Using human genetics to understand the effect of modulating targets of antihypertensive drugs in pregnancy
Borges, M. C.; Urquijo, H.; Yang, Q.; van der Graaf, A.; McBride, N.; Haug, E. B.; Soares, A. G.; Clayton, G. C.; Bond, T. A.; Al Arab, M.; Horn, J.; Thomas, L.; Bhatta, L.; Asvold, B. O.; Magnus, M. C.; Evans, D. M.; Burden, C.; Birchenall, K.; Brumpton, B.; Gaunt, T. R.; Hart, E. C.; Kutalik, Z.; Lawlor, D. A.
Show abstract
Background and Aims Hypertension during pregnancy is a major cause of maternal and neonatal morbidity and mortality, yet the efficacy and safety of antihypertensive treatments in this setting remain uncertain. We evaluated the effects of antihypertensive drug targets on adverse pregnancy-related outcomes using genetic variants to instrument target perturbation. Methods We performed drug target Mendelian randomization to mimic pharmacological perturbation of targets from six commonly used antihypertensive drug classes, using data from up to 671,922 pregnant women. Genetic variants near drug target genes associated with systolic or diastolic blood pressure were selected as instruments. We estimated effects of target modulation on six primary and eight secondary pregnancy outcomes. Results Genetically instrumented downregulation of blood pressure through beta-blocker (BB) and calcium-channel blocker (CCB) targets, particularly ADRB1 and CACNB2, was associated with a reduced risk of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, including preeclampsia. For example, CACNB2-instrumented lowering corresponded to a 7% (95% CI: 5-9%) reduction in preeclampsia risk per 1 mmHg decrease in blood pressure. For most other targets, estimates were directionally consistent but imprecise. Across additional outcomes, effects varied by target, with suggestive evidence for reduced risks of miscarriage, preterm birth, small-for-gestational-age birth, and labour induction, although these estimates were accompanied by substantial uncertainty. Conclusions These findings support a protective effect of BB and CCB targets on hypertensive disorders of pregnancy and highlight potential target-specific differences in safety. This work illustrates the value of Mendelian randomization in addressing clinical uncertainties where robust trial evidence is limited.
Matching journals
The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Identification of the molecular components of enhancer-mediated gene expression variation in multiple tissues regulating blood pressure 94%
- Genome-Wide Interaction Analysis with DASH Diet Score Identified Novel Loci for Systolic Blood Pressure 93%
- Projected Impact of Nonpharmacologic Management of Stage 1 Hypertension Among Lower-Risk US Adults 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Assessing the impact of maternal blood pressure during pregnancy on perinatal health: A wide-angled Mendelian randomization study 94%
- Exploring the causal effect of maternal pregnancy adiposity on offspring adiposity: Mendelian randomization using polygenic risk scores 92%
- The relationships between women’s reproductive factors: a Mendelian randomization analysis 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Genetically-proxied therapeutic inhibition of antihypertensive drug targets and risk of common cancers 94%
- Haplotype genetic score analysis in 10,734 mother/infant pairs reveals complex maternal and fetal genetic effects underlying the associations between maternal phenotypes, birth outcomes and adult phenotypes 94%
- Phenotypic clustering reveals distinct subtypes of polycystic ovary syndrome with novel genetic associations 91%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- The impact of fatty acids biosynthesis on the risk of cardiovascular diseases in Europeans and East Asians: A Mendelian randomization study 94%
- Using human genetics to understand the causes and consequences of circulating cardiac troponin I in the general population 94%
- Analysis of putative cis-regulatory elements regulating blood pressure variation 94%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.