Premium
Obesity‐related health status is a better predictor of pregnancy with fertility treatment than body mass index: a prospective study
Author(s) -
Paterson N.,
Sharma A. M.,
Maxwell C.,
Greenblatt E. M.
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
clinical obesity
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.64
H-Index - 12
eISSN - 1758-8111
pISSN - 1758-8103
DOI - 10.1111/cob.12149
Subject(s) - medicine , overweight , body mass index , pregnancy , obesity , fertility , obstetrics , prospective cohort study , odds ratio , gynecology , population , genetics , environmental health , biology
Summary This study assessed whether an obesity‐related health status instrument (Edmonton obesity scoring system – EOSS ) or body mass index ( BMI ) better predicted pregnancy rates in overweight women undergoing fertility treatments. A prospective cohort study was conducted on patients with a BMI ≥ 25 kg m −2 undergoing a fertility treatment cycle (ovulation induction, superovulation, or in vitro fertilization). Obesity‐related health status including blood pressure, blood work, health history, and functional assessment were assessed. A total of 101 patients were included in the study with an average age of 36.3 ± 4.2 years and a mean BMI of 31.8 ± 5.2 kg m −2 . EOSS was found to be statistically predictive of pregnancy rate/cycle ( OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.27–0.94; P = 0.03), whereas BMI was not ( OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.86–1.05). A similar trend was seen for clinical pregnancy rate/cycle started. However, the association between clinical pregnancy rates and EOSS or BMI did not reach statistical significance ( OR 0.53, P = 0.06 and OR 0.98, P = 0.62 respectively). Our results demonstrated that EOSS better predicted pregnancy rates after fertility treatments than BMI . In fact, for every EOSS stage increased by one unit, the odds of pregnancy were approximately halved. A multi‐centre study powered for live birth is warranted to establish effective pre‐fertility management of overweight women.