| Literature DB >> 34427658 |
Ali Abbara1, Maya Al-Memar2, Maria Phylactou1, Elisabeth Daniels1, Bijal Patel1, Pei C Eng1, Rans Nadir1, Chioma Izzi-Engbeaya1, Sophie A Clarke1, Edouard G Mills1, Tia Hunjan1, Ewa Pacuszka1, Lisa Yang1, Paul Bech1, Tricia Tan1, Alexander N Comninos1, Tom W Kelsey3, Christopher Kyriacou2, Hanine Fourie2, Tom Bourne2,4, Waljit S Dhillo1.
Abstract
CONTEXT: Antenatal complications such as hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP), fetal growth restriction (FGR), gestational diabetes (GDM), and preterm birth (PTB) are associated with placental dysfunction. Kisspeptin has emerged as a putative marker of placental function, but limited data exist describing circulating kisspeptin levels across all 3 trimesters in women with antenatal complications.Entities:
Keywords: fetal growth restriction (FGR); gestational diabetes (GDM); hypertensive diseases of pregnancy (HDP); intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR); kisspeptin; preterm birth (PTB)
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 34427658 PMCID: PMC8684464 DOI: 10.1210/clinem/dgab617
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab ISSN: 0021-972X Impact factor: 5.958
Figure 2.Variation in plasma kisspeptin levels according to severity, onset, and complications of pre-eclampsia. A, Scatterplot of plasma kisspeptin levels in healthy controls (blue) (n = 265 women providing 898 samples), women with early-onset pre-eclampsia (PET < 34 weeks) (red) (n = 8 women providing 27 samples) and women with late-onset PET (> 34 weeks) (black) (n = 16 women providing 65 samples) over weeks of gestational age estimated by crown– rump length (CRL) throughout pregnancy. Data were analyzed by simple linear regression (r = 0.55 in controls, 0.87 in early PET and 0.54 in late PET); P = 0.0040 by ANCOVA. Analysis of subgroups of HDP are presented only as exploratory analyses and should be interpreted with caution as they may be subject to type 2 error. B, Medians (IQR) of plasma kisspeptin levels in healthy controls (blue) (n = 265 women providing 898 samples), women with early-onset PET (< 34 weeks) (red) (n = 8 women providing 27 samples) and women with late-onset PET (> 34 weeks) (black) (n = 16 women providing 65 samples) over the early and late first trimester, and second and third trimesters. Data were analyzed by Kruskal–Wallis test. Analysis of subgroups of HDP are presented only as exploratory analyses and should be interpreted with caution as they may be subject to type 2 error. C, Scatterplot of plasma kisspeptin levels in women with PET (red) (n = 20 women providing 82 samples), women with intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR) (blue) (n = 17 women providing 56 samples) and women with both PET and IUGR (purple) (n = 3 women providing 8 samples) over weeks of gestational age estimated by CRL throughout pregnancy. Data were analyzed by simple linear regression (r = 0.55 in PET, 0.69 in IUGR, and 0.92 in PET& IUGR); P = 0.0004 by ANCOVA. Analysis of subgroups of HDP are presented only as exploratory analyses and should be interpreted with caution as they may be subject to type 2 error. D, Scatterplot of plasma kisspeptin levels in women with severe PET (red) (n = 13 women providing 39 samples) and women with nonsevere PET (blue) (n = 7 women providing 38 samples) over weeks of gestational age estimated by CRL throughout pregnancy. Data were analyzed by simple linear regression (r = 0.76 in severe PET and 0.47 in nonsevere PET); P = 0.73 by ANCOVA. Analysis of subgroups of HDP are presented only as exploratory analyses and should be interpreted with caution as they may be subject to type 2 error.
Baseline characteristics and pregnancy outcomes of the total sample (N) and pregnancies grouped by antenatal complications
| Controls N = 265 | PET N = 20 | Severe PET N = 13 | Nonsevere PET N = 7 | PIH N = 12 | FGR N = 17 | GDM N = 35 | PTB N = 11 | Pts with > 1 complication N = 10 | All pregnancies N = 370 | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 32.2 ± 5.3 | 33.2 ± 5.5 | 33.7 ± 6.0 | 32.0 ± 5.2 | 32.5 ± 6.1 | 28.7 ± 6.8 | 33.8 ± 4.8 | 30.0 ± 5.7 | 33.8 ± 8.4 | 32.2 ± 5.5 | 0.217 |
|
| 24.3 ± 4.8 | 27.7 ± 5.1 | 28.6 ± 7.3 | 29.1 ± 4.7 | 27.7 ± 7.3 | 26.0 ± 4.8 | 26.9 ± 4.1 | 24.2 ± 4.2 | 29.6 ± 6.9 | 25.1 ± 5.1 | 0.143 |
|
| 3.0 ± 1.9 | 3.0 ± 2.1 | 2.6 ± 2.1 | 3.0 ± 2.2 | 3.0 ± 1.9 | 2.3 ± 1.5 | 2.5 ± 1.7 | 3.4 ± 1.4 | 3.0 ± 2.4 | 2.9 ± 1.9 | 0.528 |
|
| 0.7 ± 1.0 | 0.6 ± 0.9 | 0.5 ± 1.1 | 0.6 ± 0.8 | 0.8 ± 1.3 | 0.5 ± 0.9 | 0.5 ± 0.7 | 0.7 ± 0.9 | 0.5 ± 1.0 | 0.7 ± 0.9 | 0.268 |
|
| |||||||||||
|
| 184 (69.4%) | 11 (55.0%) | 6 (46.2%) | 3 (42.9%) | 8 (66.7%) | 7 (41.2%) | 13 (37.1%) | 9 (81.8%) | 3 (30.0%) | 235 (63.5%) | <0.0005 |
|
| 31 (11.7%) | 5 (25.0%) | 5 (38.5%) | 2 (28.6%) | 2 (16.7%) | 8 (47.1%) | 6 (17.1%) | 0 (0.0%) | 4 (40.0%) | 56 (15.1%) | |
|
| 27 (10.2%) | 3 (15.0%) | 1 (7.7%) | 1 (14.3%) | 1 (8.3%) | 1 (5.9%) | 12 (34.3%) | 1 (9.1%) | 1 (10.0%) | 46 (12.4%) | |
|
| 23 (8.7%) | 1 (5.0%) | 1 (7.7%) | 1 (14.3%) | 1 (8.3%) | 1 (5.9%) | 4 (11.4%) | 1 (9.1%) | 2 (20.0%) | 33 (8.9%) | |
|
| 30 (11.3%) | 2 (10.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 1 (14.3%) | 1 (8.3%) | 3 (17.6%) | 2 (5.7%) | 1 (9.1%) | 1 (10.0%) | 40 (10.8%) | 0.929 |
|
| 165 (62.3%) | 12 (60.0%) | 7 (53.8%) | 5 (71.4%) | 9 (75.0%) | 9 (52.9%) | 22 (62.9%) | 3 (27.3%) | 7 (70%) | 227 (61.4%) | 0.007 |
|
| 3398 ± 441 | 3126 ± 560 | 2892 ± 763 | 3272 ± 560 | 3212 ± 353 | 2091 ± 511 | 3119 ± 596 | 2621 ± 589 | 2007 ± 813 | 3229 ± 605 | <0.0005 |
|
| 60.6 ± 27.6 | 62.6 ± 30.8 | 41.9 ± 35.7 | 68.6 ± 28.5 | 56.6 ± 24.0 | 5.2 ± 7.5 | 58.4 ± 31.6 | 68.5 ± 16.1 | 28.9 ± 34.5 | 57.0 ± 30.2 | 0.750 |
|
| |||||||||||
|
| 109 (41.1%) | 9 (45.0%) | 9 (69.2%) | 3 (42.9%) | 7 (58.3%) | 9 (52.9%) | 19 (54.3%) | 5 (45.5%) | 4 (40.0%) | 162 (43.8%) | |
|
| 145 (54.7%) | 11 (55.0%) | 4 (30.7%) | 4 (57.1%) | 5 (41.7%) | 8 (47.1%) | 15 (42.9%) | 6 (54.5%) | 6 (60.0%) | 196 (53.0%) |
Mean ± SD for continuous, normally distributed variables, and numbers of patients (percentages) for categorical variables are presented. differences in mean and proportion were tested with ANOVA and Chi2, respectively. A P value of < 0.05 was classified as statistically significant. Severe and nonsevere PET were presented as subgroups and were not compared statistically. Alcohol consumption indicates maternal alcohol consumption at all during pregnancy. Smoking indicates maternal smoking during pregnancy.
Abbreviations: BMI, body mass index; FGR, fetal growth restriction; GDM, gestational diabetes mellitus; PET, pre-eclamptic toxemia; PIH, pregnancy-induced hypertension; PTB, preterm birth; pts, patients.
Figure 1.Kisspeptin levels throughout pregnancy in women with hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP) compared with control pregnancies and in women with fetal growth restriction (FGR) compared with control pregnancies. A, Scatterplot of medians (IQR) of multiples of gestation-specific median kisspeptin levels in healthy controls (red) (n = 265 women providing 898 samples) and women with HDP (blue) (n = 32 women providing 133 samples); groups were compared by Mann–Whitney U Test. B, Medians (IQR) of plasma kisspeptin levels in healthy controls (red) (n = 265 women providing 898 samples) and women with HDP (blue) (n = 32 women providing 133 samples) over the early and late first trimester, and second and third trimesters. Data were analyzed by Mann–Whitney U Test. C, Scatterplot of medians (IQR) of multiples of gestation-specific median kisspeptin levels in healthy controls (red) (n = 265 women providing 898 samples) and women with FGR (blue) (n = 17 women providing 56 samples); groups were compared by Mann–Whitney U Test. D, Medians (IQR) of plasma kisspeptin levels in healthy controls (red) (n = 265 women providing 898 samples) and women with FGR (blue) (n = 17 women providing 56 samples) over the early and late first trimester, and second and third trimesters. Data were analyzed by Mann–Whitney U Test.
Association between plasma kisspeptin and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy
| Crude | Adjusted | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR (95% CI) | P | OR (95% CI) | P | |
|
| 1.12 (1.04-1.20) | 0.004 |
|
|
|
| 1.00 (0.98-1.02) | 0.972 |
|
|
|
| 1.04 (1.01-1.8) | 0.018 | 1.03 (0.99-1.08) | 0.089 |
|
| ||||
|
| 1.70 (1.06-2.71) | 0.027 | 1.28 (0.75-2.18) | 0.374 |
|
| 1.23 (0.72-2.12) | 0.452 | 0.82 (0.46-1.45) | 0.493 |
|
| 0.59 (0.25-1.40) | 0.232 | 0.51 (0.21-1.24) | 0.139 |
|
| 1.11 (0.08-1.15) | <0.0001 |
|
|
|
| 1.00 (0.99-1.00) | 0.215 | 0.99 (0.99-1.00) | 0.121 |
|
| 0.96 (0.79-1.18) | 0.721 |
|
|
Logistic regression was used to assess the association between (1) kisspeptin with HDP diagnosis in univariable analysis and (2) after adjustment for gestational age (estimated using CRL), maternal age, ethnicity, BMI, smoking status, and parity. Odds ratios denote odds of HDP diagnosis for every 1 nmol/L increase in plasma kisspeptin. A P value of < 0.05 was classified as significant. Bold numbers indicate statistically significant predictors of HDP after adjustment.
Abbreviations: BMI; body mass index; CRL, crown-rump length; HDP, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy; OR, odds ratio.
Association between plasma kisspeptin and fetal growth restriction
| Crude | Adjusted | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR (95%CI) | P | OR (95%CI) | P | |
|
| 0.89 (0.74- 1.06) | 0.188 |
|
|
|
| 1.00 (0.98-1.03) | 0.757 | 1.04 (1.00-1.09) | 0.053 |
|
| 0.86 (0.82-0.90) | <0.0001 |
|
|
|
| ||||
|
| 5.50 (3.05-9.95) | <0.0001 |
|
|
|
| 0.46 (0.11-1.95) | 0.289 | 0.55 (0.13-2.40) | 0.427 |
|
| 1.44 (0.49-4.25) | 0.506 | 1.59 (0.52-4.85) | 0.416 |
|
| 1.02 (0.96-1.06) | 0.562 | 0.98 (0.92-1.04) | 0.461 |
|
| 1.01 (1.00-1.02) | 0.006 | 1.01 (1.00-1.01) | 0.154 |
|
| 0.77 (0.54-1.10) | 0.157 | 0.75 (0.51-1.11) | 0.155 |
Logistic regression was used to assess the association between (1) kisspeptin with FGR diagnosis in univariable analysis and (2) after adjustment for gestational age (estimated using CRL), maternal age, ethnicity, BMI, smoking status, and parity. Odds ratios denote odds of FGR diagnosis for every 1 nmol/L increase in plasma kisspeptin. A P value of < 0.05 was classified as significant. Bold numbers indicate statistically significant predictors of FGR after adjustment.
Abbreviations: BMI; body mass index; CRL, crown-rump length; FGR, fetal growth restriction; HDP, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy; OR, odds ratio.
Figure 3.Kisspeptin levels throughout pregnancy in women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) compared with control pregnancies and in women with preterm birth (PTB) compared with control pregnancies. A, Scatterplot of medians (IQR) of multiples of gestation-specific median kisspeptin levels in healthy controls (red) (n = 265 women providing 898 samples) and women with GDM (blue) (n = 35 women providing 122 samples); groups were compared by Mann–Whitney U Test. B, Medians (IQR) of plasma kisspeptin levels in healthy controls (red) (n = 265 women providing 898 samples) and women with GDM (blue) (n = 35 women providing 133 samples) over the early and late first trimester, and second and third trimesters. Data were analyzed by Mann–Whitney U Test. C, Scatterplot of medians (IQR) of multiples of gestation-specific median kisspeptin levels in healthy controls (red) (n = 265 women providing 898 samples) and women with PTB (blue) (n = 11 women providing 38 samples); groups were compared by Mann–Whitney U Test. D, Medians (IQR) of plasma kisspeptin levels in healthy controls (red) (n = 265 women providing 898 samples) and women with PTB (blue) (n = 11 women providing 38 samples) over the early and late first trimester, and second and third trimesters. Data were analyzed by Mann–Whitney U Test.