Pregnant mothers' high blood pressure linked to this increased risk in children
Pregnant mothers experiencing high blood pressure may have to worry about another potential health risk to their children, researchers warned on Monday.
The condition, also known as gestational hypertension, has previously been linked to premature births and stillbirths that are tied to a decrease in blood flow through the placenta.
Now, researchers at University of Iowa Health Care have found it is also associated with an increased risk for seizure in kids.
"The connection between high blood pressure in pregnant moms and seizures in children from these pregnancies had been postulated before, but never examined on a large scale, and never modeled in an animal,' Dr. Baojian Xue, a senior research scientist in pediatrics at the university, commented on the research.
'With these new mouse models and this new connection between gestational hypertension and seizures, we can now perhaps come up with new childhood anti-seizure therapies," he wrote.
Xue was the first author of the National Institutes of Health-funded study, which was published in the Journal of Clinical Investigation.
To reach these conclusions, they utilized clinical databases and studies in lab mice, including the records of more than 246 million patients from across the U.S. The study found that children born to mothers with high blood pressure during their pregnancy had significantly higher rates of seizures compared to those with normal blood pressure.
In mice, testing confirmed that exposure to gestational hypertension in the womb increased seizure sensitivity and death due to seizures. Of their subjects, male offspring showed greater vulnerability to the medical condition. They also found that brain inflammation played a 'significant role' in the process of disease, saying it may play such a role in human children.
Gestational hypertension impacts nearly 16 percent of American pregnancies. Mothers are also at a higher risk of seizures, stroke, temporary kidney failure, and liver and blood clotting problems, according to the Cleveland Clinic.
Most people with high blood pressure will deliver healthy babies when the condition is caught early in pregnancy. However, the more severe the condition is, the more at risk mothers are for serious complications, the clinic notes.
That can include preeclampsia, when high blood pressure develops after 20 weeks of pregnancy. Eclampsia occurs when a pregnant woman has seizures due to untreated or under-treated preeclampsia.
But this study – the first large-scale evidence connecting gestational hypertension to heightened seizure risk in offspring – may offer new pathways for further research. The impact of brain inflammation could be targeted to prevent seizures in children exposed to gestational hypertension.
Notably, this research was released the same day as another study from Columbia University that found low levels of arsenic in drinking water were also linked to preterm birth and lower birthweight.
"This study is unique because you have an association drawn from analyses of large clinical databases, but then we go on to prove the association with animal models,' Dr. Vinit Mahajan, professor of ophthalmology at Stanford University and a co-author on the study, explained.
'We were even able to reduce seizures in mice offspring with anti-inflammatory drugs based on what we learned from the model.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Miami Herald
37 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
RFK Jr. plans crackdown on pharma ads in threat to $10 billion market
The Trump administration is discussing policies that would make it harder and more expensive for pharmaceutical companies to advertise directly to patients, in a move that could disrupt more than $10 billion in annual ad spending. Although the U.S. is the only place, besides New Zealand, where pharma companies can directly advertise, banning pharma ads outright could make the administration vulnerable to lawsuits, so it's instead focusing on cutting down on the practice by adding legal and financial hurdles, according to people familiar with the plans who weren't authorized to speak publicly on the matter. The two policies the administration has focused in on would be to require greater disclosures of side effects of a drug within each ad - likely making broadcast ads much longer and prohibitively expensive - or removing the industry's ability to deduct direct-to-consumer advertising as a business expense for tax purposes, these people said. The discussions are ongoing and plans could still change before the agency undertakes any action, they said. Limiting pharma ads would be a major win for Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. He's long wanted to more strictly regulate how medicines are promoted. He's said he believes Americans consume more drugs than people in other countries because of the U.S. drug companies' ability to directly advertise to consumers. The new policies could threaten a key source of revenue to advertising and media companies, as well as the U.S. pharmaceutical industry. Companies spent $10.8 billion in 2024 on direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertising in total, according to a report from the advertising data firm MediaRadar. AbbVie Inc. and Pfizer Inc. were particularly big spenders. AbbVie alone spent $2 billion on direct-to-consumer drug ads last year, primarily on advertising for the company's anti-inflammatory drugs Skyrizi and Rinvoq. The medicines brought in more than $5 billion for AbbVie in the first quarter of 2025. "We are exploring ways to restore more rigorous oversight and improve the quality of information presented to American consumers," HHS spokesperson Andrew Nixon said in a written statement, adding that no final decisions have been made. AbbVie shares fell as much as 2.3% on Tuesday, their biggest drop in a month. Pfizer shares slipped as much as 1.7%. Ad reversal Before the loosening of advertising regulations by the Food and Drug Administration in 1997, U.S. pharma companies had to list all possible side effects for a medication if they wanted to mention which condition the drug being advertised was intended to treat. Reading out a list of side effects took so long it drove up the cost for air time and meant there wasn't as much broadcast advertising as there is today, said Jim Potter, executive director of the Coalition for Healthcare Communication, a trade association. The FDA change allowed ads to disclose fewer side effects and also allowed companies to direct customers to talk to their doctors, call a telephone number, or visit a website to get more information on the advertised drugs. In the following years, TV pharma ad spending surged. In 2024, 59% of the pharmaceutical industry's spend was on television advertising, making pharma the third-highest spending industry on television ads, according to MediaRadar. If the Trump administration brings back some of those restrictions, broadcast ads may become more "impractical," according to Meredith Rosenthal, a professor of health economics and policy at Harvard University's school of public health, who has studied the impacts of pharma advertising. More specific drug ads could have benefits for patients who might be prompted to talk to their doctor for the first time about a medical condition like depression or erectile dysfunction, Rosenthal said. However, there are also drawbacks. Drug ads can be used to drive sales of expensive, brand-name medicines when lower-cost generic alternatives may be appropriate, she said. When asked if a crackdown on ads would hurt its business, AbbVie chief commercial officer Jeff Stewart told analysts at a conference in May that the company "would have to pivot." He said the company could shift its investment to "disease awareness" or through advertising on digital channels rather than through mass media. Tax changes The Trump administration could also work with Congress to prohibit pharmaceutical companies from deducting direct-to-consumer advertising costs as business expenses on their taxes. House lawmakers discussed the idea in talks over President Donald Trump's tax cut legislation, but ultimately left the measure out of the bill. The Senate omitted it as well. HHS has been supportive of those discussions, according to a person familiar with the talks. Kennedy has also said publicly he's having conversations about tax changes within the administration, telling Senator Josh Hawley during a May hearing on Capitol Hill that he expected an announcement on the matter "within the next few weeks." Joe Grogan, who served as White House Domestic Policy Council chief during President Donald Trump's first term and now consults for health-care companies, said it's unclear whether lawmakers will have an appetite to crack down on the pharmaceutical industry further given Trump's tariff threats and demands to dramatically lower drug prices. Meanwhile, the pharmaceutical industry has warned that allowing lawmakers to regulate advertising by changing the tax code to single out pharmaceutical companies could set a dangerous precedent and raise the specter of lawsuits. Other industries also can deduct advertising costs as business expenses, heightening concerns they could be targeted next. "If you choose a sector, if one becomes a target, everyone becomes a target," said Potter of the Coalition for Healthcare Communication. The National Association of Broadcasters, which represents companies that own radio and television stations, said the group opposes restrictions on direct-to-consumer advertising, and that revenue from ads allows local broadcasters to staff newsrooms and invest in weather technology. "Restricting pharmaceutical ads would have serious consequences for stations, particularly those in smaller markets, and could raise First Amendment concerns," NAB spokesperson Alex Siciliano said. (With assistance from Madison Muller.) Copyright (C) 2025, Tribune Content Agency, LLC. Portions copyrighted by the respective providers.
an hour ago
FDA to offer faster drug reviews to companies promoting 'national priorities'
WASHINGTON -- U.S. regulators will begin offering faster reviews to new medicines that administration officials deem as promoting 'the health interests of Americans,' under a new initiative announced Tuesday. Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Marty Makary said the agency will aim to review select drugs in one to two months. FDA's long-standing accelerated approval program generally issues decisions in six months for drugs that treat life-threatening diseases. Regular drug reviews take about 10 months. Since arriving at the FDA in April, Makary has repeatedly told FDA staff they need to 'challenge assumptions' and rethink procedures. In a medical journal commentary published last week, Makary suggested the agency could conduct 'rapid or instant reviews," pointing to the truncated process used to authorize the first COVID-19 vaccines under Operation Warp Speed. For the new program, the FDA will issue a limited number of 'national priority vouchers' to companies 'aligned with U.S. national priorities,' the agency said in a statement. The special designation will give the selected companies access to extra FDA communications, streamlined staff reviews and the ability to submit much of their product information in advance. Speeding up drug approvals has long been a priority of the pharmaceutical industry, which has successfully lobbied Congress to create a variety of special programs and pathways for faster reviews. Many aspects of the plan announced Tuesday overlap with older programs. But the broad criteria for receiving a voucher will give FDA officials unprecedented discretion in deciding which companies can benefit from the fastest reviews. "The ultimate goal is to bring more cures and meaningful treatments to the American public,' Makary said in a statement. Makary previously said the FDA should be willing to ease its scientific requirements for certain drugs, for instance, by not always requiring randomized studies in which patients are tracked over time to track safety and effectiveness. Such trials are generally considered the gold standard of medical research, though the FDA has increasingly been willing to accept smaller, less-definitive studies for rare or life-threatening diseases. In several recent cases, the FDA has faced criticism for approving drugs based on preliminary data that didn't ultimately show benefits for patients. The push to rapidly accelerated drug approvals is the opposite approach that Makary and his boss, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., have taken on vaccines. Promising a 'return to gold-standard science,' Kennedy previously announced that all new vaccines would have to be compared to placebo, or a dummy shot, to win approval. Kennedy and Makary also have announced a stricter policy on seasonal updates to COVID-19 shots, saying they will have to undergo new testing before they can be approved for use in healthy children and most adults. ___ The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute's Science and Educational Media Group and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
FDA to offer faster drug reviews to companies promoting ‘national priorities'
WASHINGTON (AP) — U.S. regulators will begin offering faster reviews to new medicines that administration officials deem as promoting 'the health interests of Americans,' under a new initiative announced Tuesday. Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Marty Makary said the agency will aim to review select drugs in one to two months. FDA's long-standing accelerated approval program generally issues decisions in six months for drugs that treat life-threatening diseases. Regular drug reviews take about 10 months. Since arriving at the FDA in April, Makary has repeatedly told FDA staff they need to 'challenge assumptions' and rethink procedures. In a medical journal commentary published last week, Makary suggested the agency could conduct 'rapid or instant reviews,' pointing to the truncated process used to authorize the first COVID-19 vaccines under Operation Warp Speed. For the new program, the FDA will issue a limited number of 'national priority vouchers' to companies 'aligned with U.S. national priorities,' the agency said in a statement. The special designation will give the selected companies access to extra FDA communications, streamlined staff reviews and the ability to submit much of their product information in advance. Speeding up drug approvals has long been a priority of the pharmaceutical industry, which has successfully lobbied Congress to create a variety of special programs and pathways for faster reviews. Many aspects of the plan announced Tuesday overlap with older programs. But the broad criteria for receiving a voucher will give FDA officials unprecedented discretion in deciding which companies can benefit from the fastest reviews. 'The ultimate goal is to bring more cures and meaningful treatments to the American public,' Makary said in a statement. Makary previously said the FDA should be willing to ease its scientific requirements for certain drugs, for instance, by not always requiring randomized studies in which patients are tracked over time to track safety and effectiveness. Such trials are generally considered the gold standard of medical research, though the FDA has increasingly been willing to accept smaller, less-definitive studies for rare or life-threatening diseases. In several recent cases, the FDA has faced criticism for approving drugs based on preliminary data that didn't ultimately show benefits for patients. The push to rapidly accelerated drug approvals is the opposite approach that Makary and his boss, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., have taken on vaccines. Promising a 'return to gold-standard science,' Kennedy previously announced that all new vaccines would have to be compared to placebo, or a dummy shot, to win approval. Kennedy and Makary also have announced a stricter policy on seasonal updates to COVID-19 shots, saying they will have to undergo new testing before they can be approved for use in healthy children and most adults. ___ The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute's Science and Educational Media Group and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.
