Key clinical point: Highly elevated antidrug antibody (ADA) levels (≥1,000 ng/mL) at 3 weeks (cycle 2 day 1 [C2D1]) may be associated with poor clinical outcomes after atezolizumab/bevacizumab (Atezo/Bev) treatment in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

Major finding: In both discovery cohort (DC) and validation cohort (VC), patients with high vs low ADA levels at C2D1 had worse progression-free survival (DC: hazard ratio [HR] 2.84; P = .005; VC: HR 2.52; P = .006) and overall survival (DC: HR 3.30; P = .003; VC: HR 5.81; P = .001).

Study details: This prospective cohort study included 132 patients with advanced HCC treated with first-line Atezo/Bev (DC n = 50; VC n = 82).

Disclosures: This study was sponsored by a National Research Foundation of Korea grant funded by the Korean government and others. Some authors reported serving as advisors for or receiving personal fees or grants from various sources. Two authors declared having a pending method patent for predicting therapeutic response to biologic drugs by quantifying blood ADA.

Source: Kim C et al. Association of high levels of antidrug antibodies against atezolizumab with clinical outcomes and T-cell responses in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. JAMA Oncol. 2022 (Oct 20). Doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2022.4733

Key clinical point: Highly elevated antidrug antibody (ADA) levels (≥1,000 ng/mL) at 3 weeks (cycle 2 day 1 [C2D1]) may be associated with poor clinical outcomes after atezolizumab/bevacizumab (Atezo/Bev) treatment in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

Major finding: In both discovery cohort (DC) and validation cohort (VC), patients with high vs low ADA levels at C2D1 had worse progression-free survival (DC: hazard ratio [HR] 2.84; P = .005; VC: HR 2.52; P = .006) and overall survival (DC: HR 3.30; P = .003; VC: HR 5.81; P = .001).

Study details: This prospective cohort study included 132 patients with advanced HCC treated with first-line Atezo/Bev (DC n = 50; VC n = 82).

Disclosures: This study was sponsored by a National Research Foundation of Korea grant funded by the Korean government and others. Some authors reported serving as advisors for or receiving personal fees or grants from various sources. Two authors declared having a pending method patent for predicting therapeutic response to biologic drugs by quantifying blood ADA.

Source: Kim C et al. Association of high levels of antidrug antibodies against atezolizumab with clinical outcomes and T-cell responses in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. JAMA Oncol. 2022 (Oct 20). Doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2022.4733

Key clinical point: Highly elevated antidrug antibody (ADA) levels (≥1,000 ng/mL) at 3 weeks (cycle 2 day 1 [C2D1]) may be associated with poor clinical outcomes after atezolizumab/bevacizumab (Atezo/Bev) treatment in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

Major finding: In both discovery cohort (DC) and validation cohort (VC), patients with high vs low ADA levels at C2D1 had worse progression-free survival (DC: hazard ratio [HR] 2.84; P = .005; VC: HR 2.52; P = .006) and overall survival (DC: HR 3.30; P = .003; VC: HR 5.81; P = .001).

Study details: This prospective cohort study included 132 patients with advanced HCC treated with first-line Atezo/Bev (DC n = 50; VC n = 82).

Disclosures: This study was sponsored by a National Research Foundation of Korea grant funded by the Korean government and others. Some authors reported serving as advisors for or receiving personal fees or grants from various sources. Two authors declared having a pending method patent for predicting therapeutic response to biologic drugs by quantifying blood ADA.

Source: Kim C et al. Association of high levels of antidrug antibodies against atezolizumab with clinical outcomes and T-cell responses in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. JAMA Oncol. 2022 (Oct 20). Doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2022.4733

Higher levels of exposure to outdoor artificial light at night are significantly linked with markers of diabetes and impaired glucose homeostasis, in a new national, cross-sectional study from China.

The results showed a 7% significant increase in diabetes prevalence per quintile exposure to artificial light at night (prevalence ratio, 1.07), report Ruizhi Zheng, PhD, of the Shanghai (China) Jiaotong University School of Medicine, and colleagues. People living in areas with the most exposure to light at night had a 28% higher prevalence of diabetes than those living in places with the lowest exposure (PR, 1.28), the researchers found.

The study was published online  in Diabetologia.

Previous animal studies have shown that exposure to light at night may interfere with circadian rhythms and affect glucose homeostasis, the study team note. Other research has demonstrated that chronic exposure to moderate indoor light during sleep elevated the prevalence of diabetes in older adults, compared with those sleeping in a dim setting, the authors add.

“Our findings contribute to the growing literature suggesting that artificial light at night is detrimental to health and demonstrate that artificial light at night may be a potential novel risk factor for diabetes,” they write.

“Considering the coexistence of the diabetes epidemic and the widespread influence of light pollution at night, the positive associations indicate an urgent need for countries and governments to develop effective prevention and intervention policies and to protect people from the adverse health effects of light pollution at night,” the study authors stress.

Gareth Nye, PhD, senior lecturer at the University of Chester, England, agreed that prior research has found an association between metabolic conditions, such as diabetes, and artificial light at night, with most theories as to the cause focusing on the body’s natural circadian cycle.

He said that internal clocks regulate a variety of bodily processes, such as metabolism and hormone synthesis. They also affect sleep patterns by interfering with synthesis of the hormone melatonin, which is essential for sound sleep, Dr. Nye told the UK Science Media Centre.

However, he stressed that much more research is needed before any link can be considered definitive.
 

Outdoor night light exposure linked to fasting glucose, A1c

The Chinese researchers set out to approximate the relationships between diabetes prevalence and glucose homeostasis with chronic exposure to outdoor light at night. 

They assessed 98,658 participants from the China Noncommunicable Disease Surveillance Study across 162 sites. The mean age of participants was 42.7 years. Female participants comprised 49.2% of the study cohort.

Diabetes was defined based on American Diabetes Association criteria. Satellite data were used to determine exposure to outdoor light at night in 2010. The associations between light exposure at night and indicators of glucose homeostasis were investigated.

Prevalence ratios were calculated and adjusted for sex, age, smoking status, education, body mass index, physical activity, household income, family history of diabetes, rural/urban areas, drinking status, and use of lipid-lowering prescription drugs (primarily statins) or antihypertensives.

The findings showed exposure levels to outdoor light at night were positively linked with 2-hour and fasting glucose concentrations, A1c, and insulin resistance (measured using homeostatic model assessment [HOMA]), but negatively related to β-cell function (measured using HOMA).
 

More research needed

“We advise caution against causal interpretation of the findings and call for further studies involving direct measurement of individual exposure to light at night,” the researchers conclude.

Dr. Nye agreed.

“One issue with this study is that the areas with the highest outdoor artificial light levels are likely to be those in urban areas and bigger cities. It has been known for a long time now that living in an urbanized area increases your risk of obesity through increased access to high-fat and convenience food, less physical activity levels due to transport links, and less social activities. The authors also state this and the fact participants tended to be older,” he noted.

Large datasets are used in this investigation, however, which generally increases the reliability of the data, he observed.

But it is also “unclear as to whether the population here was selected for this study or was retrospectively analyzed, which poses reliability issues, as does the selection of the representative sample, as it is not discussed,” he noted.

Ultimately, there is no confirmed evidence of the link, and until further work is done to directly link light exposure and diabetes in humans, “the link will remain an association only,” he concluded.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Higher levels of exposure to outdoor artificial light at night are significantly linked with markers of diabetes and impaired glucose homeostasis, in a new national, cross-sectional study from China.

The results showed a 7% significant increase in diabetes prevalence per quintile exposure to artificial light at night (prevalence ratio, 1.07), report Ruizhi Zheng, PhD, of the Shanghai (China) Jiaotong University School of Medicine, and colleagues. People living in areas with the most exposure to light at night had a 28% higher prevalence of diabetes than those living in places with the lowest exposure (PR, 1.28), the researchers found.

The study was published online  in Diabetologia.

Previous animal studies have shown that exposure to light at night may interfere with circadian rhythms and affect glucose homeostasis, the study team note. Other research has demonstrated that chronic exposure to moderate indoor light during sleep elevated the prevalence of diabetes in older adults, compared with those sleeping in a dim setting, the authors add.

“Our findings contribute to the growing literature suggesting that artificial light at night is detrimental to health and demonstrate that artificial light at night may be a potential novel risk factor for diabetes,” they write.

“Considering the coexistence of the diabetes epidemic and the widespread influence of light pollution at night, the positive associations indicate an urgent need for countries and governments to develop effective prevention and intervention policies and to protect people from the adverse health effects of light pollution at night,” the study authors stress.

Gareth Nye, PhD, senior lecturer at the University of Chester, England, agreed that prior research has found an association between metabolic conditions, such as diabetes, and artificial light at night, with most theories as to the cause focusing on the body’s natural circadian cycle.

He said that internal clocks regulate a variety of bodily processes, such as metabolism and hormone synthesis. They also affect sleep patterns by interfering with synthesis of the hormone melatonin, which is essential for sound sleep, Dr. Nye told the UK Science Media Centre.

However, he stressed that much more research is needed before any link can be considered definitive.
 

Outdoor night light exposure linked to fasting glucose, A1c

The Chinese researchers set out to approximate the relationships between diabetes prevalence and glucose homeostasis with chronic exposure to outdoor light at night. 

They assessed 98,658 participants from the China Noncommunicable Disease Surveillance Study across 162 sites. The mean age of participants was 42.7 years. Female participants comprised 49.2% of the study cohort.

Diabetes was defined based on American Diabetes Association criteria. Satellite data were used to determine exposure to outdoor light at night in 2010. The associations between light exposure at night and indicators of glucose homeostasis were investigated.

Prevalence ratios were calculated and adjusted for sex, age, smoking status, education, body mass index, physical activity, household income, family history of diabetes, rural/urban areas, drinking status, and use of lipid-lowering prescription drugs (primarily statins) or antihypertensives.

The findings showed exposure levels to outdoor light at night were positively linked with 2-hour and fasting glucose concentrations, A1c, and insulin resistance (measured using homeostatic model assessment [HOMA]), but negatively related to β-cell function (measured using HOMA).
 

More research needed

“We advise caution against causal interpretation of the findings and call for further studies involving direct measurement of individual exposure to light at night,” the researchers conclude.

Dr. Nye agreed.

“One issue with this study is that the areas with the highest outdoor artificial light levels are likely to be those in urban areas and bigger cities. It has been known for a long time now that living in an urbanized area increases your risk of obesity through increased access to high-fat and convenience food, less physical activity levels due to transport links, and less social activities. The authors also state this and the fact participants tended to be older,” he noted.

Large datasets are used in this investigation, however, which generally increases the reliability of the data, he observed.

But it is also “unclear as to whether the population here was selected for this study or was retrospectively analyzed, which poses reliability issues, as does the selection of the representative sample, as it is not discussed,” he noted.

Ultimately, there is no confirmed evidence of the link, and until further work is done to directly link light exposure and diabetes in humans, “the link will remain an association only,” he concluded.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Higher levels of exposure to outdoor artificial light at night are significantly linked with markers of diabetes and impaired glucose homeostasis, in a new national, cross-sectional study from China.

The results showed a 7% significant increase in diabetes prevalence per quintile exposure to artificial light at night (prevalence ratio, 1.07), report Ruizhi Zheng, PhD, of the Shanghai (China) Jiaotong University School of Medicine, and colleagues. People living in areas with the most exposure to light at night had a 28% higher prevalence of diabetes than those living in places with the lowest exposure (PR, 1.28), the researchers found.

The study was published online  in Diabetologia.

Previous animal studies have shown that exposure to light at night may interfere with circadian rhythms and affect glucose homeostasis, the study team note. Other research has demonstrated that chronic exposure to moderate indoor light during sleep elevated the prevalence of diabetes in older adults, compared with those sleeping in a dim setting, the authors add.

“Our findings contribute to the growing literature suggesting that artificial light at night is detrimental to health and demonstrate that artificial light at night may be a potential novel risk factor for diabetes,” they write.

“Considering the coexistence of the diabetes epidemic and the widespread influence of light pollution at night, the positive associations indicate an urgent need for countries and governments to develop effective prevention and intervention policies and to protect people from the adverse health effects of light pollution at night,” the study authors stress.

Gareth Nye, PhD, senior lecturer at the University of Chester, England, agreed that prior research has found an association between metabolic conditions, such as diabetes, and artificial light at night, with most theories as to the cause focusing on the body’s natural circadian cycle.

He said that internal clocks regulate a variety of bodily processes, such as metabolism and hormone synthesis. They also affect sleep patterns by interfering with synthesis of the hormone melatonin, which is essential for sound sleep, Dr. Nye told the UK Science Media Centre.

However, he stressed that much more research is needed before any link can be considered definitive.
 

Outdoor night light exposure linked to fasting glucose, A1c

The Chinese researchers set out to approximate the relationships between diabetes prevalence and glucose homeostasis with chronic exposure to outdoor light at night. 

They assessed 98,658 participants from the China Noncommunicable Disease Surveillance Study across 162 sites. The mean age of participants was 42.7 years. Female participants comprised 49.2% of the study cohort.

Diabetes was defined based on American Diabetes Association criteria. Satellite data were used to determine exposure to outdoor light at night in 2010. The associations between light exposure at night and indicators of glucose homeostasis were investigated.

Prevalence ratios were calculated and adjusted for sex, age, smoking status, education, body mass index, physical activity, household income, family history of diabetes, rural/urban areas, drinking status, and use of lipid-lowering prescription drugs (primarily statins) or antihypertensives.

The findings showed exposure levels to outdoor light at night were positively linked with 2-hour and fasting glucose concentrations, A1c, and insulin resistance (measured using homeostatic model assessment [HOMA]), but negatively related to β-cell function (measured using HOMA).
 

More research needed

“We advise caution against causal interpretation of the findings and call for further studies involving direct measurement of individual exposure to light at night,” the researchers conclude.

Dr. Nye agreed.

“One issue with this study is that the areas with the highest outdoor artificial light levels are likely to be those in urban areas and bigger cities. It has been known for a long time now that living in an urbanized area increases your risk of obesity through increased access to high-fat and convenience food, less physical activity levels due to transport links, and less social activities. The authors also state this and the fact participants tended to be older,” he noted.

Large datasets are used in this investigation, however, which generally increases the reliability of the data, he observed.

But it is also “unclear as to whether the population here was selected for this study or was retrospectively analyzed, which poses reliability issues, as does the selection of the representative sample, as it is not discussed,” he noted.

Ultimately, there is no confirmed evidence of the link, and until further work is done to directly link light exposure and diabetes in humans, “the link will remain an association only,” he concluded.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Key clinical point: Prenatal exposure to hypertensive disorders during pregnancy (HDP), particularly preeclampsia and eclampsia, increased the risk for all-cause mortality in offspring from birth to young adulthood, with early-onset and severe preeclampsia exposure notably increasing the risk.

Major finding: Offspring exposed vs not exposed to maternal HDP were at a 26% higher risk for all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.26; 95% CI 1.18-1.34), with the risk being 29% (aHR 1.29; 95% CI 1.20-1.38) and 188% (aHR 2.88; 95% CI 1.79-4.63) higher on exposure to preeclampsia and eclampsia, respectively. The all-cause mortality risk was much higher in offspring prenatally exposed to early-onset and severe preeclampsia (aHR 6.06; 95% CI 5.35-6.86).

Study details: This population-based cohort study included 2,437,718 offspring born between 1978 and 2018, of which 102,095 were prenatally exposed to maternal HDP.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, Shanghai Rising-Star Program, Shanghai Municipal Natural Science Foundation, Shanghai Municipal Science and Technology Major Project, Independent Research Fund Denmark, Nordic Cancer Union, Karen Elise Jensens Fond, and Novo Nordisk Fonden. The authors declared receiving support from the sources funding the study.

Source: Huang C et al. Maternal hypertensive disorder of pregnancy and mortality in offspring from birth to young adulthood: National population based cohort study. BMJ. 2022;379:e072157 (Oct 19) Erratum: 2022;379:o2726. Doi: 10.1136/bmj-2022-072157

Key clinical point: Prenatal exposure to hypertensive disorders during pregnancy (HDP), particularly preeclampsia and eclampsia, increased the risk for all-cause mortality in offspring from birth to young adulthood, with early-onset and severe preeclampsia exposure notably increasing the risk.

Major finding: Offspring exposed vs not exposed to maternal HDP were at a 26% higher risk for all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.26; 95% CI 1.18-1.34), with the risk being 29% (aHR 1.29; 95% CI 1.20-1.38) and 188% (aHR 2.88; 95% CI 1.79-4.63) higher on exposure to preeclampsia and eclampsia, respectively. The all-cause mortality risk was much higher in offspring prenatally exposed to early-onset and severe preeclampsia (aHR 6.06; 95% CI 5.35-6.86).

Study details: This population-based cohort study included 2,437,718 offspring born between 1978 and 2018, of which 102,095 were prenatally exposed to maternal HDP.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, Shanghai Rising-Star Program, Shanghai Municipal Natural Science Foundation, Shanghai Municipal Science and Technology Major Project, Independent Research Fund Denmark, Nordic Cancer Union, Karen Elise Jensens Fond, and Novo Nordisk Fonden. The authors declared receiving support from the sources funding the study.

Source: Huang C et al. Maternal hypertensive disorder of pregnancy and mortality in offspring from birth to young adulthood: National population based cohort study. BMJ. 2022;379:e072157 (Oct 19) Erratum: 2022;379:o2726. Doi: 10.1136/bmj-2022-072157

Key clinical point: Prenatal exposure to hypertensive disorders during pregnancy (HDP), particularly preeclampsia and eclampsia, increased the risk for all-cause mortality in offspring from birth to young adulthood, with early-onset and severe preeclampsia exposure notably increasing the risk.

Major finding: Offspring exposed vs not exposed to maternal HDP were at a 26% higher risk for all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.26; 95% CI 1.18-1.34), with the risk being 29% (aHR 1.29; 95% CI 1.20-1.38) and 188% (aHR 2.88; 95% CI 1.79-4.63) higher on exposure to preeclampsia and eclampsia, respectively. The all-cause mortality risk was much higher in offspring prenatally exposed to early-onset and severe preeclampsia (aHR 6.06; 95% CI 5.35-6.86).

Study details: This population-based cohort study included 2,437,718 offspring born between 1978 and 2018, of which 102,095 were prenatally exposed to maternal HDP.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, Shanghai Rising-Star Program, Shanghai Municipal Natural Science Foundation, Shanghai Municipal Science and Technology Major Project, Independent Research Fund Denmark, Nordic Cancer Union, Karen Elise Jensens Fond, and Novo Nordisk Fonden. The authors declared receiving support from the sources funding the study.

Source: Huang C et al. Maternal hypertensive disorder of pregnancy and mortality in offspring from birth to young adulthood: National population based cohort study. BMJ. 2022;379:e072157 (Oct 19) Erratum: 2022;379:o2726. Doi: 10.1136/bmj-2022-072157

Key clinical point: Prenatal exposure to hypertensive disorders during pregnancy (HDP), particularly preeclampsia and eclampsia, increased the risk for all-cause mortality in offspring from birth to young adulthood, with early-onset and severe preeclampsia exposure notably increasing the risk.

Major finding: Offspring exposed vs not exposed to maternal HDP were at a 26% higher risk for all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.26; 95% CI 1.18-1.34), with the risk being 29% (aHR 1.29; 95% CI 1.20-1.38) and 188% (aHR 2.88; 95% CI 1.79-4.63) higher on exposure to preeclampsia and eclampsia, respectively. The all-cause mortality risk was much higher in offspring prenatally exposed to early-onset and severe preeclampsia (aHR 6.06; 95% CI 5.35-6.86).

Study details: This population-based cohort study included 2,437,718 offspring born between 1978 and 2018, of which 102,095 were prenatally exposed to maternal HDP.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, Shanghai Rising-Star Program, Shanghai Municipal Natural Science Foundation, Shanghai Municipal Science and Technology Major Project, Independent Research Fund Denmark, Nordic Cancer Union, Karen Elise Jensens Fond, and Novo Nordisk Fonden. The authors declared receiving support from the sources funding the study.

Source: Huang C et al. Maternal hypertensive disorder of pregnancy and mortality in offspring from birth to young adulthood: National population based cohort study. BMJ. 2022;379:e072157 (Oct 19) Erratum: 2022;379:o2726. Doi: 10.1136/bmj-2022-072157

Key clinical point: Prenatal exposure to hypertensive disorders during pregnancy (HDP), particularly preeclampsia and eclampsia, increased the risk for all-cause mortality in offspring from birth to young adulthood, with early-onset and severe preeclampsia exposure notably increasing the risk.

Major finding: Offspring exposed vs not exposed to maternal HDP were at a 26% higher risk for all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.26; 95% CI 1.18-1.34), with the risk being 29% (aHR 1.29; 95% CI 1.20-1.38) and 188% (aHR 2.88; 95% CI 1.79-4.63) higher on exposure to preeclampsia and eclampsia, respectively. The all-cause mortality risk was much higher in offspring prenatally exposed to early-onset and severe preeclampsia (aHR 6.06; 95% CI 5.35-6.86).

Study details: This population-based cohort study included 2,437,718 offspring born between 1978 and 2018, of which 102,095 were prenatally exposed to maternal HDP.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, Shanghai Rising-Star Program, Shanghai Municipal Natural Science Foundation, Shanghai Municipal Science and Technology Major Project, Independent Research Fund Denmark, Nordic Cancer Union, Karen Elise Jensens Fond, and Novo Nordisk Fonden. The authors declared receiving support from the sources funding the study.

Source: Huang C et al. Maternal hypertensive disorder of pregnancy and mortality in offspring from birth to young adulthood: National population based cohort study. BMJ. 2022;379:e072157 (Oct 19) Erratum: 2022;379:o2726. Doi: 10.1136/bmj-2022-072157

Key clinical point: Prenatal exposure to hypertensive disorders during pregnancy (HDP), particularly preeclampsia and eclampsia, increased the risk for all-cause mortality in offspring from birth to young adulthood, with early-onset and severe preeclampsia exposure notably increasing the risk.

Major finding: Offspring exposed vs not exposed to maternal HDP were at a 26% higher risk for all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.26; 95% CI 1.18-1.34), with the risk being 29% (aHR 1.29; 95% CI 1.20-1.38) and 188% (aHR 2.88; 95% CI 1.79-4.63) higher on exposure to preeclampsia and eclampsia, respectively. The all-cause mortality risk was much higher in offspring prenatally exposed to early-onset and severe preeclampsia (aHR 6.06; 95% CI 5.35-6.86).

Study details: This population-based cohort study included 2,437,718 offspring born between 1978 and 2018, of which 102,095 were prenatally exposed to maternal HDP.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, Shanghai Rising-Star Program, Shanghai Municipal Natural Science Foundation, Shanghai Municipal Science and Technology Major Project, Independent Research Fund Denmark, Nordic Cancer Union, Karen Elise Jensens Fond, and Novo Nordisk Fonden. The authors declared receiving support from the sources funding the study.

Source: Huang C et al. Maternal hypertensive disorder of pregnancy and mortality in offspring from birth to young adulthood: National population based cohort study. BMJ. 2022;379:e072157 (Oct 19) Erratum: 2022;379:o2726. Doi: 10.1136/bmj-2022-072157

U.K. researchers have established that hypertension is associated with a 22% greater risk of severe COVID-19, with the odds of severe COVID-19 unaffected by medication type.

Hypertension “appears to be one of the commonest comorbidities in COVID-19 patients”, explained the authors of a new study, published in PLOS ONE. The authors highlighted that previous research had shown that hypertension was more prevalent in severe and fatal cases compared with all cases of COVID-19.

They pointed out, however, that whether hypertensive individuals have a higher risk of severe COVID-19, compared with nonhypertensives, and whether the absolute level of systolic blood pressure or the type of antihypertensive medication is related to this risk, remained “unclear.”

To try to answer these questions, the research team, led by University of Cambridge researchers, analyzed data from 16,134 individuals who tested positive for COVID-19 (mean age 65.3 years, 47% male, 90% white), 40% were diagnosed with essential hypertension at the analysis baseline – 22% of whom had developed severe COVID-19.

Systolic blood pressure (SBP) was categorized by 10–mm Hg ranges, starting from < 120 mm Hg up to 180+ mm Hg, with the reference category defined as 120-129 mm Hg, based on data from the SPRINT study, which demonstrated that intensive SBP lowering to below 120 mm Hg, as compared with the traditional threshold of 140 mm Hg, was beneficial. Diastolic blood pressure was categorized by 10–mm Hg ranges, starting from < 60 mm Hg up to 100+ mm Hg with 80-90 mm Hg being the reference category.

In their analyses the researchers adjusted for age, sex, body mass index, ethnicity, smoking status, diabetes status, socioeconomic status, and inflammation (C-reactive protein [CRP]), as these were proposed as potential confounders. To assess the direct effect of hypertension on COVID-19, they also adjusted for intermediate variables, including cardiovascular comorbidities and stroke, on the causal pathway between hypertension and severe COVID-19.
 

Majority of effect of hypertension on severe COVID-19 was direct

The unadjusted odds ratio of the association between hypertension and severe COVID-19 was 2.33 (95% confidence interval, 2.16-2.51), the authors emphasized. They found that, after adjusting for all confounding variables, hypertension was associated with 22% higher odds of severe COVID-19 (OR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.12-1.33), compared with normotension.

Individuals with severe COVID-19 were marginally older, more likely to be male, and more deprived, the authors said. “They were also more likely to be hypertensive, compared with individuals without severe COVID-19, and a greater proportion of individuals with severe COVID-19 had cardiovascular comorbidities.”

The majority of the effect of hypertension on development of severe COVID-19 was “direct,” they said. However, a modest proportion of the effect was mediated via cardiovascular comorbidities such as peripheral vascular disease, MI, coronary heart disease, arrhythmias, and stroke. Of note, those with a history of stroke had a 47% higher risk of severe COVID-19 and those with a history of other cardiovascular comorbidities had a 30% higher risk of severe COVID-19, the authors commented.
 

J-shaped relationship

Of the total of 6,517 (40%) individuals who had a diagnosis of essential hypertension at baseline, 67% were treated (41% with monotherapy, 59% with combination therapy), and 33% were untreated.

There were similar numbers of severe COVID-19 in each medication group: ACE inhibitors, 34%; angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), 36%; and “other” medications 34%.

In hypertensive individuals receiving antihypertensive medications, there was a “J-shaped relationship” between the level of blood pressure and risk of severe COVID-19 when using a systolic blood pressure level of 120-129 mm Hg as a reference – 150-159 mm Hg versus 120-129 mm Hg (OR 1.91; 95% CI, 1.44-2.53), > 180+ mm Hg versus 120-129 mm Hg (OR 1.93; 95% CI, 1.06-3.51).

The authors commented that there was no evidence of a higher risk of severe COVID-19 until systolic blood pressure “exceeded 150 mm Hg.”

They said it was an interesting finding that “very well-controlled” systolic blood pressure < 120 mm Hg was associated with a 40% (OR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.11-1.78) greater odds of severe COVID-19. “This may be due to reverse causality, where low systolic blood pressure levels may indicate poorer health, such that the occurrence of severe COVID-19 may be related to underlying disease rather than the level of SBP per se,” they suggested.

The J-shaped association observed remained after multiple adjustments, including presence of known cardiovascular comorbidities, which suggested a possible “real effect” of low SBP on severe COVID-19, “at least in treated hypertensive individuals.”

Their analyses also identified that, compared with a “normal” diastolic blood pressure (80-90 mm Hg), having a diastolic blood pressure higher than 90 mm Hg was associated with higher odds of severe COVID-19.

The association between hypertension and COVID-19 was “amplified” if the individuals were treated and their BP remained uncontrolled, the authors pointed out.

There did not appear to be any difference in the risk of severe COVID-19 between individuals taking ACE inhibitors and those taking ARBs or other antihypertensive medications, the authors said.
 

Better understanding of underlying mechanisms needed

Individuals with hypertension who tested positive for COVID-19 had “over twice” the risk of developing severe COVID-19, compared with nonhypertensive individuals, the authors said.

They highlighted that their findings also suggest that there are “further effects” influencing the severity of COVID-19 beyond a “dichotomous” diagnosis of hypertension.

“Individuals with a higher-than-target systolic blood pressure may be less healthy, less active, suffering more severe hypertension, or have developed drug-resistant hypertension, all suggesting that the effects of hypertension have already had detrimental physiological effects on the cardiovascular system, which in turn may offer some explanation for the higher risk of severe COVID-19 with uncontrolled SBP,” they explained.

“Hypertension is an important risk factor for COVID-19,” reiterated the authors, who emphasized that a better understanding of the underlying mechanisms driving this increased risk is warranted in case of “more severe strains or other viruses” in the future.

The authors have declared no competing interests.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

U.K. researchers have established that hypertension is associated with a 22% greater risk of severe COVID-19, with the odds of severe COVID-19 unaffected by medication type.

Hypertension “appears to be one of the commonest comorbidities in COVID-19 patients”, explained the authors of a new study, published in PLOS ONE. The authors highlighted that previous research had shown that hypertension was more prevalent in severe and fatal cases compared with all cases of COVID-19.

They pointed out, however, that whether hypertensive individuals have a higher risk of severe COVID-19, compared with nonhypertensives, and whether the absolute level of systolic blood pressure or the type of antihypertensive medication is related to this risk, remained “unclear.”

To try to answer these questions, the research team, led by University of Cambridge researchers, analyzed data from 16,134 individuals who tested positive for COVID-19 (mean age 65.3 years, 47% male, 90% white), 40% were diagnosed with essential hypertension at the analysis baseline – 22% of whom had developed severe COVID-19.

Systolic blood pressure (SBP) was categorized by 10–mm Hg ranges, starting from < 120 mm Hg up to 180+ mm Hg, with the reference category defined as 120-129 mm Hg, based on data from the SPRINT study, which demonstrated that intensive SBP lowering to below 120 mm Hg, as compared with the traditional threshold of 140 mm Hg, was beneficial. Diastolic blood pressure was categorized by 10–mm Hg ranges, starting from < 60 mm Hg up to 100+ mm Hg with 80-90 mm Hg being the reference category.

In their analyses the researchers adjusted for age, sex, body mass index, ethnicity, smoking status, diabetes status, socioeconomic status, and inflammation (C-reactive protein [CRP]), as these were proposed as potential confounders. To assess the direct effect of hypertension on COVID-19, they also adjusted for intermediate variables, including cardiovascular comorbidities and stroke, on the causal pathway between hypertension and severe COVID-19.
 

Majority of effect of hypertension on severe COVID-19 was direct

The unadjusted odds ratio of the association between hypertension and severe COVID-19 was 2.33 (95% confidence interval, 2.16-2.51), the authors emphasized. They found that, after adjusting for all confounding variables, hypertension was associated with 22% higher odds of severe COVID-19 (OR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.12-1.33), compared with normotension.

Individuals with severe COVID-19 were marginally older, more likely to be male, and more deprived, the authors said. “They were also more likely to be hypertensive, compared with individuals without severe COVID-19, and a greater proportion of individuals with severe COVID-19 had cardiovascular comorbidities.”

The majority of the effect of hypertension on development of severe COVID-19 was “direct,” they said. However, a modest proportion of the effect was mediated via cardiovascular comorbidities such as peripheral vascular disease, MI, coronary heart disease, arrhythmias, and stroke. Of note, those with a history of stroke had a 47% higher risk of severe COVID-19 and those with a history of other cardiovascular comorbidities had a 30% higher risk of severe COVID-19, the authors commented.
 

J-shaped relationship

Of the total of 6,517 (40%) individuals who had a diagnosis of essential hypertension at baseline, 67% were treated (41% with monotherapy, 59% with combination therapy), and 33% were untreated.

There were similar numbers of severe COVID-19 in each medication group: ACE inhibitors, 34%; angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), 36%; and “other” medications 34%.

In hypertensive individuals receiving antihypertensive medications, there was a “J-shaped relationship” between the level of blood pressure and risk of severe COVID-19 when using a systolic blood pressure level of 120-129 mm Hg as a reference – 150-159 mm Hg versus 120-129 mm Hg (OR 1.91; 95% CI, 1.44-2.53), > 180+ mm Hg versus 120-129 mm Hg (OR 1.93; 95% CI, 1.06-3.51).

The authors commented that there was no evidence of a higher risk of severe COVID-19 until systolic blood pressure “exceeded 150 mm Hg.”

They said it was an interesting finding that “very well-controlled” systolic blood pressure < 120 mm Hg was associated with a 40% (OR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.11-1.78) greater odds of severe COVID-19. “This may be due to reverse causality, where low systolic blood pressure levels may indicate poorer health, such that the occurrence of severe COVID-19 may be related to underlying disease rather than the level of SBP per se,” they suggested.

The J-shaped association observed remained after multiple adjustments, including presence of known cardiovascular comorbidities, which suggested a possible “real effect” of low SBP on severe COVID-19, “at least in treated hypertensive individuals.”

Their analyses also identified that, compared with a “normal” diastolic blood pressure (80-90 mm Hg), having a diastolic blood pressure higher than 90 mm Hg was associated with higher odds of severe COVID-19.

The association between hypertension and COVID-19 was “amplified” if the individuals were treated and their BP remained uncontrolled, the authors pointed out.

There did not appear to be any difference in the risk of severe COVID-19 between individuals taking ACE inhibitors and those taking ARBs or other antihypertensive medications, the authors said.
 

Better understanding of underlying mechanisms needed

Individuals with hypertension who tested positive for COVID-19 had “over twice” the risk of developing severe COVID-19, compared with nonhypertensive individuals, the authors said.

They highlighted that their findings also suggest that there are “further effects” influencing the severity of COVID-19 beyond a “dichotomous” diagnosis of hypertension.

“Individuals with a higher-than-target systolic blood pressure may be less healthy, less active, suffering more severe hypertension, or have developed drug-resistant hypertension, all suggesting that the effects of hypertension have already had detrimental physiological effects on the cardiovascular system, which in turn may offer some explanation for the higher risk of severe COVID-19 with uncontrolled SBP,” they explained.

“Hypertension is an important risk factor for COVID-19,” reiterated the authors, who emphasized that a better understanding of the underlying mechanisms driving this increased risk is warranted in case of “more severe strains or other viruses” in the future.

The authors have declared no competing interests.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

U.K. researchers have established that hypertension is associated with a 22% greater risk of severe COVID-19, with the odds of severe COVID-19 unaffected by medication type.

Hypertension “appears to be one of the commonest comorbidities in COVID-19 patients”, explained the authors of a new study, published in PLOS ONE. The authors highlighted that previous research had shown that hypertension was more prevalent in severe and fatal cases compared with all cases of COVID-19.

They pointed out, however, that whether hypertensive individuals have a higher risk of severe COVID-19, compared with nonhypertensives, and whether the absolute level of systolic blood pressure or the type of antihypertensive medication is related to this risk, remained “unclear.”

To try to answer these questions, the research team, led by University of Cambridge researchers, analyzed data from 16,134 individuals who tested positive for COVID-19 (mean age 65.3 years, 47% male, 90% white), 40% were diagnosed with essential hypertension at the analysis baseline – 22% of whom had developed severe COVID-19.

Systolic blood pressure (SBP) was categorized by 10–mm Hg ranges, starting from < 120 mm Hg up to 180+ mm Hg, with the reference category defined as 120-129 mm Hg, based on data from the SPRINT study, which demonstrated that intensive SBP lowering to below 120 mm Hg, as compared with the traditional threshold of 140 mm Hg, was beneficial. Diastolic blood pressure was categorized by 10–mm Hg ranges, starting from < 60 mm Hg up to 100+ mm Hg with 80-90 mm Hg being the reference category.

In their analyses the researchers adjusted for age, sex, body mass index, ethnicity, smoking status, diabetes status, socioeconomic status, and inflammation (C-reactive protein [CRP]), as these were proposed as potential confounders. To assess the direct effect of hypertension on COVID-19, they also adjusted for intermediate variables, including cardiovascular comorbidities and stroke, on the causal pathway between hypertension and severe COVID-19.
 

Majority of effect of hypertension on severe COVID-19 was direct

The unadjusted odds ratio of the association between hypertension and severe COVID-19 was 2.33 (95% confidence interval, 2.16-2.51), the authors emphasized. They found that, after adjusting for all confounding variables, hypertension was associated with 22% higher odds of severe COVID-19 (OR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.12-1.33), compared with normotension.

Individuals with severe COVID-19 were marginally older, more likely to be male, and more deprived, the authors said. “They were also more likely to be hypertensive, compared with individuals without severe COVID-19, and a greater proportion of individuals with severe COVID-19 had cardiovascular comorbidities.”

The majority of the effect of hypertension on development of severe COVID-19 was “direct,” they said. However, a modest proportion of the effect was mediated via cardiovascular comorbidities such as peripheral vascular disease, MI, coronary heart disease, arrhythmias, and stroke. Of note, those with a history of stroke had a 47% higher risk of severe COVID-19 and those with a history of other cardiovascular comorbidities had a 30% higher risk of severe COVID-19, the authors commented.
 

J-shaped relationship

Of the total of 6,517 (40%) individuals who had a diagnosis of essential hypertension at baseline, 67% were treated (41% with monotherapy, 59% with combination therapy), and 33% were untreated.

There were similar numbers of severe COVID-19 in each medication group: ACE inhibitors, 34%; angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), 36%; and “other” medications 34%.

In hypertensive individuals receiving antihypertensive medications, there was a “J-shaped relationship” between the level of blood pressure and risk of severe COVID-19 when using a systolic blood pressure level of 120-129 mm Hg as a reference – 150-159 mm Hg versus 120-129 mm Hg (OR 1.91; 95% CI, 1.44-2.53), > 180+ mm Hg versus 120-129 mm Hg (OR 1.93; 95% CI, 1.06-3.51).

The authors commented that there was no evidence of a higher risk of severe COVID-19 until systolic blood pressure “exceeded 150 mm Hg.”

They said it was an interesting finding that “very well-controlled” systolic blood pressure < 120 mm Hg was associated with a 40% (OR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.11-1.78) greater odds of severe COVID-19. “This may be due to reverse causality, where low systolic blood pressure levels may indicate poorer health, such that the occurrence of severe COVID-19 may be related to underlying disease rather than the level of SBP per se,” they suggested.

The J-shaped association observed remained after multiple adjustments, including presence of known cardiovascular comorbidities, which suggested a possible “real effect” of low SBP on severe COVID-19, “at least in treated hypertensive individuals.”

Their analyses also identified that, compared with a “normal” diastolic blood pressure (80-90 mm Hg), having a diastolic blood pressure higher than 90 mm Hg was associated with higher odds of severe COVID-19.

The association between hypertension and COVID-19 was “amplified” if the individuals were treated and their BP remained uncontrolled, the authors pointed out.

There did not appear to be any difference in the risk of severe COVID-19 between individuals taking ACE inhibitors and those taking ARBs or other antihypertensive medications, the authors said.
 

Better understanding of underlying mechanisms needed

Individuals with hypertension who tested positive for COVID-19 had “over twice” the risk of developing severe COVID-19, compared with nonhypertensive individuals, the authors said.

They highlighted that their findings also suggest that there are “further effects” influencing the severity of COVID-19 beyond a “dichotomous” diagnosis of hypertension.

“Individuals with a higher-than-target systolic blood pressure may be less healthy, less active, suffering more severe hypertension, or have developed drug-resistant hypertension, all suggesting that the effects of hypertension have already had detrimental physiological effects on the cardiovascular system, which in turn may offer some explanation for the higher risk of severe COVID-19 with uncontrolled SBP,” they explained.

“Hypertension is an important risk factor for COVID-19,” reiterated the authors, who emphasized that a better understanding of the underlying mechanisms driving this increased risk is warranted in case of “more severe strains or other viruses” in the future.

The authors have declared no competing interests.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

Key clinical point: The maternal blood and umbilical cord serum leptin, visfatin, and spexin levels were significantly altered in nondiabetic pregnant women with vs without preeclampsia, with leptin and visfatin levels showing a significant and positive correlation with maternal body mass index (BMI) in women with and without preeclampsia.

Major finding: Pregnant women with vs without severe preeclampsia had significantly higher levels of serum leptin and visfatin (P < .001) and lower levels of spexin (P < .001) in both maternal blood and umbilical cord, with maternal BMI and leptin and visfatin levels in maternal blood and umbilical cord being positively correlated in women with (P < .001) and without (P < .01) severe preeclampsia.

Study details: This was a case-control observational study including 45 pregnant women with severe preeclampsia and 45 gestational age-matched women with normal pregnancies without known medical conditions, who underwent a cesarean section at 34-35 weeks of gestation.

Disclosures: This study did not report the source of funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Gök S et al. Evaluation of the adipokine levels of pregnant women with preeclampsia. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2022 (Oct 13). Doi: 10.1111/jog.15463

Key clinical point: The maternal blood and umbilical cord serum leptin, visfatin, and spexin levels were significantly altered in nondiabetic pregnant women with vs without preeclampsia, with leptin and visfatin levels showing a significant and positive correlation with maternal body mass index (BMI) in women with and without preeclampsia.

Major finding: Pregnant women with vs without severe preeclampsia had significantly higher levels of serum leptin and visfatin (P < .001) and lower levels of spexin (P < .001) in both maternal blood and umbilical cord, with maternal BMI and leptin and visfatin levels in maternal blood and umbilical cord being positively correlated in women with (P < .001) and without (P < .01) severe preeclampsia.

Study details: This was a case-control observational study including 45 pregnant women with severe preeclampsia and 45 gestational age-matched women with normal pregnancies without known medical conditions, who underwent a cesarean section at 34-35 weeks of gestation.

Disclosures: This study did not report the source of funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Gök S et al. Evaluation of the adipokine levels of pregnant women with preeclampsia. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2022 (Oct 13). Doi: 10.1111/jog.15463

Key clinical point: The maternal blood and umbilical cord serum leptin, visfatin, and spexin levels were significantly altered in nondiabetic pregnant women with vs without preeclampsia, with leptin and visfatin levels showing a significant and positive correlation with maternal body mass index (BMI) in women with and without preeclampsia.

Major finding: Pregnant women with vs without severe preeclampsia had significantly higher levels of serum leptin and visfatin (P < .001) and lower levels of spexin (P < .001) in both maternal blood and umbilical cord, with maternal BMI and leptin and visfatin levels in maternal blood and umbilical cord being positively correlated in women with (P < .001) and without (P < .01) severe preeclampsia.

Study details: This was a case-control observational study including 45 pregnant women with severe preeclampsia and 45 gestational age-matched women with normal pregnancies without known medical conditions, who underwent a cesarean section at 34-35 weeks of gestation.

Disclosures: This study did not report the source of funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Gök S et al. Evaluation of the adipokine levels of pregnant women with preeclampsia. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2022 (Oct 13). Doi: 10.1111/jog.15463

Key clinical point: Shoulder dystocia was identified as the highest contributing risk factor for intrapartum fetal deaths in addition to other independent risk factors, such as uterine rupture and preterm delivery.

Major finding: Overall, 0.1% of deliveries resulted in intrapartum fetal deaths. Independent risk factors for intrapartum fetal deaths included uterine rupture (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 19.0; 95% CI 7.0-51.4), preterm delivery (aOR 11.9; 95% CI 8.6-16.5), with shoulder dystocia being the highest contributing risk factor (aOR 23.8; 95% CI 9.9-57.3).

Study details: This population-based retrospective cohort study analyzed the data of 344,781 singleton deliveries.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Davidesko S et al. Critical analysis of risk factors for intrapartum fetal death. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2022 (Oct 12). Doi: 10.1007/s00404-022-06811-x

Key clinical point: Shoulder dystocia was identified as the highest contributing risk factor for intrapartum fetal deaths in addition to other independent risk factors, such as uterine rupture and preterm delivery.

Major finding: Overall, 0.1% of deliveries resulted in intrapartum fetal deaths. Independent risk factors for intrapartum fetal deaths included uterine rupture (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 19.0; 95% CI 7.0-51.4), preterm delivery (aOR 11.9; 95% CI 8.6-16.5), with shoulder dystocia being the highest contributing risk factor (aOR 23.8; 95% CI 9.9-57.3).

Study details: This population-based retrospective cohort study analyzed the data of 344,781 singleton deliveries.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Davidesko S et al. Critical analysis of risk factors for intrapartum fetal death. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2022 (Oct 12). Doi: 10.1007/s00404-022-06811-x

Key clinical point: Shoulder dystocia was identified as the highest contributing risk factor for intrapartum fetal deaths in addition to other independent risk factors, such as uterine rupture and preterm delivery.

Major finding: Overall, 0.1% of deliveries resulted in intrapartum fetal deaths. Independent risk factors for intrapartum fetal deaths included uterine rupture (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 19.0; 95% CI 7.0-51.4), preterm delivery (aOR 11.9; 95% CI 8.6-16.5), with shoulder dystocia being the highest contributing risk factor (aOR 23.8; 95% CI 9.9-57.3).

Study details: This population-based retrospective cohort study analyzed the data of 344,781 singleton deliveries.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Davidesko S et al. Critical analysis of risk factors for intrapartum fetal death. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2022 (Oct 12). Doi: 10.1007/s00404-022-06811-x

Key clinical point: Recurrence risk was highest for postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) due to dystocia, with maternal age, birth weight, and previous cesarean section being significant risk factors for PPH due to dystocia.

Major finding: The recurrence risk was highest for PPH due to dystocia (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 6.8; 95% CI 6.3-7.4), with a prior history of cesarean section (aOR 6.08; 95% CI 5.82-6.35), older maternal age (30-34 vs 25-29 years: aOR 1.42; 95% CI 1.38-1.46), and higher birth weight (4000-4499 vs 3500-3999 g: aOR 1.98; 95% CI 1.92-2.03) being significant risk factors for PPH due to dystocia.

Study details: This population-based cohort study included 3,003,025 singleton deliveries with spontaneous onset or induction of labor (gestational age at delivery ≥22 weeks), of which 277,746 were complicated by postpartum hemorrhage.

Disclosures: LE Linde declared being employed at the University of Bergen. The research file was financed by a research grant from the Western Norway Regional Health Authority. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Linde LE et al. Risk factors and recurrence of cause-specific postpartum hemorrhage: A population-based study. PLoS One. 2022;17(10):e0275879 (Oct 14). Doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0275879

Key clinical point: Recurrence risk was highest for postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) due to dystocia, with maternal age, birth weight, and previous cesarean section being significant risk factors for PPH due to dystocia.

Major finding: The recurrence risk was highest for PPH due to dystocia (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 6.8; 95% CI 6.3-7.4), with a prior history of cesarean section (aOR 6.08; 95% CI 5.82-6.35), older maternal age (30-34 vs 25-29 years: aOR 1.42; 95% CI 1.38-1.46), and higher birth weight (4000-4499 vs 3500-3999 g: aOR 1.98; 95% CI 1.92-2.03) being significant risk factors for PPH due to dystocia.

Study details: This population-based cohort study included 3,003,025 singleton deliveries with spontaneous onset or induction of labor (gestational age at delivery ≥22 weeks), of which 277,746 were complicated by postpartum hemorrhage.

Disclosures: LE Linde declared being employed at the University of Bergen. The research file was financed by a research grant from the Western Norway Regional Health Authority. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Linde LE et al. Risk factors and recurrence of cause-specific postpartum hemorrhage: A population-based study. PLoS One. 2022;17(10):e0275879 (Oct 14). Doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0275879

Key clinical point: Recurrence risk was highest for postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) due to dystocia, with maternal age, birth weight, and previous cesarean section being significant risk factors for PPH due to dystocia.

Major finding: The recurrence risk was highest for PPH due to dystocia (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 6.8; 95% CI 6.3-7.4), with a prior history of cesarean section (aOR 6.08; 95% CI 5.82-6.35), older maternal age (30-34 vs 25-29 years: aOR 1.42; 95% CI 1.38-1.46), and higher birth weight (4000-4499 vs 3500-3999 g: aOR 1.98; 95% CI 1.92-2.03) being significant risk factors for PPH due to dystocia.

Study details: This population-based cohort study included 3,003,025 singleton deliveries with spontaneous onset or induction of labor (gestational age at delivery ≥22 weeks), of which 277,746 were complicated by postpartum hemorrhage.

Disclosures: LE Linde declared being employed at the University of Bergen. The research file was financed by a research grant from the Western Norway Regional Health Authority. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Linde LE et al. Risk factors and recurrence of cause-specific postpartum hemorrhage: A population-based study. PLoS One. 2022;17(10):e0275879 (Oct 14). Doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0275879

Key clinical point: The presence of uterine fibroids in early pregnancy is significantly and independently associated with higher odds of developing preeclampsia in the middle and late trimesters.

Major finding: Pregnant women with vs without uterine fibroids in early pregnancy had a 3-fold higher risk for preeclampsia (adjusted odds ratio 3.02; P = .019).

Study details: This case-control study included 121 pregnant women diagnosed with preeclampsia and 578 age-matched pregnant women without preeclampsia.

Disclosures: This study did not report the funding source. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Gong L et al. Uterine fibroids are associated with increased risk of pre-eclampsia: A case-control study. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2022;9:1011311 (Oct 18). Doi: 10.3389/fcvm.2022.1011311

Key clinical point: The presence of uterine fibroids in early pregnancy is significantly and independently associated with higher odds of developing preeclampsia in the middle and late trimesters.

Major finding: Pregnant women with vs without uterine fibroids in early pregnancy had a 3-fold higher risk for preeclampsia (adjusted odds ratio 3.02; P = .019).

Study details: This case-control study included 121 pregnant women diagnosed with preeclampsia and 578 age-matched pregnant women without preeclampsia.

Disclosures: This study did not report the funding source. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Gong L et al. Uterine fibroids are associated with increased risk of pre-eclampsia: A case-control study. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2022;9:1011311 (Oct 18). Doi: 10.3389/fcvm.2022.1011311

Key clinical point: The presence of uterine fibroids in early pregnancy is significantly and independently associated with higher odds of developing preeclampsia in the middle and late trimesters.

Major finding: Pregnant women with vs without uterine fibroids in early pregnancy had a 3-fold higher risk for preeclampsia (adjusted odds ratio 3.02; P = .019).

Study details: This case-control study included 121 pregnant women diagnosed with preeclampsia and 578 age-matched pregnant women without preeclampsia.

Disclosures: This study did not report the funding source. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Gong L et al. Uterine fibroids are associated with increased risk of pre-eclampsia: A case-control study. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2022;9:1011311 (Oct 18). Doi: 10.3389/fcvm.2022.1011311

Key clinical point: Vaginal breech delivery (VBD) performed under experienced supervision does not significantly increase the risk for negative short-term perinatal outcomes.

Major finding: VBD, elective caesarean section (CS), and emergency CS did not result in any significant difference in the proportion of neonates with a 5-min Apgar score of <3, umbilical arterial pH of <7.00, or the need for admission to the neonatal intensive care unit (all P > .05).

Study details: This single-center, retrospective study included 804 singleton pregnant women with a fetus in breech position at delivery who underwent VBD (n = 433), emergency CS (n = 214), or elective CS (n = 157).

Disclosures: No source of funding was reported. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Fruscalzo A et al. Short-term neonatal outcomes in vaginal breech delivery: Results of a retrospective single-centre study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2022;279:122-129 (Oct 28). Doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2022.10.022

Key clinical point: Vaginal breech delivery (VBD) performed under experienced supervision does not significantly increase the risk for negative short-term perinatal outcomes.

Major finding: VBD, elective caesarean section (CS), and emergency CS did not result in any significant difference in the proportion of neonates with a 5-min Apgar score of <3, umbilical arterial pH of <7.00, or the need for admission to the neonatal intensive care unit (all P > .05).

Study details: This single-center, retrospective study included 804 singleton pregnant women with a fetus in breech position at delivery who underwent VBD (n = 433), emergency CS (n = 214), or elective CS (n = 157).

Disclosures: No source of funding was reported. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Fruscalzo A et al. Short-term neonatal outcomes in vaginal breech delivery: Results of a retrospective single-centre study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2022;279:122-129 (Oct 28). Doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2022.10.022

Key clinical point: Vaginal breech delivery (VBD) performed under experienced supervision does not significantly increase the risk for negative short-term perinatal outcomes.

Major finding: VBD, elective caesarean section (CS), and emergency CS did not result in any significant difference in the proportion of neonates with a 5-min Apgar score of <3, umbilical arterial pH of <7.00, or the need for admission to the neonatal intensive care unit (all P > .05).

Study details: This single-center, retrospective study included 804 singleton pregnant women with a fetus in breech position at delivery who underwent VBD (n = 433), emergency CS (n = 214), or elective CS (n = 157).

Disclosures: No source of funding was reported. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Fruscalzo A et al. Short-term neonatal outcomes in vaginal breech delivery: Results of a retrospective single-centre study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2022;279:122-129 (Oct 28). Doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2022.10.022