ORIGINAL RESEARCH article
Front. Nutr.
Sec. Nutritional Epidemiology
Volume 12 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/fnut.2025.1633088
This article is part of the Research TopicMaternal Metabolic Health: From Preconception to PostpartumView all 9 articles
Pre-pregnancy Body Mass Index and Risk of Macrosomia: Glycemic Status-Specific Thresholds and Subgroup Interactions in a Prospective Cohort
Provisionally accepted- 1Central South University, Changsha, China
- 2Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, China
- 3Kunming Medical University, Kunming, China
Select one of your emails
You have multiple emails registered with Frontiers:
Notify me on publication
Please enter your email address:
If you already have an account, please login
You don't have a Frontiers account ? You can register here
Background: Macrosomia, a critical perinatal complication, is closely linked to maternal obesity and gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). However, the extent to which GDM status modifies the association between pre-pregnancy body mass index (BMI) and macrosomia, particularly across demographic subgroups, remains poorly understood. This study aimed to quantify glycemic status-specific risk thresholds and explore subgroup interactions in a large prospective cohort.Methods: In this prospective cohort study, 34,031 women initiating antenatal care before 14 weeks of gestation were enrolled at a tertiary hospital in Central China (2013-2019). Participants were stratified by GDM status and pre-pregnancy BMI categories. Multivariable logistic regression, restricted cubic spline (RCS) models, and interaction analyses evaluated associations between BMI and macrosomia (birth weight ≥ 4000 g), adjusting for sociodemographic, behavioral, and clinical covariates.Results: Macrosomia incidence was markedly higher in GDM (6.2%) versus non-GDM pregnancies (3.6%). Adjusted models revealed a steeper dose-response gradient in GDM: each 1-unit BMI increase conferred 24% higher odds (aOR: 1.24 [95% CI 1.20, 1.28]) in GDM versus 13% (aOR: 1.13 [1.11, 1.15]) in non-GDM. Obesity amplified risk 6.80-fold (aOR: 6.80 [4.02, 11.51]) in GDM versus 4.70-fold (aOR: 4.70 [3.12, 7.10)]) in non-GDM. RCS models identified nonlinear trajectories in both GDM and non-GDM pregnancies (reference level: 22.94 kg/m2 for GDM and 25.10 kg/m2 for non-GDM). Significant interactions were observed in GDM pregnancies, and the association between pre-pregnancy BMI values and macrosomia was stronger in women < 35 years (aOR: 1.29 versus ≥35 years, aOR: 1.15), primigravida (aOR: 1.61 versus multigravida, aOR: 1.18), primiparous (aOR: 1.36 versus multiparous, aOR: 1.18), and female infants (aOR: 1.29 versus male, aOR: 1.20). In non-GDM pregnancies, only parity (primiparous, aOR: 1.08 versus multiparous, aOR: 1.19) and gravidity (primigravida, aOR: 1.05 versus multigravida, aOR: 1.19) modified the pre-pregnancy BMI-macrosomia relationship.Conclusion: GDM status modifies pre-pregnancy BMI-associated macrosomia risks, with distinct thresholds and subgroup vulnerabilities. These findings necessitate glycemic status-specific clinical guidelines and precision interventions targeting high-risk subgroups. Universal preconception weight optimization remains pivotal for non-GDM populations. This study underscores the urgency of integrating metabolic and demographic heterogeneity into perinatal care to mitigate the dual epidemics of overweight/obesity and GDM.
Keywords: Macrosomia, pre-pregnancy body mass index, gestational diabetes mellitus, prospective cohort, maternal metabolic health, risk stratification
Received: 22 May 2025; Accepted: 18 Jun 2025.
Copyright: © 2025 Wu, Xiao, Chen, Qin and Wang. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
* Correspondence:
Jiabi Qin, Kunming Medical University, Kunming, China
Tingting Wang, Central South University, Changsha, China
Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.