RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Evaluating causal associations of chronotype with pregnancy and perinatal outcomes and its interactions with insomnia and sleep duration: a Mendelian randomization study
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2023.06.02.23290898
DO 10.1101/2023.06.02.23290898
A1 Yang, Qian
A1 Magnus, Maria C
A1 Kilpi, Fanny
A1 Santorelli, Gillian
A1 Soares, Ana Goncalves
A1 West, Jane
A1 Magnus, Per
A1 Håberg, Siri E.
A1 Tilling, Kate
A1 Lawlor, Deborah A
A1 Borges, M Carolina
A1 Sanderson, Eleanor
YR 2023
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/06/05/2023.06.02.23290898.abstract
AB IMPORTANCE Observational studies suggest that chronotype is associated with pregnancy and perinatal outcomes. Whether these associations are causal is unclear.OBJECTIVE To explore associations of a lifetime genetic predisposition to an evening preference chronotype with pregnancy and perinatal outcomes, and explore differences in associations of insomnia and sleep duration with those outcomes between chronotype.DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS We conducted two-sample Mendelian randomization (MR) using 105 genetic variants reported in a genome-wide association study (N=248 100) to instrument for lifelong predisposition to evening-versus morning-preference chronotypes. We generated variant-outcome associations in European ancestry women from UK Biobank (UKB, N=176 897), Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC, N=6826), Born in Bradford (BiB, N=2940) and Norwegian Mother, Father and Child Cohort Study (MoBa, with linked data from the Medical Birth Registry of Norway (MBRN), N=57 430), and extracted equivalent associations from FinnGen (N=190 879). We used inverse variance weighted (IVW) as main analysis, with weighted median and MR-Egger as sensitivity analyses. We also conducted IVW analyses of insomnia and sleep duration on the outcomes stratified by genetically predicted chronotype.EXPOSURES Self-reported and genetically predicted chronotype, insomnia and sleep duration.MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Stillbirth, miscarriage, preterm birth, gestational diabetes, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, perinatal depression, low birthweight and macrosomia.RESULTS In IVW and sensitivity analyses we did not find robust evidence of effects of chronotype on the outcomes. Insomnia was associated with a higher risk of preterm birth among evening preference women (odds ratio 1.61, 95% confidence interval: 1.17, 2.21), but not among morning preference women (odds ratio 0.87, 95% confidence interval: 0.64, 1.18), with an interaction P-value=0.01. There was no evidence of interactions between insomnia and chronotype on other outcomes, or between sleep duration and chronotype on any outcomes.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE This study raises the possibility of a higher risk of preterm birth among women with insomnia who also have an evening preference chronotype. Our findings warrant replications due to imprecision of the estimates.Question Does an evening preference chronotype adversely affect pregnancy and perinatal outcomes? Is there an interaction between chronotype and either insomnia or sleep duration in relation to those outcomes?Findings There was no evidence that evening preference was associated with pregnancy or perinatal outcomes. Women with a genetically predicted insomnia had a higher risk of preterm birth, if they also had a genetically predicted preference for evening chronotype.Meaning The suggestive interaction between insomnia and evening preference on preterm birth, if replicated, supports targeting insomnia prevention in women of reproductive age with an evening chronotype.Competing Interest StatementKT has acted as a consultant for CHDI Foundation, and Expert Witness to the High Court in England, called by the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, defendants in a case on hormonal pregnancy tests and congenital anomalies 2021/22. DAL has received support from Medtronic LTD and Roche Diagnostics for biomarker research that is not related to the study presented in this paper. The other authors report no conflicts.Funding StatementThis work was supported by the University of Bristol and UK Medical Research Council (MM_UU_00011/1, MM_UU_ 00011/3 and MM_UU_00011/6), the US National Institute for Health (R01 DK10324), the European Research Council via Advanced Grant 669545, the British Heart Foundation (AA/18/7/34219 and CS/16/4/32482) and the National Institute of Health Research Bristol Biomedical Research Centre at University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust and the University of Bristol. Q.Y. is funded by a China Scholarship Council PhD Scholarship (CSC201808060273). M.C.B. was funded by a UK Medical Research Council Skills Development Fellowship (MR/P014054/1) and a University of Bristol Vice Chancellor Fellowship during her contribution to this research. M.C.M. has received funding from the European Research Council under the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement No 947684). M.C.M and S.E.H are partly funded by the Research Council of Norway through its Centres of Excellence funding scheme (project No 262700) and by the Research Council of Norway (project no. 320656) and cofunded by the European Union (ERC, BIOSFER, 101071773). D.A.L. is a British Heart Foundation Chair (CH/F/20/90003) and a National Institute of Health Research Senior Investigator (NF-0616-10102). The UK Medical Research Council and Wellcome (Grant ref: 217065/Z/19/Z) and the University of Bristol provide core support for ALSPAC. This publication is the work of the authors and D.A.L will serve as guarantor for the contents of this paper. A comprehensive list of grants funding is available on the ALSPAC website (http://www.bristol.ac.uk/alspac/external/documents/grant-acknowledgements.pdf); This research was specifically funded by Wellcome Trust (WT088806), and child's GWAS data was generated by Sample Logistics and Genotyping Facilities at Wellcome Sanger Institute and LabCorp (Laboratory Corporation of America) using support from 23andMe. BiB receives core funding from the Wellcome Trust (WT101597MA), a joint grant from the UK Medical and Economic and Social Science Research Councils (MR/N024397/1), British Heart Foundation (CS/16/4/32482), and the National Institute of Health Research under its Applied Research Collaboration for Yorkshire and Humber and Clinical Research Network research delivery support. Further support for genome-wide and multiple omics measurements in BiB is from the UK Medical Research Council (G0600705), National Institute of Health Research (NF-SI-0611-10196), US National Institute of Health (R01DK10324), and the European Research Council under the European Union's Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) / ERC grant agreement no 669545. The funders had no role in the design of the study; the collection, analysis, or interpretation of the data; the writing of the manuscript; or the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and not necessarily those of any funder. Neither the European Union nor the granting authority can be held responsible for them.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Ethical approval for UKB was obtained from the North West Multi-centre Research Ethics Committee, and our study was performed under UKB application number 23938. Ethical approval for the study was obtained from the ALSPAC Ethics and Law Committee and the Local Research Ethics Committees. Ethical approval for BiB was obtained from the Bradford Research Ethics Committee. The establishment of MoBa and initial data collection was based on a license from the Norwegian Data Protection Agency and approval from The Regional Committees for Medical and Health Research Ethics.I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesWe used both individual participant cohort data and publicly available summary statistics. We present summary statistics that we generated from those individual participant cohort data in eTables 7-10 in Supplement. Full information on how to access UKB data can be found at its website (https://www.ukbiobank.ac.uk/researchers/). All ALSPAC data are available to scientists on request to the ALSPAC Executive via this website (http://www.bristol.ac.uk/alspac/researchers/), which also provides full details and distributions of the ALSPAC study variables. Similarly, data from BiB are available on request to the BiB Executive (https://borninbradford.nhs.uk/research/how-to-access-data/). Data from MoBa are available from the Norwegian Institute of Public Health after application to the MoBa Scientific Management Group (see its website https://www.fhi.no/en/op/data-access-from-health-registries-health-studies-and-biobanks/data-access/applying-for-access-to-data/ for details). Summary statistics from FinnGen are publicly available on its website (https://finngen.gitbook.io/documentation/data-download).