Email Alert | RSS

Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences) ›› 2022, Vol. 54 ›› Issue (3): 427-433. doi: 10.19723/j.issn.1671-167X.2022.03.006

Previous Articles     Next Articles

Effects of gestational weight on the association between serum high sensitivity C reaction protein and gestational diabetes mellitus among twin gestations: A cohort study

Yang-yang CHEN1,Yu-bo ZHOU2,3,Jing YANG4,Yu-meng HUA1,Peng-bo YUAN4,Ai-ping LIU1,*(),Yuan WEI4,*()   

  1. 1. Department of Social Medicine and Health Education, Peking University School of Public Health, Beijing 100191, China
    2. Institute of Reproductive and Child Health, Peking University, National Health Commission Key Laboratory of Reproductive Health, Beijing 100191, China
    3. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Peking University School of Public Health, Beijing 100191, China
    4. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing 100191, China
  • Received:2022-01-27 Online:2022-06-18 Published:2022-06-14
  • Contact: Ai-ping LIU,Yuan WEI E-mail:apingliu@163.com;weiyuanbysy@163.com
  • Supported by:
    the National Key Research and Development Program of China(2016YFC1000401);the National Key Research and Development Program of China(2016YFC1000408)

RICH HTML

   

PDF (PC)

Abstract:

Objective: To investigate the association between serum high sensitivity C-reaction protein (hsCRP) in early pregnancy and gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) among twin pregnant women, and to explore the effects of the pre-pregnant body mass index (BMI) and gestational weight gain (GWG) status on such association. Methods: Twin pregnant women with pre-pregnant BMI greater than or equal to 18.5 kg/m2 were recruited at Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology of Peking University Third Hospital from March 2017 to December 2020. Serum samples collected in early pregnancy were analyzed for hsCRP using particle-enhanced immunoturbidimetric method. In the following visits, the information about GWG and GDM were prospectively collected in every trimester. The association effect between hsCRP tertiles and GDM were estimated using Logistic regression, and further converted into risk ratio (RR). Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test and mediation analysis were used to explore the effects of BMI and GWG status on the association. Results: Among the included 570 twin pregnant women, 31.6% deve-loped GDM, 26.1% were pre-pregnant overweight or obesity, and 49.5% with GWG out of referenced range. After adjustment for confounding factors, risk of developing GDM in twin gestations with the middle tertile and highest tertile of serum hsCRP in early pregnancy were 1.42 fold (95%CI: 1.02-1.89) and 1.54 fold (95%CI: 1.12-2.02), respectively, compared with the lowest tertile of serum hsCRP, and there existed significantly linear trend (P=0.022). Findings from mediation analysis illustrated that pre-pregnant BMI had partial mediating effect on the association, and BMI accounted for 23.84% (P < 0.001) of the increasing GDM risks with elevated hsCRP. Joint analysis with hsCRP and GWG found that those who were with GWG out of referenced range accompanied with the higher hsCRP tertiles (>1.21 mg/L) had significantly 2.31 fold increased risk according to those who were with GWG in the referenced range accompanied with the lowest hsCRP tertile (≤1.21 mg/L, P < 0.01). Conclusion: Elevated hsCRP in early pregnancy significantly increased GDM risk among twin pregnant women. The hsCRP-GDM association was dependent on GWG status, and pre-pregnant BMI had partial mediating effect on such association. It is suggested that twin pregnant women should consider systemic inflammation and gestational weight at the same time to reduce GDM risk.

Key words: Twin pregnancy, C-reactive protein, Diabetes, gestational, Body mass index

CLC Number: 

  • R714.256

Table 1

Characteristics of twin pregnant women among hsCRP tertiles"

Items Total (n=570) T1 (n=178) T2 (n=191) T3 (n=201) P
hsCRP/(mg/L), M (P25, P75) 1.94 (0.93, 4.21) 0.61 (0.64, 0.92) 1.86 (1.59, 2.33) 5.28 (3.99, 7.24)
Maternal age/years, M (P25, P75) 33 (31, 36) 32 (31, 36) 33 (31, 36) 34 (31, 36)
Nationality, n (%) 0.333
  Han 526 (92.3) 166 (93.3) 179 (93.7) 181 (90.0)
  Minority 44 (7.7) 12 (6.7) 12 (6.3) 20 (10.0)
Educational level, n (%) < 0.001
  High school and below 54 (9.5) 11 (6.2) 12 (6.3) 31 (15.4)ac, bc
  Bachelor 319 (56.0) 91 (51.1) 106 (55.5) 122 (60.7)
  Master and above 197 (34.6) 76 (42.7) 73 (38.2) 48 (23.9)
Couple income per year (10 000 yuan), n (%) 0.128
   < 12 141 (24.7) 36 (20.2) 42 (22.0) 63 (31.3)
  ≥12 103 (18.1) 35 (19.7) 32 (16.8) 36 (17.9)
  ≥20 139 (24.4) 46 (25.8) 45 (23.6) 48 (23.9)
  ≥30 187 (32.8) 61 (34.3) 72 (37.7) 54 (26.9)
Smoking (or passively), n (%) 0.483
  No 467 (81.9) 146 (82.0) 161 (84.3) 160 (79.6)
  Yes 103 (18.1) 32 (18.0) 30 (15.7) 41 (20.4)
Alcohol, n (%) 0.423
  No 516 (90.5) 158 (88.8) 177 (92.7) 181 (90.0)
  Yes 54 (9.5) 20 (11.2) 14 (7.3) 20 (10.0)
Pre-pregnant BMI, n (%) < 0.001
  Normal 421 (73.9) 154 (86.5) 150 (78.5) 117 (58.2)ac, bc
  Overweight or obesity 149 (26.1) 24 (13.5) 41 (21.5) 84 (41.8)
Parity, n (%) 0.954
  0 484 (84.9) 152 (85.4) 161 (84.3) 171 (85.1)
  1- 86 (15.1) 26 (14.6) 30 (15.7) 30 (14.9)
Aspirin use, n (%) 0.516
  No 441 (77.4) 134 (75.3) 153 (80.1) 154 (76.6)
  Yes 129 (22.6) 44 (24.7) 38 (19.9) 47 (23.4)
Conception mode, n (%) 0.052
  Nature 161 (28.3) 59 (33.3) 57 (29.8) 45 (22.4)
  Assisted reproductive technology 408 (71.7) 118 (66.7) 134 (70.2) 156 (77.6)
Chorionic, n (%) 0.870
  Dichorionic 398 (75.2) 121 (73.8) 140 (76.1) 137 (75.7)
  Monochorionic 131 (24.8) 43 (26.2) 44 (23.9) 44 (24.3)
Gestational weeks at blood drawing, M (P25, P75) 9 (8, 10) 8 (7, 10) 9 (8, 10) 9 (8, 10)ac
Gestational weight gain, n (%) 0.256
  In the range 228 (40.0) 73 (41.0) 80 (41.8) 75 (37.3)
  Above the range 282 (49.5) 91 (51.1) 94 (49.2) 97 (48.3)
  Below the range 60 (10.5) 14 (7.9) 17 (8.9) 29 (14.4)
GDM, n (%) 0.017
  No 390 (68.4) 136 (76.4) 127 (66.5) 127 (63.2)ac
  Yes 180 (31.6) 42 (23.6) 64 (33.5) 74 (36.8)

Table 2

Associations between serum hsCRP tertiles and GDM"

Model Unadjusted Adjusted
T1 T2 T3 Ptrend T1 T2 T3 Ptrend
Model 1 Ref. 1.42 (1.02, 1.88)* 1.56 (1.15, 2.03)** 0.015 Ref. 1.42 (1.02, 1.89)** 1.54 (1.12, 2.02)** 0.022
Model 2 Ref. 1.38 (0.99, 1.84) 1.41 (1.02, 1.88)* 0.081 Ref. 1.38 (0.99, 1.85) 1.40 (1.00, 1.89) 0.089
Model 3 Ref. 1.44 (1.04, 1.91)* 1.58 (1.17, 2.06)** 0.012 Ref. 1.43 (1.03, 1.91)* 1.55 (1.13, 2.04)** 0.021

Table 3

Correlation on hsCRP tertiles and GDM among BMI or gestational weight gain status"

hsCRP tertiles BMI Gestational weight gain status
Normal Overweight or obesity In the range Above the range Below the range
n GDM, n (%) n GDM, n (%) n GDM, n (%) n GDM, n (%) n GDM, n (%)
Total 421 117 (27.79) 149 63 (42.28) 228 56 (24.56) 282 107 (37.94) 60 17 (28.33)
T1 154 35 (22.73) 24 7 (29.17) 73 13 (17.81) 91 27 (29.67) 14 2 (14.29)
T2 150 46 (30.67) 41 18 (43.90) 80 20 (25.00) 94 39 (41.49) 17 5 (29.41)
T3 117 36 (37.34) 84 38 (45.24) 75 23 (30.67) 97 41 (42.27) 29 10 (34.48)
PCMH=0.087 PCMH=0.014

Table 4

Mediation of BMI or gestational weight gain on the association between hsCRP and GDM"

Items Mediation of BMI on the association Mediation of gestational weight gain on the association
T1 vs. T2 T2 vs. T3 T1 vs. T3 T1 vs. T2 T2 vs. T3 T1 vs. T3
Total effect 0.099*
(0.003, 0.190)		 0.028
(-0.074, 0.120)		 0.127***
(0.039, 0.210)		 0.100
(-0.011, 0.180)		 0.029
(-0.068, 0.100)		 0.129***
(0.037, 0.210)
Mediated effect 0.009*
(0.001, 0.020)		 0.024*
(0.010, 0.050)		 0.030***
(0.004, 0.050)		 0.001
(-0.007, 0.010)		 0.006
(-0.001, 0.020)		 0.006
(-0.001, 0.020)
Direct effect 0.091
(-0.004, 0.190)		 0.005
(-0.103, 0.100)		 0.097*
(0.017, 0.180)		 0.099
(-0.010, 0.180)		 0.023
(-0.076, 0.100)		 0.122***
(0.032, 0.200)
Proportion of mediation 8.59%
(-0.002, 1.460)		 83.80%
(-4.980, 7.810)		 23.84%***
(0.049, 0.660)		 0.76%
(-0.085, 0.160)		 20.54%
(-1.124, 1.850)		 4.77%
(-0.016, 0.190)

Figure 1

Mediation of BMI on the association between hsCRP and GDM hsCRP T3 accounted for 23.84% (P < 0.001) of the increasing GDM risks with elevated hsCRP in comparison to hsCRP T1. * P < 0.001. GDM, gestational diabetes mellitus; BMI, body mass index; hsCRP, high sensitivity C-reaction protein; T1, tertile 1; T3, tertile 3."

Table 5

Joint association effect of hsCRP and gestational weight gain on GDM"

hsCRP & gestational weight gain n Unadjusted Adjusted
T1 & in the range 73 Reference Reference
T1 & above the range 91 1.67 (0.95, 2.68) 1.66 (0.93, 2.68)
T1 & below the range 14 0.80 (0.13, 2.34) 0.78 (0.13, 2.29)
T2 & in the range 80 1.40 (0.75, 2.40) 1.39 (0.73, 2.38)
T2 & above the range 94 2.33 (1.46, 3.38)*** 2.31 (1.44, 3.36)**
T2 & below the range 17 1.65 (0.59, 3.23) 1.66 (0.59, 3.24)
T3 & in the range 75 1.72 (0.96, 2.78) 1.68 (0.93, 2.74)
T3 & above the range 97 2.37 (1.50, 3.42)*** 2.31 (1.44, 3.37)**
T3 & below the range 29 1.94 (0.92, 3.27) 1.90 (0.89, 3.24)
1 American Diabetes Association . 14. Management of diabetes in pregnancy: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2021[J]. Diabetes Care, 2021, 44 (Suppl 1): S200- S210.
2 Zhu W , Yang H , Wang C , et al. High prevalence of gestational diabetes mellitus in Beijing: Effect of maternal birth weight and other risk factors[J]. Chin Med J (Engl), 2017, 130 (9): 1019- 1025.
doi: 10.4103/0366-6999.204930
3 Hiersch L , Berger H , Okby R , et al. Gestational diabetes mellitus is associated with adverse outcomes in twin pregnancies[J]. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 2019, 220 (1): 101- 102.
4 Sudasinghe BH , Wijeyaratne CN , Ginige PS . Long and short-term outcomes of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) among South Asian women: A community-based study[J]. Diabetes Res Clin Pract, 2018, 145, 93- 101.
doi: 10.1016/j.diabres.2018.04.013
5 Wang X , Bao W , Liu J , et al. Inflammatory markers and risk of type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Diabetes Care, 2013, 36 (1): 166- 175.
doi: 10.2337/dc12-0702
6 Yousuf O , Mohanty BD , Martin SS , et al. High-sensitivity C-reactive protein and cardiovascular disease: A resolute belief or an elusive link?[J]. J Am Coll Cardiol, 2013, 62 (5): 397- 408.
doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2013.05.016
7 Wolf M , Sandler L , Hsu K , et al. First-trimester C-reactive protein and subsequent gestational diabetes[J]. Diabetes Care, 2003, 26 (3): 819- 824.
doi: 10.2337/diacare.26.3.819
8 Alamolhoda SH , Yazdkhasti M , Namdari M , et al. Association between C-reactive protein and gestational diabetes: A prospective study[J]. J Obstet Gynaecol, 2020, 40 (3): 349- 353.
doi: 10.1080/01443615.2019.1631767
9 Retnakaran R , Hanley AJ , Raif N , et al. C-reactive protein and gestational diabetes: The central role of maternal obesity[J]. J Clin Endocrinol Metab, 2003, 88 (8): 3507- 3512.
doi: 10.1210/jc.2003-030186
10 Egeland GM , Irgens LM . Is a multiple birth pregnancy a risk factor for gestational diabetes?[J]. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 2001, 185 (5): 1275- 1276.
11 中华人民共和国国家卫生和计划生育委员会. 成人体重判定[S]. 北京: 中国标准出版社, 2013.
12 Rasmussen K , Yaktine A . Reexamine IOM pregnancy weight guidelines (chapter 3): Composition and components of gestatio-nal weight gain: Physiology and metabolism[M]. USA: National Academies Press, 2009.
13 Zhang J , Yu KF . What's the relative risk? A method of correcting the odds ratio in cohort studies of common outcomes[J]. JAMA, 1998, 280 (19): 1690- 1691.
doi: 10.1001/jama.280.19.1690
14 Dinham GK , Henry A , Lowe SA , et al. Twin pregnancies complicated by gestational diabetes mellitus: A single centre cohort study[J]. Diabet Med, 2016, 33 (12): 1659- 1667.
doi: 10.1111/dme.13076
15 Liu X , Chen Y , Zhou Q , et al. Utilization of International Asso-ciation of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups criteria vs. a two-step approach to screening for gestational diabetes mellitus in Chinese women with twin pregnancies[J]. Diabet Med, 2015, 32 (3): 367- 373.
doi: 10.1111/dme.12636
16 Picard F , Wanatabe M , Schoonjans K , et al. Progesterone receptor knockout mice have an improved glucose homeostasis secondary to β-cell proliferation[J]. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 2002, 99 (24): 15644- 15648.
doi: 10.1073/pnas.202612199
17 Vejrazkova D , Vcelak J , Vankova M , et al. Steroids and insulin resistance in pregnancy[J]. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol, 2014, 139, 122- 129.
doi: 10.1016/j.jsbmb.2012.11.007
18 Khambule L , George JA . The role of inflammation in the development of GDM and the use of markers of inflammation in GDM screening[J]. Adv Exp Med Biol, 2019, 1134, 217- 242.
19 Lekva T , Norwitz ER , Aukrust P , et al. Impact of systemic inflammation on the progression of gestational diabetes mellitus[J]. Curr Diab Rep, 2016, 16 (4): 26.
doi: 10.1007/s11892-016-0715-9
20 Korkmazer E , Solak N . Correlation between inflammatory markers and insulin resistance in pregnancy[J]. J Obstet Gynaecol, 2015, 35 (2): 142- 145.
doi: 10.3109/01443615.2014.948408
21 Abell SK , de Courten B , Boyle JA , et al. Inflammatory and other biomarkers: Role in pathophysiology and prediction of gestational diabetes mellitus[J]. Int J Mol Sci, 2015, 16 (6): 13442- 13473.
22 Ferguson KK , Mcelrath TF , Chen Y , et al. Longitudinal Profiling of Inflammatory Cytokines and C-reactive protein during uncomplicated and preterm pregnancy[J]. Am J Reprod Immunol, 2014, 72 (3): 326- 336.
doi: 10.1111/aji.12265
23 Hu FB , Meigs JB , Li TY , et al. Inflammatory markers and risk of developing type 2 diabetes in women[J]. Diabetes, 2004, 53 (3): 693- 700.
doi: 10.2337/diabetes.53.3.693
24 Pettit KE , Lacoursiere DY , Schrimmer DB , et al. Maternal and neonatal outcomes in women with twin pregnancies with excessive gestational weight gain[J]. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med, 2016, 29 (13): 2182- 2185.
doi: 10.3109/14767058.2015.1079613
25 王懿珊. 双胎妊娠孕妇孕前体重指数、孕期体重增长与其母婴结局的关系[D]. 郑州: 郑州大学, 2019.
[1] Jinna LI,Li' na XU,Min LI,Yi SONG,Jing ZHANG,Longbin JIA. Correlations between serum BDNF, IL-18 and hs-CRP levels in patients with acute cerebral infarction and vascular cognitive impairment [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2024, 56(4): 708-714.
[2] Weimin LI,Zufeiya TUERDI. Comparative research on the relationship between body mass index and physical fitness index among the Uygur, Kazakh and Han ethnic college students [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2024, 56(3): 411-417.
[3] Yifan WU,Yingxiang YU,Lan XIE,Zhida ZHANG,Cuiqing CHANG. Characteristics of resting energy expenditure and evaluation of prediction formulas in young men with different body mass indexes [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2024, 56(2): 247-252.
[4] Jing-feng ZHANG,Yin-ji JIN,Hui WEI,Zhong-qiang YAO,Jin-xia ZHAO. Correlation analysis between body mass index and clinical characteristics of rheumatoid arthritis [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2023, 55(6): 993-999.
[5] Jian-bin LI,Meng-na LYU,Qiang CHI,Yi-lin PENG,Peng-cheng LIU,Rui WU. Early prediction of severe COVID-19 in patients with Sjögren’s syndrome [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2023, 55(6): 1007-1012.
[6] SONG Qin-feng,LI Hong-tian,YANG Jing,YUAN Peng-bo,CHENG Zhi-hao,LIU Jian-meng,ZHAO Yang-yu. Thyroid function of first-trimester twin pregnant women and its association with preterm delivery [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2021, 53(3): 473-478.
[7] SHI Xin-ran,AN Mei-jing,CHEN Tian-jiao,Ma jun. Mediating effect of milk intake between family socioeconomic status and body mass index of children and adolescents [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2021, 53(2): 308-313.
[8] Jia jia XU,Yan WANG,He SUN,Ru lin JIA,Xue wu ZHANG,Yang MENG,Li li REN,Xiao lin SUN. Clinical significance of detection of soluble interleukin 2 receptor alpha chain in the assessment of rheumatoid arthritis disease activity [J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2018, 50(6): 975-980.
[9] LI Xin, WANG Xin, WU Di, CHEN Zhi-bin, WANG Meng-xing, GAO Yan-xia, GONG Chun-xiu, QIN Man. Interleukin-1β and C-reactive protein level in plasma and gingival crevicular fluid in adolescents with diabetes mellitus [J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2018, 50(3): 538-542.
[10] WANG Li-fang, ZHOU Hong, ZHANG Yan, WANG Yan. Relationship between pre-pregnancy body mass index and preterm birth [J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2016, 48(3): 414-417.
[11] WEI Dong-Mei, WU Li-Jing, GAO Ai-Yu, LI Qin, CHENG Lan, WANG Hai-Jun. Study on the relations among the screen-based sedentary behaviors, family factors and body mass index of children [J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2015, 47(3): 390-394.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!
Copyright © Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), All Rights Reserved.
Powered by Beijing Magtech Co. Ltd