1 / 36

Use of data from two or more European birth cohorts - Is it worth?

Use of data from two or more European birth cohorts - Is it worth?. Katrine Strandberg-Larsen Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen E-mail: ksla@sund.ku.dk. Outline. Exploring educational disparities in risk of preterm birth: A comparative study of 12 European birth cohorts

jody
Download Presentation

Use of data from two or more European birth cohorts - Is it worth?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Use of data from two or more European birth cohorts - Is it worth? Katrine Strandberg-Larsen Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen E-mail: ksla@sund.ku.dk

  2. Outline • Exploring educational disparities in risk of preterm birth: A comparative study of 12 European birth cohorts • Light drinking during pregnancy and preterm delivery • Caffeine intake in pregnancy and risk of cerebral palsy in offspring • The MOBAND ongoing work

  3. Educational disparities in preterm birth – a comparative study of 12 European birth cohorts A CHICOS case study

  4. Background & aim Background: An educational gradient in preterm birth has been observed in many countries The mechanisms behind this gradient are poorly understood Aim: Compare risk of preterm birth by maternal education in European birth cohorts Pedersen CB. Pediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology 2008

  5. Identification of birth cohorts Cohort inventories: • www.birthcohorts.net • www.birthcohortsenrieco.net Other sources: • Publications on preterm birth • Cohort profiles • Cohort home pages August 2011

  6. Included cohorts Results: • 65 birth cohorts identified • 19 satisfied eligibility criteria • 2 non responders • 2 declined to participate • 2 did not deliver data on time • 1 excluded recruitment too late in pregnancy Eligibility criteria: • ≥ 3,000 observations • Recruited either during pregnancy or at delivery • Sampling irrespective of pregnancy complications and/or outcome - except restrictions to: • Singletons and Non-ART pregnancies

  7. Cohort characteristics -> Open/dynamic cohort – recruitmentcontinuously

  8. Preterm birth • Live births (GA:>21 and <37 completedweeks) • GA recordeddifferently in the cohorts: • A combination of LMP, US and clinicalassessment • LMP measure, if <2 weeks variation from US measure – then US measure • Exclude observations with GA >43 weeks • Excludeimplausible GA-BW combinations

  9. Classification of maternal education Group 1: Basic schooling (Primary or lower secondary school) or less Group 2:Intermediate education (Higher secondary school, lower vocational training, short further education) Group 3: Long education (university degree, or further education or vocational training corresponding to a bachelor degree)

  10. Light drinking during pregnancy and preterm birth A CHICOS case study

  11. Are there beneficial effects of light drinking? • Light drinking is < 1 drink/day • A ’J-shaped’ curve has been observed for: • Birth weight / SGA / IUGR • Preterm birth • Still birth • Behavioral problems • Cognitive problems

  12. A healthy drinker effect Behavior modification bias Confounding Light drinkers are more likely than abstainers to be: From high income households Better educated Older Multiparous (Non-smokers) • Widespread consensus that alcohol is harmful during pregnancy • Women with a troublesome pregnancy experience will avoid drinking alcohol • Women with a high a-priori risk of reproductive failure will be over-represented among non-drinkers

  13. Aim • To examine whether the observed beneficial effects of light drinking are attributable to behavior modification bias • Examine the association between light drinking during and preterm delivery, and: • - Restrict analysis to women unaware of their reproductive abilities

  14. Included cohorts Results: • 65 birth cohorts identified • 15 satisfied eligibility criteria • 2 non responders • 1 declined to participate • 3 turned out not to have the mandatory data Eligibility criteria: • Enrolment during pregnancy and enrolment ongoing or terminated • Data on: • Average weekly alcohol consumption • Gestational age + birth weight • Gravidity • Time to pregnancy

  15. Difficult to harmonize alcohol data • Great variation in questions and fixed response categories – we are still working on imputing data to compensate for differences caused by differences in categories

  16. Lessons learned - positive • Willingness to do cross cohort collaboration • Able to transfer anonymised data across borders • Despite great differences between cohorts able to do similar analysis on e.g. educational disparities

  17. Lessons learned – challenges • Difficult to establish contact, and time consuming • The information on the inventories is not up to date, e.g. contact information, the number of participants are exaggerated, the information on variables • Around 1/3 of the European cohorts include 3000+ observations • Great variation in the collected data – use of questionnaires/measurements • A lot of the cohorts do not have English translations of the data at hand • No formal instructions to follow when applying for data, and transfer data across borders • The number of cohorts is quickly reduced when you need information on specific variables • Very time consuming every time you add data from a cohort

  18. Lessons learned Great diversity – too much? It is easier if…

  19. Insert«Academic unit» on every page:1 Go to the menu «Insert»2 Choose: Date and time3 Write the name of your faculty or department in the field «Footer» 4 Choose «Apply to all" Caffeine intake in pregnancy and risk of cerebral palsy in offspring– a joint study in three large Nordic birth cohorts

  20. Background – cerebral palsy (CP) • Prevalence: ~2 per 1000 liveborn • reliable diagnosis at 2-4 years of age • Several more or less distinct subtypes • Caused by damage to immature brain - aetiologies largely unknown • birth asphyxia – 10%? • preterm delivery strong risk factor • life style?

  21. Caffeine and cerebral palsy • Caffeine in pregnancy has been linked to adverse outcomes, such as: • spontaneous abortion • fetal death • fetalgrowth restriction • birth defects • Caffeine citrate is used to prevent episodes of apnea in premature infants. Infants treated with caffeine have • lower risk of cerebral palsy (OR=0.6, CI:0.4-0.9) 1 • greater chance of survival without neurodevelopmental disabilities • 1Long-term effects of caffeine therapy for apnea of prematurity, Schmidt B et al, NEJM, 2007

  22. Research question Does caffeine intake during pregnancy affect the risk of cerebral palsy in offspring?

  23. The three large Nordic birth cohorts • Rare disease so great sample size is need • Prospectively collected information on intake of caffeinated beverages • Similar data collection will ease the data harmonization or at least comparability of the results

  24. Early pregnancy Mid-pregnancy Late pregnancy ABC(1990-) Questionnaire Week 12-16 Recruitment Week 6-10 1st interview Week 16 FFQ Week 24 2nd interview Week 31 Recruitment Week 8+ DNBC (1996-2002) Birth Birth Recruitment and 1st questionnaire ,Week 17 3rd questionnaire Week 30 FFQ Week 22 MoBa (1999-2008) Birth

  25. Data material • Study populations • Denmark: 104,367 liveborn • Norway: 60,953 liveborn • Identification of CP cases • Denmark: national cerebral palsy registry, 198 cases • Norway: maternal report at age 3/5 years, 109 cases • Intake of caffeinated beverages collected in early, mid- and late pregnancy

  26. Risk of CP by consumption of coffee Early pregnancy Mid-pregnancy Late pregnancy P-value=0.001 Adjusted for maternal age, social status, smoking, medically assisted reproduction and tea/cola consumption

  27. Risk of CP by consumption of tea Early pregnancy Mid-pregnancy Late pregnancy P-value=0.016 Adjusted for maternal age, social status, smoking, medically assisted reproduction and coffee/cola consumption

  28. Risk of CP by consumption of cola Early pregnancy Mid-pregnancy Late pregnancy SOFT DRINKS P-value=0.016 P-value<0.001 P-value=0.002 Adjusted for maternal age, social status, smoking, medically assisted reproduction and coffee/tea consumption

  29. Risk of CP by total caffeine consumption Early pregnancy Mid-pregnancy Late pregnancy P-value=0.005 Adjusted for maternal age, social status, smoking, medically assisted reproduction

  30. Conclusions • Negative associations between caffeinated beverages in early pregnancy and CP • coffee and total caffeine in Danish cohorts • cola in ABC (Danish) and MoBa (Norwegian) • who are the cola consumers? • No evidence of protective effect of caffeine in late pregnancy • negative association coffee-CP in Norway

  31. Is it worth? YES – definitely Easiest when the number of cohort is small

  32. Insert«Academic unit» on every page:1 Go to the menu «Insert»2 Choose: Date and time3 Write the name of your faculty or department in the field «Footer» 4 Choose «Apply to all" MOBAND(MOthers and BAbies in Norway and Denmark) An epidemiologic study of cerebral palsy in the Norwegian and Danish birth cohorts

  33. Thank youAcknowledgements: The CHICOS work • Gry Poulsen (DK) • Anne-Marie Nybo Andersen (DK) • Pernille Stemann Larsen • All CHICOS collaborators The MOBAND work • Mette C Tollånes (N) • Gitte Lindved Pedersen (DK) • Tine Brink Henriksen • Allen J Wilcox • All MOBAND collaborators

  34. Explanations • Lower proportion of high caffeine consumers in Norway • The observed association is attributable to confounding – and the confounding structure may be different in the two countries – the coffee consumers have same characteristics on the measured variables • Difference in case definition and more chance of selection bias in MoBa – as cerebral palsy is self-reported • Too few cases, especially in the MoBa study

  35. Thank you for your attention Acknowledgments goes to: Mette C Tollånes Allen Wilcox Kacey Eichelberger Camilla Stoltenberg Dag Moster Denmark Norway • Gitte Lindved Petersen • Bodil Hammer Beck • Jørn Olsen • Morten Søndergaard Jensen • Tine Brink Henriksen • Peter Uldall

More Related