Investigation of the relationship between air pollution and gestational diabetes.

Abstract

Background: Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) can have negative effects on both the pregnancy and perinatal outcomes, as well as the long-term health of the mother and the child. It has been suggested that exposure to air pollution may increase the risk of developing GDM. This study investigated the relationship between exposure to air pollutants with gestational diabetes.

Methods: The present study is a retrospective cohort study. We used data from a randomised community trial conducted between September 2016 and January 2019 in Iran. During this period, data on air pollutant levels of five cities investigated in the original study, including 6090 pregnant women, were available. Concentrations of ozone (O₃), nitric oxide (NO), nitrogen dioxide (NO₂), nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulphur dioxide (SO₂), carbon monoxide (CO), particulate matter < 2.5 (PM_2.5) or <10 μm (PM₁₀) were obtained from air pollution monitoring stations. Exposure to air pollutants during the three months preceding pregnancy and the first, second and third trimesters of pregnancy for each participant was estimated. The odds ratio was calculated based on logistic regression in three adjusted models considering different confounders. Only results that had a p < .05 were considered statistically significant.

Results: None of the logistic regression models showed any statistically significant relationship between the exposure to any of the pollutants and GDM at different time points (before pregnancy, in the first, second and third trimesters of pregnancy and 12 months in total) (p > .05). Also, none of the adjusted logistic regression models showed any significant association between PM₁₀ exposure and GDM risk at all different time points after adjusting for various confounders (p > .05).

Conclusions: This study found no association between GDM risk and exposure to various air pollutants before and during the different trimesters of pregnancy. This result should be interpreted cautiously due to the lack of considering all of the potential confounders.