JAH3 10 E020717

Journal of the American Heart Association
ORIGINAL RESEARCH
Trends in Prepregnancy Obesity and

Association With Adverse Pregnancy
Outcomes in the United States, 2013 to 2018
Michael C. Wang , BA; Priya M. Freaney , MD; Amanda M. Perak , MD, MS; Philip Greenland , MD;
Donald M. Lloyd-Jones , MD, ScM; William A. Grobman, MD, MBA; Sadiya S. Khan , MD, MSc
BACKGROUND: The prevalence of obesity in the population has increased in parallel with increasing rates of adverse pregnancy
outcomes (APOs). Quantifying contemporary trends in prepregnancy obesity and associations with interrelated APOs (pre-
term birth, low birth weight, and pregnancy-associated hypertension) together and individually can inform prevention strate-
gies to optimize cardiometabolic health in women and offspring.
METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed a serial, cross-sectional study using National Center for Health Statistics birth cer-
tificate data including women aged 15 to 44 years with live singleton births between 2013 and 2018, stratified by race and
ethnicity (non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic, and non-Hispanic Asian). We quantified the annual prevalence
of prepregnancy obesity (body mass index ≥30.0 kg/m2; body mass index ≥27.5 kg/m2 if non-Hispanic Asian). We then
estimated adjusted associations using multivariable logistic regression (odds ratios and population attributable fractions) for
obesity-related APOs compared with normal body mass index (18.5–24.9 kg/m2; 18.5–22.9 kg/m2 if non-Hispanic Asian).
Among 20 139 891 women, the prevalence of prepregnancy obesity increased between 2013 and 2018: non-Hispanic
White (21.6%–24.8%), non-Hispanic Black (32.5%–36.2%), Hispanic (26.0%–30.5%), and non-Hispanic Asian (15.3%–18.6%)
women (P-trend < 0.001 for all). Adjusted odds ratios (95% CI) for APOs associated with obesity increased between 2013
and 2018, and by 2018, ranged from 1.27 (1.25–1.29) in non-Hispanic Black to 1.94 (1.92–1.96) in non-Hispanic White
women. Obesity was most strongly associated with pregnancy-associated hypertension and inconsistently associated with
preterm birth and low birth weight. Population attributable fractions of obesity-related APOs increased over the study pe-
riod: non-Hispanic White (10.6%–14.7%), non-Hispanic Black (3.7%–6.9%), Hispanic (7.0%–10.4%), and non-Hispanic Asian
(7.4%–9.7%) women (P-trend < 0.01 for all).
CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of prepregnancy obesity and burden of obesity-related APOs have increased, driven primarily
by pregnancy-associated hypertension, and vary across race and ethnicity subgroups.
Key Words: adverse pregnancy outcomes ■ obesity ■ primordial prevention ■ population attributable fraction ■ racial disparities
A
dverse pregnancy outcomes (APOs), including The prevalence of APOs has been increasing in re-
preterm birth, low birth weight, gestational hy- cent years,1,3,4 and significant racial disparities exist,
pertension, and preeclampsia, are highly preva- with higher rates of APOs among non-Hispanic Black
lent and complicate nearly 1 in every 5 pregnancies in women compared with non-Hispanic White women.3,5
the United States.1 Although phenotypically different, APOs are now an established risk factor for cardio-
these APOs appear to share a common pathogenesis vascular disease (CVD) in women, and emerging data
related to defective placental vascular development.2 suggest intergenerational transmission of CVD risk,
Correspondence to: Sadiya S. Khan, MD, MS, Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine and Preventive Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg
School of Medicine, 680 N. Lake Shore Drive Ste. 1400, Chicago, IL 60611. E-mail: [email protected]
Supplementary Material for this article is available at https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/suppl/10.1161/JAHA.120.020717
For Sources of Funding and Disclosures, see page 11.
© 2021 The Authors. Published on behalf of the American Heart Association, Inc., by Wiley. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use
is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
JAHA is available at: www.ahajournals.org/journal/jaha
J Am Heart Assoc. 2021;10:e020717. DOI: 10.1161/JAHA.120.0207171

Wang et al Trends in Obesity-Related APOs, 2013 to 2018
of maternal obesity and the obesity-related burden

CLINICAL PERSPECTIVE of APOs, are lacking. Therefore, we sought to ex-
amine nationwide temporal trends and associations
What Is New? of prepregnancy obesity with APOs in the United
• The prevalence of prepregnancy obesity in- States between 2013 and 2018, stratified by race
creased between 2013 and 2018 across all and ethnicity.
major race and ethnicity groups in the United
States, with a concurrent increase in the obesity-
associated burden of adverse pregnancy out-
comes (preterm birth, low birth weight, and
METHODS
pregnancy-associated hypertension). Data Source and Study Population
All data and materials are made publicly available by
What Are the Clinical Implications? the National Center for Health Statistics and can be
• These findings highlight maternal obesity as a
accessed at https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/births.
growing major public health concern, with tar-
geted efforts needed in women of reproductive
htm.
age to reverse unfavorable trends in prepreg- We performed a serial, cross-s ectional, national
nancy obesity and prevent the long-term con- study using data from birth registration records re-
sequences of obesity and adverse pregnancy leased annually by the National Center for Health
outcomes. Statistics within the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention, which captures 100% of all live
births in the United States (50 US states and the
District of Columbia).14 Birth certificates are com-
pleted by the medical professional present at deliv-
Nonstandard Abbreviations and Acronyms ery on the basis of established National Center for
APO adverse pregnancy outcome Health Statistics protocols. Specifically, prepreg-
HAPO Hyperglycemia and Adverse Pregnancy nancy body mass index (BMI) was incorporated in
Outcomes the 2003 standard birth certificate revision. States
PAF population attributable fraction gradually phased in the new birth certificate; by
2013, the new birth certificate covered >90% of live
births to US residents. Therefore, we chose 2013
with higher likelihood of premature CVD in offspring as the starting year for our study. By 2016, the new
of women who experience APOs compared with off- birth certificate covered 100% of live births, mak-
spring from uncomplicated pregnancies.5–10 As a re- ing overall coverage of the birth certificate during
sult, the American Heart Association and the American the study period well over 90%. This study was ex-
College of Obstetrics and Gynecology have issued a empt from review by the Institutional Review Board
joint statement highlighting the importance of address- because of the deidentified nature of the publicly
ing cardiometabolic health across the reproductive life available data set, and no informed consent was
course, including optimization of a healthy body weight required.
before conception.11 Figure 1 shows the selection of our analytic popula-
Prepregnancy obesity is a key modifiable risk tion. Of 23 550 072 live births between 2013 and 2018
factor for the development of APOs.12,13 Given the in- in the United States, 22 961 760 (97.5%) used the re-
creasing prevalence of obesity in the United States, vised birth certificate and thus recorded prepregnancy
especially among younger women of reproductive BMI. We included maternal data from all women aged
age and in race and ethnicity minority groups, it is 15 to 44 years who were US residents, had singleton
important to determine race and ethnicity-s pecific births, and self-identified as 1 of 4 major race and eth-
trends in maternal obesity and its association with nicity groups in the United States by population size:
APOs. The population attributable fraction (PAF) is non- Hispanic White, non- Hispanic Black, Hispanic,
a useful public health metric that accounts for both and non-Hispanic Asian. These 4 race and ethnicity
the prevalence of maternal obesity and the excess groups covered 96.7% of births. For the primary anal-
risk of APOs associated with obesity. Trends in the ysis, we excluded women with diagnoses of prepreg-
PAF can assess the changing population health nancy hypertension (361 780; 1.7%) or prepregnancy
burden associated with obesity and help moti- diabetes mellitus (176 515; 0.8%) to focus on women
vate changes in preventive strategies and public without prominent prepregnancy risk factors other
health policies to improve long-term cardiometa- than obesity. We also excluded 716 112 (3.4%) obser-
bolic health. However, contemporary national esti- vations missing data on the exposure (prepregnancy
mates for, as well as recent patterns in prevalence BMI) or outcome (gestational age, birth weight, and

23,550,072
US live births
2013-2018
Excluded if revised (2003) birth certificate not

used (N=588,312 [2.5%])
22,961,760
Excluded if:
• Age <15 or >44 years (N= 66,372
[0.3%])
• Non-US resident (N= 56,869 [0.2%])
• Race/ethnicity self-identified as other
(N=761,264 [3.3%])
• Non-singleton pregnancy (N= 788,773
[3.4%])
21,332,117
Excluded if:
• Pre-pregnancy hypertension (N=361,780
[1.7%])
• Pre-pregnancy diabetes (N=176,515
[0.8%])
• Missing data on BMI, gestational age,
birthweight, or pregnancy-associated
20,139,891 hypertension (N=716,112 [3.4%])
Final analytic
sample
Figure 1. Flow diagram for the final analytic sample representing the study population.
From the initial population of all live births in the United States between 2013 and 2018 (N=23 550 072), we
first excluded records using the unrevised (1989) birth certificate, which did not report prepregnancy body
mass index. We then applied the following inclusion criteria: maternal age, 15–44 years; US resident; self-
identified as non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic, or non-Hispanic Asian; and singleton
pregnancy. Finally, we applied the following exclusion criteria: prepregnancy hypertension; prepregnancy
diabetes mellitus; or missing data on prepregnancy BMI, gestational age, birth weight, or pregnancy-
associated hypertension. Our final analytic sample contained 20 139 891 live births. BMI indicates body
mass index.
pregnancy-associated hypertension). Our final analytic (BMI between 25.0 and 29.9 kg/m2), and obese (BMI
sample contained 20 139 891 births. ≥30.0 kg/m2). For non- Hispanic Asian women, we
used modified BMI categories as recommended by the
World Health Organization for Asian populations,15 with
Exposure and Outcome Defintions specific cutoffs that were used in a prior study of Asian
The exposure for the analysis was prepregnancy obe- Americans:16 underweight (BMI <18.5 kg/m2), normal
sity. For non-Hispanic White, non- Hispanic Black, or healthy weight (BMI between 18.5 and 22.9 kg/m2),
and Hispanic women, we used standardized BMI cat- overweight (BMI between 23.0 and 27.4 kg/m2), and
egories according to the World Health Organization obese (BMI ≥27.5 kg/m2).
to classify maternal prepregnancy BMI into 4 catego- For the outcome, we defined APO a priori as a
ries: underweight (BMI <18.5 kg/m2), normal or healthy composite of preterm birth (defined as gestational
weight (BMI between 18.5 and 24.9 kg/m2), overweight age at delivery <37 weeks), low birth weight (defined

as birth weight <2500 g), or pregnancy-associated we plotted the conditional expectation of APO rate
hypertension (defined as gestational hypertension or on BMI, adjusted for age, using 20 equal-sized bins,
preeclampsia) based on National Center for Health and superimposed separate linear fit lines within
Statistics definitions.17,18 We used this definition, each BMI category in 2013 and 2018. To assess cat-
similar to prior publications,19,20 based on the inter- egorical associations between prepregnancy BMI
related vascular nature of these complications that and APOs for each year, we estimated odds ratios
are theorized to share a common pathogenesis and (ORs) and 95% CIs between prepregnancy BMI cat-
have similar cardiometabolic risk implications for fu- egories and APOs using multivariable logistic regres-
ture maternal and offspring health.2 Consistent with sion models with normal BMI (18.5–24.9 kg/m2) as
official tabulations of vital statistics, we used the ob- the referent and adjusted for age, education, prenatal
stetric estimate of gestational age, rather than the care, private insurance, smoking during pregnancy,
last menstrual period estimate, to determine preterm and parity. We calculated the PAFs (and 95% CIs) of
birth.21 Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy are each prepregnancy BMI category for APOs relative
categorized in birth certificates as prepregnancy to normal BMI per year between 2013 and 2018. We
(chronic) hypertension, gestational hypertension (a used the Stata module punaf to calculate PAF, which
categorization that also includes preeclampsia), and has been previously described in detail (see also
eclampsia. We included the gestational hyperten- Data S1).23 In brief, this statistical module uses the lo-
sion category in our outcome, with or without ec- gistic regression results to estimate predicted popu-
lampsia, and excluded prepregnancy hypertension. lation APO prevalences (termed margins or marginal
We also investigated small for gestational age (SGA) prevalences) under 2 scenarios: the observed cate-
as a secondary outcome. SGA was defined as a gorical BMI distribution in the population and a coun-
birth weight less than the 10th percentile for gesta- terfactual scenario in which prepregnancy obesity is
tional age based on the Alexander curve.22 eliminated from the population. The ratio of these 2
predicted margins (subtracted from 1) is the PAF. The
Covariates PAF ranges from 0 to 1, which we translated into per-
centages (0% to 100%). The formula used in the PAF
We adjusted analyses for maternal age, maternal edu-
calculations is valid for adjusted ORs, which are used
cation level (less than high school, high school gradu-
in this study.24 We tested for linear trends in PAFs
ate, or greater than high school), receipt of prenatal
using linear regression of the PAF point estimates on
care (versus no prenatal care), private insurance (versus
year as a continuous variable.
other payment method), smoking during pregnancy
In secondary analyses, we repeated the logistic re-
(versus no smoking during pregnancy), and parity (nul-
gression and PAF analysis for each APO separately, for
liparous or multiparous). Approximately 5.0% of obser-
women who had more than 1 APO, and for women who
vations were missing data on any covariate. Because
had an SGA birth. We performed sensitivity analyses
of the low level of missingness, we conducted a com-
reincluding women with prepregnancy hypertension
plete case analysis.
and prepregnancy diabetes mellitus, who were ex-
cluded from the primary analysis, as well as nulliparous
Statistical Analysis women. For all analyses, we used Stata 15.1, and we
Descriptive statistics were calculated. Given well- considered statistical significance for a P value <0.05.
established race and ethnicity disparities in rates of
obesity and APOs, we stratified by race and ethnicity
a priori. Within each race and ethnicity group and for RESULTS
each year between 2013 and 2018, we calculated the
percentage of women in each prepregnancy BMI cat- Analytic Sample Demographics
egory and annual unadjusted rates of APOs per 1000 Of the women aged 15 to 44 years who had 20 139 891
live births stratified by BMI category. We tested for dif- live births between 2013 and 2018, 54.6% were non-
ferences between race and ethnicity groups using χ2 Hispanic White, 14.3% were non- Hispanic Black,
tests for BMI categories and single-factor ANOVA for 24.3% were Hispanic, and 6.8% were non-Hispanic
APOs. We examined linear trends in rates of obesity Asian (Table 1). Mean age (SD) at delivery was 28.5
and APOs using univariate linear regression with year (5.8) years. Women with prepregnancy obesity were
as a continuous variable. more likely to be non-Hispanic Black or Hispanic and
Next, we assessed associations between BMI multiparous than women who entered pregnancy with
(both continuous and categorical) and APOs. We a normal BMI. Women who were underweight before
visually assessed associations between continuous pregnancy were younger on average than women with
BMI and APOs over time using conditional expec- a normal BMI and more likely to report smoking during
tation functions. For each race and ethnicity group, pregnancy.

Table 1. Maternal Characteristics in Analytic Sample Stratified by Prepregnancy BMI in the United States, 2013 to 2018
Prepregnancy BMI Category Underweight* Normal Weight* Overweight* Obese*
N 732 468 8 903 495 5 383 354 5 120 574

Age, y, mean (SD) 26.4 (5.8) 28.3 (5.8) 28.8 (5.7) 28.7 (5.6)
Race/ethnicity, n (%)
Non-Hispanic White 395 028 (53.9%) 5 363 215 (60.2%) 2 706 005 (50.3%) 2 535 515 (49.5%)
Non-Hispanic Black 97 451 (13.3%) 1 010 951 (11.4%) 782 460 (14.5%) 987 985 (19.3%)
Hispanic 131 923 (18.0%) 1 913 003 (21.5%) 1 469 952 (27.3%) 1 371 293 (26.8%)
Non-Hispanic Asian 108 066 (14.8%) 616 326 (6.9%) 424 937 (7.9%) 225 781 (4.4%)
Education, n (%)
Less than high school 130 615 (18.0%) 1 139 121 (12.9%) 796 783 (14.9%) 746 865 (14.7%)
High school graduate 213 258 (29.4%) 2 015 736 (22.8%) 1 331 614 (24.9%) 1 481 035 (29.1%)
Greater than high school 382 565 (52.7%) 5 687 683 (64.3%) 3 214 097 (60.2%) 2 858 679 (56.2%)
Private insurance, n (%) 292 319 (40.2%) 4 699 514 (53.2%) 2 595 779 (48.5%) 2 216 584 (43.6%)
Received prenatal care, n (%) 697 113 (98.0%) 8 559 030 (98.6%) 5 185 055 (98.6%) 4 942 637 (98.7%)
Smoked during pregnancy, 90 968 (12.6%) 613 630 (7.0%) 350 456 (6.6%) 407 057 (8.1%)
n (%)
Multiparous, n (%) 374 068 (51.2%) 5 048 186 (56.9%) 3 389 703 (63.2%) 3 410 340 (66.8%)
BMI indicates body mass index.

*Underweight: <18.5 kg/m2; normal weight: 18.5–24.9 kg/m2, 18.5–22.9 kg/m2 for non-Hispanic Asian women; overweight: 25.0–29.9 kg/m2, 23.0–27.4 kg/
m2 for non-Hispanic Asian women; obese: ≥30.0 kg/m2, ≥27.5 kg/m2 for non-Hispanic Asian women.
Trends in Prepregnancy Obesity a 22% increase, compared with 110.0 in 2013 to 125.4
Across all race and ethnicity groups, the proportion of in 2018 for women at normal BMI (P<0.001), a 14%
prepregnancy normal BMI decreased, while the preva- increase (Table S2). Women with prepregnancy obe-
lence of prepregnancy obesity increased between 2013 sity consistently had a higher rate of APOs than those
and 2018 (Figure 2). For example, in Hispanic women, with overweight or normal BMIs. Unadjusted annual
the percentage of normal prepregnancy BMI de- rates of APOs were consistently different by race and
creased from 41.4% in 2013 to 36.5% in 2018 (P<0.001), ethnicity; in 2018, APO rates per 1000 live births for
while the prevalence of obesity increased from 26.0% women with prepregnancy obesity were 200.6 for
in 2013 to 30.5% in 2018 (P<0.001) (Table S1). There non- Hispanic White, 231.4 for non- Hispanic Black,
were large differences by race and ethnicity; in 2018, 170.7 for Hispanic, and 171.3 for non-Hispanic Asian
the percentage of women with normal prepregnancy women (P<0.001).
BMI ranged from 33.3% in non-Hispanic Black women
to 46.6% in non- Hispanic White women (P<0.001), Association Between Prepregnancy BMI
while the prevalence of prepregnancy obesity ranged
and APOs
from 18.6% in non-Hispanic Asian women to 36.2% in
The relationship between continuous prepregnancy BMI
non-Hispanic Black women (P<0.001). The prevalence
and APOs for all race and ethnicity groups was J-shaped
of underweight prepregnancy BMI was low and slightly
in each year, with both underweight and obesity asso-
downtrended between 2013 and 2018; for example, in
ciated with higher risk of APOs compared with normal
Hispanic women, the prevalence of underweight BMI
BMI (Figure 4). Within overweight and obesity strata, the
was 2.9% in 2013 and 2.4% in 2018 (P<0.001).
association between continuous BMI and APO risk in-
creased between 2013 and 2018; that is, the slopes of
Trends in Unadjusted APO Rates the linear splines for overweight and obesity increased
According to BMI Categories between 2013 and 2018. In 2018, prepregnancy obesity
The unadjusted rate of APOs in the United States in- had the strongest association with APOs in non-Hispanic
creased between 2013 and 2018 across all race and White women (OR, 1.94; 95% CI, 1.92– 1.96) and the
ethnicity groups and for all BMI categories except weakest association with APOs in non-Hispanic Black
underweight (Figure 3). This increase was greatest women (OR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.25–1.29) (Table 2). The OR
among women with prepregnancy obesity; for exam- of prepregnancy obesity increased for all race and eth-
ple, in Hispanic women, the rate of APOs per 1000 nicity groups between 2013 and 2018; for example, in
live births increased from 139.6 in 2013 to 170.7 in Hispanic women, OR for obesity increased from 1.35
2018 for women with prepregnancy obesity (P<0.001), (95% CI, 1.32–1.37) to 1.48 (95% CI, 1.45–1.50).

A Non-Hispanic White, N=10,999,763 B Non-Hispanic Black, N=2,878,847

100% 100%
90% 21.6% 21.9% 22.7% 23.2% 24.0% 24.8%

90%
32.5% 33.3% 33.9% 34.7% 35.1% 36.2%
80% 80%
70% 70%
Proportion (%)
Proportion (%)
24.1% 24.1% 24.4% 24.7% 24.9% 25.4%

60% 60%
27.4% 27.2% 27.1% 27.2%
50% 50% 27.1% 27.2%
40% 40%
30% 50.4% 50.1% 49.2% 48.6% 30%

47.6% 46.6% Underweight
20% 20% 36.5% 36.1% 35.6% 34.9% 34.4% 33.3% (BMI<18.5 kg/m2)
10% 10%
Normal weight
0% 3.9% 3.9% 3.7% 3.5% 3.4% 3.2% 0% 3.6% 3.5% 3.4% 3.3% 3.3% 3.2%
(BMI 18.5-24.9 kg/m2)
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 (Asian: BMI 18.5-22.9 kg/m2)
Year Year
Overweight
C Hispanic, N=4,886,171 D Non-Hispanic Asian, N=1,375,110 (BMI 25.0-29.9 kg/m2)
100% 100% (Asian: BMI 23.0-27.4 kg/m2)
15.3% 14.9% 15.8% 16.2% 17.3% 18.6% Obese
90% 90%
26.0% 26.7% 27.3% 28.2% 29.3% 30.5% (BMI≥30.0 kg/m2)
80% 80% (Asian: BMI≥27.5 kg/m2)
70% 70% 29.6% 29.9% 30.5% 30.9% 31.7%
Proportion (%) 32.4%
Proportion (%)
60% 29.7% 29.8% 30.0%

60%
30.2% 30.3% 30.5%
50% 50%
40% 40%
30% 30% 46.7% 46.6% 45.6% 44.8% 43.6% 42.0%

41.4% 40.7% 39.9% 38.9% 37.8%
20% 36.5% 20%
10% 10%
8.4% 8.5% 8.0% 8.0% 7.4% 6.9%
0% 2.9% 2.8% 2.8% 2.7% 2.6% 2.4% 0%
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Year Year
Figure 2. Trends in the percentage of women in each prepregnancy BMI category stratified by race and ethnicity in the
United States, 2013 to 2018.
We examined annual trends in the categorical BMI distribution of pregnant women between 2013 and 2018 in (A) non-Hispanic White,
(B) non-Hispanic Black, (C) Hispanic, and (D) non-Hispanic Asian women. Each year, the proportion of prepregnancy normal BMI
decreased while the prevalence of prepregnancy obesity increased across all race and ethnicity groups. There were large differences
in the prevalence of prepregnancy obesity by race and ethnicity. BMI indicates body mass index.
PAF for APOs Associated with Correspondingly, PAFs for obesity-related individual
Prepregnancy Obesity APOs were largest for pregnancy- associated hy-
PAFs for APOs associated with prepregnancy obe- pertension and ranged from 26.5% (25.3– 27.6) in
sity increased between 2013 and 2018 in all race and non-Hispanic Asian women to 30.3% (30.0– 30.7)
ethnicity groups (Table 2). In 2018, the PAF for APOs in non-Hispanic White women in 2018. By contrast,
associated with obesity was highest in non-Hispanic associations of prepregnancy obesity with low birth
White women, 14.7% (95% CI, 14.5–15.0), and lowest weight were positive only for non- Hispanic Asian
in non-Hispanic Black women, 6.9% (95% CI, 6.4–7.4). women, with a PAF of 2.4% (1.6–3.2) in 2018. Obesity
This represents a potential reduction in APOs by 15% was positively associated with preterm birth and ex-
and 7% among non-Hispanic White and non-Hispanic periencing >1 APO in all race and ethnicity groups
Black women, respectively, if prepregnancy obesity except non- Hispanic Black women. No consist-
was eliminated and all women began pregnancy with ent statistically significant linear trends in PAF were
a normal BMI. The PAFs for APOs associated with noted for any individual APO across race and ethnicity
obesity nearly doubled for non-Hispanic Black women groups. Obesity was inversely associated with SGA
from 3.7% (95% CI, 3.1–4.2) in 2013 to 6.9% (95% CI, for all race and ethnicity groups (Table S3).
6.4–7.4) in 2018 (P=0.001), and increased in Hispanic
women from 7.0% (95% CI, 6.5–7.4) in 2013 to 10.4% Sensitivity Analyses
(95% CI, 10.0–10.8) in 2018 (P=0.009). In nulliparous women, temporal trends and race
and ethnicity differences were similar to the overall
population, but OR and PAF for APOs associated
Secondary Analyses with obesity were larger (Table S4). In the sensitivity
Associations of prepregnancy obesity with individual analysis including women with prepregnancy hyper-
APOs were strongest for pregnancy-associated hy- tension or diabetes mellitus, our main results did not
pertension and weakest for low birth weight (Table 2). change (Table S5).

A Non-Hispanic White, N=10,999,763 B Non-Hispanic Black, N=2,878,847

300 300
250 250
APOs per 1,000 live births

200 200
150 150
100 100
Underweight
(BMI<18.5 kg/m2)
50 50
Normal weight
0 0 (BMI 18.5-24.9 kg/m2)
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 (Asian: BMI 18.5-22.9 kg/m2)
Year Year Overweight
(BMI 25.0-29.9 kg/m2)
C Hispanic, N=4,886,171 D Non-Hispanic Asian, N=1,375,110 (Asian: BMI 23.0-27.4 kg/m2)
300 300 Obese
(BMI≥30.0 kg/m2)
(Asian: BMI≥27.5 kg/m2)
250 250
200 200
150 150
100 100
50 50
0 0
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Year Year
Figure 3. Trends in unadjusted rates of APOs stratified by race and ethnicity and prepregnancy BMI category in the United
States, 2013 to 2018.
We examined annual trends in unadjusted APO rates between 2013 and 2018 in (A) non-Hispanic White, (B) non-Hispanic Black, (C)
Hispanic, and (D) non-Hispanic Asian women stratified by prepregnancy BMI category. The rate of APOs increased between 2013 and
2018 across all race and ethnicity groups and for all BMI categories except underweight. This increase was greatest among women
with prepregnancy obesity, who also experienced higher rates of APOs than women with overweight or normal BMI. However, annual
rates were consistently different by race and ethnicity. APO indicates adverse pregnancy outcome; and BMI, body mass index.
The absolute values of PAFs for APOs associated

DISCUSSION with obesity that we observed are within the range of
In this national sample of maternal data linked to all live several prior studies (1.0%–36.2%); however, these
births between 2013 and 2018 in the United States, prior estimates were based on varying APO defini-
we identified several key findings regarding the popu- tions, derivation cohorts, and BMI categories.25–29
lation burden of APOs associated with obesity. First, In the largest previous study to date, Santos et al
we demonstrated that the prevalence of prepregnancy pooled and analyzed 265 270 births between 1989
obesity increased significantly over this time frame. and 2014 from 39 cohorts across the United States,
Second, the greatest increases in rates of APOs oc- Europe, and Oceania and found a composite PAF
curred among women with prepregnancy obesity. of 12.5%.26 We also confirm prior studies noting a
Third, the ORs estimating the risk of APOs associated strong association between prepregnancy obesity
with obesity compared with a normal BMI increased and pregnancy-associated hypertension,25,26,28 and
during the study period. Fourth, the association of weaker as well as inconsistent associations between
prepregnancy obesity with APOs is primarily driven by prepregnancy obesity and preterm birth and low
pregnancy-associated hypertension. Fifth, the relative birth weight across races/ethnicities when the APO
contribution of maternal obesity toward APOs approxi- subtypes are examined separately.26,27 These APO
mately doubled in non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic subtypes are hypothesized to arise from a shared
women and increased by about 50% in non-Hispanic pathogenesis related to placental vascular dys-
White and non-Hispanic Asian women. Finally, race function, local ischemia, and a resultant systemic
and ethnicity disparities in prevalence of obesity and proinflammatory and antiangiogenic state, reflected
APOs persisted over time. in elevated levels of biomarkers such as soluble

Figure 4. Association between prepregnancy BMI and APOs adjusted for age and stratified by race and ethnicity in the
United States, 2013 and 2018.
We assessed associations of continuous prepregnancy BMI with APO in (A) non-Hispanic White, (B) non-Hispanic Black, (C) Hispanic,
and (D) non-Hispanic Asian women. For each race and ethnicity group, we plotted the conditional expectation of APO rate on BMI,
adjusted for age, in 2013 and 2018 using 20 equal-sized bins, and superimposed separate linear fit lines within each BMI category.
Vertical dashed lines represent BMI category cut points (18.5 kg/m2, 25 kg/m2, and 30 kg/m2; 18.5 kg/m2, 23.0 kg/m2, and 27.5 kg/m2 in
Asian women). There was a J-shaped relationship between continuous prepregnancy BMI and APOs for all race and ethnicity groups,
with both underweight and obesity associated with higher risk of APOs compared with normal BMI. Within overweight and obesity
strata, the slopes of the linear splines for overweight and obesity increased between 2013 and 2018, suggesting increasing APO risk
associated with excess weight. APO indicates adverse pregnancy outcome; and BMI, body mass index.
fms-like tyrosine kinase 1.2 Although the finding that (Hyperglycemia and Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes)
obesity has differential associations with the APO study 32; however, this finding does not contradict the
subtypes, as well as with co-occurrence of APOs, is importance of achieving healthy weight before preg-
not necessarily inconsistent with this hypothesis, the nancy, given the numerous other short-and long-
grouping of APOs continues to be an area of con- term risks associated with prepregnancy obesity for
troversy, and the best analytic approach remains to mothers and their offspring.33 We add to the existing
be determined. Observed heterogeneity across race literature by reporting annual PAFs to provide both
and ethnicity subgroups may be related to underly- estimates and changes over time, which comprehen-
ing social determinants of health that may affect key sively depicts the population burden of APOs attrib-
factors, such as nutritional status and food inse- utable to prepregnancy obesity. Increases in PAFs
curity, which have been associated with APOs.30,31 have occurred in the context of younger age at onset
Inverse associations between obesity and SGA of obesity34 and older maternal age at delivery.3 The
found in this study were also described in the HAPO combination of these 2 factors may result in a longer

Table 2. Prevalence, Adjusted OR, and PAF for Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes Associated with Prepregnancy Obesity
Compared With Normal BMI in the United States, 2013 and 2018
P for
Linear
2013 2018 Trend
Prevalence* OR (95% CI) PAF (95% CI) Prevalence* OR (95% CI) PAF (95% CI) PAF
Non-Hispanic White
Any APO 123.3 1.70 (1.68 to 1.72) 10.6% (10.4 to 10.9) 145.3 1.94 (1.92 to 1.96) 14.7% (14.5 to 15.0) <0.001
Preterm birth 65.8 1.18 (1.16 to 1.19) 3.4% (3.0 to 3.7) 67.6 1.27 (1.26 to 1.29) 5.8% (5.5 to 6.2) <0.001
Low birth weight 48.9 0.91 (0.89 to 0.93) −1.9%† (−2.3 to −1.5) 49.6 0.93 (0.92 to 0.95) −1.7%† (−2.1 to −1.2) 0.137
Pregnancy- 50.2 3.61 (3.55 to 3.67) 28.8% (28.4 to 29.2) 74.5 3.50 (3.45 to 3.55) 30.3% (30.0 to 30.7) 0.023
associated
hypertension
>1 APO 36.6 1.28 (1.25 to 1.30) 5.3% (4.8 to 5.8) 39.8 1.42 (1.39 to 1.45) 8.7% (8.2 to 9.2) <0.001
Non-Hispanic Black
Any APO 181.4 1.15 (1.12 to 1.17) 3.7% (3.1 to 4.2) 209.1 1.27 (1.25 to 1.29) 6.9% (6.4 to 7.4) 0.001
Preterm birth 103.4 0.94 (0.91 to 0.96) −1.9%† (−2.7 to −1.2) 108.9 0.99 (0.97 to 1.02) −0.3%† (−1.0 to 0.5) 0.107
Low birth weight 103.4 0.80 (0.78 to 0.82) −6.4%† (−7.1 to −5.7) 110.7 0.80 (0.78 to 0.82) −7.1%† (−7.8 to −6.3) 0.208
associated
hypertension
>1 APO 73.7 0.98 (0.95 to 1.01) −0.5%† (−1.4 to 0.4) 81.5 1.01 (0.99 to 1.04) 0.5% (−0.5 to 1.4) 0.518
Hispanic
Any APO 119.9 1.35 (1.32 to 1.37) 7.0% (6.5 to 7.4) 142.5 1.48 (1.45 to 1.50) 10.4% (9.9 to 10.8) 0.009
Preterm birth 74.2 1.16 (1.14 to 1.19) 3.7% (3.2 to 4.3) 79.2 1.21 (1.18 to 1.23) 5.5% (4.9 to 6.1) 0.023
Low birth weight 56.2 0.93 (0.90 to 0.95) −1.8%† (−2.4 to −1.1) 59.3 0.91 (0.89 to 0.94) −2.5%† (−3.2 to 0.264
−1.8)
associated
hypertension
>1 APO 41.3 1.21 (1.17 to 1.24) 4.8% (4.0 to 5.5) 46.0 1.25 (1.21 to 1.28) 6.5% (5.7 to 7.3) 0.058
Non-Hispanic Asian
Any APO 113.1 1.67 (1.61 to 1.74) 7.4% (6.8 to 8.0) 127.5 1.77 (1.71 to 1.83) 9.7% (9.1 to 10.3) 0.003
Preterm birth 66.6 1.46 (1.38 to 1.53) 5.7% (4.9 to 6.5) 67.9 1.48 (1.42 to 1.55) 7.1% (6.3 to 8.0) 0.127
Low birth weight 63.8 1.15 (1.09 to 1.22) 2.0% (1.2 to 2.8) 66.8 1.15 (1.10 to 1.21) 2.4% (1.6 to 3.2) 0.317
associated
hypertension
>1 APO 39.6 1.52 (1.42 to 1.62) 6.4% (5.3 to 7.5) 42.4 1.64 (1.55 to 1.74) 9.3% (8.2 to 10.5) 0.040
APO indicates adverse pregnancy outcome; BMI, body mass index; OR, odds ratio; and PAF, population attributable fraction.
*Per 1000 live births.
†
Negative PAF reflects OR <1, ie, higher risk in women with normal weight compared with women with obesity.
potential duration of obesity before pregnancy and ethnicity groups. By 2018, only 1 in 3 non-Hispanic
may contribute to risk of APOs through underlying Black women began pregnancy at normal BMI. Both
mechanisms of inflammation, oxidative stress, and obesity and APOs have been linked to subsequent car-
endothelial function. In addition, increasing rates of diovascular risk in women, including incident hyperten-
prehypertension and pre– diabetes mellitus among sion,19,35,36 development of CVD,7–9,37,38 and all-cause
women of reproductive age may be another reason mortality.10,39–43 In addition, obesity and APOs are
why we observed increases in the risk relationship recognized as risk factors for excess weight, elevated
between obesity and APOs over time. blood pressure, and CVD in offspring that may re-
Our findings highlight maternal obesity as a growing flect possible adverse effects of programming in utero
major public health concern. Between 2013 and 2018, and intergenerational transmission of CVD risk.44,45
the percentage of women with a normal BMI prepreg- Importantly, the prevalence of prepregnancy obesity
nancy decreased while the percentage of women with in our study (26.8% in 2018) was lower than national
prepregnancy obesity increased across all race and estimates of obesity among all women of reproductive

age (39.7%),46 which may lead to an underestimation of conditions yielded similar results. Third, our study likely
the population burden attributable to obesity. This may underestimates true population rates of APOs given
be related to the exclusion of maternal data on fetal that birth certificates usually underestimate the prev-
deaths or women who were unable to become preg- alence of pregnancy- associated hypertension, and
nant in our sample who are more likely to have severe data collection ends at delivery and does not capture
obesity. Alternatively, prepregnancy obesity may have postpartum preeclampsia. However, a key strength is
been underestimated in our study. However, we ob- the use of all live births in the United States to allow for
served similar increases in prepregnancy BMI across robust, generalizable estimates stratified by race and
all race and ethnicity groups over the study period ethnicity. Fourth, the serial cross-sectional design of
compared with the general population. the study included multiparous women (60.9%), some
Our analysis further expands upon previous studies of whom could have had repeat pregnancies during
that have identified significant racial disparities in obe- the study period, but our sensitivity analysis from nul-
sity and APOs with higher absolute rates among non- liparous women reported similar patterns and temporal
Hispanic Black women compared with non-Hispanic increases in PAF. Fifth, although the focus of this study
White women. While non-Hispanic Black women with was on vascular- related APOs, gestational diabetes
prepregnancy obesity had a higher absolute rate of mellitus is an important pregnancy outcome for future
APOs than non- Hispanic White women with pre- study of obesity-related risk. Additionally, we examined
pregnancy obesity (231.4 versus 200.6 per 1000 live vascular-related APOs as a composite and individually
births in 2018), the disparity was more pronounced to account for the possibility that prepregnancy obe-
within women with normal prepregnancy BMI; nearly sity may have differential associations with each APO
1 in 5 non-Hispanic Black women with prepregnancy subtype. Finally, our analysis did not account for other
normal BMI experienced an APO in 2018, compared important modifiable risk factors, such as physical in-
with just under 1 in 9 non-Hispanic White women at activity and poor-quality diet.
normal BMI. This may explain our finding that ORs for In this nationwide study of all live births in the
APOs associated with obesity were higher for non- United States, the prevalence of prepregnancy obe-
Hispanic White and non-Hispanic Asian women than sity and the relative contribution of maternal obesity
for non-Hispanic Black women, as there was a nearly toward APOs significantly increased between 2013
2-fold difference in risk in the reference groups in 2018. and 2018 in all race and ethnicity groups. While risk
Although women with a known diagnosis of prepreg- for APOs was associated with prepregnancy obesity
nancy diabetes mellitus or hypertension were excluded in 1 in 7 to 1 in 14 women in 2018, targeting excess
from the primary analysis, subclinical elevations in weight before conception represents a key modifiable
preconception blood pressure have been associated risk factor that is rapidly increasing and may be driv-
with risk of APOs.47 Differences in modifiable risk fac- ing unfavorable trends in APOs, in contrast with risk
tors not meeting clinical thresholds warrant increased associated with age and other nonmodifiable factors
awareness, screening, and focused prevention to op- (eg, family history, nulliparity). Finally, these data also
timize prepregnancy cardiometabolic health and im- highlight the need to address persistent racial dis-
prove pregnancy- related and longer- term outcomes parities in APOs that are accounted for, only in part,
for women and offspring. Inequality in access to pre- by prepregnancy obesity, and may be more broadly
natal care likely contributes to the disparity,48 as well as related to access to high-quality health care before
individual and neighborhood-level social determinants conception and during pregnancy. Addressing un-
of health, as has been found for hypertension, diabetes derlying social determinants of health is also neces-
mellitus,49 and CVD.50 Addressing these factors as well sary to equitably improve cardiometabolic health and
as root causes of health inequities, such as structural reverse recent unfavorable trends in rates of APOs.
racism,51 are necessary to equitably improve maternal
health for all.
This study has several limitations. First, there is a ARTICLE INFORMATION
potential for miscoding. However, prepregnancy height Received December 28, 2020; accepted May 25, 2021.
and weight and ascertainment of APOs were based on Affiliations
data recorded by the healthcare professional at delivery Department of Preventive Medicine (M.C.W., P.M.F., A.M.P., P.G., D.M.L.,
and use standardized protocols to integrate information S.S.K.); and Division of Cardiology (P.M.F., P.G., D.M.L., S.S.K.), Northwestern
from maternal report and medical record abstraction. University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL; Ann & Robert H. Lurie
Children’s Hospital of Chicago, Chicago, IL (A.M.P.); and Department of
Second, validation studies suggest limited sensitivity Obstetrics and Gynecology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of
but high specificity for prepregnancy hypertension Medicine, Chicago, IL (W.A.G.).
and diabetes mellitus,52,53 implying that the exclusion Acknowledgments
of these conditions may have missed some cases. The authors take responsibility for the decision to submit the manuscript
However, the sensitivity analysis reincluding these for publication. Dr Khan had full access to all the data in the study and

takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/births.htm. Published 2020. Accessed February 3,
analysis. 2021.
15. World Health Organization Expert Consultation. Appropriate body-
Sources of Funding mass index for Asian populations and its implications for policy and
This work was supported by grants from the American Heart Association intervention strategies. Lancet (London, England). 2004;363:157.
(#19TPA34890060) and the National Institutes of Health (P30AG059988; 16. Lee JW, Brancati FL, Yeh HC. Trends in the prevalence of type 2 dia-
P30DK092939) to Dr Khan. The funding sponsor did not contribute to design betes in Asians versus Whites: results from the United States National
and conduct of the study, collection, management, analysis, or interpretation Health Interview Survey, 1997–2008. Diabetes Care. 2011;34:353–357.
of the data or preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript. DOI: 10.2337/dc10-0746.
17. Hamilton BE, Martin JA, Osterman MJK. Births: Provisional data for
Disclosures 2019. Vital Statistics Rapid Release. 2020;8:1–10. Available at: https://
None. www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/vsrr/vsrr-8-508.pdf.
18. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Birth edit specifications for
Supplementary Material the 2003 proposed revision of the US standard certificate of live birth.
Data S1 2012;41:1.
Table S1–S5 19. Haas DM, Parker CB, Marsh DJ, Grobman WA, Ehrenthal DB,
Greenland P, Bairey Merz CN, Pemberton VL, Silver RM, Barnes S, et
al. Association of adverse pregnancy outcomes with hypertension 2 to
7 years postpartum. J Am Heart Assoc. 2019;8:e013092. DOI: 10.1161/
JAHA.119.013092.
REFERENCES 20. Catov JM, McNeil RB, Marsh DJ, Mercer BM, Bairey Merz CN, Parker
1. Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Osterman MJ, Driscoll AK. Births: final data for CB, Pemberton VL, Saade GR, Chen YI, Chung JH, et al. Early preg-
2018. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2019;68:1–47. nancy atherogenic profile in a first pregnancy and hypertension risk
2. Lane-Cordova AD, Khan SS, Grobman WA, Greenland P, Shah SJ. 2 to 7 years after delivery. J Am Heart Assoc. 2021;10:e017216. DOI:
Long- term cardiovascular risks associated with adverse pregnancy 10.1161/JAHA.120.017216.
outcomes. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019;73:2106– 2116. DOI: 10.1016/j. 21. Martin JA, Osterman MJ, Kirmeyer SE, Gregory EC. Measuring gesta-
jacc.2018.12.092. tional age in vital statistics data: transitioning to the obstetric estimate.
3. Benjamin EJ, Muntner P, Alonso A, Bittencourt MS, Callaway CW, Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2015;64:1–20.
Carson AP, Chamberlain AM, Chang AR, Cheng S, Das SR, et al. Heart 22. Alexander GR, Himes JH, Kaufman RB, Mor J, Kogan M. A United States
disease and stroke statistics-2019 update: a report from the American national reference for fetal growth. Obstet Gynecol. 1996;87:163–168.
Heart Association. Circulation. 2019;139:e56– e528. DOI: 10.1161/ DOI: 10.1016/0029-7844(95)00386-X.
CIR.000000 00000 00659. 23. Newson RB. Attributable and unattributable risks and fractions and
4. Ananth CV, Keyes KM, Wapner RJ. Pre-eclampsia rates in the United other scenario comparisons. Stata Journal. 2013;13:672– 698. DOI:
States, 1980–2010: age-period-cohort analysis. BMJ. 2013;347:f6564. 10.1177/1536867X1301300402.
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.f6564. 24. Rockhill B, Newman B, Weinberg C. Use and misuse of population at-
5. Zhang S, Cardarelli K, Shim R, Ye J, Booker KL, Rust G. Racial dispar- tributable fractions. Am J Public Health. 1998;88:15–19. DOI: 10.2105/
ities in economic and clinical outcomes of pregnancy among medicaid AJPH.88.1.15.
recipients. Matern Child Health J. 2013;17:1518–1525. DOI: 10.1007/ 25. MacInnis N, Woolcott CG, McDonald S, Kuhle S. Population attrib-
s10995-012-1162-0. utable risk fractions of maternal overweight and obesity for adverse
6. March of Dimes. White paper on preterm birth: the global and regional perinatal outcomes. Sci Rep. 2016;6:22895. DOI: 10.1038/srep2
toll. March of Dimes Foundation White Plains, NY. https://www.march 2895.
ofdimes.org/materials/white-paper-on-preterm-birth.pdf. Published 26. Santos S, Voerman E, Amiano P, Barros H, Beilin LJ, Bergström A,
2009. Accessed May 17, 2021. Charles MA, Chatzi L, Chevrier C, Chrousos GP, et al. Impact of mater-
7. Silverberg O, Park AL, Cohen E, Fell DB, Ray JG. Premature cardiac nal body mass index and gestational weight gain on pregnancy compli-
disease and death in women whose infant was preterm and small cations: an individual participant data meta-analysis of European, North
for gestational age: a retrospective cohort study. JAMA Cardiol. American and Australian cohorts. BJOG. 2019;126:984– 995. DOI:
2018;3:247–251. DOI: 10.1001/jamacardio.2017.5206. 10.1111/1471-0528.15661.
8. Tanz LJ, Stuart JJ, Williams PL, Rimm EB, Missmer SA, Rexrode KM, 27. Oteng-Ntim E, Kopeika J, Seed P, Wandiembe S, Doyle P. Impact of
Mukamal KJ, Rich-Edwards JW. Preterm delivery and maternal cardio- obesity on pregnancy outcome in different ethnic groups: calculat-
vascular disease in young and middle-aged adult women. Circulation. ing population attributable fractions. PLoS One. 2013;8:e53749. DOI:
2017;135:578–589. DOI: 10.1161/CIRCUL ATIONAHA.116.025954. 10.1371/journal.pone.0053749.
9. Bellamy L, Casas JP, Hingorani AD, Williams DJ. Pre-eclampsia and risk 28. Yang Z, Phung H, Freebairn L, Sexton R, Raulli A, Kelly P. Contribution
of cardiovascular disease and cancer in later life: systematic review and of maternal overweight and obesity to the occurrence of adverse preg-
meta-analysis. BMJ. 2007;335:974. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.39335.385301. nancy outcomes. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2019;59:367–374. DOI:
BE. 10.1111/ajo.12866.
10. Gastrich MD, Zinonos S, Bachmann G, Cosgrove NM, Cabrera J, 29. Hulsey TC, Neal D, Bondo SC, Hulsey T, Newman R. Maternal pre-
Cheng JQ, Kostis JB, Group MIDASS. Preeclamptic women are at sig- pregnant body mass index and weight gain related to low birth weight
nificantly higher risk of future cardiovascular outcomes over a 15-year in South Carolina. South Med J. 2005;98:411–415. DOI: 10.1097/01.
period. J Womens Health. 2020;29:74–83. DOI: 10.1089/jwh.2019.7671. SMJ.0000145283.69631.FC.
11. Brown HL, Warner JJ, Gianos E, Gulati M, Hill AJ, Hollier LM, Rosen 30. Soneji S, Beltrán-Sánchez H. Association of special supplemental nu-
SE, Rosser ML, Wenger NK. Promoting risk identification and reduc- trition program for women, infants, and children with preterm birth and
tion of cardiovascular disease in women through collaboration with infant mortality. JAMA Network Open. 2019;2:e1916722. DOI: 10.1001/
obstetricians and gynecologists: a presidential advisory from the jamanetworkopen.2019.16722.
American Heart Association and the American College of Obstetricians 31. Rogne T, Tielemans MJ, Chong M-F, Yajnik CS, Krishnaveni GV, Poston
and Gynecologists. Circulation. 2018;137:e843– e852. DOI: 10.1161/ L, Jaddoe VWV, Steegers EAP, Joshi S, Chong Y-S, et al. Associations
CIR.000000 00000 00582. of maternal vitamin B12 concentration in pregnancy with the risks of
12. He XJ, Dai RX, Hu CL. Maternal prepregnancy overweight and obesity preterm birth and low birth weight: a systematic review and meta-
and the risk of preeclampsia: a meta-analysis of cohort studies. Obes analysis of individual participant data. Am J Epidemiol. 2017;185:212–
Res Clin Pract. 2020;14:27–33. DOI: 10.1016/j.orcp.2020.01.004. 223. DOI: 10.1093/aje/kww212.
13. Cnattingius S, Villamor E, Johansson S, Edstedt Bonamy AK, Persson 32. Perak AM, Lancki N, Kuang A, Labarthe DR, Allen NB, Shah SH, Lowe
M, Wikstrom AK, Granath F. Maternal obesity and risk of preterm deliv- LP, Grobman WA, Scholtens DM, Lloyd-Jones DM, et al. Associations
ery. JAMA. 2013;309:2362–2370. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2013.6295. of gestational cardiovascular health with pregnancy outcomes: the
14. National Vital Statistics System. Birth data. National Center for Health hyperglycemia and adverse pregnancy outcome study. Am J Obstet
Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www. Gynecol. 2021;224:210.e1–210.e17. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2020.07.053.

33. Ogunwole SM, Zera CA, Stanford FC. Obesity management in during pregnancy: the Generation R study. Hypertension. 2014;63:683–
women of reproductive age. JAMA. 2021;325:433–434. DOI: 10.1001/ 691. DOI: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.113.02671.
jama.2020.21096. 45. Lawlor DA, Najman JM, Sterne J, Williams GM, Ebrahim S, Davey SG.
34. Hales CM, Carroll MD, Fryar CD, Ogden CL. Prevalence of obesity Associations of parental, birth, and early life characteristics with sys-
among adults and youth: United States, 2015–2016. NCHS Data Brief. tolic blood pressure at 5 years of age: findings from the mater-university
2017;1–8. study of pregnancy and its outcomes. Circulation. 2004;110:2417–2423.
35. Wilson BJ, Watson MS, Prescott GJ, Sunderland S, Campbell DM, DOI: 10.1161/01.CIR.0000145165.80130.B5.
Hannaford P, Smith WC. Hypertensive diseases of pregnancy and risk 46. Hales CM, Carroll MD, Fryar CD, Ogden CL. Prevalence of obesity and
of hypertension and stroke in later life: results from cohort study. BMJ. severe obesity among adults: United States, 2017–2018. NCHS Data
2003;326:845. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.326.7394.845. Brief. 2020;1– 8.
36. Garrison RJ, Kannel WB, Stokes J IIIrd, Castelli WP. Incidence and 47. Nobles CJ, Mendola P, Mumford SL, Silver RM, Kim K, Andriessen
precursors of hypertension in young adults: the Framingham Offspring VC, Connell M, Sjaarda L, Perkins NJ, Schisterman EF. Preconception
Study. Prev Med. 1987;16:235–251. DOI: 10.1016/0091-7435(87)90087-9. blood pressure and its change into early pregnancy. Hypertension.
37. Ahmad FS, Ning H, Rich JD, Yancy CW, Lloyd-Jones DM, Wilkins JT. 2020;76:922–929. DOI: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.120.14875.
Hypertension, obesity, diabetes, and heart failure- free survival: the 48. Henderson JT, Thompson JH, Burda BU, Cantor A, Beil T, Whitlock EP.
cardiovascular disease lifetime risk pooling project. JACC Heart Fail. Screening for preeclampsia: a systematic evidence review for the US
2016;4:911–919. DOI: 10.1016/j.jchf.2016.08.001. Preventive Services Task Force. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare
38. Reis JP, Allen N, Gunderson EP, Lee JM, Lewis CE, Loria CM, Powell- Research and Quality (US);2017:1–7. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.
Wiley TM, Rana JS, Sidney S, Wei G, et al. Excess body mass index- nih.gov/books/NBK447462/.
and waist circumference-years and incident cardiovascular disease: the 49. Bancks MP, Kershaw K, Carson AP, Gordon-L arsen P, Schreiner PJ,
CARDIA study. Obesity. 2015;23:879–885. DOI: 10.1002/oby.21023. Carnethon MR. Association of modifiable risk factors in young adulthood
39. Smith GD, Whitley E, Gissler M, Hemminki E. Birth dimensions of with racial disparity in incident type 2 diabetes during middle adulthood.
offspring, premature birth, and the mortality of mothers. Lancet. JAMA. 2017;318:2457–2465. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2017.19546.
2000;356:2066–2067. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(00)03406-1. 50. Kershaw KN, Osypuk TL, Do DP, De Chavez PJ, Diez Roux AV.
40. Irgens HU, Reisaeter L, Irgens LM, Lie RT. Long term mortality of moth- Neighborhood- level racial/ethnic residential segregation and inci-
ers and fathers after pre-eclampsia: population based cohort study. dent cardiovascular disease: the multi- ethnic study of atheroscle-
BMJ. 2001;323:1213–1217. rosis. Circulation. 2015;131:141– 148. DOI: 10.1161/CIRCU L ATIO
41. Manson JE, Willett WC, Stampfer MJ, Colditz GA, Hunter DJ, Hankinson NAHA.114.011345.
SE, Hennekens CH, Speizer FE. Body weight and mortality among 51. Salow AD, Pool LR, Grobman WA, Kershaw KN. Associations of
women. N Engl J Med. 1995;333:677–685. DOI: 10.1056/NEJM199509 neighborhood-level racial residential segregation with adverse preg-
143331101. nancy outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018;218:351.e1–351.e7. DOI:
42. Flegal KM, Kit BK, Orpana H, Graubard BI. Association of all-cause 10.1016/j.ajog.2018.01.022.
mortality with overweight and obesity using standard body mass 52. Dietz P, Bombard J, Mulready-Ward C, Gauthier J, Sackoff J, Brozicevic
index categories: a systematic review and meta- analysis. JAMA. P, Gambatese M, Nyland- Funke M, England L, Harrison L, et al.
2013;309:71–82. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2012.113905. Validation of selected items on the 2003 U.S. standard certificate of live
43. Crump C, Sundquist J, Sundquist K. Preterm delivery and long birth: New York City and Vermont. Public Health Rep. 2015;130:60–70.
term mortality in women: national cohort and co-sibling study. BMJ. DOI: 10.1177/003335491513000108.
2020;370:m2533. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.m2533. 53. Gregory ECW, Martin JA, Argov EL, Osterman MJK. Assessing the
44. Gaillard R, Steegers EA, Duijts L, Felix JF, Hofman A, Franco OH, quality of medical and health data from the 2003 birth certificate revi-
Jaddoe VW. Childhood cardiometabolic outcomes of maternal obesity sion: results from New York City. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2019;68:1–20.

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL
Data S1.
SUPPLEMENTAL METHODS
Statistical Analysis
The mathematical definition of population attributable fraction (PAF) has been described by Rockhill et al. as:20
𝑃(𝐷) − ∑𝐶 𝑃(𝐷|𝐶̅ , 𝐸̅ )𝑃(𝐶)

𝑃(𝐷)
where 𝑃(𝐷) is the probability of disease in the population and ∑𝐶 𝑃(𝐷|𝐶̅ , 𝐸̅ )𝑃(𝐶) is the marginal conditional
probability of disease averaged over a set of confounders (𝐶) and counterfactual exposures (𝐸). The division by
𝑃(𝐷) in the denominator makes the PAF a relative statistic, rather than an absolute statistic (which would be the
population attributable risk).
We used the Stata module punaf to calculate PAF.19 This module operationalizes the definition by Rockhill et al.
by using a logistic regression model to estimate predicted margins of population APO prevalence under two
scenarios specified by the user. For our study, we used normal BMI as the referent in our regression models and
specified the scenarios as follows: first, the observed categorical BMI distribution in the population, representing
𝑃(𝐷), and second, a counterfactual scenario in which a non-ideal BMI category, such as obesity, is eliminated
from the population, representing ∑𝐶 𝑃(𝐷|𝐶̅ , 𝐸̅)𝑃(𝐶). The ratio of these two quantities (subtracted from 1) is the
PAF. This approach produces PAF estimates that are valid when odds ratios (OR) of the exposure are adjusted for
covariates.20
Table S1. Trends in the prevalence of pre-pregnancy body mass index categories stratified
by race/ethnicity, 2013-2018.
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Prevalence, %
Non-Hispanic White
Underweight 3.9% 3.9% 3.7% 3.5% 3.4% 3.2%
Normal weight 50.4% 50.1% 49.2% 48.6% 47.6% 46.6%
Overweight 24.1% 24.1% 24.4% 24.7% 24.9% 25.4%
Obese 21.6% 21.9% 22.7% 23.2% 24.0% 24.8%
Non-Hispanic Black
Underweight 3.6% 3.5% 3.4% 3.3% 3.3% 3.2%
Normal weight 36.5% 36.1% 35.6% 34.9% 34.4% 33.3%
Overweight 27.4% 27.2% 27.1% 27.2% 27.1% 27.2%
Obese 32.5% 33.3% 33.9% 34.7% 35.1% 36.2%
Hispanic
Underweight 2.9% 2.8% 2.8% 2.7% 2.6% 2.4%
Normal weight 41.4% 40.7% 39.9% 38.9% 37.8% 36.5%
Overweight 29.7% 29.8% 30.0% 30.2% 30.3% 30.5%
Obese 26.0% 26.7% 27.3% 28.2% 29.3% 30.5%
Non-Hispanic Asian
Underweight 8.4% 8.5% 8.0% 8.0% 7.4% 6.9%
Normal weight 46.7% 46.6% 45.6% 44.8% 43.6% 42.0%
Overweight 29.6% 29.9% 30.5% 30.9% 31.7% 32.4%
Obese 15.3% 14.9% 15.8% 16.2% 17.3% 18.6%
*Underweight: <18.5 kg/m2; Normal weight: 18.5-24.9 kg/m2, 18.5-22.9 kg/m2 for Asian women;
Overweight: 25.0-29.9 kg/m2, 23.0-27.4 kg/m2 for Asian women; Obese: 30.0 kg/m2, 27.5 kg/m2 for
Asian women
Table S2. Unadjusted rates of adverse pregnancy outcomes stratified by
race/ethnicity, 2013-2018.
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Non-Hispanic White
Underweight 149.7 152.8 152.5 155.7 160.9 162.2
Normal weight 104.6 106.3 107.4 110.3 112.5 116.5
Overweight 121.5 122.6 126.9 130.6 135.9 142.0
Obese 164.3 169.2 174.9 183.6 190.4 200.6
Non-Hispanic Black
Underweight 233.0 228.6 240.3 241.9 246.4 251.4
Normal weight 176.7 178.4 183.7 187.3 191.6 196.5
Overweight 167.2 171.2 176.0 178.8 183.1 190.0
Obese 192.9 200.8 209.3 216.9 221.3 231.4
Hispanic
Underweight 147.2 150.9 150.8 153.8 155.2 160.5
Normal weight 110.0 109.9 112.7 116.7 121.5 125.4
Overweight 113.7 115.9 119.7 124.6 127.3 133.3
Obese 139.6 145.0 153.2 157.5 163.1 170.7
Non-Hispanic Asian
Underweight 111.9 107.6 111.6 116.8 110.9 120.5
Normal weight 99.4 97.6 102.6 103 106.5 107.9
Overweight 116.2 114.2 120.3 123.7 124.8 129.2
Obese 149.3 151.9 161.5 160.7 165.8 171.3
*Underweight: <18.5 kg/m2; Normal weight: 18.5-24.9 kg/m2, 18.5-22.9 kg/m2 for Asian
women; Overweight: 25.0-29.9 kg/m2, 23.0-27.4 kg/m2 for Asian women; Obese: 30.0
kg/m2, 27.5 kg/m2 for Asian women
†APO represents adverse pregnancy outcome
Table S3. Adjusted odds ratio and population attributable fraction for small for gestational age associated with
pre-pregnancy obesity compared to normal body mass index in the United States, 2013 and 2018.
2013 2018
Prevalence* OR (95% CI) PAF (95% CI) Prevalence* OR (95% CI) PAF (95% CI)
Non-Hispanic White 73.6 0.70 (0.69, 0.71) -6.8%† (-7.1, -6.5) 72.1 0.69 (0.68, 0.70) -8.1%† (-8.4, -7.8)
Non-Hispanic Black 147.5 0.72 (0.70, 0.73) -8.7%† (-9.3, -8.1) 151.5 0.71 (0.69, 0.72) -10.2%† (-10.8, -9.6)
Hispanic 85.5 0.67 (0.66, 0.69) -8.7%† (-9.2, -8.2) 85.8 0.67 (0.66, 0.68) -10.5%† (-11.1, -10.0)
Non-Hispanic Asian 122 0.76 (0.73, 0.80) -3.3%† (-3.8, -2.8) 125.4 0.77 (0.74, 0.80) -3.9%† (-4.4, -3.4)
*per 1,000 live births
†Negative PAF reflects OR<1, i.e. higher risk in women with normal weight compared to women with obesity
‡OR represents odds ratio; CI confidence interval; PAF population attributable fraction
Table S4. Adjusted odds ratio and population attributable fraction for adverse pregnancy
outcomes associated with pre-pregnancy obesity compared to normal body mass index in
nulliparous women in the United States, 2013 and 2018.
2013 2018
OR (95% CI) PAF, % (95% CI) OR (95% CI) PAF, % (95% CI)
Non-Hispanic White
Any APO 1.92 (1.88, 1.95) 11.6% (11.2, 11.9) 2.12 (2.09, 2.15) 15.1% (14.8, 15.5)
Preterm birth 1.33 (1.29, 1.36) 5.3% (4.8, 5.8) 1.40 (1.37, 1.43) 7.5% (7.0, 8.0)
Low birthweight 1.09 (1.06, 1.12) 1.5% (1.0, 2.0) 1.09 (1.06, 1.12) 1.9% (1.3, 2.5)
Pregnancy-associated HTN 3.38 (3.31, 3.46) 25.0% (24.5, 25.5) 3.26 (3.19, 3.32) 26.5% (26.1, 27.0)
>1 APO 1.50 (1.45, 1.54) 8.0% (7.4, 8.6) 1.58 (1.54, 1.63) 10.8% (10.1, 11.5)
Non-Hispanic Black
Any APO 1.32 (1.28, 1.36) 6.1% (5.4, 6.8) 1.43 (1.39, 1.47) 8.9% (8.2, 9.5)
Preterm birth 1.11 (1.07, 1.16) 2.7% (1.6, 3.7) 1.16 (1.12, 1.21) 4.4% (3.3, 5.5)
Low birthweight 0.94 (0.90, 0.97) -1.6%* (-2.5, -0.7) 0.94 (0.90, 0.97) -1.8%* (-2.8, -0.8)
>1 APO 1.17 (1.12, 1.22) 4.0% (2.8, 5.1) 1.21 (1.16, 1.26) 5.6% (4.3, 6.8)
Hispanic
Any APO 1.57 (1.53, 1.62) 8.3% (7.8, 8.9) 1.66 (1.62, 1.70) 11.0% (10.5, 11.6)
Preterm birth 1.38 (1.32, 1.43) 6.2% (5.4, 7.0) 1.36 (1.31, 1.41) 7.3% (6.5, 8.2)
Low birthweight 1.10 (1.05, 1.14) 1.8% (1.0, 2.6) 1.06 (1.02, 1.10) 1.3% (0.4, 2.2)
>1 APO 1.48 (1.41, 1.55) 7.9% (6.9, 8.9) 1.46 (1.40, 1.52) 9.3% (8.2, 10.4)
Non-Hispanic Asian
Any APO 1.85 (1.75, 1.97) 7.2% (6.5, 8.0) 1.84 (1.75, 1.93) 8.6% (7.9, 9.4)
Preterm birth 1.61 (1.49, 1.74) 5.9% (4.8, 6.9) 1.60 (1.49, 1.71) 7.2% (6.1, 8.3)
Low birthweight 1.30 (1.20, 1.41) 3.1% (2.1, 4.0) 1.24 (1.16, 1.33) 3.2% (2.2, 4.1)
>1 APO 1.75 (1.59, 1.92) 7.3% (5.9, 8.7) 1.85 (1.71, 2.01) 10.0% (8.6, 11.4)
*Negative PAF reflects OR<1, i.e. higher risk in women with normal weight compared to women with obesity
†OR represents odds ratio; CI confidence interval; PAF population attributable fraction
Table S5. Adjusted odds ratio and population attributable fraction for adverse pregnancy
outcomes associated with pre-pregnancy obesity compared to normal body mass index
including pre-pregnancy hypertension and diabetes in the United States, 2013 and 2018.
2013 2018
OR (95% CI) PAF, % (95% CI) OR (95% CI) PAF, % (95% CI)
Non-Hispanic White
Any APO 1.71 (1.69, 1.73) 11.0% (10.8, 11.2) 1.94 (1.92, 1.96) 15.1% (14.9, 15.3)
Preterm birth 1.24 (1.22, 1.26) 4.6% (4.2, 4.9) 1.35 (1.34, 1.37) 7.6% (7.2, 7.9)
Low birthweight 0.95 (0.93, 0.97) -1.1%* (-1.5, -0.7) 0.98 (0.97, 1.00) -0.4%* (-0.8, 0.0)
>1 APO 1.32 (1.29, 1.35) 6.2% (5.7, 6.7) 1.47 (1.44, 1.50) 9.9% (9.4, 10.4)
Non-Hispanic Black
Any APO 1.17 (1.15, 1.19) 4.3% (3.8, 4.8) 1.28 (1.26, 1.30) 7.4% (6.9, 7.9)
Preterm birth 1.00 (0.98, 1.02) 0.0% (-0.8, 0.7) 1.07 (1.05, 1.09) 2.3% (1.5, 3.0)
Low birthweight 0.84 (0.82, 0.86) -5.2%* (-5.9, -4.5) 0.85 (0.83, 0.86) -5.6%* (-6.4, -4.9)
>1 APO 1.03 (1.00, 1.06) 0.9% (0.0, 1.8) 1.06 (1.03, 1.09) 2.1% (1.2, 3.0)
Hispanic
Any APO 1.38 (1.35, 1.40) 7.6% (7.2, 8.1) 1.51 (1.48, 1.53) 11.1% (10.7, 11.5)
Preterm birth 1.21 (1.19, 1.24) 4.8% (4.3, 5.4) 1.27 (1.24, 1.29) 7.0% (6.4, 7.6)
Low birthweight 0.96 (0.93, 0.98) -1.0%* (-1.7, -0.4) 0.95 (0.93, 0.97) -1.5%* (-2.2, -0.8)
>1 APO 1.25 (1.22, 1.29) 5.8% (5.0, 6.6) 1.30 (1.26, 1.33) 7.9% (7.1, 8.6)
Non-Hispanic Asian
Any APO 1.73 (1.66, 1.80) 8.1% (7.5, 8.7) 1.81 (1.75, 1.87) 10.4% (9.8, 11.0)
Preterm birth 1.55 (1.47, 1.62) 6.8% (6.0, 7.7) 1.56 (1.50, 1.63) 8.4% (7.6, 9.3)
Low birthweight 1.22 (1.15, 1.28) 2.8% (2.0, 3.7) 1.20 (1.15, 1.26) 3.3% (2.5, 4.1)
>1 APO 1.62 (1.52, 1.73) 7.8% (6.6, 8.9) 1.72 (1.63, 1.81) 10.5% (9.4, 11.6)
*Negative PAF reflects OR<1, i.e. higher risk in women with normal weight compared to women with obesity
†OR represents odds ratio; CI confidence interval; PAF population attributable fraction

JAH3 10 E020717

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

JAH3 10 E020717

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

JAH3 10 E020717

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of the American Heart Association

Trends in Prepregnancy Obesity and

J Am Heart Assoc. 2021;10:e020717. DOI: 10.1161/JAHA.120.0207171

of maternal obesity and the obesity-­related burden

J Am Heart Assoc. 2021;10:e020717. DOI: 10.1161/JAHA.120.0207172

Excluded if revised (2003) birth certificate not

J Am Heart Assoc. 2021;10:e020717. DOI: 10.1161/JAHA.120.0207173

J Am Heart Assoc. 2021;10:e020717. DOI: 10.1161/JAHA.120.0207174

Prepregnancy BMI Category Underweight* Normal Weight* Overweight* Obese*

N 732 468 8 903 495 5 383 354 5 120 574

BMI indicates body mass index.

J Am Heart Assoc. 2021;10:e020717. DOI: 10.1161/JAHA.120.0207175

A Non-Hispanic White, N=10,999,763 B Non-Hispanic Black, N=2,878,847

90% 21.6% 21.9% 22.7% 23.2% 24.0% 24.8%

24.1% 24.1% 24.4% 24.7% 24.9% 25.4%

30% 50.4% 50.1% 49.2% 48.6% 30%

60% 29.7% 29.8% 30.0%

30% 30% 46.7% 46.6% 45.6% 44.8% 43.6% 42.0%

J Am Heart Assoc. 2021;10:e020717. DOI: 10.1161/JAHA.120.0207176

A Non-Hispanic White, N=10,999,763 B Non-Hispanic Black, N=2,878,847

APOs per 1,000 live births

APOs per 1,000 live births

The absolute values of PAFs for APOs associated

J Am Heart Assoc. 2021;10:e020717. DOI: 10.1161/JAHA.120.0207177

J Am Heart Assoc. 2021;10:e020717. DOI: 10.1161/JAHA.120.0207178

J Am Heart Assoc. 2021;10:e020717. DOI: 10.1161/JAHA.120.0207179

J Am Heart Assoc. 2021;10:e020717. DOI: 10.1161/JAHA.120.02071710

J Am Heart Assoc. 2021;10:e020717. DOI: 10.1161/JAHA.120.02071711

J Am Heart Assoc. 2021;10:e020717. DOI: 10.1161/JAHA.120.02071712

𝑃(𝐷) − ∑𝐶 𝑃(𝐷|𝐶̅ , 𝐸̅ )𝑃(𝐶)

population attributable risk).

You might also like

J Am Heart Assoc. 2021;10:e020717. DOI: 10.1161/JAHA.120.0207171

of maternal obesity and the obesity-related burden

J Am Heart Assoc. 2021;10:e020717. DOI: 10.1161/JAHA.120.0207172

J Am Heart Assoc. 2021;10:e020717. DOI: 10.1161/JAHA.120.0207173

J Am Heart Assoc. 2021;10:e020717. DOI: 10.1161/JAHA.120.0207174

J Am Heart Assoc. 2021;10:e020717. DOI: 10.1161/JAHA.120.0207175

J Am Heart Assoc. 2021;10:e020717. DOI: 10.1161/JAHA.120.0207176

J Am Heart Assoc. 2021;10:e020717. DOI: 10.1161/JAHA.120.0207177

J Am Heart Assoc. 2021;10:e020717. DOI: 10.1161/JAHA.120.0207178

J Am Heart Assoc. 2021;10:e020717. DOI: 10.1161/JAHA.120.0207179

J Am Heart Assoc. 2021;10:e020717. DOI: 10.1161/JAHA.120.02071710

J Am Heart Assoc. 2021;10:e020717. DOI: 10.1161/JAHA.120.02071711

J Am Heart Assoc. 2021;10:e020717. DOI: 10.1161/JAHA.120.02071712