Age at Menarche and Risk of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: A Prospective Cohort Study Among 27,482 Women

Chen, Liwei; Li, Shanshan; He, Chunyan; Zhu, Yeyi; Louis, Germaine M. Buck; Yeung, Edwina; Hu, Frank B.; Zhang, Cuilin

doi:10.2337/dc15-2011

Cited by 28 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…2Forest plot of the relative risks for GDM in women with an AAM ≤ 11 years relative to that of women with an AAM of 13 years in citations [13–15, 17, 18], respectively …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…(13 years)0.8 (0.5, 1.3) (14 years)1.2 (0.8, 1.8) (> = 15 years)Self-reported AAM, only included English speakers/readersChen et al [13], U.S.A12.634.1Nurses’ Health Study II, largely white cohort of nurses1404 out of 42109 pregnancies, self-reported GDM in any of their previous pregnancies1.3 (1.1, 1.5) (<= 11 years)1.0 (0.9, 1.2) (12 years)Ref. (13 years)0.9 (0.8, 1.0) (>= 14 years)All participants were nurses, self-reported AAM, self-reported GDMLi et al [14], China13.128.5Healthy Baby Cohort Study, Chinese birth cohort1015 out of 6900 pregnancies, week 2428 75g OGTT using IADPSG criteria [29]1.4 (1.1, 1.7) (<= 11 years)1.1 (0.9, 1.3) (12 years)Ref.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…) P I 2 (%)910111213141516Dishi, Chen, Li, Schoenaker [13–15, 18]Petry8.3 × 10 − 9 5.2 × 10 − 4 6.330.45.21.8 (1.5, 2.2)1.5 (1.3, 1.7)1.3 (1.2, 1.4)1.1 (1.1, 1.1)Ref0.98 (0.94, 1.0)1.00 (0.91, 1.1)1.05 (0.88, 1.2)Chen, Li, Petry, Schoenaker [13–15, 17]Dishi1.3 × 10 − 6 1.9 × 10 − 3 9.240.235.02.04 (1.56, 2.7)1.65 (1.38, 2.0)1.34 (1.22, 1.5)1.12 (1.08, 1.2)Ref0.99 (0.94, 1.0)1.05 (0.91, 1.2)1.14 (0.89, 1.5)Dishi, Li, Petry, Schoenaker [14, 15, 17, 18]Chen1.3 × 10 − 6 2.1 × 10 − 5 6.080.41.32.1 (1.56, 2.9)1.7 (1.37, 2.1)1.4 (1.20, 1.5)1.1 (1.07, 1.2)Ref1.0 (0.97, 1.0)1.1 (0.99, 1.2)1.2 (1.03, 1.5)Chen, Dishi, Petry, Schoenaker [13, 15, 17, 18]Li2.4 × 10 − 5 5.4 × 10 − 3 10.290.141.72.10 (1.53, 2.9)1.69 (1.36, 2.1)1.36 (1.21, 1.5)...…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These results suggest that insulin resistance may be the primary factor underpinning the association between early AAM and increased GDM risk. Some studies have shown this association to be a linear inverse relationship [13], whereas others have shown more of a curvilinear relationship [16, 17] with additional increased relative risk, albeit smaller, for GDM being associated with older AAM. It could be that the bulk of the heterogeneity in the meta-analysis is at this end of the dose response curve, given that it dropped to an I 2 of only 1.3% when the largest study was excluded, that study being one showing a linear rather than curvilinear relationship between AAM and GDM risk [13].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Age at menarche and the future risk of gestational diabetes: a systematic review and dose response meta-analysis

Petry

Ong

2018

Acta Diabetol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Published studies show an inconsistent association between age at menarche and the subsequent risk of developing gestational diabetes mellitus when pregnant. This systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to clarify any trends in this association in published observational population studies. We searched online databases for relevant studies, entered into them up until June 21st 2017. Five eligible studies were found and a pooled random effects dose response meta-analysis of results from these was conducted. This included coverage of 58,133 pregnancies, from which 3,035 women developed gestational diabetes. There was evidence of a non-linear association between age at menarche and gestational diabetes (overall p = 1.4 × 10; p for non-linearity = 2.4 × 10), along with evidence of relatively low heterogeneity (I = 25.5%). The largest predicted risk of gestational diabetes was associated with having a low age at menarche; the mean (95% confidence interval) risk relative to that associated with menarche at age 13 years being: 9 years 2.0 (1.6, 2.4), 10 years 1.6 (1.4, 1.9), 11 years 1.3 (1.2, 1.4), 12 years 1.1 (1.1, 1.1), 13 years was the reference, 14 years 1.0 (1.0, 1.0), 15 years 1.1 (0.9, 1.2), 16 years 1.1 (0.9, 1.4). There was evidence of potential publication bias, such that the maximal true relative risk of gestational diabetes, associated with an age at menarche of 9 years, may be closer to 1.6 than 2. Nevertheless, the curvilinear relationship between age at menarche and the future risk of gestational diabetes in pregnancy appears robust.

show abstract

“…2Forest plot of the relative risks for GDM in women with an AAM ≤ 11 years relative to that of women with an AAM of 13 years in citations [13–15, 17, 18], respectively …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Age at menarche and the future risk of gestational diabetes: a systematic review and dose response meta-analysis

Petry

Ong

2018

Acta Diabetol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The 5 included studies [ 11 – 15 ] were all cohort studies, with sample sizes ranged from 3,490 to 27,482 women. Of these prospective studies, three were conducted in the United States [ 11 , 12 , 15 ], one in Australia [ 14 ] and one in China [ 13 ]. In all studies, age at menarche was self-reported and grouped into 5 categories, with the exception of two studies [ 11 , 15 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Age at menarche and risks of gestational diabetes mellitus: a meta-analysis of prospective studies

Xiao

Chen

et al. 2017

Oncotarget

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundAccumulating evidence suggests that early menarche is associated with adult obesity, which in turn may increase the risk of insulin resistance and hyperglycemia. However, the relation of menarcheal age with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) remains inconsistent across studies. The objective of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the association between age at menarche and GDM risk.Materials and MethodsWe searched Medline (PubMed), Embase, Web of Knowledge and the Cochrane library through the end of May 2017. We pooled summary relative risks (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Stata 12.0 software was used to analyse the data.ResultsFive prospective studies were eligible for inclusion. The results of meta-analysis showed that women in the early menarcheal age group (at < 12 years of age) had a higher risk of GDM compared with those in the “not early” menarcheal age group (at ≥ 13 years of age) (pooled RR = 1.31, 95% CI: 1.05, 1.56) with moderate heterogeneity (I2 = 47.5%, P = 0.107). However, there was no obvious protection of late menarche (at ≥ 15 years of age) versus median menarche (at 13 years of age) (pooled RR = 1.12, 95% CI: 0.92, 1.32; I2 = 0%).ConclusionsThe findings support an association between earlier age at menarche and increased risk of GDM. Age at menarche may help identify women with increased risk of developing GDM. However, considering the potential limitations in this study, further larger prospective studies are warranted to verify our findings.

show abstract

Is age of menarche directly related to vitamin D levels?

Al-Taiar

Al-Sabah

Shaban

et al. 2022

American J Hum Biol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction Very few studies have examined the direct link between age of menarche and vitamin D level and controversial results have been reported. This study aimed to investigate the association between vitamin D and age of menarche in a group of adolescent girls in an area with plenty of sunshine. Methods At baseline, data were collected on 722 middle schoolgirls that were randomly selected by probability proportional to size sampling method. Of this group, 598 were followed including 173 who had their menarche during the follow‐up. Serum 25‐hydroxyvitamin D (25OHD) was measured at baseline using liquid chromatography‐tandem mass spectrometry (LC‐MS/MS). Data on potential confounders were collected at baseline from the parents using self‐administered questionnaire and from schoolgirls through face‐to‐face interview. Multiple linear regression and time‐to‐event analysis were used to investigate the association between 25OHD concentration and age of menarche. Results The mean (SD) age of the study group was 12.51 (0.91) years while the main (SD) age of menarche was 11.82 (1.04) years. The prevalence of vitamin D deficiency (<50 nmol/L) among schoolgirls was 91.69%. We found no evidence for the association between 25OHD levels and age of menarche before (β, .00, 95% confidence interval (CI) [−0.01, 0.01]; p = .808) or after (β, .00, 95% CI [−0.01, 0.01]; p = .765) adjusting for potential confounders. We also found no evidence for association between 25OHD status and age of menarche before (p = .424) or after (p = .356) adjusting for potential confounders. Time‐to‐event analysis showed no association between 25OHD level or status and age of menarche (p = .850). Conclusion In Middle Eastern setting, where vitamin D deficiency is common despite plenty of sunshine, vitamin D is not a major determinant of the age at menarche. Regardless of the link between vitamin D and age of menarche, there are several other health benefits of having adequate vitamin D level during childhood and adolescence.

show abstract

Age at Menarche and Risk of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: A Prospective Cohort Study Among 27,482 Women

Cited by 28 publications

References 15 publications

Age at menarche and the future risk of gestational diabetes: a systematic review and dose response meta-analysis

Age at menarche and the future risk of gestational diabetes: a systematic review and dose response meta-analysis

Age at menarche and risks of gestational diabetes mellitus: a meta-analysis of prospective studies

Is age of menarche directly related to vitamin D levels?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About