1392-P: Assisted Reproduction Technology Treatment and Risk of Gestational Diabetes
Abstract
Assisted reproduction technology (ART) treatment has been suggested to increase the risk of gestational diabetes (GDM), though the nature of this association remains unclear. In the attempt to gain more insight in such an association we have carried out a study to evaluate whether ART represents an independent risk factor for GDM in single pregnancies. We collected retrospectively clinical and anthropometric data of 221 ART- and 256 age and BMI matched women with natural conception (NC) screened for GDM between 2011-2019. Out of 477 women, 32 were excluded from the analysis due to multiple pregnancies (PMA: 24; CN: 8). Between the two groups there were no differences in age (ART: 39 ± 5; NC: 38 ± 3 years; ns), BMI (ART: 23.6 ± 4.4; NC: 22.9 ± 3.6 Kg/m2; ns) and family history of diabetes (ART: 31.4%; NC: 24.2%; ns). ART-women were more frequently primiparous (62.6% vs. 22.6%; p<0.0001), while a higher prevalence of previous GDM was observed among NC-women (9.7% vs. 2.6%; p=0.002). The prevalence of GDM in the whole cohort was 36.1% and was significantly higher in women with ART (52.3% vs. 23.4%; p <0.0001). In the whole cohort, risk factors for GDM were: age (OR 1.07 95% CI 1.02-1.13), first degree family history of diabetes (OR 2.02 95% CI 1.31-3.10), previous GDM (OR 2.09 95% CI 1.39- 3.14), pre-pregnancy obesity (OR 3.28; 95% CI 1.57-6.86) and ART (OR 3.59; 95% CI: 2.39 - 5.39). On multivariate analysis, family history of diabetes (OR 1.67; 95% CI: 1.03-2.69), previous GDM (OR 7.05; 95% CI: 2.92-17.04); pre-pregnancy obesity (OR 2.72; 95% CI 1.21-6.13) and ART (OR 4.14; 95% CI 2.65-6.48) were independent risk factors for GDM . Among women requesting ART treatment, at least one in two develops GDM, and ART appears to be an independent risk factors for GDM. Disclosure: C. Bianchi: None. C. Della Pelle: None. G. de Gennaro: None. M. Aragona: None. V. Cela: None. S. DelPrato: None. A. Bertolotto: None.
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?
A 50% increase in the incidence of GDM in pregnancies resulting from in vitro fertilization was described.
“Moreover, a 50% increase in the incidence of GDM in pregnancies resulting from in vitro fertilization was described [24].”
From Gestational Diabetes Mellitus—Recent Literature Review (2022) · cites this paper as [24]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Gestational Diabetes Mellitus—Recent Literature Review
Modzelewski, R., Stefanowicz-Rutkowska, M. M., Matuszewski, W., & Bandurska-Stankiewicz, E. M. (2022) · Journal of Clinical Medicine · doi:10.3390/jcm11195736 · Cited by 223 · see citing works
- Authors
- BIANCHI, C., PELLE, C. D., GENNARO, G. D., ARAGONA, M., CELA, V., DELPRATO, S., & BERTOLOTTO, A.
- Affiliations
- Pisa, Italy
- Venue
- Diabetes
- Publisher
- American Diabetes Association
- Published
- 2020-06-01
- Volume
- 69
- Issue
- Supplement_1
- ISSN
- 0012-1797 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-327X
- OpenAlex
- W3035416851
- Cited by
- 1
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2022: 1
- FWCI
- 0.15
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Diabetes (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Gestational Diabetes Research and Management
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Assisted Reproductive Technology and Twin Pregnancy
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Reproductive Medicine › Reproductive Health and Technologies
- Keywords
- assisted reproduction, gestational diabetes mellitus, singleton pregnancy, risk factors, family history of diabetes, previous gestational diabetes, pre-pregnancy obesity, primiparity, spontaneous conception, pregnancy outcomes, preterm birth, low birth weight, neonatal hypoglycemia, neonatal jaundice, neonatal respiratory distress syndrome, neonatal sepsis, neonatal intensive care
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