratio 1.09; 95% CI 0.93-1.27; p = 0.31), and health-related quality of life were similar between the two groups. Women receiving Lifestyle Advice reported improved healthy food choice [Lifestyle Advice 404 (68.9%) vs. Standard Care 323 (51.8%); p < 0.0001], and exercise knowledge [Lifestyle Advice 444 (75.8%) vs. Standard Care 367 (58.8%); p < 0.0001], and reassurance about their health [Lifestyle Advice 499 (85.3%) vs. Standard Care 485 (77.9%); p = 0.0112], and health of their baby [Lifestyle Advice 527 (90.2%) vs. Standard Care 545 (87.6%); p = 0.0143]. CONCLUSION: Lifestyle advice in pregnancy improved knowledge and provided reassurance without negatively impacting well-being.

Prenatal interventions for congenital diaphragmatic hernia for improving outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Congenital diaphragmatic hernia (CDH), is an uncommon but severe condition in which there is a developmental defect in the fetal diaphragm, resulting in liver and bowel migrating to the chest cavity and impairing lung development and function for the neonate. This condition can be diagnosed during pregnancy and as such, is potentially amenable to in-utero prenatal intervention. Neonatal surgical repair is possible, but even with early surgical repair and improving neonatal management, neonatal morbidity and mortality is high. Prenatal interventions described to date have included maternal antenatal corticosteroid administration and fetal tracheal occlusion, with both methods aiming to improve lung growth and maturity. However surgical procedures have potential maternal complications, as the uterus and amniotic sac are breached in order to gain access to the fetus. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effects of prenatal versus postnatal interventions for CDH on perinatal mortality and morbidity, longer-term infant outcomes and maternal morbidity, and to compare the effects of different prenatal interventions with each other. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 August 2015) and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: All published (including those published in abstract form), unpublished, and ongoing randomised controlled trials comparing prenatal and postnatal interventions for fetuses with CDH. Quasi-RCTs were eligible for inclusion but none were identified. Trials using a cross-over design are not eligible for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors evaluated trials for inclusion and methodological quality without consideration of their results according to the stated eligibility criteria and extracted data independently. Data were checked for accuracy. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 11 studies for potential inclusion. Of those, we included three studies involving 97 women. Two additional studies are ongoing.Two trials examined in-utero fetal tracheal occlusion with standard (postnatal) care in fetuses with severe diaphragmatic hernia. Whilst the trials utilised fetal interventions that were similar, there were important differences in how access was gained to the fetus and in the timing and mode of delivery. Therefore, we did not combine these trials in meta-analysis and the results are examined in separate comparisons. One trial examined the effect of antenatal corticosteroids versus placebo. Overall, the methodological quality of the trials was variable and no data were available for a number of this review's secondary outcomes. In-utero fetal occlusion by maternal laparotomy versus standard postnatal management (one trial, 24 women)For the primary infant outcome (perinatal mortality), there were no data suitable for inclusion in the analysis. There was no difference between groups in terms of long-term infant survival (risk ratio (RR) 1.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66 to 1.69). In-utero fetal occlusion by minimally invasive fetoscopy versus standard postnatal management (one trial, 41 women)The primary infant outcome (perinatal mortality) was not reported. Minimally invasive fetoscopy was associated with a small reduction in the mean gestational age at birth (mean difference (MD) -1.80 weeks, 95% CI -3.13 to -0.47), but there was no clear difference in the risk of preterm birth before 37 weeks (RR 1.75, 95% CI 0.78 to 3.92). Long-term infant survival (three to six months) (RR 10.50, 95% CI 1.48 to 74.71) was increased with the intervention when compared with standard management, and there was a corresponding reduction in pulmonary hypertension (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.93) associated with the intervention. There was no difference between groups in terms of preterm ruptured membranes (< 37 weeks) (RR 1.47, 95% CI 0.56 to 3.88) or maternal infectious morbidity (RR 3.14, 95% CI 0.14 to 72.92), and there were no maternal blood transfusions. Antenatal corticosteroids versus placebo (one trial, 32 women)We also included one trial (involving 32 women) examining the effect of antenatal corticosteroids versus placebo. There was no clear difference in the incidence of perinatal mortality (our primary infant outcome) between the group of women who received antenatal corticosteroids and the placebo control (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.50 to 3.08). Data (mean only) were reported for two of our secondary outcomes (mechanical ventilation and days of hospital admission) but standard deviations (SDs) were not provided. For the purposes of this review and to permit further analysis we have estimated the SDs based on the reported P values reported in the trial report, although our estimation does assume that the SD is the same in both the intervention and control groups. There were no differences between the antenatal corticosteroid group and the placebo control in terms of days of mechanical ventilation (MD 18.00 days, 95% CI -14.77 to 50.77) or days of hospital admission (MD 17.00 days, 95% CI -13.93 to 47.93) . AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is currently insufficient evidence to recommend in-utero intervention for fetuses with CDH as a part of routine clinical practice. We identified three small studies, with only one study adequately reporting on the primary outcome of this review - perinatal mortality, and there were few data pertaining to many of this review's secondary outcomes.WIth regard to the administration of antenatal corticosteroids, there remains a gap in current research, and a large multicentre trial with adequate statistical power should be undertaken to answer this unresolved question. More studies are needed to further examine the effect of in-utero fetal tracheal occlusion on important neonatal outcomes and long-term infant survival and health. Long-term follow-up is of particular importance, and should include morbidity and mortality measures. Further studies should examine the benefits of an in-utero intervention on subgroups with moderate and severe congenital diaphragmatic hernia. Indeed, there are three ongoing studies, being conducted by European, North and South American fetal medicine centres, which will contribute to this gap. Ongoing research and any implementation into clinical practice should include standardisation of the procedure, inclusion criteria and long-term childhood follow-up.

Directed preconception health programs and interventions for improving pregnancy outcomes for women who are overweight or obese.

BACKGROUND: Overweight and obesity (body mass index (BMI) ≥ 25.0 to 29.9 kg/m(2) and BMI ≥ 30 kg/m(2,) respectively are increasingly common among women of reproductive age. Overweight and obesity are known to be associated with many adverse health conditions in the preconception period, during pregnancy and during the labour and postpartum period. There are no current guidelines to suggest which preconception health programs and interventions are of benefit to these women and their infants. It is important to evaluate the available evidence to establish which preconception interventions are of value to this population of women. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of preconception health programs and interventions for improving pregnancy outcomes in overweight and obese women. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 December 2014) and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (including those using a cluster-randomised design), comparing health programs and interventions with routine care in women of reproductive age and a BMI greater then or equal to 25 kg/m(2). Studies published in abstract form only, were not eligible for inclusion. Quasi-randomised trials or randomised trials using a cross-over design were not eligible for inclusion in this review. The intervention in such studies would involve an assessment of preconception health and lead to an individualised preconception program addressing any areas of concern for that particular woman.Preconception interventions could involve any or all of: provision of specific information, screening for and treating obesity-related health problems, customised or general dietary and exercise advice, medical or surgical interventions. Medical interventions may include treatment of pre-existing hypertension, impaired glucose tolerance or sleep apnoea. Surgical interventions may include interventions such as bariatric surgery. The comparator was prespecified to be standard preconception advice or no advice/interventions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We identified no studies that met the inclusion criteria for this review. The search identified one study (published in four trial reports) which was independently assessed by two review authors and subsequently excluded. MAIN RESULTS: There are no included trials. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found no randomised controlled trials that assessed the effect of preconception health programs and interventions in overweight and obese women with the aim of improving pregnancy outcomes. Until the effectiveness of preconception health programs and interventions can be established, no practice recommendations can be made. Further research is required in this area.

Modifying diet and physical activity to support pregnant women who are overweight or obese.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Overweight and obesity represent a significant health burden during pregnancy, placing women and their infants at increased risk of adverse health outcomes. Although there is considerable observational literature describing the effect of gestational weight gain in pregnancy, research efforts have focused on limiting gestational weight gain among pregnant women who are overweight or obese, with limited reporting of clinical outcomes. RECENT FINDINGS: The LIMIT randomized trial recruited 2212 pregnant women with a BMI at least 25 kg/m2. Providing an antenatal dietary and lifestyle intervention was associated with significant improvements in maternal diet and physical activity patterns, and a significant reduction in the risk of infants being born with high birth weight. SUMMARY: The findings of the LIMIT randomized trial provide the first evidence that changes in maternal diet and physical activity during pregnancy can reduce the risk of high infant birth weight among women who are overweight or obese, and from a public health perspective, may represent a significant strategy to tackle the increasing problem of childhood and adulthood obesity.

Dietary and lifestyle advice for pregnant women who are overweight or obese: the LIMIT randomized trial.

Overweight and obesity during pregnancy are common and are associated with an increased risk of adverse health outcomes for both the mother and the infant. However, robust evidence about the effect of antenatal dietary and lifestyle interventions on health outcomes is lacking. We conducted a multicenter, randomized trial, recruiting 2,212 women (from 3 public maternity hospitals across South Australia) with a singleton pregnancy between 10⁺° and 20⁺° weeks' gestation and a BMI ≥25. The women were randomized to lifestyle advice (n = 1,108) or standard care (n = 1,104). Women randomized to lifestyle advice participated in a comprehensive dietary and lifestyle intervention over the course of their pregnancy (delivered by research staff), while women randomized to standard care received pregnancy care according to local guidelines, which did not include such information. Provision of the lifestyle intervention was associated with a significant 18% relative risk reduction in the chance of infants being born with a birth weight above 4 kg. No other significant differences were identified in maternal pregnancy and birth outcomes between the two treatment groups. Observational studies highlight the association between a high infant birth weight and the subsequent risk of childhood and adulthood obesity. Antenatal interventions that are effective in reducing high infant birth weights therefore represent a significant strategy to tackle obesity from a population health perspective, while ongoing interrogation of the biospecimens and measurements, including ongoing childhood follow-up, will provide a unique opportunity to evaluate the mechanistic pathways of maternal-to-infant/childhood obesity.