Rethinking causal assumptions about maternal BMI, gestational weight gain, and adverse pregnancy outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate commonly assumed causal relationships between body mass index (BMI), gestational weight gain (GWG), and adverse pregnancy outcomes, which have formed the basis of guidelines and interventions aimed at limiting GWG in women with overweight or obesity. We explored relationships between maternal BMI, total GWG (as a continuous variable and as 'excessive' GWG), and pregnancy outcomes (including infant birthweight measures and caesarean birth). METHODS: Analysis of individual participant data (IPD) from the i-WIP (International Weight Management in Pregnancy) Collaboration, from randomised trials of diet and/or physical activity interventions during pregnancy reporting GWG and maternal and neonatal outcomes. Women randomised to the control arm of 20 eligible randomised trials (4370 of 8908 participants) from the i-WIP dataset of 36 randomised trials (total 12,240 women). The main research questions were to characterise the relationship between maternal BMI and (a) total GWG, (b) the risk of 'excessive' GWG (using the Institute of Medicine's guidelines), and (c) adverse pregnancy outcomes as mediated via GWG versus other pathways to determine the extent to which the observed effect of maternal BMI on pregnancy outcomes is mediated via GWG. We utilised generalised linear models and regression-based mediation analyses within an IPD meta-analysis framework. RESULTS: Mean GWG decreased linearly as maternal BMI increased; however, the risk of 'excessive' GWG increased markedly at BMI category thresholds (i.e. between the normal and overweight BMI category threshold and between the overweight and obese BMI category threshold). Increasing maternal BMI was associated with increased risk of all pregnancy outcomes assessed; however, there was no evidence that this effect was mediated via effects on GWG. CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence of a meaningful relationship between maternal BMI and GWG and between maternal BMI and adverse pregnancy outcomes. There is no evidence that the effect of maternal BMI on outcomes is via an effect on GWG. Our analyses also cast doubt on the existence of a relationship between 'excessive' GWG and adverse pregnancy outcomes. Our findings challenge the practice of actively managing GWG throughout pregnancy.

Fetal Growth and Adiposity of Infants Born Large for Gestational Age in Three Harmonized Randomized Trials.

OBJECTIVE: Infants born large for gestational age (LGA) are at an increased risk of short- and longer-term adverse outcomes. Understanding fetal growth and adiposity and their trajectories may help inform interventions to prevent birth of LGA infants. We aimed to compare fetal growth and adiposity measures of infants born LGA with those born not LGA, to determine whether the discrepancy at birth was primarily due to larger size throughout gestation, or instead to different trajectories of fetal growth. STUDY DESIGN: This was a secondary analysis of secondary outcomes of fetal growth and adiposity from three harmonized randomized trials-the LIMIT, GRoW, and Optimise randomized trials. These trials recruited women in early pregnancy, and a singleton gestation, from three major public metropolitan Adelaide maternity hospitals. Maternal body mass index (BMI) ranged from 18.5 to ≥40.0 kg/m2. Data were obtained from enrolled women who underwent research ultrasounds at 28 and 36 weeks' gestation. Outcome measures were ultrasound measures of fetal biometry and adiposity. RESULTS: Infants born LGA had larger fetal biometry measures, and higher growth trajectories, from 20 weeks' gestation. Fetal adiposity measures were consistently larger among infants born LGA and these differences increased over time. We did not find evidence that the differences in biometry and adiposity measurements varied according to maternal BMI. CONCLUSION: Infants born LGA had larger fetal biometry measures at all time points from 20 weeks' gestation, compared with infants born not LGA suggesting any interventions to prevent LGA likely need to commence earlier in pregnancy or prior to conception. KEY POINTS: · Infants born LGA had larger fetal biometry measures from 20 weeks' gestation.. · Infants born LGA had larger fetal adiposity measures.. · Interventions to prevent LGA need to start earlier in pregnancy or prior to conception..

Effects of an antenatal dietary intervention in women with obesity or overweight on child outcomes at 8-10 years of age: LIMIT randomised trial follow-up.

BACKGROUND: The LIMIT randomised controlled trial looked at the effect of a dietary and lifestyle intervention compared with routine antenatal care for pregnant women with overweight and obesity on pregnancy outcomes. While women in the intervention group improved diet and physical activity with a reduction of high birth weight, other outcomes were similar. We have followed the children born to women in this study at birth, 6 and 18 months and 3-5 years of age and now report follow-up of children at 8-10 years of age. METHODS: Children at 8-10 years of age who were born to women who participated in the LIMIT randomised trial, and whose mother provided consent to ongoing follow-up were eligible for inclusion. The primary study endpoint was the incidence of child BMI z-score > 85th centile for child sex and age. Secondary study outcomes included a range of anthropometric measures, neurodevelopment, child dietary intake, and physical activity. Analyses used intention to treat principles according to the treatment group allocated in pregnancy. Outcome assessors were blinded to the allocated treatment group. RESULTS: We assessed 1,015 (Lifestyle Advice n = 510; Standard Care n = 505) (48%) of the 2,121 eligible children. BMI z-score > 85th percentile was similar for children of women in the dietary Lifestyle Advice Group compared with children of women in the Standard Care Group (Lifestyle Advice 479 (45%) versus Standard Care 507 (48%); adjusted RR (aRR) 0.93; 95% CI 0.82 to 1.06; p = 0.302) as were secondary outcomes. We observed that more than 45% of all the children had a BMI z-score > 85th percentile, consistent with findings from follow-up at earlier time-points, indicating an ongoing risk of overweight and obesity. CONCLUSIONS: Dietary and lifestyle advice for women with overweight and obesity in pregnancy has not reduced the risk of childhood obesity, with children remaining at risk of adolescent and adult obesity. Other strategies are needed to address the risk of overweight and obesity in children including investigation of preconception interventions to assess whether this can modify the effects of maternal pre-pregnancy BMI. The LIMIT randomised controlled trial was registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12607000161426).

Maternal and neonatal outcomes following the introduction of the Fetal Pillow at a tertiary maternity hospital: A retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Caesarean birth at full cervical dilatation can be technically challenging and may be associated with increased risks of maternal and neonatal morbidity, often secondary to difficulties in delivering a deeply impacted fetal head. The Fetal Pillow is a device designed to elevate an impacted fetal head out of the pelvis and reduce birth trauma. AIMS: To evaluate birth outcomes following the introduction of the Fetal Pillow at a tertiary maternity hospital. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included all caesarean births at full cervical dilatation where the Fetal Pillow was utilised and compared with caesarean births where the Fetal Pillow was not used from October 2018 to December 2019. Maternal outcomes included uterine incision extension, blood loss, high dependency unit admission and postoperative length of stay. Neonatal outcomes included Apgar scores, resuscitation, cord arterial blood pH and lactate, nursery admission, birth trauma, jaundice and seizures. RESULTS: There were 53 caesarean births where the Fetal Pillow was utilised and 48 where it was not. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups with mean maternal age across both groups of 30.4 (±5.3) years, mean gestational age at birth of 39.5 (±1.2) weeks and mean infant birth weight of 3543 (±441) g. There were no statistically significant differences between the two study groups for the maternal and neonatal outcomes considered. CONCLUSIONS: There was no evidence that use of the Fetal Pillow to elevate an impacted fetal head during caesarean birth when cervical dilatation is >7 cm was associated with a reduced rate of adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes.

The effects of dietary and lifestyle interventions among pregnant women with overweight or obesity on early childhood outcomes: an individual participant data meta-analysis from randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: The impact of maternal obesity extends beyond birth, being independently associated with an increased risk of child obesity. Current evidence demonstrates that women provided with a dietary intervention during pregnancy improve their dietary quality and have a modest reduction in gestational weight gain. However, the effect of this on longer-term childhood obesity-related outcomes is unknown. METHODS: We conducted an individual participant data meta-analysis from RCTs in which women with a singleton, live gestation between 10+0 and 20+0 weeks and body mass index (BMI) ≥ 25 kg/m2 in early pregnancy were randomised to a diet and/or lifestyle intervention or continued standard antenatal care and in which longer-term maternal and child follow-up at 3-5 years of age had been undertaken. The primary childhood outcome was BMI z-score above the 90th percentile. Secondary childhood outcomes included skinfold thickness measurements and body circumferences, fat-free mass, dietary and physical activity patterns, blood pressure, and neurodevelopment. RESULTS: Seven primary trials where follow-up of participants occurred were identified by a systematic literature search within the International Weight Management in Pregnancy (i-WIP) Collaborative Group collaboration, with six providing individual participant data. No additional studies were identified after a systematic literature search. A total of 2529 children and 2383 women contributed data. Approximately 30% of all child participants had a BMI z-score above the 90th percentile, with no significant difference between the intervention and control groups (aRR 0.97; 95% CI 0.87, 1.08; p=0.610). There were no statistically significant differences identified for any of the secondary outcome measures. CONCLUSIONS: In overweight and obese pregnant women, we found no evidence that maternal dietary and/or lifestyle intervention during pregnancy modifies the risk of early childhood obesity. Future research may need to target the pre-conception period in women and early childhood interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO, CRD42016047165.

Effects of an antenatal dietary intervention in women with obesity or overweight on child outcomes at 3-5 years of age: LIMIT randomised trial follow-up.

While the effects of an antenatal dietary intervention for women with obesity or overweight on pregnancy and newborn health have been extensively studied, the longer-term effects into childhood are unknown. We followed children born to women who participated in the LIMIT randomised trial, where pregnant women were randomised to an antenatal dietary and lifestyle intervention or standard antenatal care. Our aim was to assess the effect of the intervention, on child outcomes at 3-5 years of age on children whose mothers provided consent. We assessed 1418 (Lifestyle Advice n = 727; Standard Care n = 691) (66.9%) of the 2121 eligible children. There were no statistically significant differences in the incidence of child BMI z-score >85th centile for children born to women in the Lifestyle Advice Group, compared with the Standard Care group (Lifestyle Advice 444 (41.73%) versus Standard Care 417 (39.51%); adjusted relative risk (aRR) 1.05; 95% confidence intervals 0.93-1.19; p = 0.42). There were no significant effects on measures of child growth, adiposity, neurodevelopment, or dietary intake. There is no evidence that an antenatal dietary intervention altered child growth and adiposity at age 3-5 years. This cohort of children remains at high risk of obesity, and warrants ongoing follow-up.

Effect of metformin in addition to an antenatal diet and lifestyle intervention on fetal growth and adiposity: the GRoW randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: The infants born to women who are overweight or obese in pregnancy are at an increased risk of being born macrosomic or large for gestational age. Antenatal dietary and lifestyle interventions have been shown to be ineffective at reducing this risk. Our aim was to examine the effects of metformin in addition to a diet and lifestyle intervention on fetal growth and adiposity among women with a BMI above the healthy range. METHODS: Women who had a body mass index ≥25 kg/m2 in early pregnancy, and a singleton gestation, were enrolled in the GRoW trial from three public maternity hospitals in metropolitan Adelaide. Women were invited to have a research ultrasounds at 28 and 36 weeks' gestation at which ultrasound measures of fetal biometry and adiposity were obtained. Fetal biometry z-scores and trajectories were calculated. Measurements and calculations were compared between treatment groups. This secondary analysis was pre-specified. RESULTS: Ultrasound data from 511 women were included in this analysis. The difference in femur length at 36 weeks' gestation was (0.07 cm, 95% CI 0.01-0.14 cm, p = 0.019) and this was was statistically significant, however the magnitude of effect was small. Differences between treatment groups for all other fetal biometry measures, z-scores, estimated fetal weight, and adiposity measures at 28 and 36 weeks' gestation were similar. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of metformin to dietary and lifestyle advice in pregnancy for overweight and obese women has no clinically relevant effect on ultrasound measures of fetal biometry or adiposity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ( ACTRN12612001277831 ).

Relief of pain due to uterine cramping/involution after birth.

BACKGROUND: Women may experience differing types of pain and discomfort following birth, including cramping pain (often called after-birth pain) associated with uterine involution, where the uterus contracts to reduce blood loss and return the uterus to its non-pregnant size. This is an update of a review first published in 2011. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of pharmacological and non-pharmacological pain relief/analgesia for the relief of after-birth pains following vaginal birth. SEARCH METHODS: For this update, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (31 October 2019), and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing two different types of analgesia or analgesia versus placebo or analgesia versus no treatment, for the relief of after-birth pains following vaginal birth. Types of analgesia included pharmacological and non-pharmacological. Quasi-randomised trials were not eligible for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, conducted 'Risk of bias' assessment, extracted data and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: In this update, we include 28 studies (involving 2749 women). The evidence identified in this review comes from middle- to high-income countries. Generally the trials were at low risk of selection bias, performance bias and attrition bias, but some trials were at high risk of bias due to selective reporting and lack of blinding. Our GRADE certainty of evidence assessments ranged from moderate to very low certainty, with downgrading decisions based on study limitations, imprecision, and (for one comparison) indirectness. Most studies reported our primary outcome of adequate pain relief as reported by the women. No studies reported data relating to neonatal adverse events, duration of hospital stay, or breastfeeding rates. Almost half of the included studies (11/28) excluded breastfeeding women from participating, making the evidence less generalisable to a broader group of women. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) compared to placebo NSAIDs are probably better than placebo for adequate pain relief as reported by the women (risk ratio (RR) 1.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.45 to 1.91; 11 studies, 946 women; moderate-certainty evidence). NSAIDs may reduce the need for additional pain relief compared to placebo (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.33; 4 studies, 375 women; low-certainty evidence). There may be a similar risk of maternal adverse events (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.41; 9 studies, 598 women; low-certainty evidence). NSAIDs compared to opioids NSAIDs are probably better than opioids for adequate pain relief as reported by the women (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.57; 5 studies, 560 women; moderate-certainty evidence) and may reduce the risk of maternal adverse events (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.89; 3 studies, 255 women; low-certainty evidence). NSAIDs may be better than opioids for the need for additional pain relief, but the wide CIs include the possibility that the two classes of drugs are similarly effective or that opioids are better (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.12; 2 studies, 232 women; low-certainty evidence). Opioids compared to placebo Opioids may be better than placebo for adequate pain relief as reported by the women (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.61; 5 studies, 299 women; low-certainty evidence). Opioids may reduce the need for additional pain relief compared to placebo (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.82; 3 studies, 273 women; low-certainty evidence). Opioids may increase the risk of maternal adverse events compared with placebo, although the certainty of evidence is low (RR 1.59, 95% CI 0.99 to 2.55; 3 studies, 188 women; low-certainty evidence). Paracetamol compared to placebo Very low-certainty evidence means we are uncertain if paracetamol is better than placebo for adequate pain relief as reported by the women, the need for additional pain relief, or risk of maternal adverse events (2 studies, 123 women). Paracetamol compared to NSAIDs Very low-certainty evidence means we are uncertain if there are any differences between paracetamol and NSAIDs for adequate pain relief as reported by the women, or the risk of maternal adverse events. No data were reported about the need for additional pain relief comparing paracetamol and NSAIDs (2 studies, 112 women). NSAIDs compared to herbal analgesia We are uncertain if there are any differences between NSAIDs and herbal analgesia for adequate pain relief as reported by the women, the need for additional pain relief, or risk of maternal adverse events, because the certainty of evidence is very low (4 studies, 394 women). Transcutaneous nerve stimulation (TENS) compared to no TENS Very low-certainty evidence means we are uncertain if TENS is better than no TENS for adequate pain relief as reported by the women. No other data were reported comparing TENS with no TENS (1 study, 32 women). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: NSAIDs may be better than placebo and are probably better than opioids at relieving pain from uterine cramping/involution following vaginal birth. NSAIDs and paracetamol may be as effective as each other, whereas opioids may be more effective than placebo. Due to low-certainty evidence, we are uncertain about the effectiveness of other forms of pain relief. Future trials should recruit adequate numbers of women and ensure greater generalisability by including breastfeeding women. In addition, further research is required, including a survey of postpartum women to describe appropriately their experience of uterine cramping and involution. We identified nine ongoing studies, which may help to increase the level of certainty of the evidence around pain relief due to uterine cramping in future updates of this review.

Skin and subcutaneous fascia closure at caesarean section to reduce wound complications: the closure randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Wound infection is a common complication following caesarean section. Factors influencing the risk of infection may include the suture material for skin closure, and closure of the subcutaneous fascia. We assessed the effect of skin closure with absorbable versus non-absorbable suture, and closure versus non-closure of the subcutaneous fascia on risk of wound infection following Caesarean section. METHODS: Women undergoing caesarean birth at an Adelaide maternity hospital were eligible for recruitment to a randomised trial using a 2 × 2 factorial design. Women were randomised to either closure or non-closure of the subcutaneous fascia and to subcuticular skin closure with an absorbable or non-absorbable suture. Participants were randomised to each of the two interventions into one of 4 possible groups: Group 1 - non-absorbable skin suture and non-closure of the subcutaneous fascia; Group 2 - absorbable skin suture and non-closure of the subcutaneous fascia; Group 3 - non-absorbable skin suture and closure of the subcutaneous fascia; and Group 4 - absorbable skin suture and closure of the subcutaneous fascia. The primary outcomes were reported wound infection and wound haematoma or seroma within the first 30 days after birth. RESULTS: A total of 851 women were recruited and randomised, with 849 women included in the analyses (Group 1: 216 women; Group 2: 212 women; Group 3: 212 women; Group 4: 211 women). In women who underwent fascia closure, there was a statistically significant increase in risk of wound infection within 30 days post-operatively for those who had skin closure with an absorbable suture (Group 4), compared with women who had skin closure with a non-absorbable suture (Group 3) (adjusted RR 2.17; 95% CI 1.05, 4.45; p = 0.035). There was no significant difference in risk of wound infection for absorbable vs non-absorbable sutures in women who did not undergo fascia closure. CONCLUSION: The combination of subcutaneous fascia closure and skin closure with an absorbable suture may be associated with an increased risk of reported wound infection after caesarean section. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Prospectively registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, number ACTRN12608000143325 , on the 20th March, 2008.

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. Since publication of this new review in Issue 10, 2017, we have now moved one study (El-Refaie 2016) from included to studies awaiting classification, pending clarification about the study data. 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 16 trials, which all compared either vaginal or intramuscular (IM) progesterone with a placebo or no treatment, and involved a total of 4548 women. The risk of bias for the majority of included studies was low, with the exception of three 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 placebo More 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 dose There were no clear group differences in incidence of preterm birth before 34 weeks (average RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.23; women = 1503; studies = 5; I2 = 36%; 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 1.53, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.97; women = 1345; studies = 3; low-quality evidence); infant birthweight less than 2500 g (average RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.07; infants = 2640; studies = 3; I2 = 66%, 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 (8%) (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.86 to 0.98; women = 1919; studies = 5; 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 0.70, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.94; infants = 2695; studies = 4). 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).

Nutrition During Pregnancy, Lactation and Early Childhood and its Implications for Maternal and Long-Term Child Health: The Early Nutrition Project Recommendations.

BACKGROUND: A considerable body of evidence accumulated especially during the last decade, demonstrating that early nutrition and lifestyle have long-term effects on later health and disease ("developmental or metabolic programming"). METHODS: Researchers involved in the European Union funded international EarlyNutrition research project consolidated the scientific evidence base and existing recommendations to formulate consensus recommendations on nutrition and lifestyle before and during pregnancy, during infancy and early childhood that take long-term health impact into account. Systematic reviews were performed on published dietary guidelines, standards and recommendations, with special attention to long-term health consequences. In addition, systematic reviews of published systematic reviews on nutritional interventions or exposures in pregnancy and in infants and young children aged up to 3 years that describe effects on subsequent overweight, obesity and body composition were performed. Experts developed consensus recommendations incorporating the wide-ranging expertise from additional 33 stakeholders. FINDINGS: Most current recommendations for pregnant women, particularly obese women, and for young children do not take long-term health consequences of early nutrition into account, although the available evidence for relevant consequences of lifestyle, diet and growth patterns in early life on later health and disease risk is strong. INTERPRETATION: We present updated recommendations for optimized nutrition before and during pregnancy, during lactation, infancy and toddlerhood, with special reference to later health outcomes. These recommendations are developed for affluent populations, such as women and children in Europe, and should contribute to the primary prevention of obesity and associated non-communicable diseases.

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).

Metformin for women who are overweight or obese during pregnancy for improving maternal and infant outcomes.

BACKGROUND: There has been considerable interest in providing antenatal dietary and lifestyle advice for women with obesity or who are overweight during pregnancy, as a strategy to limit gestational weight gain and improve maternal and infant health. However, such antenatal interventions appear to have a modest effect on gestational weight gain and other clinical pregnancy and birth outcomes and additional strategies are required.Metformin is an oral insulin-sensitising medication that acts to decrease blood glucose concentrations. Metformin is commonly used in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus and polycystic ovarian syndrome, and is being used increasingly in the treatment of gestational diabetes, having been shown to result in decreased rates of caesarean birth and neonatal hypoglycaemia. Metformin may be an adjuvant therapy to current antenatal strategies in pregnant women with obesity or who are overweight, acting to reduce glucose production in the liver and improve glucose uptake in smooth muscle cells, and therefore improve the overall metabolic health of women in pregnancy and reduce the risk of known adverse pregnancy outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the role of metformin in pregnant women with obesity or who are overweight, on maternal and infant outcomes, including adverse effects of treatment and costs. SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (11 October 2017), and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: All published and unpublished randomised controlled trials evaluating metformin use (compared with placebo or no metformin) in women with obesity or who are overweight in pregnancy for improving outcomes, alone or in combination with other interventions were eligible for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included three studies which randomised women (1099) with a body mass index (BMI) of 30 kg/m2 (1 study) and 35 kg/m2 (2 studies), with outcomes available for 1034 participants. None of the studies assessed women with a BMI between 25 kg/m2and 29.9 kg/m2, therefore we could not assess the use of metformin in women considered overweight. We did not identify studies of metformin in combination with another treatment. Two other studies are ongoing.All three included studies were randomised controlled trials and compared metformin with placebo, commencing early in the second trimester. Doses ranged from 500 mg twice daily to 3.0 g per day. All three studies (two in the UK, one in Egypt) included women attending hospitals for antenatal care.Two studies were generally at a low risk of bias across the majority of domains. We assessed the third study as being at an unclear risk of selection bias, performance and detection bias due to insufficient information in the report. We assessed the trial as being at a low risk of attrition bias and other bias; we felt it was at a high risk of reporting bias.The primary outcome for this review was infant birthweight large-for-gestational-age (> 90th centile for gestational age and infant sex). Women who received metformin or placebo had a similar risk of their baby being born large for his or her gestational age (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70 to 1.30; 2 studies, 831 infants; high-quality evidence).Women who received metformin may have a slightly lower gestational weight gain (mean difference (MD) -2.60 kg, 95% CI -5.29 to 0.10; 3 studies, 899 women; low-quality evidence).Metformin may make little or no difference in the risk of women developing gestational hypertension (average RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.94; 3 studies, 1040 women; low-quality evidence) or pre-eclampsia (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.09 to 6.28; 2 studies, 840 women; low-quality evidence). Metformin probably makes little or no difference in the risk of women developing gestational diabetes (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.19; 3 studies, 892 women; moderate-quality evidence).One study of 400 women reported women receiving metformin were more likely to experience any adverse effect compared with women receiving placebo (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.27 to 2.08; 1 study, 400 women). Adverse effects included abdominal pain, diarrhoea, or headache. When considering individual side effects, women receiving metformin were more likely to experience diarrhoea than women receiving placebo (RR 2.34, 95% CI 1.74 to 3.14; 797 women; 2 studies, 797 women; high-quality evidence). No other important differences were identified between Metformin and placebo for other maternal secondary outcomes, including: caesarean birth, birth before 37 weeks of pregnancy, shoulder dystocia, perineal tear, or postpartum haemorrhage.In terms of other infant outcomes, there was little or no difference in the infant birthweight (MD 6.39 g, 95% CI -81.15 to 93.92; 2 studies, 834 infants; high-quality evidence). There were no other important differences identified for other infant secondary outcomes in this review: hypoglycaemia (low blood sugar); hyperbilirubinaemia (jaundice); Apgar score less than 7 at five minutes; or stillbirth and neonatal death. Only one study reported admission to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), indicating similar rates of admission between women receiving metformin or placebo; no other admission data were reported to assess differences in costs. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to support the use of metformin for women with obesity in pregnancy for improving maternal and infant outcomes. Metformin was, however, associated with increased risk of adverse effects, particularly diarrhoea. The quality of the evidence in this review varied from high to low, with downgrading decisions based on study limitations and inconsistency.There were only a small number of studies included in this review. Furthermore, none of the included studies included women categorised as 'overweight' and no trials looked at metformin in combination with another treatment.Future research is required in order to further evaluate the role of metformin therapy in pregnant women with obesity or who are overweight, as a strategy to improve maternal and infant health, alone or as an adjuvant to dietary and lifestyle advice.

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 effect of an antenatal lifestyle intervention in overweight and obese women on circulating cardiometabolic and inflammatory biomarkers: secondary analyses from the LIMIT randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Maternal overweight and obesity during pregnancy is associated with insulin resistance, hyperglycaemia, hyperlipidaemia and a low-grade state of chronic inflammation. The aim of this pre-specified analysis of secondary outcome measures was to evaluate the effect of providing antenatal dietary and lifestyle advice on cardiometabolic and inflammatory biomarkers. METHODS: We conducted a multicentre trial in which pregnant women who were overweight or obese were randomised to receive either Lifestyle Advice or Standard Care. We report a range of pre-specified secondary maternal and newborn cardiometabolic and inflammatory biomarker outcomes. Maternal whole venous blood was collected at trial entry (mean 14 weeks gestation; non-fasting), at 28 weeks gestation (fasting), and at 36 weeks gestation (non-fasting). Cord blood was collected after birth and prior to the delivery of the placenta. A range of cardiometabolic and inflammatory markers were analysed (total cholesterol, triglycerides, non-esterified fatty acids, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, insulin, glucose, leptin, adiponectin, C-reactive protein, granulocyte macrophage-colony stimulating factor, interferon gamma, TNF-α, and interleukins 1ß, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 10). Participants were analysed in the groups to which they were randomised, and were included in the analyses if they had a measure at any time point. RESULTS: One or more biological specimens were available from 1951 women (989 Lifestyle Advice and 962 Standard Care), with cord blood from 1174 infants (596 Lifestyle Advice and 578 Standard Care). There were no statistically significant differences in mean cardiometabolic and inflammatory marker concentrations across pregnancy and in infant cord blood between treatment groups. Estimated treatment group differences were close to zero, with 95% confidence intervals spanning a range of differences that were short of clinical relevance. There was no evidence to suggest that the intervention effect was modified by maternal BMI category. CONCLUSIONS: Despite our findings, it will be worth considering potential relationships between cardiometabolic and inflammatory markers and clinical outcomes, including longer-term infant health and adiposity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ( ACTRN12607000161426 ; Date Registered 09/03/2007).

Elective repeat caesarean section versus induction of labour for women with a previous caesarean birth.

BACKGROUND: When a woman has had a previous caesarean birth and requires induction of labour for a subsequent pregnancy, two options are available for her care: an elective repeat caesarean and planned induction of labour. Although risks and benefits are associated with both elective repeat caesarean birth and planned induction of labour, current sources of information are limited to non-randomised cohort studies, and studies designed in this way have significant potential for bias. Consequently, any conclusions based on results of these studies are limited in their reliability and should be interpreted with caution. OBJECTIVES: To assess, using the best available evidence, the benefits and harms of a policy of planned elective repeat caesarean section versus a policy of induction of labour for women with a previous caesarean birth who require induction of labour for a subsequent pregnancy. Primary outcomes include success of induction of labour, need for caesarean section, maternal and neonatal mortality, and maternal and neonatal morbidity. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Trials Register (31 May 2017) and planned to search reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials with reported data on comparison of outcomes in mothers and babies between women who planned an elective repeat caesarean section and women who planned induction of labour when a previous birth was performed by caesarean. Cluster trials and quasi-randomised trials were also eligible for inclusion. We would consider trials published only as abstracts if they provided enough information to meet review inclusion criteria. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We performed no data extraction. For future updates, if randomised controlled trials are identified, two review authors will independently assess trials for inclusion and risk of bias, and will extract data and check extracted data for accuracy. Review authors will assess the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: Review authors identified no randomised controlled trials. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Both planned elective repeat caesarean section and planned induction of labour for women with a prior caesarean birth are associated with benefits and harms. Evidence for these care practices has been drawn from non-randomised studies, which are associated with potential bias. Therefore, any results and conclusions presented must be interpreted with caution. Randomised controlled trials are required to provide the most reliable evidence regarding the benefits and harms of both planned elective repeat caesarean section and planned induction of labour for women with a previous caesarean birth.

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).

Metformin and dietary advice to improve insulin sensitivity and promote gestational restriction of weight among pregnant women who are overweight or obese: the GRoW Randomised Trial.

BACKGROUND: Obesity is a significant global health problem, with approximately 50% of women entering pregnancy having a body mass index greater than or equal to 25 kg/m2. Obesity during pregnancy is associated with a well-recognised increased risk of adverse health outcomes both for the woman and her infant. Currently available data from large scale randomised trials and systematic reviews highlight only modest effects of antenatal dietary and lifestyle interventions in limiting gestational weight gain, with little impact on clinically relevant pregnancy outcomes. Further information evaluating alternative strategies is required. The aims of this randomised controlled trial are to assess whether the use of metformin as an adjunct therapy to dietary and lifestyle advice for overweight and obese women during pregnancy is effective in improving maternal, fetal and infant health outcomes. METHODS: Design: Multicentre randomised, controlled trial. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Women with a singleton, live gestation between 10+0-20+0 weeks who are obese or overweight (defined as body mass index greater than or equal to 25 kg/m2), at the first antenatal visit. Trial Entry & Randomisation: Eligible, consenting women will be randomised between 10+0 and 20+0 weeks gestation using an online computer randomisation system, and randomisation schedule prepared by non-clinical research staff with balanced variable blocks. Stratification will be according to maternal BMI at trial entry, parity, and centre where planned to give birth. Treatment Schedules: Women randomised to the Metformin Group will receive a supply of 500 mg oral metformin tablets. Women randomised to the Placebo Group will receive a supply of identical appearing and tasting placebo tablets. Women will be instructed to commence taking one tablet daily for a period of one week, increasing to a maximum of two tablets twice daily over four weeks and then continuing until birth. Women, clinicians, researchers and outcome assessors will be blinded to the allocated treatment group. All women will receive three face-to-face sessions (two with a research dietitian and one with a trained research assistant), and three telephone calls over the course of their pregnancy, in which they will be provided with dietary and lifestyle advice, and encouraged to make change utilising a SMART goals approach. Primary Study Outcome: infant birth weight >4000 grams. SAMPLE SIZE: 524 women to detect a difference from 15.5% to 7.35% reduction in infants with birth weight >4000 grams (p = 0.05, 80% power, two-tailed). DISCUSSION: This is a protocol for a randomised trial. The findings will contribute to the development of evidence based clinical practice guidelines. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12612001277831 , prospectively registered 10th of December, 2012.

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.

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.