J Korean Med Sci. 2021 Jul 19;36(28):e183. English.
Published online Jun 21, 2021.
© 2021 The Korean Academy of Medical Sciences.
Original Article

Environmental and Genetic Risk Factors of Congenital Anomalies: an Umbrella Review of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

Kyung-Shin Lee,1,2,* Yoon-Jung Choi,1,2,* Jinwoo Cho,3 Hyunji Lee,4 Heejin Lee,4 Soo Jin Park,5 Joong Shin Park,6 and Yun-Chul Hong1,2,4
    • 1Department of Preventive Medicine, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
    • 2Environmental Health Center, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
    • 3Department of Statistics, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
    • 4Institute of Environmental Medicine, Seoul National University Medical Research Center, Seoul, Korea.
    • 5Department of Surgery, Wonkwang University Sanbon Hospital, Gunpo, Korea.
    • 6Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Received March 25, 2021; Accepted June 15, 2021.

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Background

The prevalence of congenital anomalies in newborns in South Korea was 272.9 per 100,000 in 2005, and 314.7 per 100,000 in 2006. In other studies, the prevalence of congenital anomalies in South Korea was equivalent to 286.9 per 10,000 livebirths in 2006, while it was estimated 446.3 per 10,000 births during the period from 2008 to 2014. Several systematic reviews and meta-analyses analyzing the factors contributing to congenital anomalies have been reported, but comprehensive umbrella reviews are lacking.

Methods

We searched PubMed, Google Scholar, Cochrane, and EMBASE databases up to July 1, 2019, for systematic reviews and meta-analyses that investigated the effects of environmental and genetic factors on any type of congenital anomalies. We categorized 8 subgroups of congenital anomalies classified according to the 10th revision of the International Statistical Classification of Diseases (ICD-10). Two researchers independently searched the literature, retrieved the data, and evaluated the quality of each study.

Results

We reviewed 66 systematic reviews and meta-analyses that investigated the association between non-genetic or genetic risk factors and congenital anomalies. Overall, 269 associations and 128 associations were considered for environmental and genetic risk factors, respectively. Congenital anomalies based on congenital heart diseases, cleft lip and palate, and others were associated with environmental risk factors based on maternal exposure to environmental exposures (air pollution, toxic chemicals), parental smoking, maternal history (infectious diseases during pregnancy, pregestational and gestational diabetes mellitus, and gestational diabetes mellitus), maternal obesity, maternal drug intake, pregnancy through artificial reproductive technologies, and socioeconomic factors. The association of maternal alcohol or coffee consumption with congenital anomalies was not significant, and maternal folic acid supplementation had a preventive effect on congenital heart defects. Genes or genetic loci associated with congenital anomalies included MTHFR, MTRR and MTR, GATA4, NKX2-5, SRD5A2, CFTR, and 1p22 and 20q12 anomalies.

Conclusion

This study provides a wide perspective on the distribution of environmental and genetic risk factors of congenital anomalies, thus suggesting future studies and providing health policy implications.

Graphical Abstract

Keywords
Congenital Disease; Genetic; Meta-Analysis; Non-Genetic; Risk Factor

INTRODUCTION

The prevalence of congenital anomalies in newborns in South Korea was 272.9 per 100,000 in 2005, and 314.7 per 100,000 in 2006.1 In other studies, the prevalence of congenital anomalies in South Korea was equivalent to 286.9 per 10,000 livebirths in 2006,2 while it was estimated 446.3 per 10,000 births during the period from 2008 to 2014.3 According to the 2010 Global Burden of Diseases, 510,400 deaths worldwide in 2010 were attributed to congenital anomalies. This equated to 1% of all deaths (6% of neonatal and postnatal infant deaths) and ranked 23rd as all causes of death.4 The European Surveillance of Congenital Anomalies (EUROCAT), a network of population-based registers of congenital anomalies in Europe covering 1.5 million births annually in 22 countries, reported a prevalence of congenital anomalies of 23.9 per 1,000 births during 2003–2007.5 Among them, 80% were livebirths, 17.6% underwent termination of pregnancy for fetal anomaly (TOPFA), and the remainder were stillbirths or died in the first week of birth. According to EUROCAT, during 2003–2007, while chromosomal anomalies accounted for 3.6 per 1,000 births, congenital heart defects (CHD) were the most common non-chromosomal anomalies (6.5 per 1,000 births), followed by limb defects (3.8 per 1,000 births), urinary system anomalies (3.1 per 1,000 births), and nervous system anomalies (2.3 per 1,000 births).5 In 11 EUROCAT countries, the average infant mortality with congenital anomalies was 1.1 per 1,000 births, and the average TOPFA prevalence was 4.6 per 1,000 births, which was more than 4 times the infant mortality related to congenital anomalies.4

Since prenatal medical intervention for the fetus is limited, and structural anomalies cannot be reversed during fetal development, primary prevention of congenital anomalies based on pre-conceptional care is critical at the population level. Identification of risk factors for congenital anomalies is fundamental for such primary prevention. To understand the causes of congenital anomalies, a more comprehensive literature review is required. A number of systematic reviews and meta-analyses have analyzed the association between environmental and genetic risk factors and various types of congenital anomalies; however, most articles have focused on a specific risk factor and a specific type of congenital anomaly. A few articles have covered risk factors in a comprehensive manner, but have focused on specific types of congenital anomalies, such as hip dysplasia6, 7 or anorectal anomaly,8 while articles that comprehensively covered congenital anomalies focused on specific categories of risk factors, such as paternal risk factors,9, 10 maternal smoking,11 secondhand smoking,12 maternal drug intake,13, 14 maternal influenza,15 or artificial reproductive technologies.16, 17 To the best of our knowledge, there has been no umbrella review of the available systematic reviews and meta-analyses regarding all reported non-genetic and genetic risk factors of all types of known congenital anomalies. The purpose of this article was to outline the spectrum of risk factors for congenital anomalies as comprehensively as possible, thereby providing not only a summary of currently available evidence, but also a suggestion for further study topics in the future.

METHODS

Databases and search strategy

We searched the PubMed, Google Scholar, Cochrane, and Embase databases up to July 1, 2019. Exposures included both environmental and genetic factors. The terms used in the searches were as follows: (“risk factors” [MeSH Terms] OR (“risk” [All Fields] AND “factors” [All Fields]) OR “risk factors” [All Fields] OR (“risk” [All Fields] AND “factor” [All Fields]) OR “risk factor” [All Fields]) AND (“congenital” [Subheading] OR “congenital” [All Fields]) AND (“meta-analysis” [Publication Type] OR “meta-analysis as topic” [MeSH Terms] OR “meta-analysis” [All Fields]).

We also manually searched the bibliography of identified papers for additional articles. The literature search, abstract screening, and full article review were independently performed by 2 researchers. Disagreements in the course of article searching were resolved by discussion until a consensus was reached.

Selection criteria

The following papers were selected: 1) systematic review and meta-analysis reports that analyzed the association between environmental or genetic risk factors and congenital anomalies, 2) papers written fully in English, and 3) papers that were peer-reviewed. Systematic reviews without meta-analyses were excluded. Studies published only as conference abstracts or case reports were also excluded.

Assessment of methodological quality

Two researchers independently assessed the methodological quality of the included studies according to AMSTAR2 (Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews, cohort and case control studies, but not case series).18 We used the tools included in the AMSTAR2 checklist (https://amstar.ca/Amstar_Checklist.php). Disagreement in the assessment was resolved by discussion until consensus was reached. For certainty of evidence, we used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system.18 Supplementary Table 1 shows the completed AMSTAR checklist based on the studies involved.

Data retrieval

Two researchers independently retrieved information from selected articles, including authors; year of study; risk factors; congenital anomalies as outcomes; the number of studies included in each meta-analysis; the database used for each systematic review; the date of database searching; the total number of study participants included in each study; the risk ratio (RR) or odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI); the methods of meta-analysis (fixed effects vs. random effects model); the methods used for assessing publication bias; and the method of assessment of methodological quality of studies included in each meta-analysis. Disagreement of the data retrieval between the 2 researchers was resolved through discussion.

Statistical analysis

We categorized 8 subgroups of congenital anomalies according to the 10th revision of the International Statistical Classification of Diseases (ICD-10). We estimated the summary of evidence on the significance of the effect size for the associations according to non-genetic risk factors and genetic risk factors. In addition, we evaluated the evidence of the studies showing significant effects by assessing the beta estimate, its 95% CI, and I2 ranges, P values for heterogeneity, and the number of meta-analyses included. We also plotted the range of ORs or RRs for associations between genetic risk factors or non-genetic risk factors and each subgroup of congenital anomalies.

RESULTS

Description of eligible meta-analyses

The detailed search procedures are summarized in Fig. 1. The search strategy identified 406 references. After excluding duplicated articles, we reviewed the titles and abstracts of all 135 identified studies, and further excluded 54 irrelevant studies. Then, the full texts of the remaining 81 articles were reviewed according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. After examining these articles in more detail, further 15 studies were excluded due to irrelevance or insufficient data. Finally, 66 studies were included in the systematic review.

Fig. 1
Flowchart showing meta-analysis of studies on genetic and non-genetic factors for congenital diseases.
MTHFR = methylene tetrahydrofolate reductase.

Non-genetic risk factors with evidence of association

Table 1 provides a summary of the association between non-genetic factors and congenital anomalies. We summarized the evidence of risk factors for congenital anomalies in the meta-analysis showing significant effects in Table 2 and Fig. 2, and describe the details below. We also listed the relevant studies and their characteristics in Supplementary Table 2.

Table 1
The summary of evidence on significance with association between non-genetic risk factors for congenital diseases

Table 2
Results of effectiveness of congenital anomalies in the significant studies of meta-analysis included for non-genetic risk factors

Fig. 2
The range of ORs or RRs in the association between non-genetic risk factor and congenital anomalies (significantly association only).
OR = odds ratio, RR = risk ratio, SES = socioeconomic status.

Maternal environmental exposure

1) Air pollution

We identified 2 meta-analysis studies reporting the association between air pollution and congenital anomalies. Chen et al.19 showed that nitrate dioxide (NO2) concentration was significantly associated with coarctation of the aorta based on 2 case-control studies and 2 cohort studies (pooled OR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.02–1.41 per 10 ppb). However, there was no evidence of an association of SO2, PM10, CO, and O3 with congenital anomalies. Hall and Robinson20 showed that there was no significant association between PM2.5 and congenital heart defects.

2) Toxic chemicals

We identified 1 systematic review that meta-analyzed the association between toxic chemicals and congenital anomalies. The study showed a positive association of toxic chemicals, such as solvents, pesticides, and heavy metals, with congenital anomalies, based on 5 case-control studies and 1 prospective cohort study (pooled OR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.06–1.63).21

3) Parental substance use

① Parental smoking

We identified 7 systematic reviews and meta-analyses reporting an association between parental smoking exposure and congenital anomalies. Results from 2 studies suggested a positive association between parental smoking and the risk of any type of congenital anomalies. Salmasi et al.22 found that the overall estimate of the RR for congenital anomalies by fetal exposure to maternal smoking during pregnancy was 1.18, based on 12 studies (95% CI, 1.04–1.34). Zheng et al.12 found that fetal exposure to secondhand smoking was associated with an increased risk of congenital malformations in a meta-analysis of 33 case-control studies (pooled OR, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.61–2.30). The results of 4 of the remaining 5 meta-analyses included in our umbrella review suggested a positive association between parental smoking and the risk of CHD.11, 12, 23, 24, 25 Zheng et al.12 showed a significant association between fetal exposure to secondhand smoking and various types of congenital anomalies, such as oral clefts, based on 18 case-control studies (pooled OR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.47–2.39), and digestive system defects (pooled OR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.05–1.32) in 2 case-control studies. Similarly, Nicoletti et al.12 showed that prenatal exposure to secondhand smoke resulted in a significantly increased risk of congenital anomalies, such as nervous system defects (pooled OR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.61–2.30) in 6 case-control studies, musculoskeletal system defects (pooled OR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.16–1.39) in 48 case-control studies, and eye, ear, face, and neck defects (pooled OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.19–1.37) in 53 case-control studies. Yu et al.26 reported that maternal smoking was positively associated with cryptorchidism, based on 5 cohort studies and 15 case-control studies (pooled OR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.12–1.24).

② Maternal alcohol consumption.

We identified 3 meta-analyses reporting associations between maternal alcohol consumption and congenital anomalies. Sun et al.27 conducted meta-analyses of CHD and maternal alcohol consumption before and during pregnancy, using 23 case-control or cohort studies, and found no significant association between maternal alcohol consumption and congenital anomalies. Likewise, according to Wen et al.,28 who included 23 case-control or cohort studies in their meta-analysis, no statistically significant association was found between alcohol consumption and CHD. Bell et al.29 performed a meta-analysis (33 case-control or cohort studies) to evaluate the risk of orofacial clefts associated with maternal alcohol consumption, and found no statistically significant association.

Maternal history

1) Maternal infectious disease

We identified 3 meta-analyses analyzing the association between maternal infectious diseases and congenital anomalies, such as CHD, cleft lip/palate, neural tube defect, digestive tract defects, and hydrocephaly. Luteijn et al.15 reported an association between maternal influenza and congenital heart diseases from a meta-analysis of 4 case-control and 6 cohort studies (pooled OR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.13–2.14). A study by Ye et al.30 supported this conclusion by showing the association between maternal viral infection, such as rubella virus and CHD, based on 7 case-control studies (pooled OR, 3.54; 95% CI, 1.75–7.15). The association between maternal infectious diseases and other congenital diseases was further reported; neural tube defects (pooled OR, 3.33; 95% CI, 2.05–5.40), orofacial clefts (pooled OR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.33, 2.91), digestive system defects (pooled OR, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.09–2.68), and limb reduction defects (pooled OR, 2.03; 95% CI, 1.27–3.27).15 Shi et al.31 showed an association between maternal fever in the first trimester and CHD in a meta-analysis of 7 case-control studies (pooled OR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.36–2.73).

2) Pre-gestational and gestational diabetes mellitus

We identified 4 systematic reviews and meta-analyses on pre-gestational and gestational diabetes mellitus (PGDM and GDM) as risk factors for congenital anomalies. Balsells et al.32 and Zhao et al.33 showed associations between maternal diabetes mellitus and congenital anomalies. They divided maternal diabetes into PGDM and GDM and found that GDM, based on 9 cohort studies (pooled RR, 2.66; 95% CI, 2.04–3.47), and PGDM, based on 15 cohort studies (pooled RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.07–1.25), were significantly associated with congenital anomalies. Zhao et al.33 also found significantly positive associations between GDM and congenital malformation, based on 17 cohort studies (pooled RR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.11–1.26), and PGDM and congenital malformation, based on 13 cohort studies (pooled RR, 2.44; 95% CI, 1.92–3.10). Simeone et al.34 found a significantly positive association of PGDM and GDM with CHD (pooled OR, 3.8; 95% CI, 3.0–4.9). In addition, Hoang et al.35 reported an association between maternal diabetes and any type of CHD (pooled RR, 3.59; 95% CI, 3.03–4.50).

3) Maternal obesity

We identified 2 meta-analyses reporting the association between maternal obesity and CHD. Cai et al.36 found that maternal body mass index (BMI) was associated with CHD. A dose–response effect of maternal overweight (pooled OR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.02–1.15), moderate obesity (pooled OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.11–1.20), and severe obesity (pooled OR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.31–1.47) on the occurrence of CHD was found. Similarly, Zhu et al.37 demonstrated that CHD was associated with maternal BMI based on a meta-analysis of 17 case-control and cohort studies. Maternal overweight status (pooled OR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.02–1.10) and obesity (pooled OR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.14–1.20) significantly elevated the risk of CHD based on 13 case-control studies and 4 cohort studies. On the other hand, underweight maternal status was not associated with CHD.

4) Other maternal history

We identified 3 meta-analyses investigating the effect of other maternal histories and congenital anomalies. Davenport et al.38 showed that prenatal exercise did not increase the OR for congenital anomalies, based on 10 randomized controlled trial studies (pooled OR, 1.23; 95% CI, 0.77–1.95). Yu et al.39 found no significant association between maternal polycystic ovary syndrome and congenital anomalies, based on 6 cohort studies (pooled RR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.36–2.42). Feng et al.40 showed that there was no evidence of association between maternal parity and the risk of CHD based on 14 case-control studies and 2 cohort studies (pooled OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.97–1.06).

Maternal drug, supplement, and food consumption

1) Maternal drug intake

We identified 5 meta-analyses reporting maternal drug intake associated with congenital anomalies. Results from 2 studies suggested a positive association between maternal drug intake and the risk of congenital anomalies. Based on 28 cohort studies, Tanoshima et al.13 found an association between valproic acid intake and congenital malformation (pooled RR, 2.44; 95% CI, 2.13–2.80), CHD (pooled RR, 2.08; 95% CI, 1.55–2.79), cleft lip (pooled RR, 3.37; 95% CI, 2.09–5.42), neural tube defects (pooled RR, 7.41; 95% CI, 4.61–11.90), urogenital anomalies (pooled RR, 3.10; 95% CI, 2.28–4.22), and musculoskeletal anomalies (pooled RR, 3.32; 95% CI, 2.26–4.88).13A positive association between exposure to fluoxetine and congenital malformation was shown in the study by Gao et al.,14 based on 12 cohort studies (pooled RR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.08–1.29). In addition, fluoxetine was positively associated with CHD (pooled RR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.17–1.59). However, urogenital anomalies, musculoskeletal anomalies, and nervous system defects were not significantly associated with fluoxetine.14 Yakoob et al.41 found no significant association between maternal intake of β-blockers and congenital anomalies overall. However, maternal β-blockers intake was significantly associated with subtypes of congenital anomalies, such as CHD (pooled OR, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.18–3.42), cleft lip (pooled OR, 3.11; 95% CI, 1.79–5.43), and neural tube defects (pooled OR, 3.56; 95% CI, 1.19–10.67).41 Grigoriadis et al.42 showed that CHD was associated with maternal antidepressant use (pooled OR, 2.50; 95% CI, 1.32–4.73). However, Wang et al.43 showed no significant association between selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and CHD.

2) Maternal supplementation

We identified 2 meta-analyses reporting the association between maternal supplementation and congenital anomalies. Feng et al.44 reported a significantly negative association between folic acid supplementation and CHD, based on a meta-analysis based on 1 randomized controlled trial, 1 cohort study, and 16 case-control studies (pooled RR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.63–0.82). Xu et al.45 also reported a meta-analysis showing a negative association of maternal folic acid supplementation and CHD, which was based on 20 case-control studies (pooled OR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.49–0.71).

3) Maternal diet

We identified 1 meta-analysis reporting the association between maternal diet and congenital anomalies. Li et al.46 showed that no significant association was found between maternal coffee consumption and neural tube defects.

Artificial reproductive technologies

We identified 6 meta-analyses reporting the association between artificial reproductive technologies (ART) and congenital anomalies. Two of these showed a positive relationship between ART and CHD. Wen et al.16 reported a pooled OR of 1.64 (95% CI, 1.30–2.07), while Zheng et al.17 reported a pooled RR of 1.22 (95% CI, 1.01–1.47). In addition, Wen et al.16 reported associations of ART and nervous system (pooled OR, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.27–3.20); genitourinary system (pooled OR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.33–2.15); digestive system (pooled OR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.28–2.16); musculoskeletal system (pooled OR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.03–2.02); and ear, face, and neck (pooled OR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.01–2.05) anomalies. Zheng et al.17 showed an association between ART and various congenital anomalies. Massaro et al.47 and Qin et al.48 published 2 papers about the positive association between ART and congenital malformation (pooled RR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.24–1.43 and pooled RR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.29–1.45). Several studies have shown a weak relationship between in vitro fertilization (IVF)/intra-cytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) and several types of congenital malformations.17 Zheng et al.17 reported a significant association between the risk of musculoskeletal, urogenital, and digestive system malformations based on 17 cohort studies (pooled RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.05–1.27); risk of nervous system malformations based on 16 cohort studies (pooled RR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.07–1.53). However, Zheng et al.17 did not find evidence of association between IVF/ICSI and risk of congenital anomalies such as cleft lip and/or palate; eye, ear, face, and neck; and respiratory system malformation. Massaro et al.47 showed a positive association between congenital malformation and ICSI as opposed to IVF (pooled OR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.02–1.59).49 Lacamara et al.50 also showed a positive association between ICSI and congenital malformation, based on 5 cross-sectional studies and 15 cohort studies (pooled OR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.86–2.11).

Socioeconomic status

We identified 2 meta-analyses reporting on socioeconomic status (SES) and congenital anomalies. Yu et al.51 reported that SES indices, including maternal educational attainment, family income, and maternal occupation, were negatively associated with an increased risk of CHD (pooled RR [95% CIs] ranging from 1.05 [1.01–1.09] to 1.51 [1.02–2.24]). Deguen et al.52 showed a significant association between low neighborhood SES and cleft palate, compared to high SES and found a significantly higher cleft lip rate in deprived neighborhoods, based on 6 case-control studies and 1 ecological study (pooled OR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.10–1.36). However, no significant difference was observed according to SES in terms of neural tube defects and CHD.52

Multiple factors

We identified 6 meta-analyses reporting on the role of multiple factors and congenital anomalies. Results from 2 studies suggested a strong positive association between multiple factors and the risk of any congenital anomalies. Daliri et al.53 found that congenital malformation was associated with multiple risk factors, such as the baby's sex (boys), preterm delivery, consanguineous marriage in the families of the children, paternal age (> 45 years), and paternal smoking. Oldereid et al.9 found that the overall estimate of the OR for paternal age (> 45 years) and birth defects was 1.05 (95% CI, 1.02–1.07). They showed an association between exposure to multiple factors, such as paternal age > 45 years (pooled OR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.99–1.06) and paternal smoking (pooled OR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.25–2.44), and CHD. In addition, they found positive associations between paternal smoking and 2 types of congenital anomalies, i.e., orofacial defect (pooled OR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.16–1.97) and brain tumors (pooled OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.03–1.22). However, they found no significant association between paternal age (> 45 years) and 3 types of congenital anomalies, such as spinal bifida, orofacial defects, and gastroschisis, compared to a younger paternal age. Peng et al.10 found a positive association between multiple factors and CHD and reported that increased paternal age, paternal smoking, paternal drinking, and exposure to toxicants were associated with the occurrence of CHD. Zwink et al.8 found positive associations between parental risk factors, such as maternal overweight, maternal obesity, maternal history of diabetes during pregnancy, and anorectal malformations. Results from 2 studies suggested a strong positive association between multiple factors and the risk of musculoskeletal anomalies. De Hundt et al.6 and Ortiz-Neira et al.7 reported the overall estimates of developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) upon exposure to multiple factors, such as breech delivery, baby's sex (girl), family history of DDH, mode of delivery, and first birth.

Genetic risk factors with evidence of association

Table 3 provides a summary of the association between genetic factors and congenital anomalies. We summarized the evidence for these associations in the included meta-analyses in Table 4 and Fig. 3. More detailed results about the association between each factor and congenital anomaly are described below.

Table 3
The summary of evidence on significance with association between genetic risk factors for congenital diseases

Table 4
Results of effectiveness of congenital anomalies in the significant studies of meta-analysis included for genetic risk factors

Fig. 3
The range of ORs or RRs in the association between non-environmental risk factor and congenital anomalies (significantly association only).
OR = odds ratio, RR = risk ratio, MTHFR = methylene tetrahydrofolate reductase, MTRR = methionine synthase reductase gene, MTR = methionine synthase, GATA4 = GATA binding protein 4, NKX2-5 = NK2 homeobox 5, SRD5A2 = steroid 5 alpha-reductase type 2 gene, CFTR = cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator.

MTHFR

In MTHFR, which encodes methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase, 2 polymorphisms, C677T and A1298C, have been investigated. Eleven meta-analyses have investigated the association of congenital diseases with C677T,54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64 All meta-analyses analyzed the risk of CHD and only 1 study examined both congenital heart disease and orofacial cleft. Three studies showed no significant association between C677T and congenital heart disease, while 7 studies described a positive association with these conditions. In particular, the largest odds ratio was found in the study by Yuan et al.,56 which reported a significant positive effect in a homozygote model based on 21 case-control studies. However, Chen et al.54 reported 2 negative ORs, for the recessive model and for the homozygote model, each based on 6 case-control studies. Yang et al.57 conducted a meta-analysis using 42 studies; both MTHFR C677T and A1298C polymorphisms were associated with the risk of CHD.56 A TT model (pooled RR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.14–1.48) and a TT+CT model (pooled RR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.04–1.14) showed a significant positive relationship with congenital heart disease. Only 1 study found a statistically non-significant association between orofacial cleft and C677T in mothers, based on 8 case-control studies.64 Five studies have identified associations with the A1298C polymorphism.55, 56, 57, 64, 65 All 5 studies considered congenital heart disease, while only Verkleij-Hagoort et al.64 further analyzed orofacial cleft. Moreover, all 5 studies showed an increasing effect of A1298C on CHD. The largest OR was reported by Zhang et al.55 based on 11 case-control studies (pooled OR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.10–1.84). On the other hand, A1298C in mothers and children did not have a significant effect on orofacial cleft.64 Additionally, Yang et al.57 also reported A1298C effects on congenital heart disease using RR. They found that the CC (pooled RR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.07–1.95) and CC+AC genotype groups (pooled RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.02–1.31) had a higher risk of CHD than did the other genotype group, based on 21 case-control studies.57

MTRR and MTR

A meta-analysis of 8 case-control studies examined the association between the methionine synthase reductase gene (MTRR) and the risk of CHD and showed that the G allele of the A66G polymorphism had a pooled OR of 1.35 (95% CI, 1.14–1.59) for CHD.66 However, there was no risk of CHD associated with the A2756G in this gene, based on 4 case-control studies. Similarly, a meta-analysis by Yu et al.,67 which included 8 case-control studies, also showed that the MTRR A66G polymorphism was associated with a higher risk of CHD, based on 8 case-control studies (G>A: pooled OR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.01–1.33).

GATA4

Zhang et al.68 reported a meta-analysis of 11 case-control studies, and found that GATA 354A>C mutation was associated with an increased risk of CHD (pooled OR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.15–1.93). However, neither GATA4 99G>T nor GATA 487C>T mutations were related to the incidence of CHD.

NKX2-5

Seven studies were included in a meta-analysis of the association between NKX2-5 63A>G and congenital heart disease in the Chinese population, which showed a pooled OR of 1.26 (95% CI, 1.02–1.56).69 Four studies included in meta-analysis showed no evidence for association between NKX2-5 60G>C and CHD.

SRD5A2

Six case-control studies were included in a meta-analysis that showed an increased risk of hypospadias associated with the V89L polymorphism of the steroid 5-alpha-reductase type 2 gene (SRD5A2), for the G vs C allele (pooled OR, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.13–3.23), GC vs GG genotype (pooled OR, 2.36; 95% CI, 1.35–4.13), GC+CC vs. GG genotypes (pooled OR, 2.46; 95% CI, 1.27–4.72), and CC vs. GC+GG genotypes (pooled OR, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.00–3.66).70

CFTR

Twenty-nine case-control studies were included in the meta-analysis investigating the association between congenital bilateral absence of the vas deferens (CBAVD) and polymorphism in CFTR. 71 Cystic fibrosis patients often carry variations in CFTR, which encodes a glycosylated transmembrane protein that is widely expressed in epithelial cells of exocrine tissues, including sweat glands, lungs, and vas deferens. Three variations showed significant associations with CBAVD: 5T (pooled OR, 8.35; 95% CI, 6.68–10.43), M470V (pooled OR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.60–0.91), and ΔF508 (pooled OR, 22.20; 95% CI, 7.49–65.79).

1p22 and 20q12 anomalies

The C allele of a single nucleotide polymorphism at 20q12 (rs13041247), as opposed to the T allele, was associated with a reduced risk of cleft lip, with or without cleft palate, in a meta-analysis of 4 case-control studies (pooled OR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.53–0.59).72 Moreover, the rs560426 A/G variant at 1p22 was associated with an elevated risk of cleft (pooled OR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.04–1.47).

DISCUSSION

Overall, we reviewed 66 systematic reviews and meta-analyses that investigated the association between non-genetic or genetic risk factors and congenital anomalies. Seven categories of non-genetic and genetic risk factors were identified that showed association with congenital anomalies. We categorized congenital anomalies into CHD, cleft lip and/or palate, neural tube defects, defects in digestive, urogenital, and respiratory tracts, musculoskeletal anomalies, and eye, ear, face, and neck anomalies. Overall, 269 associations for non-genetic risk factors and 128 associations for genetic risk factors were found.

The risk of congenital anomalies was elevated by non-genetic risk factors, such as maternal exposure to environmental exposures (air pollution and toxic chemicals), parental smoking, maternal history (infectious diseases during pregnancy, PGDM and GDM, maternal obesity), maternal drug intake, pregnancy through ART, and socioeconomic factors (low SES). The association of maternal alcohol or coffee consumption with congenital anomalies was not significant, and maternal folic acid supplementation had a preventive effect on CHD. Genes or genetic loci associated with congenital anomalies included MTHFR, MTRR and MTR, GATA4, NKX2-5, SRD5A2, CFTR, and 1p22 and 20q12.

Exposure to NO2 increased the risk of CHD, while other pollutants showed no significant effect on CHD; however, more studies should be conducted because of the limitations of previous meta-analyses, such as small sample sizes. Air pollution could promote oxidative stress and increase production of free radicals, which may have developmental effects on the fetus.73 Oxidative stress due to air pollution has been reported to be associated with adverse birth outcomes.74, 75

The association between maternal alcohol consumption during pregnancy and congenital malformation was not significant. Alcohol consumption in pregnant women is socially considered as taboo; thus, women may underreport alcohol consumption status during surveys. Although maternal alcohol consumption was not associated with congenital anomalies in this study, alcohol is known to be a teratogen.76 Even a small amount of alcohol consumption at any point of pregnancy can have undesirable effects on the fetus, including small size for gestational age and preterm delivery.77 Heavy alcohol consumption during pregnancy can lead to fetal alcohol spectrum disorder (FASD) (an umbrella term including fetal alcohol syndrome (FAS), partial FAS, and alcohol-related neurodevelopmental disorder), manifested with intellectual disability and behavioral and developmental problems that may not necessarily be presented as congenital anomalies. Nonetheless, FASD most often co-occurs with congenital malformations in the heart, kidneys, or bones.78

Influenza could mediate teratogenic effects via several pathways; however, confounding due to the linkage between influenza and treatments with antipyretics or antivirals could be present. However, from the perspective of vaccination, whether the teratogenic effects are due to influenza or the drugs is not important, as vaccination would prevent both events.15 The pathways via which influenza leads to congenital anomalies are first, hyperthermia, and second, direct passage of virus through the placenta. Hyperthermia is reported to be associated with neural tube defects,79 and influenza virus can mediate teratogenic effects by placental transmission.80

CHD is associated with both maternal PGDM and GDM, but studies have shown that the associations with PGDM are stronger than those with GDM; this could be because GDM onset typically occurs after cardiac development.35 Previous studies have suggested that maternal hyperglycemia could disturb energy production during embryogenesis81 as well as the expression of PAX-3, which is a transcription factor for cardiac neural crest cells.82, 83 However, non-diabetic obese pregnant women also showed a greater risk CHD in the offspring.36 An explanation for this association is that obese pregnant women could be less responsive to folic acid supplementation at the standard dose than pregnant women who have a BMI in the normal range.84

A meta-analysis of 13 case-control and cohort studies showed that the use of beta-blockers during the first trimester increased the risk of CHD, cleft lip and palate, and neural tube defects.38 Beta-blockers are the most commonly prescribed antihypertensive drugs during the first trimester, and about 1 in 200 pregnant women are exposed to beta-blockers.85 Caton et al.85 pointed out that hypertension, which is an indication for beta-blockers, might be associated with congenital anomalies and act as a confounder in these associations. The estimated risk of beta-blockers in the study by Yakoob et al.41 was greater than the risk of hypertension itself, as shown in another study.86 However, none of the studies included in the meta-analysis compared the risk of malformation associated with beta-blockers in comparison to other types of antihypertensive medications.

The intake of fluoxetine increases the risk of congenital malformation and CHD. Fluoxetine is among the most commonly prescribed selective selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) in the first trimester. While most SSRIs have a half-life of about 1 day, fluoxetine has a longer half-life (1–4 days) and its metabolite norfluoxetine has a half-life of approximately 7–15 days.87 Fluoxetine is known to cross the human placenta; a high concentration of fluoxetine and its metabolite are detected in umbilical cord blood.88 Although the mechanisms of fluoxetine-induced congenital anomalies are unknown, serotonin (5-hydroxytryptamine, 5-HT) is an important neurotransmitter for signaling during embryogenesis and cardiac morphogenesis.89 A mouse study showed that 5-HT has a direct effect on myocardial cell development90 and 5-HT affects cardiac morphogenesis during the formation of the endocardial cushion.91 Thus, it is suggested that healthcare providers and patients carefully consider the risk and benefit of fluoxetine therapy for depression during the first trimester.14

Two meta-analyses confirmed that folic acid supplementation intake reduces the risk of CHD, and most individual studies showed consistent results. According to a meta-analysis, the protective effect of folic acid supplementation against CHD is significant in China and Europe, but not in the United States, suggesting that it may be related to genetic background and environmental factors. The exact effects of folic acid supplements on heart formation are unknown, and more evidence is needed to support these findings.

Children born from pregnancies established by IVF and/or ICSI showed an increased risk of congenital defects. Excess risk of birth defects in these children may be due to the underlying infertility of the parents rather than ART itself.92, 93 Specific defects after ICSI may be associated with paternal subfertility against a particular genetic background.92 However, the procedure of ART itself may also increase the risk of adverse birth outcomes.94 It has been suggested that the risk of congenital anomalies in children born to parents who received ART should be compared with children born to infertile parents who spontaneously gave birth without ART, to assess the effect of ART per se on congenital anomaly.95 A previous study showed that parents who underwent ART generally had higher SES levels. These parents may have a stronger desire for a healthy pregnancy than those who conceived naturally, which may offset the risk of any adverse effects of the ART procedure.96

The 2 MTHFR polymorphisms, C677T and A1298C, are the most studied genetic factors associated with congenital anomalies, specifically CHD and orofacial cleft lips. MTHFR encodes the enzyme that catalyzes the reduction of 5, 10-methylenetetrahydrofolate to 5-methyltetrahydrofolate, which is a methyl donor to methionine.97 Thus, it is a crucial enzyme that connects the folate pathway and homocysteine metabolism.98 Mutation in MTHFR can cause inactivation or malfunctioning of the enzyme that breaks down the amino acid homocysteine and folate.55 The OR for the C677T polymorphism was much larger than that for the A1298C polymorphism. The risk of CHD associated with homozygosity was higher than that associated with heterozygosity; for example, recessive (TT vs. TC+CC) models were reported to have a greater effect than dominant models (TT+TC vs. CC). These results are not consistent with the fact that homozygosity for C677T results in 25% higher homocysteine levels than the normal genotype, which indicates low folate status.99

MTR encodes methionine synthase, an enzyme that transfers a methyl group from 5-methyl-tetrohydrofolic acid (5mTHF) to homocysteine and thus produces methionine and tetrahydrofolic acid (THF) by remethylation. In the early stage of embryo development, this methylation is the only method by which homocysteine is reduced and methionine is produced, and thus a defect in this gene can lead to folic acid metabolic disorder.67 MTRR encodes methionine synthase reductase, which plays an important role in inactivating methionine synthase. Therefore, defects in MTRR may disrupt the course of embryonic development by influencing the levels of homocysteine, 5mTHF, THF, and methionine.

NKX2-5 and GATA4 are cardiac transcription factors that regulate heart development.69 NKX2-5 has been shown to participate in heart development not only in animal models, such as zebrafish, frog, chicken, and mouse, but also in humans in previous family studies.69 During the first trimester of gestation, male external genitalia are developed by regulation of androgens, such as testosterone and dihydrotestosterone. Since SRD5A2 plays a role in androgen synthesis and metabolism, it may have an effect on the differentiation of genitalia in males.

This study had several limitations. First, it did not review individual articles that were not included in the systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Thus, certain categories of risk factors could have been missed. Second, the same article may have been included in several systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The availability of several meta-analyses on a topic does not necessarily mean that there are a greater number of individual articles published on the specific topic. Thus, caution is needed in interpreting the level of evidence based on the number of meta-analyses available. Third, the quality of the studies included in this systematic review was mostly low or very low according to the AMSTAR2 criteria. The main reason for the low quality was the lack of a reference list for the studies excluded from each meta-analysis. Although AMSTAR2 provides a valuable guideline for evaluating the quality of meta-analyses and for performing meta-analyses, it may be too strict to apply to the currently available literature because few studies satisfied the AMSTAR2 criteria for high quality meta-analyses. Fourth, it should be noted that case-control studies included in each meta-analysis could be subject to recall bias, which can be quite influential in studies of congenital anomalies, where mothers tend to have feelings of guilt.100

Despite these limitations, this study provided comprehensive information regarding both non-genetic and genetic risk factors of congenital anomalies, providing insight into which topic requires further studies. Suggestions for future studies include the following. First, it is necessary to analyze the disease burden of each risk factor of congenital anomalies by taking effect sizes and prevalence into account. There is a lack of systematic reviews that suggest health policy priorities for preventing congenital anomalies by considering the burden of disease of each individual risk factor. Second, there are relatively few systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies on environmental and occupational risk factors for congenital anomalies. Not only toxic chemicals, but also occupational risk factors could affect birth outcomes. For example, studies on the effects of night shift work on congenital anomalies are very rare. This study provided a very comprehensive umbrella review of risk factors of congenital anomalies. Modifiable risk factors, such as maternal behaviors, medication, supplementation, and possibly environmental hazards, should be carefully considered to achieve better birth outcomes. Allocation of social resources is warranted to support such modifications, to protect mothers and children from congenital anomalies that could permanently affect development and function in children.

In conclusion, from umbrella review of systematic review and meta-analysis studies, we identified 66 studies reporting non-genetic and genetic risk factors of congenital anomalies, such as air pollution, toxic chemicals, parental smoking, alcohol consumption, maternal infectious diseases, pregestational diabetes, maternal obesity, maternal drug intake, maternal supplementation, maternal diet, and several genetic factors polymorphisms in MTHFR, MTRR and MTR, GATA4, NKX2-5, SRD5A2, CFTR, 1p22, and 20q12. Further studies are warranted to identify more diverse risk factors of congenital anomalies and elucidate the mechanisms of congenital anomalies.

SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALS

Supplementary Table 1

The AMSTAR2 checklist based on the studies involved

Click here to view.(51K, xls)

Supplementary Table 2

Characteristics of included meta-analyses

Click here to view.(111K, xls)

Notes

Funding:This research was funded by the Ministry of Environment through the Center for Environmental Health (2019-2021).

Disclosure:The authors have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.

Author Contributions:

  • Conceptualization: Lee KS, Choi YJ.

  • Data curation: Lee KS, Choi YJ.

  • Formal analysis: Lee H,1 Cho J, Lee H.2

  • Funding acquisition: Hong YC.

  • Investigation: Lee KS, Choi YJ, Lee HJ, Cho J, Lee H.2

  • Methodology: Choi YJ.

  • Software: Lee KS, Choi YJ.

  • Validation: Lee KS.

  • Visualization: Park SJ.

  • Writing - original draft: Lee KS, Choi YJ, Lee H,1 Cho J, Lee H.2

  • Writing - review & editing: Hong YC, Park JS.

Lee H,1 Hyunji Lee; Lee H,2 Heejin Lee.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors thank Mrs. Nam-Kyung Song, for her technical assistance for this study.

References

    1. Lim JW. The changing trends in live birth statistics in Korea, 1970 to 2010. Korean J Pediatr 2011;54(11):429–435.
    1. Kim MA, Yee NH, Choi JS, Choi JY, Seo K. Prevalence of birth defects in Korean livebirths, 2005–2006. J Korean Med Sci 2012;27(10):1233–1240.
    1. Ko JK, Lamichhane DK, Kim HC, Leem JH. Trends in the prevalences of selected birth defects in Korea (2008–2014). Int J Environ Res Public Health 2018;15(5):923–936.
    1. Boyle B, Addor MC, Arriola L, Barisic I, Bianchi F, Csáky-Szunyogh M, et al. Estimating Global Burden of Disease due to congenital anomaly: an analysis of European data. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2018;103(1):F22–8.
    1. Dolk H, Loane M, Garne E. The prevalence of congenital anomalies in Europe. Adv Exp Med Biol 2010;686(1):349–364.
    1. de Hundt M, Vlemmix F, Bais JM, Hutton EK, de Groot CJ, Mol BW, et al. Risk factors for developmental dysplasia of the hip: a meta-analysis. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2012;165(1):8–17.
    1. Ortiz-Neira CL, Paolucci EO, Donnon T. A meta-analysis of common risk factors associated with the diagnosis of developmental dysplasia of the hip in newborns. Eur J Radiol 2012;81(3):e344–51.
    1. Zwink N, Jenetzky E, Brenner H. Parental risk factors and anorectal malformations: systematic review and meta-analysis. Orphanet J Rare Dis 2011;6(1):25.
    1. Oldereid NB, Wennerholm UB, Pinborg A, Loft A, Laivuori H, Petzold M, et al. The effect of paternal factors on perinatal and paediatric outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update 2018;24(3):320–389.
    1. Peng J, Meng Z, Zhou S, Zhou Y, Wu Y, Wang Q, et al. The non-genetic paternal factors for congenital heart defects: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Cardiol 2019;42(7):684–691.
    1. Nicoletti D, Appel LD, Siedersberger Neto P, Guimarães GW, Zhang L. Maternal smoking during pregnancy and birth defects in children: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Cad Saude Publica 2014;30(12):2491–2529.
    1. Zheng Z, Xie G, Yang T, Qin J. Congenital malformations are associated with secondhand smoke among nonsmoking women: a meta-analysis. Birth 2019;46(2):222–233.
    1. Tanoshima M, Kobayashi T, Tanoshima R, Beyene J, Koren G, Ito S. Risks of congenital malformations in offspring exposed to valproic acid in utero: a systematic review and cumulative meta-analysis. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2015;98(4):417–441.
    1. Gao SY, Wu QJ, Zhang TN, Shen ZQ, Liu CX, Xu X, et al. Fluoxetine and congenital malformations: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2017;83(10):2134–2147.
    1. Luteijn JM, Brown MJ, Dolk H. Influenza and congenital anomalies: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod 2014;29(4):809–823.
    1. Wen J, Jiang J, Ding C, Dai J, Liu Y, Xia Y, et al. Birth defects in children conceived by in vitro fertilization and intracytoplasmic sperm injection: a meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 2012;97(6):1331–1337.e1-4.
    1. Zheng Z, Chen L, Yang T, Yu H, Wang H, Qin J. Multiple pregnancies achieved with IVF/ICSI and risk of specific congenital malformations: a meta-analysis of cohort studies. Reprod Biomed Online 2018;36(4):472–482.
    1. Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G, Thuku M, Hamel C, Moran J, et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ 2017;358(1):j4008.
    1. Chen EK, Zmirou-Navier D, Padilla C, Deguen S. Effects of air pollution on the risk of congenital anomalies: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2014;11(8):7642–7668.
    1. Hall KC, Robinson JC. Association between maternal exposure to pollutant particulate matter 2.5 and congenital heart defects: a systematic review. JBI Database Syst Rev Implement Reports 2019;17(8):1695–1716.
    1. Spinder N, Prins JR, Bergman JE, Smidt N, Kromhout H, Boezen HM, et al. Congenital anomalies in the offspring of occupationally exposed mothers: a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies using expert assessment for occupational exposures. Hum Reprod 2019;34(5):903–919.
    1. Salmasi G, Grady R, Jones J, McDonald SD. Knowledge Synthesis Group. Environmental tobacco smoke exposure and perinatal outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analyses. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2010;89(4):423–441.
    1. Lee LJ, Lupo PJ. Maternal smoking during pregnancy and the risk of congenital heart defects in offspring: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Pediatr Cardiol 2013;34(2):398–407.
    1. Zhang D, Cui H, Zhang L, Huang Y, Zhu J, Li X. Is maternal smoking during pregnancy associated with an increased risk of congenital heart defects among offspring? A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2017;30(6):645–657.
    1. Zhao L, Chen L, Yang T, Wang L, Wang T, Zhang S, et al. Parental smoking and the risk of congenital heart defects in offspring: an updated meta-analysis of observational studies. Eur J Prev Cardiol 2020;27(12):1284–1293.
    1. Yu C, Wei Y, Tang X, Liu B, Shen L, Long C, et al. Maternal smoking during pregnancy and risk of cryptorchidism: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Pediatr 2019;178(3):287–297.
    1. Sun J, Chen X, Chen H, Ma Z, Zhou J. Maternal alcohol consumption before and during pregnancy and the risks of congenital heart defects in offspring: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Congenit Heart Dis 2015;10(5):E216–E224.
    1. Wen Z, Yu D, Zhang W, Fan C, Hu L, Feng Y, et al. Association between alcohol consumption during pregnancy and risks of congenital heart defects in offspring: meta-analysis of epidemiological observational studies. Ital J Pediatr 2016;42(1):12.
    1. Bell JC, Raynes-Greenow C, Turner RM, Bower C, Nassar N, O'Leary CM. Maternal alcohol consumption during pregnancy and the risk of orofacial clefts in infants: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 2014;28(4):322–332.
    1. Ye Z, Wang L, Yang T, Chen L, Wang T, Chen L, et al. Maternal viral infection and risk of fetal congenital heart diseases: a meta-analysis of observational studies. J Am Heart Assoc 2019;8(9):e011264
    1. Shi QY, Zhang JB, Mi YQ, Song Y, Ma J, Zhang YL. Congenital heart defects and maternal fever: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Perinatol 2014;34(9):677–682.
    1. Balsells M, García-Patterson A, Gich I, Corcoy R. Major congenital malformations in women with gestational diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Diabetes Metab Res Rev 2012;28(3):252–257.
    1. Zhao E, Zhang Y, Zeng X, Liu B. Association between maternal diabetes mellitus and the risk of congenital malformations: a meta-analysis of cohort studies. Drug Discov Ther 2015;9(4):274–281.
    1. Simeone RM, Devine OJ, Marcinkevage JA, Gilboa SM, Razzaghi H, Bardenheier BH, et al. Diabetes and congenital heart defects: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and modeling project. Am J Prev Med 2015;48(2):195–204.
    1. Hoang TT, Marengo LK, Mitchell LE, Canfield MA, Agopian AJ. Original findings and updated meta-analysis for the association between maternal diabetes and risk for congenital heart disease phenotypes. Am J Epidemiol 2017;186(1):118–128.
    1. Cai GJ, Sun XX, Zhang L, Hong Q. Association between maternal body mass index and congenital heart defects in offspring: a systematic review. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2014;211(2):91–117.
    1. Zhu Y, Chen Y, Feng Y, Yu D, Mo X. Association between maternal body mass index and congenital heart defects in infants: a meta-analysis. Congenit Heart Dis 2018;13(2):271–281.
    1. Davenport MH, Yoo C, Mottola MF, Poitras VJ, Jaramillo Garcia A, Gray CE, et al. Effects of prenatal exercise on incidence of congenital anomalies and hyperthermia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Sports Med 2019;53(2):116–123.
    1. Yu HF, Chen HS, Rao DP, Gong J. Association between polycystic ovary syndrome and the risk of pregnancy complications: a PRISMA-compliant systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore) 2016;95(51):e4863
    1. Feng Y, Yu D, Chen T, Liu J, Tong X, Yang L, et al. Maternal parity and the risk of congenital heart defects in offspring: a dose-response meta-analysis of epidemiological observational studies. PLoS One 2014;9(10):e108944
    1. Yakoob MY, Bateman BT, Ho E, Hernandez-Diaz S, Franklin JM, Goodman JE, et al. The risk of congenital malformations associated with exposure to β-blockers early in pregnancy: a meta-analysis. Hypertension 2013;62(2):375–381.
    1. Grigoriadis S, Vonderporten EH, Mamisashvili L, Tomlinson G, Dennis CL, Koren G, et al. Prenatal exposure to antidepressants and persistent pulmonary hypertension of the newborn: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 2014;348(1):f6932.
    1. Wang S, Yang L, Wang L, Gao L, Xu B, Xiong Y. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and the risk of congenital heart defects: a meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. J Am Heart Assoc 2015;4(5):e001681
    1. Feng Y, Wang S, Chen R, Tong X, Wu Z, Mo X. Maternal folic acid supplementation and the risk of congenital heart defects in offspring: a meta-analysis of epidemiological observational studies. Sci Rep 2015;5(1):8506.
    1. Xu A, Cao X, Lu Y, Li H, Zhu Q, Chen X, et al. A meta-analysis of the relationship between maternal folic acid supplementation and the risk of congenital heart defects. Int Heart J 2016;57(6):725–728.
    1. Li ZX, Gao ZL, Wang JN, Guo QH. Maternal coffee consumption during pregnancy and neural tube defects in offspring: a meta-analysis. Fetal Pediatr Pathol 2016;35(1):1–9.
    1. Massaro PA, MacLellan DL, Anderson PA, Romao RL. Does intracytoplasmic sperm injection pose an increased risk of genitourinary congenital malformations in offspring compared to in vitro fertilization? A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Urol 2015;193(5) Suppl:1837–1842.
    1. Qin J, Sheng X, Wang H, Liang D, Tan H, Xia J. Assisted reproductive technology and risk of congenital malformations: a meta-analysis based on cohort studies. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2015;292(4):777–798.
    1. Qin J, Liu X, Sheng X, Wang H, Gao S. Assisted reproductive technology and the risk of pregnancy-related complications and adverse pregnancy outcomes in singleton pregnancies: a meta-analysis of cohort studies. Fertil Steril 2016;105(1):73–85.e1.
    1. Lacamara C, Ortega C, Villa S, Pommer R, Schwarze JE. Are children born from singleton pregnancies conceived by ICSI at increased risk for congenital malformations when compared to children conceived naturally? A systematic review and meta-analysis. JBRA Assist Reprod 2017;21(3):251–259.
    1. Yu D, Feng Y, Yang L, Da M, Fan C, Wang S, et al. Maternal socioeconomic status and the risk of congenital heart defects in offspring: a meta-analysis of 33 studies. PLoS One 2014;9(10):e111056
    1. Deguen S, Kihal W, Jeanjean M, Padilla C, Zmirou-Navier D. Neighborhood deprivation and risk of congenital heart defects, neural tube defects and orofacial clefts: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 2016;11(10):e0159039
    1. Daliri S, Safarpour H, Bazyar J, Sayehmiri K, Karimi A, Anvary R. The relationship between some neonatal and maternal factors during pregnancy with the prevalence of congenital malformations in Iran: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2019;32(21):3666–3674.
    1. Chen KH, Chen LL, Li WG, Fang Y, Huang GY. Maternal MTHFR C677T polymorphism and congenital heart defect risk in the Chinese Han population: a meta-analysis. Genet Mol Res 2013;12(4):6212–6219.
    1. Zhang R, Huo C, Wang X, Dang B, Mu Y, Wang Y. Two common MTHFR gene polymorphisms (C677T and A1298C) and fetal congenital heart disease risk: an updated meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis. Cell Physiol Biochem 2018;45(6):2483–2496.
    1. Yuan Y, Yu X, Niu F, Lu N. Genetic polymorphism of methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase as a potential risk factor for congenital heart disease: a meta-analysis in Chinese pediatric population. Medicine (Baltimore) 2017;96(23):e7057
    1. Yang HL, Yang YL, Yu CH, Shiao SP. Meta-prediction of MTHFR gene polymorphism and air pollution on the risks of congenital heart defects worldwide: a transgenerational analysis. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2018;15(8):E1660
    1. Xuan C, Li H, Zhao JX, Wang HW, Wang Y, Ning CP, et al. Association between MTHFR polymorphisms and congenital heart disease: a meta-analysis based on 9,329 cases and 15,076 controls. Sci Rep 2014;4(1):7311.
    1. Wang W, Hou Z, Wang C, Wei C, Li Y, Jiang L. Association between 5, 10-methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR) polymorphisms and congenital heart disease: a meta-analysis. Meta Gene 2013;1(1):109–125.
    1. Yin M, Dong L, Zheng J, Zhang H, Liu J, Xu Z. Meta analysis of the association between MTHFR C677T polymorphism and the risk of congenital heart defects. Ann Hum Genet 2012;76(1):9–16.
    1. van Beynum IM, den Heijer M, Blom HJ, Kapusta L. The MTHFR 677C->T polymorphism and the risk of congenital heart defects: a literature review and meta-analysis. QJM 2007;100(12):743–753.
    1. Nie Y, Gu H, Gong J, Wang J, Gong D, Cong X, et al. Methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase C677T polymorphism and congenital heart disease: a meta-analysis. Clin Chem Lab Med 2011;49(12):2101–2108.
    1. Li Z, Jun Y, Zhong-Bao R, Jie L, Jian-Ming L. Association between MTHFR C677T polymorphism and congenital heart disease. A family-based meta-analysis. Herz 2015;40 Suppl 2:160–167.
    1. Verkleij-Hagoort A, Bliek J, Sayed-Tabatabaei F, Ursem N, Steegers E, Steegers-Theunissen R. Hyperhomocysteinemia and MTHFR polymorphisms in association with orofacial clefts and congenital heart defects: a meta-analysis. Am J Med Genet A 2007;143A(9):952–960.
    1. Yu D, Zhuang Z, Wen Z, Zang X, Mo X. MTHFR A1298C polymorphisms reduce the risk of congenital heart defects: a meta-analysis from 16 case-control studies. Ital J Pediatr 2017;43(1):108.
    1. Cai B, Zhang T, Zhong R, Zou L, Zhu B, Chen W, et al. Genetic variant in MTRR, but not MTR, is associated with risk of congenital heart disease: an integrated meta-analysis. PLoS One 2014;9(3):e89609
    1. Yu D, Yang L, Shen S, Fan C, Zhang W, Mo X. Association between methionine synthase reductase A66G polymorphism and the risk of congenital heart defects: evidence from eight case-control studies. Pediatr Cardiol 2014;35(7):1091–1098.
    1. Zhang Y, Ai F, Zheng J, Peng B. Associations of GATA4 genetic mutations with the risk of congenital heart disease: a meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore) 2017;96(18):e6857
    1. Wang Z, Zou L, Zhong R, Zhu B, Chen W, Shen N, et al. Associations between two genetic variants in NKX2-5 and risk of congenital heart disease in Chinese population: a meta-analysis. PLoS One 2013;8(8):e70979
    1. Zhang K, Li Y, Mao Y, Ma M. Steroid 5-alpha-reductase type 2 (SRD5A2) gene V89L polymorphism and hypospadias risk: a meta-analysis. J Pediatr Urol 2017;13(6):630.e1–630.e9.
    1. Xu X, Zheng J, Liao Q, Zhu H, Xie H, Shi H, et al. Meta-analyses of 4 CFTR variants associated with the risk of the congenital bilateral absence of the vas deferens. J Clin Bioinforma 2014;4(1):11.
    1. Huang E, Cheng H, Xu M, Shu S, Tang S. Association between single-nucleotide polymorphisms on chromosome 1p22 and 20q12 and nonsyndromic cleft lip with or without cleft palate: new data in Han Chinese and meta-analysis. Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol 2012;94(6):469–476.
    1. Kampa M, Castanas E. Human health effects of air pollution. Environ Pollut 2008;151(2):362–367.
    1. Kannan S, Misra DP, Dvonch JT, Krishnakumar A. Exposures to airborne particulate matter and adverse perinatal outcomes: a biologically plausible mechanistic framework for exploring potential effect modification by nutrition. Environ Health Perspect 2006;114(11):1636–1642.
    1. Slama R, Darrow L, Parker J, Woodruff TJ, Strickland M, Nieuwenhuijsen M, et al. Meeting report: atmospheric pollution and human reproduction. Environ Health Perspect 2008;116(6):791–798.
    1. Streissguth AP, Landesman-Dwyer S, Martin JC, Smith DW. Teratogenic effects of alcohol in humans and laboratory animals. Science 1980;209(4454):353–361.
    1. Mamluk L, Edwards HB, Savović J, Leach V, Jones T, Moore TH, et al. Low alcohol consumption and pregnancy and childhood outcomes: time to change guidelines indicating apparently ‘safe’ levels of alcohol during pregnancy? A systematic review and meta-analyses. BMJ Open 2017;7(7):e015410
    1. Popova S, Lange S, Shield K, Mihic A, Chudley AE, Mukherjee RA, et al. Comorbidity of fetal alcohol spectrum disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet 2016;387(10022):978–987.
    1. Moretti ME, Bar-Oz B, Fried S, Koren G. Maternal hyperthermia and the risk for neural tube defects in offspring: systematic review and meta-analysis. Epidemiology 2005;16(2):216–219.
    1. Gu J, Xie Z, Gao Z, Liu J, Korteweg C, Ye J, et al. H5N1 infection of the respiratory tract and beyond: a molecular pathology study. Lancet 2007;370(9593):1137–1145.
    1. Styrud J, Thunberg L, Nybacka O, Eriksson UJ. Correlations between maternal metabolism and deranged development in the offspring of normal and diabetic rats. Pediatr Res 1995;37(3):343–353.
    1. Roest PA, van Iperen L, Vis S, Wisse LJ, Poelmann RE, Steegers-Theunissen RP, et al. Exposure of neural crest cells to elevated glucose leads to congenital heart defects, an effect that can be prevented by N-acetylcysteine. Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol 2007;79(3):231–235.
    1. Epstein JA, Li J, Lang D, Chen F, Brown CB, Jin F, et al. Migration of cardiac neural crest cells in Splotch embryos. Development 2000;127(9):1869–1878.
    1. Mojtabai R. Body mass index and serum folate in childbearing age women. Eur J Epidemiol 2004;19(11):1029–1036.
    1. Caton AR, Bell EM, Druschel CM, Werler MM, Lin AE, Browne ML, et al. Antihypertensive medication use during pregnancy and the risk of cardiovascular malformations. Hypertension 2009;54(1):63–70.
    1. Li DK, Yang C, Andrade S, Tavares V, Ferber JR. Maternal exposure to angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors in the first trimester and risk of malformations in offspring: a retrospective cohort study. BMJ 2011;343(1):d5931.
    1. Preskorn SH. Clinically relevant pharmacology of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. An overview with emphasis on pharmacokinetics and effects on oxidative drug metabolism. Clin Pharmacokinet 1997;32 Suppl 1:1–21.
    1. Hendrick V, Stowe ZN, Altshuler LL, Hwang S, Lee E, Haynes D. Placental passage of antidepressant medications. Am J Psychiatry 2003;160(5):993–996.
    1. Sadler TW. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and heart defects: potential mechanisms for the observed associations. Reprod Toxicol 2011;32(4):484–489.
    1. Sari Y, Zhou FC. Serotonin and its transporter on proliferation of fetal heart cells. Int J Dev Neurosci 2003;21(8):417–424.
    1. Yavarone MS, Shuey DL, Tamir H, Sadler TW, Lauder JM. Serotonin and cardiac morphogenesis in the mouse embryo. Teratology 1993;47(6):573–584.
    1. Ericson A, Källén B. Congenital malformations in infants born after IVF: a population-based study. Hum Reprod 2001;16(3):504–509.
    1. Lambert RD. Safety issues in assisted reproductive technology: aetiology of health problems in singleton ART babies. Hum Reprod 2003;18(10):1987–1991.
    1. Davies MJ, Moore VM, Willson KJ, Van Essen P, Priest K, Scott H, et al. Reproductive technologies and the risk of birth defects. N Engl J Med 2012;366(19):1803–1813.
    1. Retzloff MG, Hornstein MD. Is intracytoplasmic sperm injection safe? Fertil Steril 2003;80(4):851–859.
    1. Wen SW, Leader A, White RR, Léveillé MC, Wilkie V, Zhou J, et al. A comprehensive assessment of outcomes in pregnancies conceived by in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2010;150(2):160–165.
    1. Biselli PM, Guerzoni AR, de Godoy MF, Eberlin MN, Haddad R, Carvalho VM, et al. Genetic polymorphisms involved in folate metabolism and concentrations of methylmalonic acid and folate on plasma homocysteine and risk of coronary artery disease. J Thromb Thrombolysis 2010;29(1):32–40.
    1. Brouns R, Ursem N, Lindemans J, Hop W, Pluijm S, Steegers E, et al. Polymorphisms in genes related to folate and cobalamin metabolism and the associations with complex birth defects. Prenat Diagn 2008;28(6):485–493.
    1. Kluijtmans LA, Young IS, Boreham CA, Murray L, McMaster D, McNulty H, et al. Genetic and nutritional factors contributing to hyperhomocysteinemia in young adults. Blood 2003;101(7):2483–2488.
    1. Gur S. Guilt feelings in parents of children with congenital defects. Reconstr Surg Traumatol 1974;14(0):157–160.

Metrics
Share
Figures

1 / 3

Tables

1 / 4

PERMALINK