Skip to main content
NCBI home page
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2020 Apr 2;15(4):e0231018. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0231018

Evaluation of weight retention four weeks after delivery as a risk factor for gestational diabetes mellitus in a subsequent pregnancy

Satoshi Shinohara 1,*, Atsuhito Amemiya 1, Motoi Takizawa 1
Editor: Zhong-Cheng Luo2
PMCID: PMC7117671  PMID: 32240241

Abstract

Aim

We aimed to assess the association between postpartum weight retention (PPWR) in the fourth week after delivery and the risk of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) in a subsequent pregnancy.

Methods

We performed a retrospective cohort study of the obstetric records of women who gave birth to their second singleton between 32 and 41 weeks of gestation at the National Hospital Organization Kofu National Hospital between January 2013 and September 2019. The exclusion criteria were missing data, twin pregnancy, diabetes in pregnancy, and delivery before 22 weeks in the first pregnancy. We calculated PPWR as the BMI 4 weeks after the first birth minus the BMI before the first pregnancy and grouped the subjects into the stable PPWR (gain of <1 BMI unit) and non-stable PPWR groups (gain of ≥1 BMI units). We used the χ2 test and multivariable logistic regression analysis to investigate the association between weight retention at the postpartum checkup and GDM.

Results

We included 566 women in this study (mean age, 31.7±4.8 years; mean maternal pre-pregnancy BMI, 21.3±3.5 kg/m2; term delivery, n = 544 [96.1%]). The overall prevalence of GDM during the second pregnancy was 7.4% (42/566), and 33.9% (192/566) of women had stable PPWR. Non-stable PPWR was not significantly associated with GDM in the second pregnancy (adjusted odds ratio, 1.93; 95% confidence interval, 0.84–4.46) after controlling for each variable.

Conclusion

PPWR measured in the fourth week after delivery was not associated with an increased risk of GDM in the second pregnancy.

Introduction

Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is a common pregnancy complication characterized by decreased insulin sensitivity and inadequate insulin response [1,2]. Research estimates indicate that GDM affects approximately 7–10% of all pregnancies worldwide [3–6]. GDM presents significant risks to the fetus, including an increased risk of macrosomia, neonatal hypoglycemia, hyperbilirubinemia, shoulder dystocia, and birth trauma [7,8]. Further, previous studies demonstrated that women with GDM have an increased risk of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy [9,10] and metabolic syndrome, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and cardiovascular disease later in life [11,12]. Therefore, it is important to identify the risk factors of GDM and establish effective and appropriate prevention strategies that improve maternal–fetal outcomes.

Previous studies showed that a history of GDM, a family history of diabetes, advanced maternal age, pre-pregnancy body mass index (BMI) changes between the first and second pregnancies, and maternal obesity are risk factors for GDM [13–16]. However, it is meaningless to inform a woman with these factors that she has an increased risk of GDM when she has already become pregnant again; physicians need to identify women with a high risk of GDM and implement primary prevention strategies before that point. Recently, Liu et al. reported that the findings of their retrospective cohort study suggest that excessive postpartum weight retention (PPWR) six weeks after the first pregnancy is a risk factor for GDM in the second pregnancy [8]. Their study is different than previous investigations in proposing that the postpartum checkup might provide the opportunity to identify factors that increase the risk of GDM in a subsequent pregnancy, allowing the implementation of primary prevention strategies. The postpartum checkup is important for obstetricians and other medical providers because, after this evaluation, most women will be lost to follow-up until they become pregnant again. Doctors could identify women with a high risk of not only GDM but also type 2 diabetes mellitus, and cardiovascular disease who need close monitoring in later life during the postpartum care period.

To our knowledge, Liu et al.’s study is the only one to address the relationship between PPWR at the postpartum checkup and GDM in the next pregnancy [8]. Further, GDM prevalence differs by race and ethnicity, and GDM risk factors appear to affect the disease differently across racial and ethnic groups [17]. Therefore, further studies are needed to clarify the potential impact of PPWR at the time of the postpartum checkup on glucose metabolism during the next pregnancy. We aimed to evaluate the association between PPWR four weeks after delivery of the first child and the risk of developing GDM during the second pregnancy in a Japanese cohort.

Methods

Study design

We performed a retrospective cohort study of women who gave birth to their second singleton between 32 and 41 weeks of gestation at the National Hospital Organization Kofu National Hospital, a community hospital, between January 2013 and September 2019. The exclusion criteria were missing data, twin pregnancy, diabetes in pregnancy, and delivery before 22 weeks in the first pregnancy. The National Hospital Organization Kofu National Hospital Human Subjects Review Committee approved the study protocol and waived the need for informed consent because of the retrospective study design. However, patients could refuse the use of their data through the hospital’s website. All procedures were performed in accordance with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments.

Data collection

We collected baseline demographic data and medical and family histories. We also obtained any history of diabetes in second-degree relatives from each patient. The obstetric records included maternal age at delivery, parity, pre-pregnancy BMI, pre-pregnancy BMI change between the first and second pregnancies, and the postpartum checkup BMI. PPWR was the exposure of interest. Because postpartum checkups are performed approximately four weeks after delivery in Japan [16], the PPWR at the checkup after the first pregnancy was defined as the BMI four weeks after the first birth minus the pre-pregnancy BMI of the first pregnancy. The pre-pregnancy weight for calculation of the BMI at the first visit was self-reported. We classified women according to their postpartum checkup PPWR and defined a stable PPWR as ≤1 BMI unit and non-stable PPWR >1 BMI unit, per previous relevant publications [8]. Moreover, advanced maternal age (≥35 years), pre-pregnancy obesity (BMI >25.0 kg/m2), family history of diabetes, the interpregnancy BMI change, and previous GDM were used as explanatory variables because they have been previously described as GDM risk factors [13–16]. In Japan, an initial screening test followed by the diagnostic oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) in screen-positive women, known as the two-step approach, is used for GDM diagnosis [16]. Moreover, the Japan Society of Obstetrics and Gynaecology has recommended the 50 g glucose challenge test (GCT) as a screening method for GDM [16]. Women with abnormal GCT results (serum glucose levels ≥140 mg/dL) subsequently undergo a 75-g OGTT for a definitive diagnosis. We diagnosed GDM if the patient had at least one abnormal plasma glucose value (≥92, ≥180, and ≥153 mg/dL for fasting, 1-hour, and 2-hour plasma glucose concentrations, respectively) after a 75-g oral glucose tolerance test [16].

Each patient’s pre-pregnancy BMI was calculated according to the World Health Organization standard (body weight [kg]/height [m]2) and recorded in her prenatal records at the first visit. We defined the interpregnancy BMI change as the difference between the pre-pregnancy BMI of the first and second pregnancies [15]. We classified women according to their interpregnancy BMI and defined a stable interpregnancy BMI as ≤1 BMI unit according to several relevant publications [8,15].

We did not evaluate maternal weight gain during pregnancy, a potential contributor to GDM [18], because we wanted to examine GDM risk factors before and early in the second pregnancy, and there is no consensus opinion regarding optimal weight gain during pregnancy, especially in obese women in Japan [16].

Statistical analyses

We compared maternal and neonatal outcomes using Mann-Whitney U and χ2 tests. Fisher’s exact test was used when the expected frequency was <5. We then performed a multivariable logistic regression analysis to examine the association between postpartum weight retention at the 4-week checkup and GDM in the second pregnancy, while controlling for potential confounding factors. All analyses were performed using Bell Curve for Excel (Social Survey Research Information Co., Ltd, Tokyo, Japan) and IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, v. 25 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, US). The significance level was set at p<0.05.

Results

During the study period, 620 women gave birth to their second singleton. After excluding 54 patients (missing data, n = 25; twin pregnancy, n = 11; delivered first singleton before 22 weeks of gestation, n = 16; diabetes in pregnancy, n = 2), we included 566 women who delivered between 32 and 41 weeks of gestation (mean age, 31.7±4.8 years). The mean maternal first and second pregnancy, pre-pregnancy BMIs were 20.8±3.3 kg/m2 and 21.3±3.5 kg/m2, respectively. There were 544 (96.1%) term and 91 (16.1%) cesarean second singleton deliveries. The characteristics of women with a stable (≤1 BMI unit) and a non-stable PPWR (>1 BMI unit) were similar except for greater first and second pregnancy, pre-pregnancy BMIs, and lower first pregnancy, postpartum checkup BMIs in the stable PPWR group (Table 1).

Table 1. Clinical characteristics in groups based on postpartum weight retention four weeks after the second pregnancy.

Stable PPWR n = 192 Non-stable PPWR n = 374 p-value
Maternal age 32.1±5.0 31.4±4.7 0.09
Premature delivery 9 (4.7) 13 (3.5) 0.48
Caesarean section 25 (13.0) 66 (17.6) 0.16
Instrumental delivery 1 (0.50) 2 (0.50) 1.00
First pregnancy, gestational length of pregnancy 39.1±1.4 39.2±1.4 0.14
First pregnancy, pre-pregnancy BMI 22.1±4.2 20.1±2.4 <0.001
Second pregnancy, pre-pregnancy BMI 21.9±4.2 21.0±3.1 0.02
First pregnancy, postpartum checkup BMI 22.0±3.8 22.3±2.7 0.003
GDM 12 (6.3) 30 (8.0) 0.45
Open in a new tab

Values are presented as mean±standard deviation or numbers (%).

PPWR, postpartum weight retention; GDM, gestational diabetes mellitus; BMI, body mass index

The overall prevalence of GDM during the second pregnancy was 7.4% (42/566), 33.9% (192/566) of women had stable weight retention, and GDM was not significantly more common in the non-stable PPWR group (8.0% vs. 6.3%, p = 0.45; odds ratio [OR], 1.30; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65–2.61) (Table 2). Additionally, the interpregnancy BMI change, a history of previous GDM, and obesity were significantly associated with GDM in the second pregnancy (Table 2). Moreover, after controlling for each variable, the interpregnancy BMI change, a history of previous GDM, and obesity were significantly associated with GDM in the second pregnancy (non-stable interpregnancy BMI: adjusted OR, 2.11; 95% CI, 1.01–4.43; history of previous GDM: adjusted OR, 7.93; 95% CI, 3.15–20.0; obesity: adjusted OR, 4.23; 95% CI, 1.95–9.91) in the multivariable logistic regression analysis. However, non-stable PPWR was not significantly associated with GDM in the second pregnancy (adjusted OR, 1.93; 95% CI, 0.84–4.46). Finally, a multiple logistic regression model, into which we entered PPWR as a continuous variable, was performed. After controlling for each variable, a history of previous GDM, and obesity were significantly associated with GDM in the second pregnancy (history of previous GDM: adjusted OR, 7.70; 95% CI, 3.08–19.2; obesity: adjusted OR, 4.13; 95% CI, 1.91–8.95) in the multivariable logistic regression analysis. PPWR was not significantly associated with GDM in the second pregnancy (adjusted OR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.94–1.50) (Table 3).

Table 2. Crude and adjusted odds ratios of maternal risk factors for gestational diabetes mellitus in the second pregnancy.

Variable GDM, (n) Non-GDM, (n) Crude Adjusted
OR 95% CI OR 95% CI p-value
Postpartum checkup PPWR
<1 BMI unit 12 180 1 Reference 1 Reference
≥1 BMI unit 30 344 1.30 0.65–2.61 1.93 0.84–4.46 0.123
Interpregnancy BMI change
<1 BMI unit 19 384 1 Reference 1 Reference
≥1 BMI unit 23 140 3.32 1.75–6.28 2.11 1.01–4.43 0.048
Maternal age
<35 26 374 1 Reference 1 Reference
≥35 16 150 1.53 0.80–2.94 1.41 0.69–2.90 0.346
Family history of diabetes
No 27 387 1 Reference 1 Reference
Yes 15 137 1.56 0.81–3.04 1.27 0.61–2.63 0.524
History of previous GDM
No 31 501 1 Reference 1 Reference
Yes 11 23 7.73 3.46–17.3 7.93 3.15–20.0 <0.001
Obesity
No 25 470 1 Reference 1 Reference
Yes 17 54 5.92 3.01–11.7 4.23 1.95–9.19 <0.001
Open in a new tab

Values are presented as mean±standard deviation or numbers (%).

PPWR, postpartum weight retention; GDM, gestational diabetes mellitus; BMI, body mass index

※PPWR was entered PPWR as a categorical variables.

Table 3. Crude and adjusted odds ratios of maternal risk factors for gestational diabetes mellitus in the second pregnancy.

Variable GDM (n) Non-GDM (n) Crude Adjusted
OR 95% CI OR 95% CI p-value
Postpartum checkup PPWR in BMI unit median (25th–75th percentile) 1.72 (0.74–2.68) 1.49 (0.61–2.37) 1.18 0.94–1.50 0.150
Interpregnancy BMI change
<1 BMI unit 19 384 1 Reference 1 Reference
≥1 BMI unit 23 140 3.32 1.75–6.28 2.00 0.91–4.33 0.081
Maternal age
<35 26 374 1 Reference 1 Reference
≥35 16 150 1.53 0.80–2.94 1.48 0.71–3.10 0.290
Family history of diabetes
No 27 387 1 Reference 1 Reference
Yes 15 137 1.56 0.81–3.04 1.34 0.64–2.78 0.440
History of previous GDM
No 31 501 1 Reference 1 Reference
Yes 11 23 7.73 3.46–17.3 7.69 3.08–19.2 <0.001
Obesity
No 25 470 1 Reference 1 Reference
Yes 17 54 5.92 3.01–11.7 4.13 1.91–8.95 <0.001
Open in a new tab

Values are presented as mean±standard deviation or numbers (%).

PPWR, postpartum weight retention; GDM, gestational diabetes mellitus; BMI, body mass index

※PPWR was entered PPWR as a continuous variables

Discussion

We evaluated PPWR in women delivering at 32–41 weeks of gestation at the National Hospital Organization Kofu National Hospital and found no significant association between the PPWR at the postpartum checkup after the first pregnancy and GDM in the second pregnancy. The incidence of GDM in our study was consistent with previous data [19,20].

The mechanism underlying the significant relationship between PPWR and GDM is still unknown. Liu et al., the first to report the association between weight retention at six weeks postpartum and subsequent GDM, did not describe the detailed mechanism of this relationship [8]. Instead, the team only cited previous studies that showed excessive postpartum weight retention is an important contributor to future maternal obesity [21,22], an important risk factor for GDM, as the basis of their study results [8]. There is an adaptive physiologic decrease in insulin sensitivity during pregnancy that is necessary for supplying energy sufficient to support fetal development [8]. During pregnancy, insulin sensitivity decreases by 50–60% under normal physiological circumstances [23,24]. However, overweight and obese individuals are typically less insulin sensitive than the normal-weight population [8,24]. Therefore, obese women tend to develop GDM, and blood glucose control is more difficult.

There are two likely explanations for the fact that, unlike previous investigators, we did not find a significant relationship between PPWR and GDM. Firstly, it is widely accepted that six weeks after delivery [8,25,26], most of the changes associated with pregnancy, labor, and delivery have resolved, and the body has reverted to the non-pregnant state [8,25,26]. In the fourth postpartum week, the body is still returning to the pre-pregnancy condition; therefore, we may have performed our evaluation too early to assess PPWR as a risk factor for GDM in the second pregnancy. Secondly, the previous study did not consider a family history of diabetes or previous GDM [8], although these are potential GDM risk factors [14–16]. Similar to previous investigations [14–16], our study revealed a significant association between a history of GDM and subsequent GDM. When interpreting the study results, the difference in explanatory variables between the previous study and ours needs to be considered.

Moreover, our multiple logistic regression analysis including PPWR assessed at the postpartum checkup as a continuous variable, showed no association between PPWR in the fourth week after delivery (adjusted OR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.94–1.50) and GDM. As Liu et al. pointed out, there are only three times during a woman’s life when she is almost certain to receive an examination from a trained health care provider: infancy, pregnancy, and the postpartum period, and if a chronic disease develops [8]. Given that most women will attend their postpartum appointment, we hoped to show an association between the PPWR at the time of this checkup and the risk of subsequent GDM to facilitate the identification of high-risk patients.

Returning to her pre-pregnancy weight is a challenge for many women, and previous studies demonstrated that 25% of women weigh ≥5 kg more than they did before pregnancy a year after delivery [27]. In this study, there was no significant difference in PPWR between obese and non-obese women (1.20±2.29 vs. 1.53±1.28 BMI unit, p = 0.51). Future research of the association between PPWR at the postpartum checkup and GDM in the next pregnancy must include a re-evaluation of the timing of data collection and the postpartum checkup, weight retention cut-off value. According to the current study results, attention should be paid to women with the traditional risk factors of obesity, the interpregnancy BMI change, prior history of GDM, and family history of GDM rather than PPWR–especially at four weeks after delivery.

Our study had limitations. Firstly, this was a single-center study, and it might be difficult to extrapolate our results to the general population. According to the sample size calculation method previously reported and widely used when performing logistic analysis [28–30], “Ten Events Per Variable” is a widely adopted minimal guideline criterion for performing logistic regression analysis. Based on this method, we needed at least 60 GDM women during the second pregnancy in this study. Since this study only included 42 GDM women during the second pregnancy, there is a possibility of the lack of or insufficient study power to detect a risk difference. Therefore, a large-scale, prospective, multicenter, cohort study is needed to confirm our results in the general population. Secondly, we did not evaluate some potential GDM risk factors, including a previous history of macrosomia [16] and polycystic ovary syndrome [31]. Thus, unmeasured confounders may be associated with GDM in the second pregnancy in this study. Thirdly, the generalizability of our findings may be limited by the homogeneity of our all-Japanese cohort.

Given the small sample size of our study and that our findings were inconsistent with those of Liu et al., we propose further investigation of the role of PPWR identified at the postpartum checkup in the pathophysiology of GDM in the second pregnancy in larger patient cohorts. If such a role exists, strategies should be developed to reduce the incidence of GDM and improve the perinatal prognosis in high-risk populations.

Supporting information

S1 Data

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file. (66.4KB, xlsx)

Acknowledgments

We thank the study subjects for the use of their personal data.

We would like to thank Editage (www.editage.com) for English language editing.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Wendland EM, Torloni MR, Falavigna M, Trujillo J, Dode MA, Campos MA, et al. Gestational diabetes and pregnancy outcomes—a systematic review of the World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Association of Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) diagnostic criteria. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2012;31: 12–23. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Buchanan TA, Xiang AH. Gestational diabetes mellitus. J Clin Invest. 2005;115: 485–491. 10.1172/JCI24531 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Xiong X, Saunders LD, Wang FL, Demianczuk NN. Gestational diabetes mellitus: prevalence, risk factors, maternal and infant outcomes. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2001;75: 221–228. 10.1016/s0020-7292(01)00496-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Nguyen CL, Pham NM, Binns CW, Duong DV, Lee AH. Prevalence of gestational diabetes mellitus in eastern and southeastern Asia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Diabetes Res. 2018;20: 6536974. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Ferrara A. Increasing prevalence of gestational diabetes mellitus: a public health perspective. Diabetes Care. 2007;30 Suppl 2: S141–S146. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Behboudi-Gandevani S, Amiri M, Bidhendi Yarandi R, Ramezani Tehrani F. The impact of diagnostic criteria for gestational diabetes on its prevalence: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Diabetol Metab Syndr. 2019;11: 11 10.1186/s13098-019-0406-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Kc K, Shakya S, Zhang H. Gestational diabetes mellitus and macrosomia: a literature review. Ann Nutr Metab. 2015;66 Suppl 2: 14–20. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Liu J, Song G, Meng T, Zhao G, Guo S. Weight retention at six weeks postpartum and the risk of gestational diabetes mellitus in a second pregnancy. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2019;19: 272 10.1186/s12884-019-2423-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Bryson CL, Ioannou GN, Rulyak SJ, Critchlow C. Association between gestational diabetes and pregnancy-induced hypertension. Am J Epidemiol. 2003;158: 1148–1153. 10.1093/aje/kwg273 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Dos Santos da Silva LLG, Saunders C, Campos ABF, Belfort GP, de Carvalho Padilha P, Pereira RA, et al. Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy in women with gestational diabetes mellitus from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Pregnancy Hypertens. 2017;10: 196–201. 10.1016/j.preghy.2017.08.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Bellamy L, Casas JP, Hingorani AD, Williams D. Type 2 diabetes mellitus after gestational diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet. 2009;373: 1773–1779. 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60731-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Kramer CK, Campbell S, Retnakaran R. Gestational diabetes and the risk of cardiovascular disease in women: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Diabetologia. 2019;62: 905–914. 10.1007/s00125-019-4840-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Lee KW, Ching SM, Ramachandran V, Yee A, Hoo FK, Chia YC, et al. Prevalence and risk factors of gestational diabetes mellitus in Asia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2018;18: 494 10.1186/s12884-018-2131-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Di Cianni G, Volpe L, Lencioni C, Miccoli R, Cuccuru I, Ghio A, et al. Prevalence and risk factors for gestational diabetes assessed by universal screening. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2003; 62: 131–137. 10.1016/j.diabres.2003.07.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Sorbye LM, Skjaerven R, Klungsoyr K, Morken NH. Gestational diabetes mellitus and interpregnancy weight change: a population-based cohort study. PLoS Med. 2017;14: e1002367 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002367 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Minakami H, Maeda T, Fujii T, Hamada H, Iitsuka Y, Itakura A, et al. Guidelines for obstetrical practice in Japan: Japan Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology (JSOG) and Japan Association of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (JAOG) 2014 edition. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2014;40:1469–1499. 10.1111/jog.12419 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Hedderson MM, Darbinian JA, Ferrara A. Disparities in the risk of gestational diabetes by race-ethnicity and country of birth. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2010;24: 441–448. 10.1111/j.1365-3016.2010.01140.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Nohr EA, Vaeth M, Baker JL, Sørensen TIa, Olsen J, Rasmussen KM. Combined associations of prepregnancy body mass index and gestational weight gain with the outcome of pregnancy. Am J Clin Nutr. 2008;87: 1750–1759. 10.1093/ajcn/87.6.1750 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Morikawa M, Yamada T, Yamada T, Akaishi R, Nishida R, Cho K, et al. Change in the number of patients after the adoption of IADPSG criteria for hyperglycemia during pregnancy in Japanese women. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2010;90: 339–342. 10.1016/j.diabres.2010.08.023 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Kodama Y, Sameshima H, Ohashi M, Ikenoue T. Impact of new gestational diabetes mellitus criteria on stillbirth: a regional population-based study in Japan. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2013;39: 1242–1245. 10.1111/jog.12055 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Gore SA, Brown DM, West DS. The role of postpartum weight retention in obesity among women: a review of the evidence. Ann Behav Med. 2003;26: 149–159. 10.1207/S15324796ABM2602_07 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Gunderson EP. Childbearing and obesity in women: weight before, during, and after pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2009;36: 317–332. 10.1016/j.ogc.2009.04.001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Catalano PM, Ehrenberg HM. The short- and long-term implications of maternal obesity on the mother and her offspring. BJOG. 2006;113: 1126–1133. 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2006.00989.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Catalano PM. Obesity, insulin resistance, and pregnancy outcome. Reproduction. 2010;140: 365–371. 10.1530/REP-10-0088 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.World Health Organization. Postpartum care of the mother and newborn: a practical guide: report of a technical working group. Geneva: World Health Organization; 1998. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Cunningham F, MacDonald C, Gant F, Leveno J, Gilstrap C, Hankins V, et al. Williams Obstetrics. 20th ed Stanford: Appleton & Lange; 1997. pp. 533–546. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Herring SJ, Rich-Edwards JW, Oken E, Rifas-Shiman SL, Kleinman KP, Gillman MW. Association of postpartum depression with weight retention 1 year after childbirth. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2008;16: 1296–1301. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Peduzzi P, Concato J, Kemper E, Holford TR, Feinstein AR. A simulation study of the number of events per variable in logistic regression analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 1996;49: 1373–1379. 10.1016/s0895-4356(96)00236-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Moons KG, de Groot JA, Bouwmeester W, Vergouwe Y, Mallett S, Altman DG, et al. Critical appraisal and data extraction for systematic reviews of prediction modelling studies: the CHARMS checklist. PLoS Med. 2014;11: e1001744 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001744 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Moons KG, Altman DG, Reitsma JB, Ioannidis JP, Macaskill P, Steyerberg EW, et al. Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162: W1–W73. 10.7326/M14-0698 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Yu HF, Chen HS, Rao DP, Gong J. Association between polycystic ovary syndrome and the risk of pregnancy complications: a PRISMA-compliant systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2016;95: e4863. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Zhong-Cheng Luo

2 Mar 2020

PONE-D-19-31440

Evaluation of weight retention four weeks after delivery as a risk factor for gestational diabetes mellitus in a subsequent pregnancy

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr Shinohara,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Apr 16 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Zhong-Cheng Luo

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments:

1. Please add an ad hoc power calculaition for detecting a 2-times risk elevatation in GDM comparing postpartum BMI change >=1 (unstable) vs <1 (stable) in the Discussion. You observed almost 2 times risk elevation (adjusted OR=1.93), although it was not statistically significant. This may be due to the lack of or insufficient study power to detect a risk difference. If this is true, data interpretation should be adjusted for accordingly.

2. Please add a cloumn for the accurate P value to the precision of 3 decimal points for the adjusted OR in Table 2.

3. Line 184, why stated "(data not shown)" when you acturally presented the data?

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

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

  1. Please provide an amended Funding Statement that declares *all* the funding or sources of support received during this specific study (whether external or internal to your organization) as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now 

  1. Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funder. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

c. Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The question about weight gain and retention and its impact on pregnancy outcomes is an important issue.

There a number of points that need clarification.

1. Was the pre-pregnancy weight for calculation of the BMI at the first visit self-reported?

2. How was the screening for GDM performed? Was it a 1-step or was there pre-screening with random BSL or GCT as both of these have been shown to miss up to 20% of cases of GDM? Understanding this is important for the non-Japanese reader.

You have made comment in your discussion that you were measuring weight retention at 4 weeks postpartum that may not accurately reflect the final post pregnancy return to the non-pregnant state.

It was not clear if you have made adjustment for the gestational length of the pregnancy as this may have a significant impact on the total weight gain and therefore the peak level from which the woman has to lose weight in returning to the non-pregnancy state.

Reviewer #2: In this paper, the authors analyzed 4 week postpartum weight retention (PPWR) using BMI in the 4th week after delivery in 566 nondiabetic, Japanese women with the risk for GDM in a subsequent pregnancy.

A Stable PPWR (4 wk BMI – 1st pregnancy prepregnancy BMI) < 1 BMI unit means that the individual lost almost all of their pregnancy weight gain by 4 weeks, correct? The definition of non-stable PPWR (gain of > 1 BMI unit) is only defined in the Abstract and should again be defined in the Methods and repeated in the results.

They found no difference in the risk for GDM according to their separation of groups according to BMI change at this 4 week follow-up visit, at which only about 1/3 of women had come back to < 1BMI difference from their prepregnancy BMI. They did find that obesity and interpregnancy weight gain, as expected, were risk factors for GDM. Could the authors analyze the PPWR among those who were obese compared to those not obese? Probably not, as the proportion who were obese was very low (71/566). The authors could mention in their Discussion, that given the current results, attention should be paid to women with the traditional risk factors of obesity, weight gain during pregnancy, prior history of GDM and family history of GDM rather than PPWR – especially at 4 weeks.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Jeremy J N Oats

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2020 Apr 2;15(4):e0231018. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0231018.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0

11 Mar 2020

March 5, 2020

Zhong-Cheng Luo

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Dear Editor:

I, along with my co-authors, would like to re-submit the attached manuscript, titled “Evaluation of weight retention four weeks after delivery as a risk factor for gestational diabetes mellitus in a subsequent pregnancy” as an original research article (manuscript ID: PONE-D-19-31440).

We appreciate your valuable comments, which have been very useful to us in improving the quality of our manuscript. All changes are shown in red in the revised manuscript. The entire manuscript has been also rechecked, and the necessary changes have been made in accordance with your suggestions. Our point-by-point responses to all of your comments have been prepared and provided below.

We believe that the changes made based on your comments have significantly improved our manuscript, and we hope that you will find it suitable for publication in PLOS ONE.

Sincerely,

Dr. Satoshi Shinohara

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology

National Hospital Organization Kofu National Hospital

11-35 Tenjin, Kofu, Yamanashi 400-8533, Japan

Tel: +81-55-253-6131

Fax: +81-55-251-5597

Email: shinohara617@gmail.com

 

RESPONSES TO THE EDITOR’S COMMENTS

Comment 1

Please add an ad hoc power calculaition for detecting a 2-times risk elevatation in GDM comparing postpartum BMI change >=1 (unstable) vs <1 (stable) in the Discussion. You observed almost 2 times risk elevation (adjusted OR=1.93), although it was not statistically significant. This may be due to the lack of or insufficient study power to detect a risk difference. If this is true, data interpretation should be adjusted for accordingly.

Response 1

Thank you for your comment. We reviewed the sample size again according to your comments. When performing logistic analysis like this study, it seems that the sample size is often determined based on events per variable (EPV) rather than per ad hoc power calculation (A-C). Calculating the required sample size based on the previous report (10 EPV is a widely adopted minimal guideline criterion for performing logistic regression analysis), we needed at least 60 GDM women during the second pregnancy in this study. Therefore, since this study only included 42 GDM women during the second pregnancy, there is a possibility of the lack of or insufficient study power to detect a risk difference as pointed out. Therefore, we added in the limitation section; “According to the sample size calculation method widely used when performing logistic analysis, “Ten Events Per Variable” is a widely adopted minimal guideline criterion for performing logistic regression analysis. Based on this method, we needed at least 60 GDM women during the second pregnancy in this study. Since this study only included 42 GDM women during the second pregnancy, there is a possibility of the lack of or insufficient study power to detect a risk difference.”

A) Peduzzi P, Concato J, Kemper E, Holford TR, Feinstein AR. A simulation study of the number of events per variable in logistic regression analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 1996;49: 1373-1379.

B) Moons KG, de Groot JA, Bouwmeester W, Vergouwe Y, Mallett S, Altman DG, et al. Critical appraisal and data extraction for systematic reviews of prediction modelling studies: the CHARMS checklist. PLoS Med. 2014;11: e1001744.

C) Moons KG, Altman DG, Reitsma JB, Ioannidis JP, Macaskill P, Steyerberg EW, et al. Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162: W1-W73.

Comment 2

Please add a cloumn for the accurate P value to the precision of 3 decimal points for

the adjusted OR in Table 2.

Response 2

Thank you for your comment. Following your comment, we revised Table 2.

Comment 3

Line 184, why stated "(data not shown)" when you acturally presented the data?

Response 3

Thank you for your comment. According to your comment, we added Table 3, and “Finally, a

multiple logistic regression model, into which we entered PPWR as a continuous variable,

was performed. After controlling for each variable, a history of previous GDM, and obesity

were significantly associated with GDM in the second pregnancy (history of previous GDM:

adjusted OR, 7.70; 95% CI, 3.08–19.2; obesity: adjusted OR, 4.13; 95% CI, 1.91–8.95) in

the multivariable logistic regression analysis. PPWR was not significantly associated with

GDM in the second pregnancy (adjusted OR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.94–1.50) (Table 3).” in the

result.

RESPONSES TO THE REVIEWER 1’S COMMENTS

Comment 1

Was the pre-pregnancy weight for calculation of the BMI at the first visit self-reported?

Response 1

Thank you for your comment. The pre-pregnancy weight for calculation of the BMI at the first

visit was self-reported. We added, “The pre-pregnancy weight for calculation of the BMI at

the first visit was self-reported.” in the data collection.

Comment 2

How was the screening for GDM performed? Was it a 1-step or was there pre-screening

with random BSL or GCT as both of these have been shown to miss up to 20% of cases

of GDM? Understanding this is important for the non-Japanese reader.

Response 2

Thank you for your comment. We added “In Japan, an initial screening test followed by the

diagnostic oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) in screen-positive women, known as the two-

step approach, is used for GDM diagnosis [16]. Moreover, the Japan Society of Obstetrics

and Gynaecology has recommended the 50 g glucose challenge test (GCT) as a screening

method for GDM [16]. Women with abnormal GCT results (serum glucose levels ≥140 mg/dL)

subsequently undergo a 75-g OGTT for a definitive diagnosis.” in the data collection.

Comment 3

You have made comment in your discussion that you were measuring weight retention at 4

weeks postpartum that may not accurately reflect the final post pregnancy return to the non-

pregnant state. It was not clear if you have made adjustment for the gestational length of the

pregnancy as this may have a significant impact on the total weight gain and therefore the

peak level from which the woman has to lose weight in returning to the non-pregnancy state.

Response 3

Thank you for your comment. Following your comment, we added an analysis of the gestational length of the first pregnancy in Table1.

RESPONSES TO THE REVIEWER 2’S COMMENTS

Comment 1

A Stable PPWR (4 wk BMI – 1st pregnancy prepregnancy BMI) < 1 BMI unit means that the

individual lost almost all of their pregnancy weight gain by 4 weeks, correct? The definition

of non-stable PPWR (gain of > 1 BMI unit) is only defined in the Abstract and should again

be defined in the Methods and repeated in the results.

Response 1

Thank you for your comment. According to your comment, we changed from “We classified

women according to their postpartum check-up PPWR and defined a stable PPWR as ≤1

BMI unit, per previous relevant publications” to “We classified women according to their

postpartum check-up PPWR and defined a stable PPWR as ≤1 BMI unit and non-stable

PPWR >1 BMI unit, per previous relevant publications” in the Methods. Moreover, we

changed from “The characteristics of women with and without were similar except for greater

first and second pregnancy, pre-pregnancy BMIs and lower first pregnancy, postpartum

checkup BMIs in the stable PPWR group (Table 1).” to “The characteristics of women with a

stable (≤1 BMI unit) and a non-stable PPWR (>1 BMI unit) were similar except for greater

first and second pregnancy, pre-pregnancy BMIs and lower first pregnancy, postpartum

checkup BMIs in the stable PPWR group (Table 1).”

Comment 2

They found no difference in the risk for GDM according to their separation of groups

according to BMI change at this 4 week follow-up visit, at which only about 1/3 of women had

come back to < 1BMI difference from their prepregnancy BMI. They did find that obesity and

interpregnancy weight gain, as expected, were risk factors for GDM. Could the authors

analyze the PPWR among those who were obese compared to those not obese? Probably

not, as the proportion who were obese was very low (71/566). The authors could mention in

their Discussion, that given the current results, attention should be paid to women with the

traditional risk factors of obesity, weight gain during pregnancy, prior history of GDM and

family history of GDM rather than PPWR – especially at 4 weeks

Response 2

Thank you for your comment. According to your comment, we added “According to the

current study results, attention should be paid to women with the traditional risk factors of

obesity, the interpregnancy BMI change, prior history of GDM and family history of GDM

rather than PPWR – especially at four weeks after delivery.” and “In this study, there was no

significant difference in PPWR between obese and non-obese women (1.20±2.29 vs.

1.53±1.28 BMI unit, p=0.51)” in the discussion.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file. (26.7KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Zhong-Cheng Luo

16 Mar 2020

Evaluation of weight retention four weeks after delivery as a risk factor for gestational diabetes mellitus in a subsequent pregnancy

PONE-D-19-31440R1

Dear Dr. Shinohara,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Zhong-Cheng Luo

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Data

    (XLSX)

    Click here for additional data file. (66.4KB, xlsx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Click here for additional data file. (26.7KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES