Advice that includes food sources of unsaturated fat supports future risk management of gestational diabetes mellitus

The significant role of carnitine and fatty acids during pregnancy, lactation and perinatal period. Nutritional support in specific groups of pregnant women

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Pregnancy is characterized by a complexity of metabolic processes that may impact fetal health and development. Women's nutrition during pregnancy and lactation is considered important for both mother and infant. This review aims to investigate the significant role of fatty acids and carnitine during pregnancy and lactation in specific groups of pregnant and lactating women.

METHODS

The literature was reviewed using relevant data bases (e.g. Pubmed, Scopus, Science Direct) and relevant articles were selected to provide information and data for the text and associated Tables.

RESULTS

Dynamic features especially of plasma carnitine profile during pregnancy and lactation, indicate an extraordinarily active participation of carnitine in the intermediary metabolism both in pregnant woman and in neonate and may also have implications for health and disease later in life. Maternal diets rich in trans and saturated fatty acids can lead to impairments in the metabolism and development of the offspring, whereas the consumption of long chain-polyunsaturated fatty acids during pregnancy plays a beneficial physiologic and metabolic role in the health of offspring.

CONCLUSIONS

Pregnant women who are underweight, overweight or obese, with gestational diabetes mellitus or diabetes mellitus and those who choose vegan/vegetarian diets or are coming from socially disadvantaged areas, should be nutritionally supported to achieve a higher quality diet during pregnancy and/or lactation.

Lifestyle interventions for the treatment of women with gestational diabetes

BACKGROUND

Gestational diabetes (GDM) is glucose intolerance, first recognised in pregnancy and usually resolving after birth. GDM is associated with both short- and long-term adverse effects for the mother and her infant. Lifestyle interventions are the primary therapeutic strategy for many women with GDM.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of combined lifestyle interventions with or without pharmacotherapy in treating women with gestational diabetes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (14 May 2016), ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (14th May 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only randomised controlled trials comparing a lifestyle intervention with usual care or another intervention for the treatment of pregnant women with GDM. Quasi-randomised trials were excluded. Cross-over trials were not eligible for inclusion. Women with pre-existing type 1 or type 2 diabetes were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by the Cochrane Collaboration. All selection of studies, data extraction was conducted independently by two review authors.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifteen trials (in 45 reports) are included in this review (4501 women, 3768 infants). None of the trials were funded by a conditional grant from a pharmaceutical company. The lifestyle interventions included a wide variety of components such as education, diet, exercise and self-monitoring of blood glucose. The control group included usual antenatal care or diet alone. Using GRADE methodology, the quality of the evidence ranged from high to very low quality. The main reasons for downgrading evidence were inconsistency and risk of bias. We summarised the following data from the important outcomes of this review. Lifestyle intervention versus control groupFor the mother:There was no clear evidence of a difference between lifestyle intervention and control groups for the risk of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (pre-eclampsia) (average risk ratio (RR) 0.70; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40 to 1.22; four trials, 2796 women; I2 = 79%, Tau2 = 0.23; low-quality evidence); caesarean section (average RR 0.90; 95% CI 0.78 to 1.05; 10 trials, 3545 women; I2 = 48%, Tau2 = 0.02; low-quality evidence); development of type 2 diabetes (up to a maximum of 10 years follow-up) (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.76; two trials, 486 women; I2 = 16%; low-quality evidence); perineal trauma/tearing (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.18; one trial, n = 1000 women; moderate-quality evidence) or induction of labour (average RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.46; four trials, n = 2699 women; I2 = 37%; high-quality evidence).More women in the lifestyle intervention group had met postpartum weight goals one year after birth than in the control group (RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.05 to 2.90; 156 women; one trial, low-quality evidence). Lifestyle interventions were associated with a decrease in the risk of postnatal depression compared with the control group (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.78; one trial, n = 573 women; low-quality evidence).For the infant/child/adult:Lifestyle interventions were associated with a reduction in the risk of being born large-for-gestational age (LGA) (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.71; six trials, 2994 infants; I2 = 4%; moderate-quality evidence). Birthweight and the incidence of macrosomia were lower in the lifestyle intervention group.Exposure to the lifestyle intervention was associated with decreased neonatal fat mass compared with the control group (mean difference (MD) -37.30 g, 95% CI -63.97 to -10.63; one trial, 958 infants; low-quality evidence). In childhood, there was no clear evidence of a difference between groups for body mass index (BMI) ≥ 85th percentile (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.11; three trials, 767 children; I2 = 4%; moderate-quality evidence).There was no clear evidence of a difference between lifestyle intervention and control groups for the risk of perinatal death (RR 0.09, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.70; two trials, 1988 infants; low-quality evidence). Of 1988 infants, only five events were reported in total in the control group and there were no events in the lifestyle group. There was no clear evidence of a difference between lifestyle intervention and control groups for a composite of serious infant outcome/s (average RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.55; two trials, 1930 infants; I2 = 82%, Tau2 = 0.44; very low-quality evidence) or neonatal hypoglycaemia (average RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.52; six trials, 3000 infants; I2 = 48%, Tau2 = 0.12; moderate-quality evidence). Diabetes and adiposity in adulthood and neurosensory disability in later childhoodwere not prespecified or reported as outcomes for any of the trials included in this review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Lifestyle interventions are the primary therapeutic strategy for women with GDM. Women receiving lifestyle interventions were less likely to have postnatal depression and were more likely to achieve postpartum weight goals. Exposure to lifestyle interventions was associated with a decreased risk of the baby being born LGA and decreased neonatal adiposity. Long-term maternal and childhood/adulthood outcomes were poorly reported.The value of lifestyle interventions in low-and middle-income countries or for different ethnicities remains unclear. The longer-term benefits or harms of lifestyle interventions remains unclear due to limited reporting.The contribution of individual components of lifestyle interventions could not be assessed. Ten per cent of participants also received some form of pharmacological therapy. Lifestyle interventions are useful as the primary therapeutic strategy and most commonly include healthy eating, physical activity and self-monitoring of blood glucose concentrations.Future research could focus on which specific interventions are most useful (as the sole intervention without pharmacological treatment), which health professionals should give them and the optimal format for providing the information. Evaluation of long-term outcomes for the mother and her child should be a priority when planning future trials. There has been no in-depth exploration of the costs 'saved' from reduction in risk of LGA/macrosomia and potential longer-term risks for the infants.

Different types of dietary advice for women with gestational diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

Dietary advice is the main strategy for managing gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). It remains unclear what type of advice is best.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of different types of dietary advice for women with GDM for improving health outcomes for women and babies.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (8 March 2016), PSANZ's Trials Registry (22 March 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing the effects of different types of dietary advice for women with GDM.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed study eligibility, risk of bias, and extracted data. Evidence quality for two comparisons was assessed using GRADE, for primary outcomes for the mother: hypertensive disorders of pregnancy; caesarean section; type 2 diabetes mellitus; and child: large-for-gestational age; perinatal mortality; neonatal mortality or morbidity composite; neurosensory disability; secondary outcomes for the mother: induction of labour; perineal trauma; postnatal depression; postnatal weight retention or return to pre-pregnancy weight; and child: hypoglycaemia; childhood/adulthood adiposity; childhood/adulthood type 2 diabetes mellitus.

MAIN RESULTS

In this update, we included 19 trials randomising 1398 women with GDM, at an overall unclear to moderate risk of bias (10 comparisons). For outcomes assessed using GRADE, downgrading was based on study limitations, imprecision and inconsistency. Where no findings are reported below for primary outcomes or pre-specified GRADE outcomes, no data were provided by included trials. Primary outcomes Low-moderate glycaemic index (GI) versus moderate-high GI diet (four trials): no clear differences observed for: large-for-gestational age (risk ratio (RR) 0.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.22 to 2.34; two trials, 89 infants; low-quality evidence); severe hypertension or pre-eclampsia (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.07 to 15.86; one trial, 95 women; very low-quality evidence); eclampsia (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.14; one trial, 83 women; very low-quality evidence) or caesarean section (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.47; one trial, 63 women; low-quality evidence). Energy-restricted versus no energy-restricted diet (three trials): no clear differences seen for: large-for-gestational age (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.12; one trial, 123 infants; low-quality evidence); perinatal mortality (no events; two trials, 423 infants; low-quality evidence); pre-eclampsia (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.97; one trial, 117 women; low-quality evidence); or caesarean section (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.56; two trials, 420 women; low-quality evidence). DASH (Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension) diet versus control diet (three trials): no clear differences observed for: pre-eclampsia (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.31 to 3.26; three trials, 136 women); however there were fewer caesarean sections in the DASH diet group (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.76; two trials, 86 women). Low-carbohydrate versus high-carbohydrate diet (two trials): no clear differences seen for: large-for-gestational age (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.95; one trial, 149 infants); perinatal mortality (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.12 to 72.49; one trial, 150 infants); maternal hypertension (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.22; one trial, 150 women); or caesarean section (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.99; two trials, 179 women). High unsaturated fat versus low unsaturated fat diet (two trials): no clear differences observed for: large-for-gestational age (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.37; one trial, 27 infants); pre-eclampsia (no cases; one trial, 27 women); hypertension in pregnancy (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.06 to 5.26; one trial, 27 women); caesarean section (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.07 to 15.50; one trial, 27 women); diabetes at one to two weeks (RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.45 to 8.94; one trial, 24 women) or four to 13 months postpartum (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.10 to 9.61; one trial, six women). Low-GI versus high-fibre moderate-GI diet (one trial): no clear differences seen for: large-for-gestational age (RR 2.87, 95% CI 0.61 to 13.50; 92 infants); caesarean section (RR 1.91, 95% CI 0.91 to 4.03; 92 women); or type 2 diabetes at three months postpartum (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.11 to 5.01; 58 women). Diet recommendation plus diet-related behavioural advice versus diet recommendation only (one trial): no clear differences observed for: large-for-gestational age (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.25 to 2.14; 99 infants); or caesarean section (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.62; 99 women). Soy protein-enriched versus no soy protein diet (one trial): no clear differences seen for: pre-eclampsia (RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.19 to 21.03; 68 women); or caesarean section (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.77; 68 women). High-fibre versus standard-fibre diet (one trial): no primary outcomes reported. Ethnic-specific versus standard healthy diet (one trial): no clear differences observed for: large-for-gestational age (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.45; 20 infants); neonatal composite adverse outcome (no events; 20 infants); gestational hypertension (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.02 to 7.32; 20 women); or caesarean birth (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.54 to 2.67; 20 women). Secondary outcomes For secondary outcomes assessed using GRADE no differences were observed: between a low-moderate and moderate-high GI diet for induction of labour (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.33 to 2.34; one trial, 63 women; low-quality evidence); or an energy-restricted and no energy-restricted diet for induction of labour (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.53; one trial, 114 women, low-quality evidence) and neonatal hypoglycaemia (average RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.48 to 2.32; two trials, 408 infants; very low-quality evidence).Few other clear differences were observed for reported outcomes. Longer-term health outcomes and health services use and costs were largely not reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence from 19 trials assessing different types of dietary advice for women with GDM suggests no clear differences for primary outcomes and secondary outcomes assessed using GRADE, except for a possible reduction in caesarean section for women receiving a DASH diet compared with a control diet. Few differences were observed for secondary outcomes.Current evidence is limited by the small number of trials in each comparison, small sample sizes, and variable methodological quality. More evidence is needed to assess the effects of different types of dietary advice for women with GDM. Future trials should be adequately powered to evaluate short- and long-term outcomes.

Alterations of fatty acid profiles in gestational diabetes and influence of the diet

Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is a pregnancy-induced complication with increased prevalence, especially in overweight women. Fatty acid (FA) composition in tissues can reflect dietary fat intake, especially essential FA intake. Moreover, it has been shown that FA profiles in blood lipid fractions are altered in diabetic patients. Consequently, women with GDM may also have a distinctive FA profile. The objective of this review is compare FA profiles in different blood lipid fractions and the influence of dietary fat intake in women with GDM or normoglycemic pregnancies. Results show that women with GDM have more saturated and less polyunsaturated FA (PUFA) in their red blood cell (RBC) membranes than normoglycemic pregnant women. Moreover, some studies reported that women with GDM have a greater energy intake from total fat and saturated FA, along with a lower energy intake from PUFA, when compared to normoglycemic pregnancies. Clinical trials showed that omega-3 PUFA levels in RBC membranes of GDM women can be restored by a dietary intervention. Further research is required to determine whether FA profiles are altered prior to the diagnosis of GDM and can be prevented by diet.

Different types of dietary advice for women with gestational diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) affects a significant number of women each year and is associated with a wide range of adverse outcomes for women and their babies. Dietary counselling is the main strategy in managing GDM, but it remains unclear which dietary therapy is best.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of different types of dietary advice for women with GDM on pregnancy outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (17 May 2012) and the WOMBAT Perinatal Trials Registry (17 April 2012).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs assessing the effects of different types of dietary advice for women with GDM on pregnancy outcomes.We intended to compare two or more forms of the same type of dietary advice against each other, i.e. standard dietary advice compared with individualised dietary advice, individual dietary education sessions compared with group dietary education sessions. We intended to compare different intensities of dietary intervention with each other, i.e. single dietary counselling session compared with multiple dietary counselling sessions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data and assessed risk of bias of included studies. Data were checked for accuracy.

MAIN RESULTS

We included nine trials; 429 women (436 babies) provided outcome data. All nine included trials had small sample sizes with variation in levels of risk of bias. A total of 11 different types of dietary advice were assessed under six different comparisons, including:low-moderate glycaemic index (GI) food versus high-moderate GI food, low-GI diet versus high-fibre moderate-GI diet, energy-restricted diet versus no energy restriction diet, low-carbohydrate diet (≤ 45% daily total energy intake from carbohydrate) versus high-carbohydrate diet (≥ 50% daily total energy intake from carbohydrate), high-monounsaturated fat diet (at least 20% total energy from monounsaturated fat) versus high-carbohydrate diet (at least 50% total energy from carbohydrate), standard-fibre diet (American Diabetes Association (ADA) diet) (20 grams fibre/day) versus fibre-enriched diet (80 grams fibre/day).In the low-moderate GI food versus moderate-high GI food comparison, no significant differences were seen for macrosomia or large-for-gestational age (LGA), (two trials, 89 babies) (risk ratio (RR) 0.45, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.10 to 2.08), (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.27 to 3.36), respectively; or caesarean section (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.47, one trial, 63 women).In the low-GI diet versus high-fibre moderate-GI diet comparison, no significant differences were seen for macrosomia or LGA (one trial, 92 babies) (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.96), (RR 2.87, 95% CI 0.61 to 13.50), respectively; or caesarean section (RR 1.80, 95% CI 0.66 to 4.94, one trial, 88 women).In the energy-restricted versus unrestricted diet comparison, no significant differences were seen for macrosomia (RR 1.56, 95% CI 0.61 to 3.94, one trial, 122 babies); LGA (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.12, one trial, 123 babies); or caesarean section (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.89, one trial, 121 women).In the low- versus high-carbohydrate diet comparison, none of the 30 babies in a single trial were macrosomic; and no significant differences in caesarean section rates were seen (RR 1.40, 95% CI 0.57 to 3.43, one trial, 30 women).In the high-monounsaturated fat versus high-carbohydrate diet comparison, neither macrosomia or LGA (one trial 27 babies) (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.91 to 2.18), (RR 0.54 95% CI 0.21 to 1.37), respectively showed significant differences. Women having a high-monounsaturated fat diet had a significantly higher body mass index (BMI) at birth (mean difference (MD) 3.90 kg/m², 95% CI 2.41 to 5.39, one trial, 27 women) and at six to nine months postpartum (MD 4.10 kg/m², 95% CI 2.34 to 5.86, one trial, 27 women) when compared with those having a high-carbohydrate diet. However, these findings were based on a single, small RCT with baseline imbalance in maternal BMI.Perinatal mortality was reported in only trial which recorded no fetal deaths in either the energy- restricted or unrestricted diet group.A single trial comparing ADA diet (20 grams gram fibre/day) with fibre-enriched fibre enriched diet (80 grams gram fibre/day) did not report any of our prespecified primary outcomes.Very limited data were reported on the prespecified outcomes for each of the six comparisons. Only one trial reported on early postnatal outcomes. No trial reported long-term health outcomes for women and their babies. No data were reported on health service cost or women's quality of life.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Data for most comparisons were only available from single studies and they are too small for reliable conclusions about which types of dietary advice are the most suitable for women with GDM. Based on the current available evidence, we did not find any significant benefits of the diets investigated.Further larger trials with sufficient power to assess the effects of different diets for women with GDM on maternal and infant health outcomes are needed. Outcomes such as longer-term health outcomes for women and their babies, women's quality of life and health service cost should be included.

Treatments for gestational diabetes

BACKGROUND

Gestational diabetes (GDM) affects 3% to 6% of all pregnancies. Women are often intensively managed with increased obstetric monitoring, dietary regulation, and insulin. However, there has been no sound evidence base to support intensive treatment. The key issue for clinicians and consumers is whether treatment of GDM improves perinatal outcome.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effect of alternative treatment policies for GDM on both maternal and infant outcomes.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (January 2009) and bibliographies of relevant papers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing alternative management strategies for women with GDM and impaired glucose tolerance in pregnancy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors and a member of the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's editorial team extracted and checked data independently. Disagreements were resolved through discussion with the third author.

MAIN RESULTS

Eight randomised controlled trials (1418 women) were included.Caesarean section rate was not significantly different when comparing any specific treatment with routine antenatal care (ANC) including data from five trials with 1255 participants (risk ratio (RR) 0.94, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80 to 1.12). However, when comparing oral hypoglycaemics with insulin as treatment for GDM, there was a significant reduction (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.77, two trials, 90 participants). There was a reduction in the risk of pre-eclampsia with intensive treatment (including dietary advice and insulin) compared to routine ANC (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.88, one trial, 1000 participants). More women had their labours induced when given specific treatment compared to routine ANC (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.57, two trials, 1068 participants). The composite outcome of perinatal morbidity (death, shoulder dystocia, bone fracture and nerve palsy) was significantly reduced for those receiving intensive treatment for mild GDM compared to routine ANC (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.73, one trial, 1030 infants).There was a reduction in the proportion of infants weighing more than 4000 grams (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.63, one trial, 1030 infants) and the proportion of infants weighing greater than the 90th birth centile (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.99, three trials, 223 infants) of mothers receiving specific treatment for GDM compared to routine ANC. However, there was no statistically significant difference in this proportion between infants of mothers receiving oral drugs compared to insulin as treatment for GDM.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Specific treatment including dietary advice and insulin for mild GDM reduces the risk of maternal and perinatal morbidity. However, it is associated with higher risk of labour induction. More research is needed to assess the impact of different types of intensive treatment, including oral drugs and insulin, on individual short- and long-term infant outcomes.

GDM: postpartum management to reduce long-term risks

Diabetes prevalence has increased dramatically, with 1.3 million new cases diagnosed annually. Women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) are at increased risk for developing overt diabetes later in life. In addition, their offspring, exposed to the diabetic environment in utero, are also at increased risk for developing obesity, glucose intolerance, and type 2 diabetes later in life. Diabetes begets diabetes. The GDM diagnosis provides the medical community with an opportunity to intervene with strategies to prevent and/or delay the onset of diabetes and its associated long-term complications. This article reviews the roles of medical nutrition therapy, physical activity, and pharmacotherapy in preventing type 2 diabetes in women with a GDM history.

Obesity, diabetes, and links to congenital defects: a review of the evidence and recommendations for intervention

OBJECTIVE

To review evidence on the link between obesity and diabetes in pregnant women and the incidence of birth defects. In addition, the article offers recommendations for facilitating the broader scale implementation of evidence-based approaches to preventing obesity, particularly among pregnant women.

METHODS

A review of the evidence, primarily from epidemiologic studies, linking obesity and obesity-related metabolic disturbances in pregnant women to a range of birth defects. It also reviews potential mechanisms by which obesity and diabetes during pregnancy lead to damage in the developing embryo and highlights some evidence-based approaches to prevention. Finally it reviews policy options for positively impacting obesity and diabetes in this population.

RESULTS

Obesity and diabetes are a growing problem in the US population. This problem is particularly acute among women of childbearing age because the combination of obesity and diabetes is toxic to the developing fetus, which each contributing independently to embryopathy.

CONCLUSIONS

There is an urgent need for a national strategy for combating the growing and related problems of obesity and diabetes in the population. This strategy needs to encompass a spectrum of tax breaks, economic incentives, legislation, and educational approaches in order to be effective.

Impact of dietary counselling on nutrient intake during pregnancy: a prospective cohort study

The aim of this study was to assess the impact of dietary counselling combined with the provision of food products on food and nutrient intake in pregnant women. We carried out a prospective cohort study of healthy and atopic pregnant women (n 209), who were randomized into dietary intervention and control groups. The intervention group received dietary counselling and food products to modify the fat composition of their diet to meet current recommendations. Three-day food records were collected during each trimester of pregnancy. Women in the intervention group consumed more vegetables, fruits, soft margarines and vegetable oils and less butter than those in the control group during the course of pregnancy (P < 0·05). The main distinction between the groups in nutrient intake over the pregnancy was attributable to a higher energy intake (% energy) of PUFA by 0·5 %energy (95 % CI 0·1, 0·8) and to a lower intake of SFA by 0·8 % energy (95 % CI − 1·4, − 0·4) in the intervention group. Dietary intake of vitamin E was 1·4 mg (95 % CI 0·6, 2·2), folate 20·9 μg (95 % CI 0·8, 41·0) and ascorbic acid 19·8 mg (95 % CI 3·5, 36·0) higher in the intervention group compared to the controls, while no differences in other nutrients were detected. Dietary counselling combined with the provision of food products during pregnancy is of importance in modifying food and nutrient intake, with potential health benefits.