Research Article - Journal of Diabetes Medication & Care (2023) Volume 6, Issue 2

Pregnancyâ??s impact on gestational diabetes

Dr. Aman Katiyar*

Department of Medicine, India

*Corresponding Author:
Dr. Aman Katiyar
Department of Medicine, India

Received: 03-April -2023, Manuscript No. jdmc-23-94815; Editor assigned: 06-April -2023, PreQC No. jdmc- 23-94815 (PQ); Reviewed: 20-April -2023, QC No. jdmc-23-94815; Revised: 22-April -2023, Manuscript No. jdmc-23-94815 (R); Published: 29-April -2023; DOI: 10.37532/ jdmc.2023.6(2).17-19


Retrospective cohort study of 103,909 women n=358,046 who had 3 or more consecutive singleton births between 1 January 1980 and 31 December 2015 in Western Australia. The association between IPI and gestational diabetes was estimated using conditional logistic regression, assigning pregnancies to the same mother and adjusting for various factors of maternal pregnancies. We also applied a peer-to-peer logistic regression analysis between mothers to compare with previous studies. Our results do not support the hypothesis that short IPI <6 months increases the risk of gestational diabetes, suggesting that the associations observed in previous studies may be due to various maternal confounding factors suggest.


Gestational diabetes • Maternal pregnancies


Gestational diabetes is one of the major complications of pregnancy, affecting 6-13% of pregnancies worldwide. Pregnancies complicated by gestational diabetes are at increased risk of caesarean section, hypertension, and perinatal complications, including perinatal mortality. Length of Time between Previous Birth and Next Conception Interpregnancy IPI has been extensively studied for its association with birth outcome. However, there are relatively few studies on its association with pregnancy complications. Both short and long IPI have been previously observed to increase the risk of gestational diabetes [1]. However, due to small sample size, dependence on hospital cohort, poor control for important confounding factors (such as socioeconomic status [SES]), and bias in IPI length measurements, the conclusion was unsatisfactory. B. Use Birth-to-Birth Interval, Limited, or Birth-to-Result Interval instead of Birth-to-Conception. The World Health Organization (WHO) and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommend waiting at least 2 years or at least 18 months after giving birth before attempting another pregnancy. However, the relevance of these recommendations for mothers in high-income countries is unknown, as the recommendations are based on studies conducted before her early 2000s in low- and middle-income countries. Several hypotheses have been put forward, including the ‘maternal fatigue’ hypothesis and the ‘physiological regression’ hypothesis [2,3]. However, the causality of her IPI to pregnancy complications remains to be elucidated. Recently, researchers have hypothesized that the association between IPI and increased risk of adverse perinatal outcomes may be due to the ‘systematic bias’ of the confounder hypothesis. The previously reported association between IPI and gestational diabetes mellitus tends to persist in pregnant mothers and may be explained by risk factors that can vary significantly from mother to mother. Complementary maternal matching The analysis provides an opportunity to explain maternal effects. This study aimed to examine the association between IPI and gestational diabetes using both matched pregnancies of the same mother and unmatched comparisons between mothers in high-income settings [4].

Materials and Methods

Data sources and study population all

Mothers born between 1 January 1980 and 31 December 2015 in Western Australia were included to investigate the association between IPI and risk of gestational diabetes. We conducted a retrospective cohort study with parallel and discordant approaches. Maternal, infant and birth information was obtained from the Midwifery Notification System, a population-sized registry of all births >20 weeks of gestation or >400 grams of birth weight if gestational age was unknown. Hospitalization records were identified from hospital morbidity data collections containing information on all hospital admissions within the state using the International Classification of Diseases Australia Modified coded diagnostic information and procedures performed [5]. Ethical approval was obtained from the Human Research Ethics Committee of the Washington State Department of Health.

Our analysis included all mothers who had given birth to at least her three consecutive singletons between 20 and 44 weeks of age. Gestational weeks in WA during the study period we sequentially excluded mothers with multiple births from the original total of 487,297 mothers who gave birth during the study period. A mother who gave birth only once while in school Mothers whose birth registration parity did not match the child’s birth order. These exclusions yielded a sample of 287,745 mothers whose consecutive births were her two or more eligible for analysis. We also excluded mothers with missing information. B. Negative gestational age, SES, maternal age, and her IPI of ≥1 pregnancies [6]. Finally, in the final analysis she included 103,909 mothers and excluded mothers with an interval of less than 2 her. Exposure, IPI, was defined as the time between the delivery date of the previous pregnancy and the estimated conception date of the next pregnancy minus the gestational age at birth. Gestational age at birth was based on ultrasound date or last menstrual period if ultrasound was not available. Less than 6 months, 6 to 11 months, 12 to 17 months, 18 to 23 months, 24 to 59 months, 60 to 119 months using IPI as a categorical variable Months or 120+ months grouped into 7 categories. WHO recommendations and categories used in previous studies [7, 8].

Statistical analysis

We summarized the sociodemographic and medical status of the cohorts at first pregnancy during the study period. We estimated the probability of gestational diabetes as a function of her IPI category using conditional logistic regression accounting for concordant pregnancies from the same mother and compared intramaternal pregnancies. In this approach, effect estimates were also controlled for unmeasured traits that remained stable over time or were highly correlated with mothers during consecutive pregnancies. This allows for conclusions based solely on intramaternal influences [9]. To estimate the overall effect of IPI, we repeated the matched analysis without adjusting for maternal age and birth year at each delivery. In the absence of residual time-varying confounders or selection bias, we would expect similar effects of IPI on gestational diabetes in both between- and within-maternal comparisons. It is plausible that unconditional logistic regression can lead to biased estimates in the presence of unmeasured persistent confounders. We also applied discordance logistic regression to compare with previous discordance studies. This further adjusted for measurement covariates that differed between mothers, such as: B. Race/Ethnicity. To minimize multicollinearity between timedependent covariates such as maternal age at each delivery and date of birth, we regress the within-maternal matched model as the logit of the outcome probabilities of the fitting variables adapted to the score of a peerless model. This allows the direct impact of IPI to be estimated and the cohort as a whole to contribute to the adjustment for potential risk of outcome. In addition, we estimated the association between gestational diabetes and postpartum IPI. In the absence of confounding factors, gestational diabetes should not be associated with this postnatal her IPI. The observed association between postnatal gestational diabetes and this IPI indicates that factors exist in the mother that influence both the risk of gestational diabetes and her IPI, introducing biased estimates. There is a possibility. Postpartum IPI therefore serves as a ‘negative control’ exposure to assess confounding effects at the maternal level. Sensitivity Analysis To determine the sensitivity of the results to the inclusion of higher parity and stillbirth, all mothers with parity 0, 1, and 2 were analyzed by limiting themselves to the first three live births [10]. A separate analysis was performed for mothers. Give birth to at least her three consecutive live offspring. To examine whether our results are sensitive to cohort period, we restricted further analysis to consecutive births after 1 September 1997. Subsequently, smoking status and pre-existing chronic diseases were recorded regularly, and ultrasound examinations became more frequent. To determine, we included a sensitivity analysis limited to mothers who did not have gestational diabetes in their first pregnancy. All analyzes were performed using STATA version 15.1 Stata Corporation, College Station, Texas. We provide the unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals for each model.


We sourced the cohort from reliable population-based perinatal information determined from hospital isolation and midwife reports. To our knowledge, this is the largest population-based study examining the association between IPI and gestational diabetes in mothers who delivered at least three consecutive births using within-maternal comparisons corresponding to pregnancies from the same mother is maternally matched design provides estimates based on a cohort of mothers who had pregnancies with or without complications of gestational diabetes. The premise of this design is to take into account more environmental and genetic confounders that may differ from mother to mother.


  1. Feinman RD, Pogozelski WK, Astrup A et al. Dietary carbohydrate restriction as the first approach in diabetes management: critical review and evidence base. Nutrition. 31, 1-13 (2015).
  2. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

  3. Muley A, Fernandez R, Ellwood L et al. Effect of tree nuts on glycaemic outcomes in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review. JBI Evidence Synthesis. 19, 966-1002 (2021).
  4. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

  5. Schulman AP, Del Genio F, Sinha N et al. Metabolic surgery for treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus. Endocrine Practice. 15, 624-31.
  6. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

  7. Frachetti KJ, Goldfine AB. Bariatric surgery for diabetes management. Curr Opin Endocrinol Diabetes Obes.16, 119-124 (2009).
  8. Google Scholar, Crossref

  9. Nathan DM, Kuenen J, Borg R et al. Translating the A1C assay into estimated average glucose values. Diabetes Care. 31, 1473-1478.
  10. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

  11. Sun J, Buys NJ. Glucose- and glycaemic factor-lowering effects of probiotics on diabetes: a meta-analysis of randomised placebo-controlled trials. British Journal of Nutrition. 115, 1167-1177 (2016).
  12. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

  13. Phramor, Lucy. Validity of claims made in weight management research: a narrative review of dietetic articles. Nutrition Journal. 9, 30 (2010).
  14. Google Scholar Crossref

  15. Long Zichong, Huang Lili, Lyu Jiajun et al. Trends of central obesity and associations with nutrients intake and daily behaviors among women of childbearing age in China. BMC Women's Health. 22, 12 (2022).
  16. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

  17. Beccuti G, Monagheddu C, Evangelista A et al. Timing of food intake: Sounding the alarm about metabolic impairments? A systematic review. Pharmacological Research. 125, 132–141 (2017).
  18. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

  19. Anderson JW, Ward K. High-carbohydrate, high-fiber diets for insulin-treated men with diabetes mellitus. Am J Clin Nutr. 32, 2312-21 (1979).
  20. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref