Peri-conception hyperglycaemia and nephropathy are associated with risk of congenital anomaly in women with pre-existing diabetes: a population-based cohort study
Open accessAbstract
AIMS: The aim of this study was to quantify the risk of major congenital anomaly, and to assess the influence of peri-conception HbA(1c) and other clinical and socio-demographic factors on the risk of congenital anomaly occurrence in offspring of women with type 1 and type 2 diabetes diagnosed before pregnancy. METHODS: This was a population-based cohort study using linked data from registers of congenital anomaly and diabetes in pregnancy. A total of 401,149 singleton pregnancies (1,677 in women with diabetes) between 1996 and 2008 resulting in live birth, fetal death at ≥20 weeks' gestation or termination of pregnancy for fetal anomaly were included. RESULTS: The rate of non-chromosomal major congenital anomaly in women with diabetes was 71.6 per 1,000 pregnancies (95% CI 59.6, 84.9), a relative risk of 3.8 (95% CI 3.2, 4.5) compared with women without diabetes. There was a three- to sixfold increased risk across all common anomaly groups. In a multivariate analysis, peri-conception glycaemic control (adjusted OR [aOR] 1.3 [95% CI 1.2, 1.4] per 1% [11 mmol/mol] linear increase in HbA(1c) above 6.3% [45 mmol/mol]) and pre-existing nephropathy (aOR 2.5 [95% CI 1.1, 5.3]) were significant independent predictors of congenital anomaly. Associations with gestation at booking (aOR 1.1 [95% CI 1.0, 1.1]) and parity (aOR 1.6 [95% CI 1.0, 2. 5]) were not significant. Unadjusted risk was higher for women from deprived areas or who did not take folate. Type and duration of diabetes, ethnicity, age, BMI, preconception care, smoking and fetal sex were not associated with congenital anomaly risk. CONCLUSIONS: Peri-conception glycaemia is the most important modifiable risk factor for congenital anomaly in women with diabetes. The association with nephropathy merits further study.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The risk of congenital malformations in offspring of mothers with diabetes generally exceeds the risk in the general population as soon as periconception glycated haemoglobin (HbA1C) exceeds 6.5%.
“The risk of congenital malformations in offspring of mothers with diabetes generally exceeds the risk in the general population as soon as periconception glycated haemoglobin (HbA1C) exceeds 6.5%.34”
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 41 · Cited by 224
- Authors
- Bell, R., Glinianaia, S. V., Tennant, P. W. G., Bilous, R. W., & Rankin, J.
- Affiliations
- Newcastle University (GB)
- James Cook University Hospital (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Bell, R.
- Venue
- Diabetologia
- Published
- 2012-02-08
- Volume
- 55
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 936-947
- ISSN
- 0012-186X (ISSN-L)
- 1432-0428
- OpenAlex
- W1994401022
- Cited by
- 224
- References
- 41
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 12
- FWCI
- 21.95
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- Diabetologia (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Diabetes UK
- University of Southampton
- University of Oxford
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Gestational Diabetes Research and Management
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Pregnancy and Medication Impact
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Congenital Anomalies and Fetal Surgery
- Keywords
- pregestational diabetes, type 1 diabetes, type 2 diabetes, major congenital malformations, HbA1c, diabetic nephropathy, pregnancy, folic acid supplementation, socioeconomic deprivation, parity
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review