Use of antihypertensive medications in pregnancy and the risk of adverse perinatal outcomes: McMaster Outcome Study of Hypertension In Pregnancy 2 (MOS HIP 2)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Uncertainty remains about the potential harmful effects of antihypertensive therapy on the developing fetus, especially for beta-blockers (betab). METHODS: We prospectively enrolled all singleton women with a blood pressure >/= 140/90 mm Hg during pregnancy. The main analysis included 1948 women with all forms of hypertension and compared the use of betab drugs, non-betab drugs or a combination of both, to no treatment. The primary study outcome was a composite of the diseases of prematurity, need for assisted ventilation for greater than 1 day, or perinatal death. A sub-group analysis evaluated the four treatment options among 583 singleton women with chronic hypertension before 20 weeks gestation. RESULTS: In the main analysis, no association was observed between betab use and the primary composite outcome [adjusted odds ratio (OR) 1.4, 95% CI 0.9-2.2], while an association was seen with non-betab therapy (OR 5.0, 95% CI 2.6-9.6) and combination therapy (OR 2.9, 95% CI 1.8-4.7). In the sub-group of 583 women with hypertension before 20 weeks, use of a non-betab drug (OR 4.9, 95% CI 1.7-14.2) or combination therapy (OR 2.9. 95% CI 1.1-7.7) was significantly associated with the primary composite outcome, while betab monotherapy was not (OR 1.4, 95% CI 0.6-3.4). CONCLUSIONS: Maternal use of antihypertensive medications other than betabs was associated with both major perinatal morbidity and mortality, while betab monotherapy was not. The combined use of betab and non-betab medications demonstrated the strongest association. Before definitive conclusions can be drawn, a large multicentre randomized controlled trial is needed to address the issues of both maternal efficacy and fetal safety with the use of one or more antihypertensive agents in pregnancy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".