Small size at birth as a risk factor for the development of diabetes or other metabolic disorders has been described in numerous populations over the past 2 decades (112). Most studies dealing with children or nonpregnant adults have reported an inverse linear relationship between birth size and the prevalence of disease (14,610), but the relationship among the Pima Indians from Arizona has been described as “U-shaped” because the high risk is seen in individuals with high birth weight as well as low birth weight (5). Several reasons for this relationship have been proposed (13) and a similar finding was subsequently reported among schoolchildren in Taiwan (11). Since the 4th International Workshop-Conference on Gestational Diabetes Mellitus, where the association between a woman's birth weight and gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) or pregestational diabetes was first presented (14), there have been several similar reports in the literature. The purpose of this article is to review some of the recently published data on this relationship, which is well described in the general population but still less studied among pregnant women.

Table 1 presents results of studies presenting data on a woman's birth weight as a risk factor for GDM (1421). Several of the studies are population studies that present the prevalence of GDM by birth weight (1418), whereas others present the birth weight frequency distributions of women with and without GDM (19,20). These studies all found that the prevalence of GDM was higher in women who were in the lower birth weight category or categories. A significant relationship between a low birth weight and gestational or pregestational diabetes has been described among Native American women in Arizona and Washington State, among African-Americans and Hispanics in Washington and New York State, and among non-Hispanic whites from Washington, New York, Norway, Italy, Australia, and Malta (1421). Interestingly, several studies (1517,19), in addition to the Pima study (14), described a U-shaped association between birth weight and GDM (Fig. 1). The article by Moses et al. (21) reports, among women with GDM, that the mean 2-h glucose concentration at the diagnosis of GDM is associated with that woman's birth size. Women who had been small for gestational age at birth had a 2-h glucose concentration that was significantly higher than women who had been of normal weight for gestational age (21). There was a tendency for women who had been large for dates to have a higher glucose as well, suggesting a U-shaped association, but this difference was not significant.

With the large number of reports in nonpregnant populations that low birth weight is a risk factor for the later development of diabetes at young ages, it was to be expected that it might also be a risk factor for GDM. As shown in this article, this has been a common finding, and several studies, some of them with very large sample sizes, have provided confirmation. Of interest is that several reported a U-shaped association with birth weight—a finding that has been uncommon in nonpregnant populations. These studies, the Pima Indian study, and the Taiwanese schoolchildren survey all share a young age of onset of diabetes. For decades, the Pima Indians have developed diabetes at relatively young ages (22). Today, type 2 diabetes is being found increasingly in younger members of other populations as well (23). GDM, since it is a condition of women of childbearing age, also develops at a relatively young age. One reason may be that for young people today, a large birth weight was more likely due to an abnormality during pregnancy, such as maternal diabetes in the case of the Pima Indians (5,22), that puts them at high risk for developing diabetes in contrast to the past when a large birth weight was more likely associated with overall general health of the mother and child and therefore was not a risk factor. The future may prove that this finding becomes more common in the general population over time. In particular, additional surveys similar to the Taiwanese study that relate childhood-onset type 2 diabetes to birth weight should be undertaken to provide more insight into this question.

Universal screening for GDM was the recommendation of the American Diabetes Association from 1979 (24) until 1998 (25). The participants at the 4th International Workshop-Conference on Gestational Diabetes recommend that women who met certain characteristics (member of low-risk ethnic group, no known diabetes in first-degree relatives, age <25 years, normal weight, no history of abnormal glucose tolerance, and no history of poor obstetric outcomes) did not have to be screened routinely (25). Although this recommendation has not been universally accepted (2631), for those who do follow these guidelines, a normal birth weight should be included in the list of characteristics a woman must possess to be exempt from routine screening.

In summary, women from diverse populations who were of low birth weight are at risk for the development of GDM. This observation is not surprising given the well-described health consequences of abnormal fetal growth that are apparent in very young children and persist into adulthood. Unlike the preponderance of reports among the nonpregnant population, during pregnancy, the risk for GDM is likely to have a U-shape, with excess disease developing in women whose own birth weights were either very high or very low.

Figure l—

Prevalence of GDM in women according to their birth weight (note varying scales on both axes). A: Pima Indians (data from Pettitt and Knowler [14]); B: Norwegian women (data from Egeland et al. [16]); C: African-American women (data from Williams et al. [15]); D: women from New York State (data from Innes et al. [17]).

Figure l—

Prevalence of GDM in women according to their birth weight (note varying scales on both axes). A: Pima Indians (data from Pettitt and Knowler [14]); B: Norwegian women (data from Egeland et al. [16]); C: African-American women (data from Williams et al. [15]); D: women from New York State (data from Innes et al. [17]).

Close modal
Table 1—

Studies reporting GDM in relation to a woman's own birth weight

AuthorPopulation/locationSample sizePresentationFindings
Pettitt and Knowler (14Pima Indians  Prevalence by birth weight U-shaped association of diabetes prevalence 
 Age 15–24 years 573  15- to 24-year-old group, highest rate in birth weight ≥4.5 kg 
 Age 25–34 years 258  25- to 34-year-old group, highest rate in birth weight <2.5 kg 
Williams et al. (15Washington State 41,839 Prevalence by birth weight  
 Non-Hispanic white 21,528  Linear inverse relationship 
 African-American 6,359  U-shaped—significantly higher at <2,000 and ≥4,000 g 
 Native American 7,456  Linear inverse 
 Hispanic 6,496  Linear from <2,000–3,000 g, flat above 3,000 g 
Egeland et al. (16Norway: birth registry 138,714 Prevalence by birth weight U-shaped—significantly higher at <2,500 g 
Innes et al. (17New York State Birth Registry 1994–1998 23,314 Prevalence by birth weight U-shaped—significant linear inverse trend from <2,000–4,000 g; ≥4,000 g significantly higher 
Seghieri et al. (18Pistoia, Italy: women with positive 50-g screen 604 Prevalence by birth weight Significantly higher at birth weight <2,600 g; unrelated at higher birth weights 
Savona-Ventura and Chircop (19Malta 324 with GDM Frequency distribution of birth weight Birth weight distribution significantly different from that of the general population; higher at 1,000–2,000 g (risk ratio = 2.8) and at ≥4,500 g (risk ratio = 2.7) 
Bo et al. (20Torino, Italy 50 with IGT; 50 with GDM; 200 normal Frequency distribution of birth weight Birth weight distribution among IGT/GDM significantly different from normal; linear inverse among IGT/GDM, flat across quartiles among women with normal OGTT 
Moses et al. (21Australia 138 with GDM 2-h glucose by birth size SGA women with GDM had higher 2-h glucose 
AuthorPopulation/locationSample sizePresentationFindings
Pettitt and Knowler (14Pima Indians  Prevalence by birth weight U-shaped association of diabetes prevalence 
 Age 15–24 years 573  15- to 24-year-old group, highest rate in birth weight ≥4.5 kg 
 Age 25–34 years 258  25- to 34-year-old group, highest rate in birth weight <2.5 kg 
Williams et al. (15Washington State 41,839 Prevalence by birth weight  
 Non-Hispanic white 21,528  Linear inverse relationship 
 African-American 6,359  U-shaped—significantly higher at <2,000 and ≥4,000 g 
 Native American 7,456  Linear inverse 
 Hispanic 6,496  Linear from <2,000–3,000 g, flat above 3,000 g 
Egeland et al. (16Norway: birth registry 138,714 Prevalence by birth weight U-shaped—significantly higher at <2,500 g 
Innes et al. (17New York State Birth Registry 1994–1998 23,314 Prevalence by birth weight U-shaped—significant linear inverse trend from <2,000–4,000 g; ≥4,000 g significantly higher 
Seghieri et al. (18Pistoia, Italy: women with positive 50-g screen 604 Prevalence by birth weight Significantly higher at birth weight <2,600 g; unrelated at higher birth weights 
Savona-Ventura and Chircop (19Malta 324 with GDM Frequency distribution of birth weight Birth weight distribution significantly different from that of the general population; higher at 1,000–2,000 g (risk ratio = 2.8) and at ≥4,500 g (risk ratio = 2.7) 
Bo et al. (20Torino, Italy 50 with IGT; 50 with GDM; 200 normal Frequency distribution of birth weight Birth weight distribution among IGT/GDM significantly different from normal; linear inverse among IGT/GDM, flat across quartiles among women with normal OGTT 
Moses et al. (21Australia 138 with GDM 2-h glucose by birth size SGA women with GDM had higher 2-h glucose 

IGT, impaired glucose tolerance; SGA, small for gestational age.

1.
Barker DJP, Gardner MJ, Power C: Incidence of diabetes amongst people aged 18–50 years in nine British towns: a collaborative study.
Diabetologia
22
:
421
–425,
1982
2.
Hales CN, Barker DJP, Clark PMS, Cox LJ, Fall C, Osmond C, Winter PD: Fetal and infant growth and impaired glucose tolerance at age 64.
BMJ
303
:
1019
–1022,
1991
3.
Hales CN, Barker DJP: Type 2 (non-insulin-dependent) diabetes mellitus: the thrifty phenotype hypothesis.
Diabetologia
35
:
595
–601,
1992
4.
Valdez R, Athens MA, Thompson GH, Bradshaw BS, Stern MP: Birthweight and adult health outcomes in a biethnic population in the USA.
Diabetologia
37
:
624
–631,
1994
5.
McCance DR, Pettitt DJ, Hanson RL, Jacobsson LTH, Knowler WC, Bennett PH: Birth weight and non-insulin dependent diabetes: thrifty genotype, thrifty phenotype, or surviving small baby genotype?
BMJ
308
:
942
–945,
1994
6.
Yajnik CS, Fall CHD, Vaidya U, Pandit AN, Bavdekar A, Bhat DS, Osmond C, Hales CN, Barker DJP: Fetal growth and glucose and insulin metabolism in four-year-old Indian children.
Diabet Med
12
:
330
–336,
1995
7.
Lithell HO, McKeigue PM, Berglund L, Mohsen R, Lithell U-B, Leon DA: Relation of size at birth to non-insulin dependent diabetes and insulin concentrations in men aged 50–60 years.
BMJ
312
:
406
–410,
1996
8.
Clausen JO, Borch-Johnsen K, Pedersen O: Relation between birth weight and the insulin sensitivity index in a population sample of 331 young, healthy Caucasians.
Am J Epid
146
:
23
–31,
1997
9.
Carlsson S, Persson P-G, Alvarsson M, Efendic S, Norman A, Svanström L, Östenson C-G, Grill V: Low birth weight, family history of diabetes, and glucose intolerance in Swedish middle-aged men.
Diabetes Care
22
:
1043
–1047,
1999
10.
Rich-Edwards JW, Colditz GA, Stampfer MJ, Willett WC, Gillman MW, Hennekens CH, Speizer FE, Manson JE: Birthweight and the risk for type 2 diabetes mellitus in adult women.
Ann Intern Med
130
:
278
–284,
1999
11.
Wei J-N, Sung F-C, Li C-Y, Chang C-H, Lin R-S, Lin C-C, Chiang C-C, Chuang L-M: Low birth weight and high birth weight infants are both at an increased risk to have type 2 diabetes among schoolchildren in Taiwan.
Diabetes Care
26
:
343
–348,
2003
12.
Barker DJP, Osmond C, Forsén TJ, Kajantie E, Eriksson JG: Trajectories of growth among children who have coronary events as adults.
N Engl J Med
353
:
1082
–1089,
2005
13.
Pettitt DJ, Jovanovic L: Birth weight as a predictor of type 2 diabetes mellitus: the U-shaped curve.
Curr Diab Rep
1
:
78
–81,
2001
14.
Pettitt DJ, Knowler WC: Long-term effects of the intrauterine environment, birth weight, and breast-feeding in Pima Indians.
Diabetes Care
21(Suppl. 2)
:
B138
–B141,
1998
15.
Williams MA, Emanuel I, Kimpo C, Leisenring WM, Hale CB: A population-based cohort study of the relation between maternal birthweight and risk of gestational diabetes mellitus in four racial/ethnic groups.
Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol
13
:
452
–465,
1999
16.
Egeland GM, Skjærven R, Irgens LM: Birth characteristics of women who develop gestational diabetes: population based study.
BMJ
321
:
546
–547,
2000
17.
Innes KE, Byers TE, Marshal JA, Barón A, Orleans M, Hamman RF: Association of a woman's own birth weight with subsequent risk for gestational diabetes.
JAMA
287
:
2534
–2541,
2002
18.
Seghieri G, Anichini R, De Bellis A, Alviggi L, Franconi F, Breschi MC: Relationship between gestational diabetes mellitus and low maternal birth weight.
Diabetes Care
25
:
1761
–1765,
2002
19.
Savona-Ventura C, Chircop M: Birth weight influence on the subsequent development of gestational diabetes mellitus.
Acta Diabetol
40
:
101
–104,
2003
20.
Bo S, Marchisio B, Volpiano M, Menato G, Pagano G: Maternal low birth weight and gestational hyperglycemia.
Gynecol Endocrinol
17
:
133
–136,
2003
21.
Moses RG, Moses J, Knights S: Birth weight of women with gestational diabetes.
Diabetes Care
22
:
1059
–1062,
1999
22.
Knowler WC, Pettitt DJ, Saad MF, Bennett PH: Diabetes mellitus in the Pima Indians: incidence, risk factors and pathogenesis.
Diabetes Metab Rev
6
:
1
–27,
1990
23.
American Diabetes Association Consensus Panel: Type 2 diabetes in children and adolescents.
Diabetes Care
23
:
381
–389,
2000
24.
Freinkel N, Josimovich J: Conference Planning Committee: American Diabetes Association Workshop-Conference on Gestational Diabetes: Summary and recommendations.
Diabetes Care
3
:
499
–501,
1980
25.
Metzger BE, Coustan DR: The Organizing Committee: Summary and recommendations of the Fourth International Workshop-Conference on Gestational Diabetes Mellitus.
Diabetes Care
21(Suppl. 2)
:
B161
–B167,
1998
26.
Maternal and Child Health Branch, Department of Health Services, State of California:
State Program Guide: California Diabetes & Pregnancy Program.
California Department of Health Services,
1998
27.
Wilson JD: Gestational diabetes: universal or selective screening? (Editorial)
Med J Australia
174
:
113
–114,
2001
28.
Carr CA: Evidence-based diabetes screening during pregnancy.
J Midwifery Women Health
46
:
152
–158,
2001
29.
Baliutavièien D, Petrekno V, Žalinkevièius R: Selective or universal diagnostic testing for gestational diabetes mellitus.
Int J Gynecol Obstet
78
:
207
–211,
2002
30.
Corcoy R, García-Patterson A, Pau E, Pascual E, Altirriba O, Adelantado JM, de Leiva A: Is selective screening for gestational diabetes mellitus worthwhile everywhere?
Acta Diabetol
41
:
154
–157,
2004
31.
Alberico S, Strazzanti C, De Santo D, De Seta F, Lenardon P, Bernardon M, Zicari S, Guaschino S: Gestational diabetes: universal or selective screening?
J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med
16
:
331
–337,
2004

This article is based on a presentation at a symposium. The symposium and the publication of this article were made possible by an unrestricted educational grant from LifeScan, Inc., a Johnson & Johnson company.

A table elsewhere in this issue shows conventional and Système International (SI) units and conversion factors for many substances.