Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Cohort study shows the protective effect of smoking against pregnancy hypertension vanishes after adjusting for bias, indicating the paradox arises from confounding and selection artifacts.
Background: Smoking during pregnancy has been associated with reduced risk of a spectrum of hypertensive (HTN) disorders, known as the "smoking-hypertension paradox." Objective: We sought to test potential epidemiologic explanations for the smoking-hypertension paradox. Methods: We analyzed 8510 pregnant people in the Boston Birth Cohort, including 4027 non-Hispanic Black and 2428 Hispanic pregnancies. Study participants self-reported tobacco, alcohol, cannabis, opioids, or cocaine use during pregnancy. We used logistic regression to assess effect modification by race/ethnicity, and confounding of concurrent substances on hypertensive disorders or prior pregnancy. We also investigated early gestational age as a collider or competing risk for pre-eclampsia, using cause-specific Cox models and Fine-Gray models, respectively. Results: We replicated the paradox showing smoking to be protective against hypertensive disorders among Black participants who used other substances as well (aOR: 0.61, 95% CI: 0.41, 0.93), but observed null effects for Hispanic participants (aOR: 1.14, 95% CI: 0.55, 2.36). In our cause-specific Cox regression, the effects of tobacco use were reduced to null effects with pre-eclampsia (aOR: 0.81, 95% CI: 0.63, 1.04) after stratifying for preterm birth. For the Fine-Gray competing risk analysis, the paradoxical associations remained. The smoking paradox was either not observed or reversed after accounting for race/ethnicity, other substance use, and collider-stratification due to preterm birth. Conclusions: These findings offer new insights into this paradox and underscore the importance of considering multiple sources of bias in assessing the smoking-hypertension association in pregnancy.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Garrison‐Desany et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: