Evaluating causal associations of chronotype with pregnancy and perinatal outcomes and its interactions with insomnia and sleep duration: a Mendelian randomization study.

IMPORTANCE: Observational studies suggest that chronotype is associated with pregnancy and perinatal outcomes. Whether these associations are causal is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To explore associations of a lifetime genetic predisposition to an evening preference chronotype with pregnancy and perinatal outcomes, and explore differences in associations of insomnia and sleep duration with those outcomes between chronotype. DESIGN SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We conducted two-sample Mendelian randomization (MR) using 105 genetic variants reported in a genome-wide association study (N=248 100) to instrument for lifelong predisposition to evening-versus morning-preference chronotypes. We generated variant-outcome associations in European ancestry women from UK Biobank (UKB, N=176 897), Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC, N=6826), Born in Bradford (BiB, N=2940) and Norwegian Mother, Father and Child Cohort Study (MoBa, with linked data from the Medical Birth Registry of Norway (MBRN), N=57 430), and extracted equivalent associations from FinnGen (N=190 879). We used inverse variance weighted (IVW) as main analysis, with weighted median and MR-Egger as sensitivity analyses. We also conducted IVW analyses of insomnia and sleep duration on the outcomes stratified by genetically predicted chronotype. EXPOSURES: Self-reported and genetically predicted chronotype, insomnia and sleep duration. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Stillbirth, miscarriage, preterm birth, gestational diabetes, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, perinatal depression, low birthweight and macrosomia. RESULTS: In IVW and sensitivity analyses we did not find robust evidence of effects of chronotype on the outcomes. Insomnia was associated with a higher risk of preterm birth among evening preference women (odds ratio 1.61, 95% confidence interval: 1.17, 2.21), but not among morning preference women (odds ratio 0.87, 95% confidence interval: 0.64, 1.18), with an interaction P-value=0.01. There was no evidence of interactions between insomnia and chronotype on other outcomes, or between sleep duration and chronotype on any outcomes. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This study raises the possibility of a higher risk of preterm birth among women with insomnia who also have an evening preference chronotype. Our findings warrant replications due to imprecision of the estimates. Key points: Question: Does an evening preference chronotype adversely affect pregnancy and perinatal outcomes? Is there an interaction between chronotype and either insomnia or sleep duration in relation to those outcomes?Findings: There was no evidence that evening preference was associated with pregnancy or perinatal outcomes. Women with a genetically predicted insomnia had a higher risk of preterm birth, if they also had a genetically predicted preference for evening chronotype.Meaning: The suggestive interaction between insomnia and evening preference on preterm birth, if replicated, supports targeting insomnia prevention in women of reproductive age with an evening chronotype.