Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

The effects of antenatal dietary and lifestyle advice for women who are overweight or obese on neonatal health outcomes: the LIMIT randomised trial

  • Jodie M Dodd1, 2Email author,
  • Andrew J McPhee3,
  • Deborah Turnbull4,
  • Lisa N Yelland1, 5, 6,
  • Andrea R Deussen1,
  • Rosalie M Grivell1, 2,
  • Caroline A Crowther1, 8,
  • Gary Wittert7,
  • Julie A Owens1,
  • Jeffrey S Robinson1 and
  • For the LIMIT Randomised Trial Group
BMC Medicine201412:163

DOI: 10.1186/s12916-014-0163-9

Received: 18 July 2014

Accepted: 27 August 2014

Published: 13 October 2014

Abstract

Background

Overweight and obesity during pregnancy represents a considerable health burden. While research has focused on interventions to limit gestational weight gain, there is little information describing their impact on neonatal health. Our aim was to investigate the effect on a range of pre-specified secondary neonatal outcomes of providing antenatal dietary and lifestyle advice to women who are overweight or obese.

Methods

We report a range of pre-specified secondary neonatal outcomes from a large randomised trial in which antenatal dietary and lifestyle advice was provided to women who were overweight or obese. Pregnant women were eligible for participation with a body mass index of 25 kg/m2 or over, and singleton gestation between 10+0 and 20+0 weeks. Outcome measures included gestational age at birth; Apgar score below 7 at 5 minutes of age; need for resuscitation at birth; birth weight above 4.5 kg or below 2.5 kg; birth weight, length and head circumference (and Z-scores); admission to the nursery; respiratory distress syndrome; and postnatal length of stay. Data relating to the primary outcome (large for gestational age infants defined as birth weight above the 90th centile) and birth weight above 4 kg have been reported previously. Analyses used intention-to-treat principles.

Results

In total, 2,142 infants were included in the analyses. Infants born to women following lifestyle advice were significantly less likely to have birth weight above 4.5 kg (2.15% versus 3.69%; adjusted risk ratio (aRR) = 0.59; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36 to 0.98; P = 0.04), or respiratory distress syndrome (1.22% versus 2.57%; aRR = 0.47; 95% CI 0.24 to 0.90; P = 0.02), particularly moderate or severe disease, and had a shorter length of postnatal hospital stay (3.94 ± 7.26 days versus 4.41 ± 9.87 days; adjusted ratio of means 0.89; 95% CI 0.82 to 0.97; P = 0.006) compared with infants born to women who received Standard Care.

Conclusions

For women who are overweight or obese, antenatal dietary and lifestyle advice has health benefits for infants, without an increase in the risk of harm. Continued follow-up into childhood will be important to assess the longer-term effects of a reduction in high infant birth weight on risk of child obesity.

Please see related articles: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/12/161 and http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/12/201.

Clinical trial registration

Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (http://ACTRN12607000161426)

Keywords

Pregnancy Overweight and obesity Neonatal health Randomised trial Dietary and lifestyle intervention

Background

Globally, it is estimated that 170 million children under the age of 18 years [1], are overweight or obese. Obesity is occurring at an increasingly early age, affecting more than 43 million children aged 0 to 5 years world-wide [2], and 21% of Australian children 2 to 3 years of age [3]. The World Health Organization has described childhood obesity as “one of the most serious public health challenges of the 21st century”, [4] with obese children exposed to its consequences, including disease progression and disability, earlier and for longer duration.

The economic costs of childhood obesity are profound [5]. Australian data indicate that children who are overweight or obese at 5 years of age have medical costs within the first 5 years of school that are $9.8 million higher than those of children of normal body mass index (BMI) [6]. Data from the USA indicate that childhood overweight and obesity are associated with an additional cost of $14.1 billion annually, reflecting prescription drugs and emergency and outpatient attendances [7], with a further $238 million annually reflecting inpatient admissions [8]. The direct medical costs, in both childhood and adulthood, directly attributable to high childhood BMI have been conservatively estimated to be $6.24 billion, with over 2 million quality adjusted life years lost [5].

The intra-uterine environment is recognised as playing a key role in the development of later health and disease [9], representing a crucial period in the subsequent programming of obesity. Both high maternal BMI and excessive gestational weight gain have been consistently associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes [10]-[13], and are significant predictors of increased adiposity and future child/adult obesity [14]-[17], with some studies also finding consequent associations with cardiometabolic risk factors, including higher blood pressure [18],[19]. The antenatal period therefore represents a unique window in which intervention designed to alter maternal diet and weight gain may significantly influence infant adiposity, and modify future risk of both child and adulthood obesity.

Although there is considerable research focused on the effects of dietary and lifestyle interventions to limit gestational weight gain by pregnant women who are overweight or obese, their effect on neonatal outcomes has been poorly reported in the literature to date [20]-[22]. In the few studies specifically involving women who are overweight or obese where birth outcomes have been reported, the predominant focus has been on infant birth weight, with no reporting of other relevant clinical infant outcomes [20]-[22]. We report the findings of the LIMIT randomised trial, evaluating the provision of antenatal dietary and lifestyle advice to women who were overweight or obese on a range of pre-specified secondary neonatal health outcomes.

Methods

Ethics

Ethics approval was granted by the Women’s and Children’s Local Health Network Human Research and Ethics Committee at the Women’s and Children’s Hospital, the Central Northern Adelaide Health Service Ethics of Human Research Committee (Lyell McEwin Hospital) and the Flinders Clinical Research Ethics Committee (Flinders Medical Centre). Approval to conduct the trial was provided by the Human Research and Ethics Committee at each participating centre, and all participants provided written informed consent.

Study design

We conducted a multicentre randomised trial across the three major metropolitan maternity hospitals within Adelaide, South Australia. The methods [23] and primary findings [24] of the LIMIT randomised trial have been reported previously, and the trial has been registered on the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12607000161426). Additional clinical neonatal outcomes were added to the final working protocol, reflecting piloting of data collection processes. These amendments were pre-specified in the final working protocol, early in the conduct of the trial, and prior to any analyses being undertaken.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Women with a BMI of 25 kg/m2 or greater and singleton pregnancy between 10+0 and 20+0 weeks gestation were eligible to participate in the trial. Women with a multiple pregnancy, or type 1 or 2 diabetes diagnosed prior to pregnancy were ineligible.

Trial entry

All women had their height and weight measured and their BMI calculated at their first antenatal appointment, and eligible women were counselled about participation.

Randomisation, masking and group allocation

Randomisation occurred by telephoning the central randomisation service, using a computer-generated schedule, with balanced variable blocks, and stratification for parity (0 versus ≥1), BMI at antenatal booking (25 to 29.9 kg/m2 versus ≥30 kg/m2), and collaborating centre. Women were randomised and allocated to either `Lifestyle Advice’ or `Standard Care’.

Intervention

Lifestyle advice group

Women randomised to receive Lifestyle Advice participated in a comprehensive dietary and lifestyle intervention over the course of their pregnancy, which included a combination of dietary, exercise and behavioural strategies, delivered by a research dietician and trained research assistants [23]. Women were provided with dietary advice consistent with current Australian standards [25]; to maintain a balance of carbohydrates, fat and protein, to reduce intake of foods high in refined carbohydrates and saturated fats, while increasing intake of fibre, and to promote consumption of two servings of fruit, five servings of vegetables, and three servings of dairy each day [25]. Physical activity advice primarily encouraged women to increase their amount of walking and incidental activity [26]. The content and structure of the intervention sessions has been described in detail previously [24].

Standard care group

Women randomised to receive Standard Care continued their pregnancy care according to local hospital guidelines, which did not include routine provision of advice related to diet, exercise or gestational weight gain.

Study outcomes

In clinical practice, there is considerable variation in definitions of `large for gestational age’, including birth weight at or above the 90th centile for gestational age and infant sex, birth weight above 4 kg, and birth weight above 4.5 kg, which are often used interchangeably. These have been recognised as associated with early childhood obesity [18],[27], and were chosen as outcome measures in the LIMIT randomised trial. The incidence of infants born large for gestational age (birth weight ≥90th centile for gestational age and infant sex; primary outcome), and with birth weight above 4 kg have been reported previously [24]. Pre-specified secondary neonatal outcomes included gestational age at birth; Apgar score of 7 or above at 5 minutes of age; need for resuscitation at birth; birth weight above 4.5 kg or below 2.5 kg; birth weight (and Z-scores); birth length (and Z-scores); head circumference (and Z-scores); admission to neonatal intensive care unit; admission to special care baby unit; respiratory distress syndrome [28] (with moderate or severe disease defined as mean airway pressure >10 cm H2O and/or inspired oxygen fraction (FiO2) >0.80 with ventilation); proven systemic infection requiring treatment; retinopathy of prematurity; necrotising enterocolitis; neonatal encephalopathy [29]; seizures; and postnatal length of stay.

Ponderal Index was calculated using birth weight and length (kg/m3). Predicted fat free mass was calculated using the following formula:
0.507 + 0.646 weight kg - 0.089 sex + 0.009 length cm ,

where 1 = male and 2 = female [30].

Analysis and reporting of results

Analyses were performed on an intention-to-treat basis, according to the treatment group allocated at randomisation. Multiple imputation was performed separately by treatment group, using chained equations to create 100 complete datasets for analysis. Women who withdrew consent to use their data, or had a miscarriage, termination of pregnancy, or stillbirth, were excluded from the imputation and analysis. Sensitivity analyses were performed using the available data and different imputation models. Binary outcomes were analysed using log binomial regression, with treatment effects expressed as relative risk (RR), or Fisher's exact test with no imputation for rare outcomes. Continuous outcomes were analysed using linear regression, with treatment effects expressed as differences in means. Count outcomes were analysed using Poisson regression, or using negative binomial regression where over-dispersion was present, with treatment effects expressed as ratios of means.

Both unadjusted and adjusted analyses were performed, with adjustment for the stratification variables. Outcomes derived from birth weight were additionally adjusted for maternal age, socioeconomic status and maternal smoking. Statistical significance was considered at P < 0.05 (two-sided) with no adjustment for multiple comparisons. All analyses followed a pre-specified statistical analysis plan and were performed using SAS software (v9.3; SAS Inc., Cary, NC, USA).

Sample size

Our predetermined sample size of 2,180 women was based on our primary trial outcome, the incidence of large for gestational age infants [24].

Results

Between June 2008 and December 2011, we recruited and randomised 2,212 women, with 1,108 allocated to receive Lifestyle Advice, and 1,104 Standard Care (Figure 1). There was a total of 2,142 live-born infants included in the analyses (1,075 Lifestyle Advice; 1,067 Standard Care). The characteristics of women at the time of randomisation were similar between treatment groups (Table 1).
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2Fs12916-014-0163-9/MediaObjects/12916_2014_Article_163_Fig1_HTML.jpg
Figure 1

Flow of participants through the trial.

Table 1

Demographic and clinical characteristics at trial entry (baseline)

Characteristic

Lifestyle advice (n = 1105a)

Standard care (n = 1097a)

Total (n = 2202a)

Maternal age, yearsb

29.3 ± 5.4

29.6 ± 5.6

29.4 ± 5.5

Gestational age at entry, weeksc

14.0 (11.9 to 17.0)

14.1 (11.9 to 17.0)

14.1 (11.9 to 17.0)

Body mass index, kg/m2c

31.0 (28.1 to 35.9)

31.1 (27.7 to 35.6)

31.1 (27.9 to 35.8)

Body mass index categoryd

   

 25.0 to 29.9

458 (41.4)

468 (42.7)

926 (42.1)

 30.0 to 34.9

326 (29.5)

318 (29.0)

644 (29.2)

 35.0 to 39.9

202 (18.3)

183 (16.7)

385 (17.5)

 ≥40.0

119 (10.8)

128 (11.7)

247 (11.2)

Public patientc

1081 (97.8)

1067 (97.3)

2148 (97.5)

Weight, kgb

88.6 ± 17.3

88.2 ± 17.6

88.4 ± 17.4

Height, cmb

164.9 ± 16.6

164.8 ± 16.5

164.8 ± 16.6

Racec

   

 Caucasian

995 (90.0)

998 (91.0)

1993 (90.5)

 Asian

26 (2.4)

34 (3.1)

60 (2.7)

 Indian

40 (3.6)

35 (3.2)

75 (3.4)

 Other

44 (4.0)

30 (2.7)

74 (3.4)

Smokerc

154 (13.9)

126 (11.5)

280 (12.7)

Nulliparousc

457 (41.4)

441 (40.2)

898 (40.8)

Previous preterm birthc

57 (5.2)

59 (5.4)

116 (5.3)

Previous pre-eclampsiac

46 (4.2)

51 (4.6)

97 (4.4)

Previous stillbirthc

13 (1.2)

6 (0.5)

19 (0.9)

Previous neonatal deathc

11 (1.0)

7 (0.6)

18 (0.8)

Previous caesarean sectionc

197 (17.8)

214 (19.5)

411 (18.7)

Family history of diabetesc

288 (26.1)

290 (26.4)

578 (26.2)

Family history of hypertensionc

389 (35.2)

369 (33.6)

758 (34.4)

Family history of heart diseasec

187 (16.9)

179 (16.3)

366 (16.6)

Index of socio-economic disadvantagee

   

 Unknown

2 (0.2)

1 (0.1)

3 (0.1)

 Quintile 1, (most disadvantaged)

340 (30.8)

321 (29.3)

661 (30.0)

 Quintile 2

271 (24.5)

264 (24.1)

535 (24.3)

 Quintile 3

173 (15.7)

174 (15.9)

347 (15.8)

 Quintile 4

150 (13.6)

178 (16.2)

328 (14.9)

 Quintile 5, (least disadvantaged)

169 (15.3)

159 (14.5)

328 (14.9)

aIncludes all women randomised who did not withdraw consent to use their data.

bMean ± standard deviation.

cMedian (interquartile range).

dn (%).

eSocioeconomic index as measured by SEIFA (socioeconomic indexes for areas [31]).

There were no statistically significant differences identified between the two treatment groups with regards to gestational age at birth (Lifestyle Advice 39.29 ± 1.74 weeks versus Standard Care 39.23 ± 2.07 weeks; adjusted difference in means 0.07; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.10 to 0.23; P = 0.42) (Table 2). However, infants born to women allocated to Lifestyle Advice were less likely to weigh above 4.5 kg (Lifestyle Advice 2.15% versus Standard Care 3.69%; adjusted risk ratio (aRR) = 0.59; 95% CI 0.36 to 0.98; number needed to treat (NNT) = 66; 95% CI 34 to 950; P = 0.04), compared with infants born to women allocated to Standard Care. This finding is consistent with our previous report of a significant 18% RR reduction in birth weight above 4 kg [24]. Furthermore, infants born to women allocated to Lifestyle Advice were shorter (birth length z-score -0,26 ± 0,76 versus -0,18 ± 0,80; adjusted difference in means -0,07; 95% CI -0,14 to -0,01; P = 0,04) than infants born to women allocated to Standard Care.
Table 2

Infant outcomes by treatment group

Outcome

Lifestyle advice (n = 1075a)

Standard care (n = 1067a)

Unadjusted

Adjusted

   

Treatment effect (95% CI)

P-value

Treatment effect (95% CI)

P-value

GA at birth, weeksb

39.29 ± 1.74

39.23 ± 2.07

0.06 (-0.10 to 0.23)

0.44

0.07 (-0.10 to 0.23)

0.42

Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes

22 (2.07)

22 (2.09)

0.99 (0.55 to 1.78)

0.98

0.99 (0.55 to 1.77)

0.97

Resuscitation required at birth

196 (18.23)

191 (17.89)

1.02 (0.85 to 1.22)

0.84

1.01 (0.85 to 1.21)

0.88

Birth weight, gb

3481 ± 554

3492 ± 613

-11.55 (-61.13 to 38.03)

0.65

-6.90 (-55.47 to 41.67)

0.78

Birth weight Z-scoreb

0.37 ± 1.03

0.43 ± 1.09

-0.06 (-0.15 to 0.03)

0.18

-0.05 (-0.14 to 0.03)

0.23

Birth length, cmb

49.84 ± 2.42

49.92 ± 2.84

-0.08 (-0.31 to 0.14)

0.48

-0.08 (-0.30 to 0.15)

0.51

Birth length Z-scoreb

-0.26 ± 0.76

-0.18 ± 0.80

-0.07 (-0.14 to -0.01)

0.03

-0.07 (-0.14 to -0.01)

0.04

Birth head circumference, cmb

34.77 ± 1.60

34.77 ± 1.90

0.00 (-0.15 to 0.15)

0.96

0.01 (-0.14 to 0.16)

0.92

Birth head circumference Z-scoreb

0.21 ± 1.03

0.26 ± 1.09

-0.05 (-0.14 to 0.04)

0.31

-0.05 (-0.14 to 0.04)

0.32

Birth weight ≥4.5 kg

23 (2.15)

39 (3.69)

0.58 (0.35, 0.97)

0.04

0.59 (0.36, 0.98)

0 ± 04

Birth weight ≤2.5 kg

43 (4.03)

56 (5.29)

0.76 (0.51 to 1.13)

0.18

0.74 (0.50 to 1.09)

0.13

Ponderal index, kg/m3b

27.95 ± 2.85

27.82 ± 2.91

0.12 (-0.12 to 0.37)

0.33

0.12 (-0.12 to 0.36)

0.34

Predicted fat free mass, kgb

3.07 ± 0.38

3.08 ± 0.42

-0.01 (-0.04 to 0.02)

0.59

-0.01 (-0.04 to 0.03)

0.73

Admission to NICU ≥4 days

12 (1.12)

23 (2.18)

0.52 (0.26 to 1.03)

0.06

0.51 (0.26 to 1.02)

0.06

Admission to SCBU

388 (36.12)

382 (35.77)

1.01 (0.90 to 1.13)

0.87

1.00 (0.90 to 1.12)

1.00

Respiratory distress syndrome

13 (1.22)

27 (2.57)

0.47 (0.25 to 0.91)

0.03

0.47 (0.24 to 0.90)

0.02

Respiratory support

65 (6.09)

77 (7.20)

0.84 (0.61 to 1.16)

0.30

0.84 (0.61 to 1.15)

0.27

Moderate/severe respiratory disease

1 (0.09)

15 (1.42)

N/A

<0.001d

N/A

N/A

Discharged home on oxygen

1 (0.09)

3 (0.28)

N/A

0.37d

N/A

N/A

Patent ductus arteriosus

2 (0.19)

5 (0.47)

N/A

0.29d

N/A

N/A

Proven systemic infection

0 (0.00)

2 (0.19)

N/A

0.25d

N/A

N/A

Retinopathy of prematurity

1 (0.09)

4 (0.38)

N/A

0.22d

N/A

N/A

Necrotising enterocolitis

3 (0.28)

1 (0.09)

N/A

0.62d

N/A

N/A

Neonatal encephalopathy

0 (0.00)

0 (0.00)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Neonatal seizures

1 (0.09)

3 (0.28)

N/A

0.37d

N/A

N/A

Postnatal length of stay infant, dayse

3.94 ± 7.26

4.41 ± 9.87

0.89 (0.82 to 0.97)

0.007

0.89 (0.82 to 0.97)

0.006

NICU, neonatal intensive care unit; SCBU, special care baby unit.

aIncludes all live-born infants.

bValues are mean ± SD, and treatment effects are differences in means based on imputed data.

cValues are n(%), and treatment effects are relative risks based on imputed data.

eValues are mean ± SD, and treatment effects are ratios of means based on imputed data.

d P-value derived Fisher's exact test based on available data.

There was no statistically significant difference in infant admission to neonatal intensive care (Lifestyle Advice 1.12% versus Standard Care 2.18%; aRR = 0.51; 95% CI 0.26 to 1.02; P = 0.06). However, infants born to women following Lifestyle Advice were less likely to have respiratory distress syndrome (Lifestyle Advice 1.22% versus Standard Care 2.57%; aRR = 0.47; 95% CI 0.24 to 0.90; NNT = 75; 95% CI 40 to 532; P = 0.02), particularly moderate or severe respiratory disease (Lifestyle Advice 0.09% versus Standard Care 1.42%; P < 0.001), compared with infants born to women allocated to Standard Care (Table 2). Infants born to women in the Lifestyle Advice group also had a shorter postnatal length of hospital stay (3.94 ± 7.26 days versus 4.41 ± 9.87 days; adjusted difference in means 0.89; 95% CI 0.82 to 0.97; P = 0.006). There were no other statistically significant differences in infant outcomes identified between the groups.

Sensitivity analyses produced similar results, and did not alter the conclusions regarding the effectiveness of treatment in either the unadjusted or adjusted analysis for any outcome (data not shown).

Discussion

Our findings indicate that provision of lifestyle advice to women who are overweight or obese during pregnancy is associated with a significant reduction in the risk of birth weight above 4.5 kg, in addition to a significant reduction in risk of respiratory distress syndrome, particularly moderate or severe disease, and a shorter postnatal hospital length of stay. Importantly, we did not identify any increase in the risk of harm, including low infant birth weight.

Our randomised trial has a number of strengths, including being the largest to date to evaluate the effect on clinically relevant neonatal outcomes of an antenatal lifestyle intervention for overweight or obese women. We utilised robust methodology, including blinding of outcome assessors and central randomisation, and achieved a high rate of infant follow-up and available birth outcome data.

Our trial is not without limitations. As highlighted previously [24], a potential limitation is the generalisability of our findings, with 60% of eligible women declining to participate (Figure 1). However, the demographic characteristics of women participating in the LIMIT trial are similar to the characteristics of the broader South Australian birthing population [32], providing reassurance that our findings are applicable in a wider clinical setting. It is also important to acknowledge that we report a number of secondary neonatal health outcomes. Although all were pre-specified, the study was not powered to identify differences in many of the secondary outcomes occurring relatively infrequently, and interpretation should therefore be with an element of caution.

The findings of a significant 41% RR reduction in birth weight above 4.5 kg among infants born to women following Lifestyle Advice compared with Standard Care is consistent with the 18% RR reduction in birth weight above 4.0 kg reported previously [24]. Immediate birth consequences associated with high infant birth weight are well recognised, and include shoulder dystocia and its sequelae, perinatal asphyxia, neonatal hypoglycaemia, need for nursery admission [33]-[36], and respiratory distress syndrome [37]. However, meta-analyses of population-based cohort studies indicate a longer-term association between high infant birth weight and an increased risk of both child [38],[39] and adulthood overweight and obesity [40],[41]. Observational data from 7,738 14-year-old adolescents in the United States Early Childhood Longitudinal Study [42] highlighted a significantly higher prevalence of obesity among children with birth weight above 4 kg. Whereas children of high birth weight represented 12% of the cohort, 36% of individuals who were obese at 14 years of age had birth weights over 4 kg [42]. Antenatal interventions that are successful in reducing the risk of high infant birth weight therefore represent a public health strategy of significant potential in tackling the increasing problem of overweight and obesity, both in the short and longer term [43],[44]. The ongoing follow-up of infants born to women who participated in the LIMIT trial is therefore of great importance to evaluate the impact of reducing high infant birth weight on subsequent early childhood obesity.

We observed a 53% RR reduction in neonatal respiratory distress syndrome in infants born to women allocated the lifestyle intervention. This difference in neonatal respiratory distress syndrome was not explained by differences in the use of antenatal corticosteroids, or in differences in gestational age at birth. Some of this difference may reflect the observed 26% reduction in preterm birth and the 53% reduction in preterm pre-labour ruptured membranes (PPROM) among women in the intervention group [24], although these differences did not reach statistical significance. Although some authors have identified an increased risk of preterm birth in obese women [45], others indicate that this reflects iatrogenic prematurity rather than spontaneous labour [10]. In an analysis of the Danish National Birth Cohort, Nohr and colleagues identified an increased risk of preterm birth in obese women due to an increase in PPROM, which was postulated to reflect an increased risk of chorioamnionitis [46], although specific description of neonatal respiratory morbidity was not presented. Although we observed a significant reduction in risk of respiratory distress syndrome in infants born to women allocated to the lifestyle intervention, our findings do not suggest an aetiology related specifically to differences in risk of PPROM, chorioamnionitis or infectious causes [24].

Increasingly, there is recognition that although the consequences of preterm birth and prematurity can occur in a setting of clinical chorioamnionitis, effects are also evident following subclinical or histological inflammation [47]. However, the pathways affected and precise mechanisms remain to be determined, with evidence of an imbalance in the production of pro-inflammatory and anti-inflammatory cytokines [48]. There is increasing recognition that adipose tissue is far from an inert storage organ, being responsible for the active secretion of a number of metabolically active adipocytokines [49], and there is a well-described association in non-pregnant individuals between obesity and a low-grade inflammatory state [50],[51], which, while speculative, may share similarities with subclinical chorioamnionitis.

Conclusions

To our knowledge, our findings are the first to describe a significant reduction in neonatal respiratory morbidity among infants born to women who are overweight or obese following an antenatal dietary and lifestyle intervention. Furthermore, we postulate that this may be mediated by the significant improvements in maternal diet and physical activity following antenatal intervention, which we have reported previously [52]. It will be important to further consider specific dietary components and physical activity, and the impact these factors may have on maternal markers of inflammation, which are currently being evaluated through our prospectively established bio-bank.

Evidence to date about the effect of antenatal dietary and lifestyle interventions for women who are overweight or obese has focused on gestational weight gain, to the detriment of robust data describing both maternal and infant health outcomes [53]. Our randomised trial addresses this gap in the literature. Our findings indicate that providing an antenatal dietary and lifestyle intervention for women who are overweight or obese has health benefits for the infant, without increasing the risk of harm. Continued follow-up of participants, and ongoing interrogation of our bio-bank will be important to identify potential mechanistic pathways whereby changes to maternal diet and physical activity impact on clinical outcomes.

Authors’ contributions

JMD, AJM, DT, LNY, ARD, RMG, CAC, GW, JAO, and JSR are all members of the LIMIT randomised trial group. The primary investigator of the LIMIT randomised trial (JMD) prepared the initial draft of the manuscript, had full access to all of the study data, and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. JMD and LYN were responsible for conducting the statistical analyses. All members of the LIMIT randomised trial group listed above were involved in the study concept and design of the trial, supervision of the conduct of the trial,acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation of data, and critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content. All members of the LIMIT randomised trial group listed above provided approval of the final submitted version.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

The following persons and institutions (except where indicated, in Adelaide, South Australia) participated in the LIMIT trial:

Steering Group: JM Dodd (Chair), D Turnbull, A McPhee, RM Grivell, C Crowther, M Gillman (Obesity Prevention Program, and Harvard University, Boston, Massachusetts, USA), G Wittert, JA Owens, JS Robinson.

Co-ordinating Team: JM Dodd, A Deussen, RM Grivell, L Yelland, L Moran, C Cramp, A Newman, L Kannieappian, S Hendrijanto, M Kelsey, J Beaumont, C Danz, J Koch, A Webber, C Holst, K Robinson, S Zhang, V Ball, K Ball, H Deussen, N Salehi, R Bartley, R Stafford-Green, S Ophel, M Cooney, M Szmeja, A Short, A Melrose, S Han, I Mohamad, L Chapple.

Statistical Analyses: L Yelland.

Serious Adverse Events Committee: RM Grivell, J Svigos, V Bhatia, N Manton.

Writing Group: JM Dodd, D Turnbull, A McPhee, A Deussen, RM Grivell, L Yelland, C Crowther, G Wittert, JA Owens, JS Robinson.

Collaborating Hospitals (total number of women recruited from each site in parentheses). *Indicates named associate investigator for the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) grant.

→ Flinders Medical Centre (South Australia) (669): J McGavigan*, R Bryce, S Coppi, C Fanning, G Hannah, M Ignacio, H Pollard, F Schmidt, Y Shinners.

→ Lyell McEwin Hospital (South Australia) (505): G Dekker*, S Kennedy-Andrews, R Beaven, J Niven, S Burgen, J Dalton, N Dewhurst, L Forst, V Mugg, C Will, H Stone.

→ Women’s and Children's Hospital (South Australia) (1,038): JM Dodd, JS Robinson, A Deussen, C Crowther*, C Wilkinson*, H Purcell, J Wood, D Press, K Ralph, S Donleavy, S Seager, F Gately, A Jolly, L Lahnstein, S Harding, K Daw, M Hedges, R Fraser-Trumble.

We are indebted to the 2,212 women who participated in this randomised trial.

Funding statement

This project was funded by a four-year project grant from the NHMRC, Australia (ID 519240).

JM Dodd is supported through a NHMRC Practitioner Fellowship (ID 627005).

LN Yelland is supported through a NHMRC Early Career Fellowship (ID 1052388).

RM Grivell is supported through a NHMRC Early Career Fellowship (ID 1073514).

Infrastructure support was provided by The University of Adelaide, and the Women’s and Children’s Hospital, Flinders Medical Centre, and Lyell McEwin Hospital, Adelaide.

The funders had no role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
The University of Adelaide, School of Paediatrics and Reproductive Health, Robinson Research Institute
(2)
The Women’s and Children’s Hospital, Women’s and Babies Division, Department of Perinatal Medicine
(3)
The Women’s and Children’s Hospital, Women’s and Babies Division, Department of Neonatal Medicine
(4)
The University of Adelaide, School of Psychology
(5)
Women’s and Children’s Health Research Institute
(6)
The University of Adelaide, School of Population Health
(7)
The University of Adelaide, School of Medicine
(8)
Liggins Institute, The University of Auckland

References

  1. Lobstein T, Baur L, Uauy R: Obesity in children and young people: a crisis in public health. Obes Rev. 2004, 5: 4-104. 10.1111/j.1467-789X.2004.00133.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. de Onis M, Blossner M, Borghi E: Global prevalence and trends of overweight and obesity among preschool children. Am J Clin Nutr. 2010, 92: 1257-1264. 10.3945/ajcn.2010.29786.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 2007 Australian National Children’s Nutrition and Physical Activity Survey. Edited by Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing. Canberra: 008. Publications Number: P3 - 4592, Online ISBN: 1-74186-757-6.
  4. World Health Organisation: Global Strategy on Diet, Physical Activity and Health: Childhood Overweight and Obesity. Geneva: 2011. ., [http://www.who.int/dietphysicalactivity/childhood/en/]
  5. Trasande L: How much should we invest in preventing childhood obesity?. Health Aff. 2010, 29: 372-378. 10.1377/hlthaff.2009.0691.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Au N: The health care cost implications of overweight and obesity during childhood.Health Serv Res 2011, doi:10.1111/j.1475-6773.2011.01326.x. [Epub ahead of print].
  7. Trasande L, Chatterjee S: The impact of obesity on health service utilization and costs in childhood. Obesity. 2009, 17: 1749-1754. 10.1038/oby.2009.67.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Trasande L, Liu Y, Fryer G, Weitzman M: Effects of childhood obesity on hospital care and costs, 1999-2005. Health Aff. 2009, 28: 4-10.1377/hlthaff.28.4.w751.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Barker DJP: Mothers, babies and disease in later life. 1998, Harcourt Brace & Co, LondonGoogle Scholar
  10. Dodd JM, Grivell RM, Nguyen A-M, Chan A, Robinson JS: Maternal and perinatal health outcomes by body mass index category. ANZJOG. 2011, 51: 136-140.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Callaway LK, Prins JB, Chang AM, McIntyre HD: The prevalence and impact of overweight and obesity in an Australian obstetric population. MJA. 2006, 184: 56-59.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Cedergren MI: Effects of gestational weight gain and body mass index on obstetric outcomes in Sweden. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2006, 93: 269-274. 10.1016/j.ijgo.2006.03.002.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Cedergren MI: Optimal gestational weight gain for body mass index categories. Obstet Gynecol. 2007, 110: 759-764. 10.1097/01.AOG.0000279450.85198.b2.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Godfrey KM, Inskip HM, Hanson MA: The long-term effects of prenatal development on growth and metabolism. Semin Reprod Med. 2011, 29: 257-265. 10.1055/s-0031-1275518.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Wells JC, Haroun D, Levene D, Darch T, Williams JE, Fewtrell MS: Prenatal and postnatal programming of body composition in obese children and adolescents: evidence from anthropometry, DXA and the 4-component model. Int J Obes. 2011, 35: 534-540. 10.1038/ijo.2011.7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Winter JD, Langenberg P, Krugman SD: Newborn adiposity by body mass index predicts childhood overweight. Clin Pediatr. 2010, 49: 866-870.Google Scholar
  17. Baird J, Fisher D, Lucas P, Kleijnen J, Roberts H, Law C: Being big or growing fast: systematic review of size and growth in infancy and later obesity. BMJ. 2005, 331: 929-10.1136/bmj.38586.411273.E0.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Fraser A, Tilling K, Macdonald-Wallis C, Sattar N, Brion MJ, Benfield L, Ness A, Deanfield J, Hingorani A, Nelson SM, Smith GD, Lawlor DA: Association of maternal weight gain in pregnancy with offspring obesity and metabolic and vascular traits in childhood. Circulation. 2010, 121: 2557-2564. 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.109.906081.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  19. Mamun AA, Kinarivala M, O'Callaghan MJ, Williams GM, Najman JM, Callaway LK: Associations of excess weight gain during pregnancy with long-term maternal overweight and obesity: evidence from 21y postpartum follow-up. Am J Clin Nutr. 2010, 91: 1336-1341. 10.3945/ajcn.2009.28950.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Dodd JM, Grivell RM, Crowther CA, Robinson JS: Antenatal interventions for overweight or obese pregnant women: a systematic review of randomised trials. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 2010, 117: 1316-1326. 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2010.02540.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Oteng-Ntim E, Varma R, Croker H, Poston L, Doyle P: Lifestyle interventions for overweight and obese pregnant women to improve pregnancy outcome: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Med. 2012, 10: 47-10.1186/1741-7015-10-47.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  22. Thangaratinam S, Rogozinska E, Jolly K, Glinkowski S, Roseboom T, Tomlinson JW, Kunz R, Mol BW, Coomarasamy A, Khan KS: Effects of interventions in pregnancy on maternal weight and obstetric outcomes: meta-analysis of randomised evidence. BMJ. 2012, 344: e2088-10.1136/bmj.e2088.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  23. Dodd JM, Turnbull DA, McPhee AJ, Wittert G, Crowther CA, Robinson JS: Limiting weight gain in overweight and obese women during pregnancy to improve health outcomes: the LIMIT randomised controlled trial. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2011, 11: 79-10.1186/1471-2393-11-79.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  24. Dodd JM, Turnbull DA, McPhee AJ, Deussen AR, Grivell RM, Yelland LN, Crowther CA, Wittert G, Owens JA, Robinson JS: Antenatal lifestyle advice for women who are overweight or obese: the LIMIT randomised trial. BMJ. 2014, 348: g1285-10.1136/bmj.g1285.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  25. Australian Guide to Healthy Eating. [], [http://www.eatforhealth.gov.au/guidelines/australian-guide-healthy-eating]
  26. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists: Recreational exercise and pregnancy: information for you.RCOG Press 2006, [], [https://www.rcog.org.uk/globalassets/documents/patients/patient-information-leaflets/pregnancy/recreational-exercise-and-pregnancy.pdf]
  27. Tikellis G, Ponsonby AL, Wells JC, Pezic A, Cochrane J, Dwyer T: Maternal and infant factors associated with neonatal adiposity: results from the Tasmanian infant health survey. Int J Obes. 2012, 36: 496-504. 10.1038/ijo.2011.261.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  28. Australian and New Zealand Neonatal Network Data Dictionary. 2009, [], [https://npesu.unsw.edu.au/anznn-data-dictionaries-registration-criteria]
  29. Sarnat HB, Sarnat MS: Neonatal encephalopathy following fetal distress. Arch Neurol. 1976, 33: 696-705. 10.1001/archneur.1976.00500100030012.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Lingwood BE, van Leeuwen AMS, Carberry AE, Fitzgerald EC, Callaway LK, Colditz PB, Ward LC: Prediction of fat-free mass and percentage of body fat in neonates using bioelectrical impedance analysis and anthropometric measures: validation against the PEA POD. Br J Nutr. 2012, 107: 1545-1552. 10.1017/S0007114511004624.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. SEIFA.., [http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/censushome.nsf/home/seifa2011?opendocument&navpos=260]
  32. Scheil W, Scott J, Catcheside B, Sage L, Kennare R: Pregnancy outcome in South Australia 2011. 2013, Government of South Australia, Pregnancy Outcome Unit, SA Health, AdelaideGoogle Scholar
  33. Haram K, Pirhonen J, Bergsjø P: Suspected big baby: a difficult clinical problem in obstetrics. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2002, 81: 185-194. 10.1034/j.1600-0412.2002.810301.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Bjørstad AR, Irgens-Hansen K, Daltveit AK, Irgens LM: Macrosomia: mode of delivery and pregnancy outcome. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2010, 89: 664-669. 10.3109/00016341003686099.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Dodd JM, Catcheside B, Scheil W: Can shoulder dystocia be reliably predicted?. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2012, 52: 248-252. 10.1111/j.1479-828X.2012.01425.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Henriksen T: The macrosomic fetus: a challenge in current obstetrics. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2008, 87: 134-145. 10.1080/00016340801899289.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Linder N, Lahat Y, Kogan A, Fridman E, Kouadio F, Melamed N, Yogev Y, Klinger G: Macrosomic newborns of non-diabetic mothers: anthropometric measurements and neonatal complications. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2014, 99: F353-8-10.1136/archdischild-2013-305032. doi:10.1136/archdischild-2013-305032. Epub 2014 May 3View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Kitsantas P, Gaffney KF: Risk profiles for overweight/obesity among preschoolers. Early Hum Dev. 2010, 86: 563-568. 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2010.07.006.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Rooney BL, Mathiason MA, Schauberger CW: Predictors of obesity in childhood, adolescence, and adulthood in a birth cohort.Maternal Child Health J 2010, doi:10.1007/s10995-010-0689-1.
  40. Schellong K, Schulz S, Harder T, Plagemann A: Birth weight and long term overweight risk: systematic review and meta-analysis including 643,902 persons from 66 studies and 26 countries globally. PLoS One. 2012, 7: e47776-10.1371/journal.pone.0047776. doi:47710.41371/journal.pone.0047776View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  41. Yu ZB, Han SP, Zhu GZ, Zhu C, Wang XJ, Cao XG, Guo XR: Birth weight and subsequent risk of obesity: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obes Rev. 2011, 12: 525-542. 10.1111/j.1467-789X.2011.00867.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Cunningham SA, Kramer MR, Narayan KM: Incidence of childhood obesity in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2014, 370: 403-411. 10.1056/NEJMoa1309753.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  43. Catalano PM: Obesity and pregnancy - the propagation of a viscous cycle?. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2003, 88: 3505-3506. 10.1210/jc.2003-031046.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Poston L: Healthy eating in pregnancy - always a good idea, now with more supporting evidence. BMJ. 2014, 348: g1739-10.1136/bmj.g1739.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Cnattingius S, Bergstrom R, Lipworth L, Kramer MS: Prepregnancy weight and the risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes. New Engl J Med. 1998, 338: 147-152. 10.1056/NEJM199801153380302.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Nohr EA, Bech BH, Vaeth M, Rasmussen KM, Henriksen TB, Olsen J: Obesity, gestational weight gain and preterm birth: a study within the Danish national birth cohort. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2007, 21: 5-14. 10.1111/j.1365-3016.2007.00762.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Kunzmann S, Collins JJ, Kuypers E, Kramer BW: Thrown off balance: the effect of antenatal inflammation on the developing lung and immune system. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013, 208: 429-437. 10.1016/j.ajog.2013.01.008.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Bersani I, Thomas W, Speer CP: Chorioamnionitis-the good or the evil for neonatal outcome?. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2012, 25: 12-16. 10.3109/14767058.2012.663161.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Denison FC, Roberts KA, Barr SM, Norman JE: Obesity, pregnancy, inflammation, and vascular function. Reproduction. 2010, 140: 373-385. 10.1530/REP-10-0074.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Weisberg SP, McCann D, Desai M, Rosenbaum M, Leibel RL, Ferrante AWJ: Obesity is associated with macrophage accumulation in adipose tissue. J Clin Invest. 2003, 112: 1796-1808. 10.1172/JCI200319246.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  51. Xu H, Barnes GT, Yang Q, Tan G, Yang D, Chou CJ, Sole J, Nichols A, Ross JS, Tartaglia LA, Chen H: Chronic inflammation in fat plays a crucial role in the development of obesity-related insulin resistance. J Clin Invest. 2003, 112: 1821-1830. 10.1172/JCI200319451.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  52. Dodd JM, Cramp CS, Sui Z, Yelland LN, Deussen AR, Grivell RM, Moran LJ, Crowther CA, Turnbull DA, McPhee AJ, Wittert G, Owens JA, Robinson JS, for the LIMIT randomized trial group: Effects of antenatal lifestyle advice for women who are overweight or obese on maternal diet and physical activity: the LIMIT randomised trial.BMC Med 2014, in press.
  53. Poston L, Chappell LC: How should women be advised on weight management in pregnancy?. BMJ. 2012, 344: e2774-10.1136/bmj.e2774.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Pre-publication history

    1. The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/12/163/prepub

Copyright

© Dodd et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.