Search

Endometriosis is a common condition associated with debilitating pelvic pain and infertility. A genome-wide association study meta-analysis, including 60,674 cases and 701,926 controls of European and East Asian descent, identified 42 genome-wide significant loci comprising 49 distinct association signals. Effect sizes were largest for stage 3/4 disease, driven by ovarian endometriosis. Identified signals explained up to 5.01% of disease variance and regulated expression or methylation of genes in endometrium and blood, many of which were associated with pain perception/maintenance (SRP14/BMF, GDAP1, MLLT10, BSN and NGF). We observed significant genetic correlations between endometriosis and 11 pain conditions, including migraine, back and multisite chronic pain (MCP), as well as inflammatory conditions, including asthma and osteoarthritis. Multitrait genetic analyses identified substantial sharing of variants associated with endometriosis and MCP/migraine. Targeted investigations of genetically regulated mechanisms shared between endometriosis and other pain conditions are needed to aid the development of new treatments and facilitate early symptomatic intervention.

BackgroundIn 2021, we showed an increased risk associated with COVID-19 in pregnancy. Since then, the SARS-CoV-2 virus has undergone genetic mutations. We aimed to examine the effects on maternal and perinatal outcomes of COVID-19 during pregnancy, and evaluate vaccine effectiveness, when omicron (B.1.1.529) was the variant of concern.MethodsINTERCOVID-2022 is a large, prospective, observational study, involving 41 hospitals across 18 countries. Each woman with real-time PCR or rapid test, laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 in pregnancy was compared with two unmatched women without a COVID-19 diagnosis who were recruited concomitantly and consecutively in pregnancy or at delivery. Mother and neonate dyads were followed until hospital discharge. Primary outcomes were maternal morbidity and mortality index (MMMI), severe neonatal morbidity index (SNMI), and severe perinatal morbidity and mortality index (SPMMI). Vaccine effectiveness was estimated, adjusted by maternal risk profile.FindingsWe enrolled 4618 pregnant women from Nov 27, 2021 (the day after WHO declared omicron a variant of concern), to June 30, 2022: 1545 (33%) women had a COVID-19 diagnosis (median gestation 36·7 weeks [IQR 29·0-38·9]) and 3073 (67%) women, with similar demographic characteristics, did not have a COVID-19 diagnosis. Overall, women with a diagnosis had an increased risk for MMMI (relative risk [RR] 1·16 [95% CI 1·03-1·31]) and SPMMI (RR 1·21 [95% CI 1·00-1·46]). Women with a diagnosis, compared with those without a diagnosis, also had increased risks of SNMI (RR 1·23 [95% CI 0·88-1·71]), although the lower bounds of the 95% CI crossed unity. Unvaccinated women with a COVID-19 diagnosis had a greater risk of MMMI (RR 1·36 [95% CI 1·12-1·65]). Severe COVID-19 symptoms in the total sample increased the risk of severe maternal complications (RR 2·51 [95% CI 1·84-3·43]), perinatal complications (RR 1·84 [95% CI 1·02-3·34]), and referral, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, or death (RR 11·83 [95% CI 6·67-20·97]). Severe COVID-19 symptoms in unvaccinated women increased the risk of MMMI (RR 2·88 [95% CI 2·02-4·12]) and referral, ICU admission, or death (RR 20·82 [95% CI 10·44-41·54]). 2886 (63%) of 4618 total participants had at least a single dose of any vaccine, and 2476 (54%) of 4618 had either complete or booster doses. Vaccine effectiveness (all vaccines combined) for severe complications of COVID-19 for all women with a complete regimen was 48% (95% CI 22-65) and 76% (47-89) after a booster dose. For women with a COVID-19 diagnosis, vaccine effectiveness of all vaccines combined for women with a complete regimen was 74% (95% CI 48-87) and 91% (65-98) after a booster dose.InterpretationCOVID-19 in pregnancy, during the first 6 months of omicron as the variant of concern, was associated with increased risk of severe maternal morbidity and mortality, especially among symptomatic and unvaccinated women. Women with complete or boosted vaccine doses had reduced risk for severe symptoms, complications, and death. Vaccination coverage among pregnant women remains a priority.FundingNone.

BackgroundThe effect of COVID-19 in pregnancy on maternal outcomes and its association with preeclampsia and gestational diabetes mellitus have been reported; however, a detailed understanding of the effects of maternal positivity, delivery mode, and perinatal practices on fetal and neonatal outcomes is urgently needed.ObjectiveTo evaluate the impact of COVID-19 on fetal and neonatal outcomes and the role of mode of delivery, breastfeeding, and early neonatal care practices on the risk of mother-to-child transmission.Study designIn this cohort study that took place from March 2020 to March 2021, involving 43 institutions in 18 countries, 2 unmatched, consecutive, unexposed women were concomitantly enrolled immediately after each infected woman was identified, at any stage of pregnancy or delivery, and at the same level of care to minimize bias. Women and neonates were followed up until hospital discharge. COVID-19 in pregnancy was determined by laboratory confirmation and/or radiological pulmonary findings or ≥2 predefined COVID-19 symptoms. The outcome measures were indices of neonatal and perinatal morbidity and mortality, neonatal positivity and its correlation with mode of delivery, breastfeeding, and hospital neonatal care practices.ResultsA total of 586 neonates born to women with COVID-19 diagnosis and 1535 neonates born to women without COVID-19 diagnosis were enrolled. Women with COVID-19 diagnosis had a higher rate of cesarean delivery (52.8% vs 38.5% for those without COVID-19 diagnosis, P14 days). Among neonates born to mothers with COVID-19 diagnosis, birth via cesarean delivery was a risk factor for testing positive for COVID-19 (odds ratio, 2.4; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-4.7), even when severity of maternal conditions was considered and after multivariable logistic analysis. In the subgroup of neonates born to women with COVID-19 diagnosis, the outcomes worsened when the neonate also tested positive, with higher rates of neonatal intensive care unit admission, fever, gastrointestinal and respiratory symptoms, and death, even after adjusting for prematurity. Breastfeeding by mothers with COVID-19 diagnosis and hospital neonatal care practices, including immediate skin-to-skin contact and rooming-in, were not associated with an increased risk of newborn positivity.ConclusionIn this multinational cohort study, COVID-19 in pregnancy was associated with increased maternal and neonatal complications. Cesarean delivery was significantly associated with newborn COVID-19 diagnosis. Vaginal delivery should be considered the safest mode of delivery if obstetrical and health conditions allow it. Mother-to-child skin-to-skin contact, rooming-in, and direct breastfeeding were not risk factors for newborn COVID-19 diagnosis, thus well-established best practices can be continued among women with COVID-19 diagnosis.

BackgroundAmong nonpregnant individuals, diabetes mellitus and high body mass index increase the risk of COVID-19 and its severity.ObjectiveThis study aimed to determine whether diabetes mellitus and high body mass index are risk factors for COVID-19 in pregnancy and whether gestational diabetes mellitus is associated with COVID-19 diagnosis.Study designINTERCOVID was a multinational study conducted between March 2020 and February 2021 in 43 institutions from 18 countries, enrolling 2184 pregnant women aged ≥18 years; a total of 2071 women were included in the analyses. For each woman diagnosed with COVID-19, 2 nondiagnosed women delivering or initiating antenatal care at the same institution were also enrolled. The main exposures were preexisting diabetes mellitus, high body mass index (overweight or obesity was defined as a body mass index ≥25 kg/m2), and gestational diabetes mellitus in pregnancy. The main outcome was a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 based on a real-time polymerase chain reaction test, antigen test, antibody test, radiological pulmonary findings, or ≥2 predefined COVID-19 symptoms at any time during pregnancy or delivery. Relationships of exposures and COVID-19 diagnosis were assessed using generalized linear models with a Poisson distribution and log link function, with robust standard errors to account for model misspecification. Furthermore, we conducted sensitivity analyses: (1) restricted to those with a real-time polymerase chain reaction test or an antigen test in the last week of pregnancy, (2) restricted to those with a real-time polymerase chain reaction test or an antigen test during the entire pregnancy, (3) generating values for missing data using multiple imputation, and (4) analyses controlling for month of enrollment. In addition, among women who were diagnosed with COVID-19, we examined whether having gestational diabetes mellitus, diabetes mellitus, or high body mass index increased the risk of having symptomatic vs asymptomatic COVID-19.ResultsCOVID-19 was associated with preexisting diabetes mellitus (risk ratio, 1.94; 95% confidence interval, 1.55-2.42), overweight or obesity (risk ratio, 1.20; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-1.37), and gestational diabetes mellitus (risk ratio, 1.21; 95% confidence interval, 0.99-1.46). The gestational diabetes mellitus association was specifically among women requiring insulin, whether they were of normal weight (risk ratio, 1.79; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-3.01) or overweight or obese (risk ratio, 1.77; 95% confidence interval, 1.28-2.45). A somewhat stronger association with COVID-19 diagnosis was observed among women with preexisting diabetes mellitus, whether they were of normal weight (risk ratio, 1.93; 95% confidence interval, 1.18-3.17) or overweight or obese (risk ratio, 2.32; 95% confidence interval, 1.82-2.97). When the sample was restricted to those with a real-time polymerase chain reaction test or an antigen test in the week before delivery or during the entire pregnancy, including missing variables using imputation or controlling for month of enrollment, the observed associations were comparable.ConclusionDiabetes mellitus and overweight or obesity were risk factors for COVID-19 diagnosis in pregnancy, and insulin-dependent gestational diabetes mellitus was associated with the disease. Therefore, it is essential that women with these comorbidities are vaccinated.

BackgroundSelenium (Se), an essential trace mineral, has been implicated in preterm birth (PTB). We aimed to determine the association of maternal Se concentrations during pregnancy with PTB risk and gestational duration in a large number of samples collected from diverse populations.MethodsGestational duration data and maternal plasma or serum samples of 9946 singleton live births were obtained from 17 geographically diverse study cohorts. Maternal Se concentrations were determined by inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry analysis. The associations between maternal Se with PTB and gestational duration were analysed using logistic and linear regressions. The results were then combined using fixed-effect and random-effect meta-analysis.FindingsIn all study samples, the Se concentrations followed a normal distribution with a mean of 93.8 ng/mL (SD: 28.5 ng/mL) but varied substantially across different sites. The fixed-effect meta-analysis across the 17 cohorts showed that Se was significantly associated with PTB and gestational duration with effect size estimates of an OR=0.95 (95% CI: 0.9 to 1.00) for PTB and 0.66 days (95% CI: 0.38 to 0.94) longer gestation per 15 ng/mL increase in Se concentration. However, there was a substantial heterogeneity among study cohorts and the random-effect meta-analysis did not achieve statistical significance. The largest effect sizes were observed in UK (Liverpool) cohort, and most significant associations were observed in samples from Malawi.InterpretationWhile our study observed statistically significant associations between maternal Se concentration and PTB at some sites, this did not generalise across the entire cohort. Whether population-specific factors explain the heterogeneity of our findings warrants further investigation. Further evidence is needed to understand the biologic pathways, clinical efficacy and safety, before changes to antenatal nutritional recommendations for Se supplementation are considered.

BackgroundIt is unclear whether the suggested link between COVID-19 during pregnancy and preeclampsia is an independent association or if these are caused by common risk factors.ObjectiveThis study aimed to quantify any independent association between COVID-19 during pregnancy and preeclampsia and to determine the effect of these variables on maternal and neonatal morbidity and mortality.Study designThis was a large, longitudinal, prospective, unmatched diagnosed and not-diagnosed observational study assessing the effect of COVID-19 during pregnancy on mothers and neonates. Two consecutive not-diagnosed women were concomitantly enrolled immediately after each diagnosed woman was identified, at any stage during pregnancy or delivery, and at the same level of care to minimize bias. Women and neonates were followed until hospital discharge using the standardized INTERGROWTH-21st protocols and electronic data management system. A total of 43 institutions in 18 countries contributed to the study sample. The independent association between the 2 entities was quantified with the risk factors known to be associated with preeclampsia analyzed in each group. The outcomes were compared among women with COVID-19 alone, preeclampsia alone, both conditions, and those without either of the 2 conditions.ResultsWe enrolled 2184 pregnant women; of these, 725 (33.2%) were enrolled in the COVID-19 diagnosed and 1459 (66.8%) in the COVID-19 not-diagnosed groups. Of these women, 123 had preeclampsia of which 59 of 725 (8.1%) were in the COVID-19 diagnosed group and 64 of 1459 (4.4%) were in the not-diagnosed group (risk ratio, 1.86; 95% confidence interval, 1.32-2.61). After adjustment for sociodemographic factors and conditions associated with both COVID-19 and preeclampsia, the risk ratio for preeclampsia remained significant among all women (risk ratio, 1.77; 95% confidence interval, 1.25-2.52) and nulliparous women specifically (risk ratio, 1.89; 95% confidence interval, 1.17-3.05). There was a trend but no statistical significance among parous women (risk ratio, 1.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.99-2.73). The risk ratio for preterm birth for all women diagnosed with COVID-19 and preeclampsia was 4.05 (95% confidence interval, 2.99-5.49) and 6.26 (95% confidence interval, 4.35-9.00) for nulliparous women. Compared with women with neither condition diagnosed, the composite adverse perinatal outcome showed a stepwise increase in the risk ratio for COVID-19 without preeclampsia, preeclampsia without COVID-19, and COVID-19 with preeclampsia (risk ratio, 2.16; 95% confidence interval, 1.63-2.86; risk ratio, 2.53; 95% confidence interval, 1.44-4.45; and risk ratio, 2.84; 95% confidence interval, 1.67-4.82, respectively). Similar findings were found for the composite adverse maternal outcome with risk ratios of 1.76 (95% confidence interval, 1.32-2.35), 2.07 (95% confidence interval, 1.20-3.57), and 2.77 (95% confidence interval, 1.66-4.63). The association between COVID-19 and gestational hypertension and the direction of the effects on preterm birth and adverse perinatal and maternal outcomes, were similar to preeclampsia, but confined to nulliparous women with lower risk ratios.ConclusionCOVID-19 during pregnancy is strongly associated with preeclampsia, especially among nulliparous women. This association is independent of any risk factors and preexisting conditions. COVID-19 severity does not seem to be a factor in this association. Both conditions are associated independently of and in an additive fashion with preterm birth, severe perinatal morbidity and mortality, and adverse maternal outcomes. Women with preeclampsia should be considered a particularly vulnerable group with regard to the risks posed by COVID-19.

Many observational studies and some randomized trials demonstrate how fetal growth can be influenced by environmental insults (for example, maternal infections)1 and preventive interventions (for example, multiple-micronutrient supplementation)2 that can have a long-lasting effect on health, growth, neurodevelopment and even educational attainment and income in adulthood3. In a cohort of pregnant women (n = 3,598), followed-up between 2012 and 2019 at six sites worldwide4, we studied the associations between ultrasound-derived fetal cranial growth trajectories, measured longitudinally from

BackgroundThe World Health Organization recommends that human growth should be monitored with the use of international standards. However, in obstetric practice, we continue to monitor fetal growth using numerous local charts or equations that are based on different populations for each body structure. Consistent with World Health Organization recommendations, the INTERGROWTH-21st Project has produced the first set of international standards to date pregnancies; to monitor fetal growth, estimated fetal weight, Doppler measures, and brain structures; to measure uterine growth, maternal nutrition, newborn infant size, and body composition; and to assess the postnatal growth of preterm babies. All these standards are based on the same healthy pregnancy cohort. Recognizing the importance of demonstrating that, postnatally, this cohort still adhered to the World Health Organization prescriptive approach, we followed their growth and development to the key milestone of 2 years of age.ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to determine whether the babies in the INTERGROWTH-21st Project maintained optimal growth and development in childhood.Study designIn the Infant Follow-up Study of the INTERGROWTH-21st Project, we evaluated postnatal growth, nutrition, morbidity, and motor development up to 2 years of age in the children who contributed data to the construction of the international fetal growth, newborn infant size and body composition at birth, and preterm postnatal growth standards. Clinical care, feeding practices, anthropometric measures, and assessment of morbidity were standardized across study sites and documented at 1 and 2 years of age. Weight, length, and head circumference age- and sex-specific z-scores and percentiles and motor development milestones were estimated with the use of the World Health Organization Child Growth Standards and World Health Organization milestone distributions, respectively. For the preterm infants, corrected age was used. Variance components analysis was used to estimate the percentage variability among individuals within a study site compared with that among study sites.ResultsThere were 3711 eligible singleton live births; 3042 children (82%) were evaluated at 2 years of age. There were no substantive differences between the included group and the lost-to-follow up group. Infant mortality rate was 3 per 1000; neonatal mortality rate was 1.6 per 1000. At the 2-year visit, the children included in the INTERGROWTH-21st Fetal Growth Standards were at the 49th percentile for length, 50th percentile for head circumference, and 58th percentile for weight of the World Health Organization Child Growth Standards. Similar results were seen for the preterm subgroup that was included in the INTERGROWTH-21st Preterm Postnatal Growth Standards. The cohort overlapped between the 3rd and 97th percentiles of the World Health Organization motor development milestones. We estimated that the variance among study sites explains only 5.5% of the total variability in the length of the children between birth and 2 years of age, although the variance among individuals within a study site explains 42.9% (ie, 8 times the amount explained by the variation among sites). An increase of 8.9 cm in adult height over mean parental height is estimated to occur in the cohort from low-middle income countries, provided that children continue to have adequate health, environmental, and nutritional conditions.ConclusionThe cohort enrolled in the INTERGROWTH-21st standards remained healthy with adequate growth and motor development up to 2 years of age, which supports its appropriateness for the construction of international fetal and preterm postnatal growth standards.

BACKGROUND The Endometriosis Health Profiles (EHPs), the EHP-30 and EHP-5, are patient-reported outcome measures that were developed to measure the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of women living with endometriosis. Prior to their development, a systematic review was undertaken which identified that the HRQoL of women living with endometriosis was poorly understood, with only three medical and one surgical study identified. OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE The 20-year anniversary of the EHP-30 provided a timely opportunity to assess how the tools have been used and explore what the findings tell us about the impact of endometriosis and its associated treatments upon women's QoL. Applying robust systematic review methodology, following PRISMA guidelines, we sought to answer: How many studies have used the EHP and for what purpose?; What are the demographic characteristics and international context of the studies?; What is the methodological nature and quality of the studies?; Which interventions have been assessed and what are the reported EHP outcomes?; and Can the EHP outcomes of these interventions be analysed using a meta-analysis and, if so, what do the results show? SEARCH METHODS The electronic databases MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, PubMed, and Google Scholar were searched from the year the EHP was first published, in 2001 to 26 February 2020 using the search terms 'EHP30', 'EHP5', 'EHP-30', 'EHP-5', 'endometriosis health profile 30', and 'endometriosis health profile 5'. We updated the searches on 9 April 2021. All included studies were quality assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). OUTCOMES The review included 139 papers. In clinical intervention studies, the EHPs were deployed most frequently to measure the outcomes of medical (n = 35) and surgical (n = 21) treatment. The EHPs were also used in 13 other intervention studies, 29 non-interventional studies, 32 psychometric/cross cultural validation studies; six diagnostic studies, and in three other studies to measure outcomes in related conditions. They were mainly deployed in studies undertaken in Europe and North America. Overall, regardless of the nature of the intervention, most women reported improvements in HRQoL after treatment. Surgical interventions generally resulted in significant improvements for the longest amount of time. There was also evidence that when participants stopped taking medication their EHP scores worsened, perhaps reinforcing the temporary impact of medical treatment. Younger patients reported more negative impact upon their HRQoL. Further evidence using classical test theory to support the EHPs' robust psychometric properties, including acceptability, dimensionality, reliability, validity (including cross-cultural), and responsiveness, was demonstrated, particularly for the EHP-30. Strikingly, using anchor-based methods, EHP-30 responsiveness studies demonstrate the largest mean changes in the 'control and powerlessness' domain post-intervention, followed by 'pain'. MMAT outcomes indicated the quality of the papers was good, with the exception of five studies. A meta-analysis was not undertaken owing to the heterogeneity of the interventions and papers included in this review. WIDER IMPLICATIONS Women with endometriosis face a lifetime of surgical and/or medical interventions to keep the condition under control. Less invasive treatments that can lead to improved longer term physical and psycho-social outcomes are needed. The EHPs are reliable, valid, acceptable, and responsive tools, but more assessment of EHP outcomes using modern psychometric methods and in the context of women from ethnically diverse backgrounds and in routine clinical care would be beneficial. Given the brevity of the EHP-5, it may be the most appropriate version to use in routine clinical practice, whereas the longer EHP-30, which provides more granularity, is more appropriate for research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Gestational hypertensive and acute hypotensive disorders are associated with maternal morbidity and mortality worldwide. However, physiological blood pressure changes in pregnancy are insufficiently defined. We describe blood pressure changes across healthy pregnancies from the International Fetal and Newborn Growth Consortium for the 21st Century (INTERGROWTH-21st) Fetal Growth Longitudinal Study (FGLS) to produce international, gestational age-specific, smoothed centiles (third, 10th, 50th, 90th, and 97th) for blood pressure. Methods and findings Secondary analysis of a prospective, longitudinal, observational cohort study (2009 to 2016) was conducted across 8 diverse urban areas in Brazil, China, India, Italy, Kenya, Oman, the United Kingdom, and the United States of America. We enrolled healthy women at low risk of pregnancy complications. We measured blood pressure using standardised methodology and validated equipment at enrolment at 14 mmHg or diastolic blood pressure by >11 mmHg in fewer than 10% of women at any gestational age. Fewer than 10% of women increased their systolic blood pressure by >24 mmHg or diastolic blood pressure by >18 mmHg at any gestational age. The study's main limitations were the unavailability of prepregnancy blood pressure values and inability to explore circadian effects because time of day was not recorded for the blood pressure measurements. Conclusions Our findings provide international, gestational age-specific centiles and limits of acceptable change to facilitate earlier recognition of deteriorating health in pregnant women. These centiles challenge the idea of a clinically significant midpregnancy drop in blood pressure., Author(s): Lauren J. Green 1,*, Stephen H. Kennedy 2,3, Lucy Mackillop 2, Stephen Gerry 4, Manorama Purwar 5, Eleonora Staines Urias 2, Leila Cheikh Ismail 2,6, Fernando Barros 7, Cesar [...]

Background Observational studies relating maternal 25-hydroxyvitamin D status to timing and mode of delivery have reported inconsistent results. We assessed the effect of antenatal cholecalciferol supplementation on the incidence of preterm birth, delivery mode and post-partum haemorrhage (PPH). Methods MAVIDOS was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of 1000 IU/day cholecalciferol from 14 weeks' gestation until delivery. Gestational age, mode of delivery [categorized as spontaneous vaginal delivery (SVD), instrumental (including forceps and vacuum extraction) or Caesarean section] and PPH (>500 ml estimated blood loss) were determined from medical records. Results A total of 965 women participated in the study until delivery. Gestation at birth and incidence of preterm birth (cholecalciferol 5.7%, placebo 4.5%, P  = 0.43) were similar between the two treatment groups. SVD (versus instrumental or Caesarean delivery) was more likely in women randomized to cholecalciferol [Relative Risk (RR) 1.13, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02,1.25] due to lower instrumental (RR 0.68, 95%CI 0.51,0.91) but similar risk of Caesarean delivery (RR 0.94, 95%CI 0.74,1.19). PPH was less common in women randomized to cholecalciferol [32.1% compared with placebo (38.1%, P  = 0.054) overall], but similar when stratified by delivery mode. Conclusions Antenatal cholecalciferol supplementation did not alter timing of birth or prevalence of preterm birth but demonstrated a possible effect on the likelihood of SVD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Many women experience suboptimal gestational weight gain (GWG) in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), but our understanding of risk factors associated with GWG in these settings is limited. We investigated the relationships between demographic, anthropometric, lifestyle, and clinical factors and GWG in prospectively collected data from LMICs. Methods and findings: We conducted an individual participant-level meta-analysis of risk factors for GWG outcomes among 138,286 pregnant women with singleton pregnancies in 55 studies (27 randomized controlled trials and 28 prospective cohorts from 25 LMICs). Data sources were identified through PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science searches for articles published from January 2000 to March 2019. Titles and abstracts of articles identified in all databases were independently screened by 2 team members according to the following eligibility criteria: following inclusion criteria: (1) GWG data collection took place in an LMIC; (2) the study was a prospective cohort or randomized trial; (3) study participants were pregnant; and (4) the study was not conducted exclusively among human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected women or women with other health conditions that could limit the generalizability of the results. The Institute of Medicine (IOM) body mass index (BMI)-specific guidelines were used to determine the adequacy of GWG, which we calculated as the ratio of the total observed weight gain over the mean recommended weight gain. Study outcomes included severely inadequate GWG (percent adequacy of GWG <70), inadequate GWG (percent adequacy of GWG <90, inclusive of severely inadequate), and excessive GWG (percent adequacy of GWG >125). Multivariable estimates from each study were pooled using fixed-effects meta-analysis. Study-specific regression models for each risk factor included all other demographic risk factors measured in a particular study as potential confounders, as well as BMI, maternal height, pre-pregnancy smoking, and chronic hypertension. Risk factors occurring during pregnancy were further adjusted for receipt of study intervention (if any) and 3-month calendar period. The INTERGROWTH-21st standard was used to define high and low GWG among normal weight women in a sensitivity analysis. The prevalence of inadequate GWG was 54%, while the prevalence of excessive weight gain was 22%. In multivariable models, factors that were associated with a higher risk of inadequate GWG included short maternal stature (<145 cm), tobacco smoking, and HIV infection. A mid-upper arm circumference (MUAC) of ≥28.1 cm was associated with the largest increase in risk for excessive GWG (risk ratio (RR) 3.02, 95% confidence interval (CI) [2.86, 3.19]). The estimated pooled difference in absolute risk between those with MUAC of ≥28.1 cm compared to those with a MUAC of 24 to 28.09 cm was 5.8% (95% CI 3.1% to 8.4%). Higher levels of education and age <20 years were also associated with an increased risk of excessive GWG. Results using the INTERGROWTH-21st standard among normal weight women were similar but attenuated compared to the results using the IOM guidelines among normal weight women. Limitations of the study's methodology include differences in the availability of risk factors and potential confounders measured in each individual dataset; not all risk factors or potential confounders of interest were available across datasets and data on potential confounders collected across studies. Conclusions: Inadequate GWG is a significant public health concern in LMICs. We identified diverse nutritional, behavioral, and clinical risk factors for inadequate GWG, highlighting the need for integrated approaches to optimizing GWG in LMICs. The prevalence of excessive GWG suggests that attention to the emerging burden of excessive GWG in LMICs is also warranted. Using individual participant data from more than 140,000 pregnant women across 25 low- and middle-income countries, Anne Marie Darling and colleagues explore the risk factors associated with both inadequate and excessive gestational weight gain. Author summary: Why was this study done?: Gestational weight gain (GWG) during pregnancy is a useful indicator for detecting potential maternal and infant health concerns. GWG below the recommended range, termed "inadequate," has been found to be associated with higher risk of stillbirth, small for gestational age (SGA), and preterm birth. GWG above the recommended range, termed "excessive," has been found to be associated with higher risk of large for gestational age (LGA), macrosomia, cesarean delivery, postpartum weight retention, and child overweight. Identifying modifiable risk factors for inadequate and excessive GWG is necessary for the development of evidence-based policies and programs that promote GWG within recommended ranges, but the evidence base for these risk factors is limited in in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). What did the researchers do and find?: We pooled data on pregnancy weight gain and potential risk factors from 55 prospective cohort and randomized clinical trials contributed by members of the GWG Pooling Project consortium to create a large dataset of 138,286 pregnant women from 25 countries. The pooled prevalence of severely inadequate, inadequate (inclusive of severely inadequate), and excess GWG was 34.2%, 53.9%, and 22.0%, respectively. Anthropometric factors such as body mass index (BMI), mid-upper arm circumference (MUAC), and height were strongly associated with inadequate, severely inadequate, and excessive weight gain. Smoking and HIV infection were associated with a higher risk of inadequate and severely inadequate weight gain, while higher levels of education were associated with a lower risk. Higher levels of education were also associated with a higher risk of excessive weight gain. What do these findings mean?: Inadequate GWG is a major public health concern in LMICs, and several demographic, nutritional, substance use, and clinical factors may perpetuate its occurrence. Comprehensive interventions to improve maternal health and nutrition status and promote healthy behaviors are needed. The extent of excessive GWG and its determinants is also a public health concern and warrants additional research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]