Mendelian randomization studies |
Viljoen et al. (2001)21
|
South Africa |
|
MR |
Gene: ADH1B
SNP-rs number: rs1229984
|
|
5–9 years |
Fetal alcohol syndrome (FAS) |
Fetal genotype:
*3* vs *1*1 OR 0.85 (95% CI: 0.·26, 2.72)
*2* vs *1*1 OR 0.31 (95% CI: 0·10, 0·90)
Maternal genotype:
*3* vs *1*1 OR 0.85 (95% CI: 0.26, 2.72)
*2* vs *1*1 OR 0.31 (95% CI: 0.10, 0.90)
|
Stoler et al. (2002)22
|
USA |
173 White women
85 Black women
|
MR |
Gene: ADH1B
SNP-rs number: rs1229984
|
|
At birth |
Blinded physician assessment of a composite trait including: growth restriction, microcephaly or 4 of 6 predefined facial features typical of FAS |
Maternal genotype (White women):
OR *3*1 vs *1*1: 6.68 (95%CI: 0.89, 49.90)
Maternal genotype (Black women):
OR *3*1 vs *1*1: 2.62 (95%CI: 0.97, 7.04)
Fetal genotype (White children):
OR *3*1 vs *1*1: 4.75 (95%CI: 0.35, 64.74)
Fetal genotype (Black children):
OR *3*1 vs *1*1: 3.75 (95%CI: 1.00, 14.02)
|
Arfsten et al. (2004)23
|
USA |
305 African American infants |
MR |
Gene:
ADH1B
SNP-rs number: rs1229984
|
|
At birth |
Birth weight (g)
GA (weeks)
LBW (<2500g)
SGA
|
Fetal genotype:
*3* vs *1*1 3211 vs 3196, P=0.83
*3* vs *1*1 39.6 vs 39.4, P=0.37
*3* vs *1*1 OR 0.85 (95%CI: 0.30, 2.39)
*3* vs *1*1 OR 0.27 (95%CI: 0.06, 1.20)
|
Chevrier et al. (2005)24
|
France |
|
MR |
Gene:
ADH1C
SNPs-rs numbers:
rs169342
rs698
|
|
−-- |
Non-syndromic oral clefts |
Maternal genotype:
*2*1 vs *1*1 OR 0.93 (95% CI: 0.50, 1.90)
*2*2 vs *1*1 OR 0.20 (95% CI: 0.10, 0.50)
Fetal genotype:
*2*1 vs *1*1 OR 1.37 (95% CI: 0.80, 2.40)
*2*2 vs *1*1 OR 0.41 (95% CI: 0.20, 0.80)
|
Boyles et al. (2010)25
|
Norway |
Mother–child pairs (483 cases 503 controls) |
MR |
Gene: ADH1C
SNP-rs number: rs169342
rs698
|
Biallelic (2 haplotypes)
*1*1 Faster metabolizers
(ref. category)
*2* Slower metabolizers
|
At birth |
Oral cleft |
Maternal genotype:
*2*1 vs *1*1 OR 0.93 (95%CI: 0.70, 1.24)
*2*2 vs *1*1 OR 0.95 (95%CI: 0.67, 1.36)
Fetal genotype:
*2*1 vs *1*1 OR 1.05 (95%CI: 0.78, 1.41)
*2*2 vs *1*1 OR 0.81 (95%CI: 0.56, 1.17)
|
Lewis et al. (2012)26
|
UK |
4 167 Mother–child pairs |
MR |
Gene: ADH7
SNP-rs number: rs284779
Gene: ADH1B
SNP-rs number: rs4147536
Gene: ADH1A
SNP-rs number: rs975833
SNP-rs number: rs2866151
|
|
8 years |
|
|
Zuccolo et al. (2013)27
|
UK |
|
MR |
Gene: ADH1B
SNP-rs number: rs1229984
|
|
8 years |
Total IQ: Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC) |
Maternal genotype:*2* vs *1*1 MD −0.01 (95% CI: -2·8, 2·7) |
11 years |
Academic achievement: Key Stage 2 scores |
Maternal genotype:
*2* vs *1*1 MD 1.7 (95% CI: 0.4, 3.0)
Fetal genotype:
*2* vs *1*1 MD 0.68 (95% CI: −0.24, 1.60)
|
von Hinke Kessler Scholder et al. (2014)28
|
UK |
Mother–child pairs
KS1: 3255
KS2: 3067
KS3: 2812
KS4: 3138
|
MR |
Gene: ADH1B
SNP-rs number: rs1229984
|
|
7–16 years |
Academic achievement:
Key Stage 1 scores (age 7)
Key Stage 2
scores (age 11)
Key Stage 3 scores (age 14)
Key Stage 4 scores (age 16)
|
Maternal genotype:
*2* vs *1*1 MD 0.198 (95% CI: 0.05, 0.35)
Fetal genotype:
*2* vs *1*1 MD −0.082 (95% CI: -0.24, 0.07)
Maternal genotype:
*2* vs *1*1 MD 0.239 (95% CI: 0.08, 0.40)
Fetal genotype:
*2* vs *1*1 MD −0.122 (95% CI: −0.30, 0.06)
Maternal genotype:
*2* vs *1*1 MD 0.192 (95% CI: 0.03, 0.36)
Fetal genotype:
*2* vs *1*1 MD −0.103 (95% CI: −0.28, 0.07)
Maternal genotype:
*2* vs *1*1 MD 0.25 (95% CI: 0.10, 0.40)
Fetal genotype:
*2* vs *1*1 MD −0.075 (95% CI: −0.22, 0.07)
|
Murray et al. (2016)29
|
UK |
Maternal genotype analysis: 3114 mother–child pairs |
MR |
Gene: ADH1B
SNP-rs number: rs1229984
|
|
4–13 years |
Child’s conduct problem trajectories aged 4–13 based on Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ), categorized as: low-risk (ref) early-onset-persistent |
|
Sibling control studies |
|
|
|
|
|
|
D’Onofrio et al. (2007)30
|
USA |
8621 |
Sibling comparison |
Siblings discordant for PAE |
Moderate alcohol exposure vs none |
4–11 years |
|
|
Eilertsen et al. (2017)31
|
Norway |
34 283 |
Sibling comparison |
Siblings discordant for PAE |
Not available |
5 years |
Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) Scales:
the revised Conner’s Parent Rating Scale (CPRS-R)
Child Behaviour Checklist (CBCL)
|
(β= 0.017, 95% CI: 0.005, 0.030)
(β= 0.011, 95% CI: -0.002, 0.024)
|
Parental control studies |
Alati et al. (2008)32
|
UK |
4332 |
Maternal–paternal comparison |
Mother and partner alcohol intake |
|
8 years |
IQ: Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC) |
1st trimester regular alcohol use (pdiff = 0·43)
MD per increase in maternal category: 0.03 (−0.58, 0.65)
MD per increase in paternal category: 0.40 (−0.01, 0.82)
Binge drinking; (Pdiff =0.38)
MD per increase in maternal category: −0.45 (−1.32, 0.43)
MD per increase in paternal category: 0.10 (−0.36, 0.56)
|
Alati (2013)33
|
UK |
7062 |
Maternal–paternal comparison |
Mother and partner alcohol intake |
|
11 years |
Academic achievement: Key Stage 2 scores (standardized) |
1st trimester regular Alcohol use (Pdiff = 0·406)
MD per increase in maternal alcohol category: Adjustedc MD: 0.10 (-0.17, 0·37)
MD per increase in paternal alcohol category: 0.25 (0.07, 0·43), (pdiff 0.41)
Binge drinking; (Pdiff <0.0001)
MD per increase in maternal category: −0.68 (−1.03, −0.33)
MD per increase in paternal category: 0.27 (0.07, 0.46)
|
Zuccolo et al. (2016)34
|
Norway |
46 178 |
Maternal–paternal comparison |
Mother and partner alcohol intake |
Non-drinker (ref)
<1 unit/week
1–2 units/week
3–4 units/week
5+ units/week
|
At birth and at 3 months post-partum |
Head circumference
Microcephaly
|
At birth- Fully and mutually adjusted modelc
<1unit- Mother: mean difference (SD) 0.00 (95% CI: −0.02, 0·02)
Father: mean difference (SD) −0.00 (95% CI: −0.05, 0.04)
1–2 units- Mother: mean difference (SD) −0.02 (95% CI: −0.05, 0.01)
Father: mean difference (SD) 0.01 (95% CI: -0.03, 0·05)
3–4 units- Mother: mean difference (SD) 0.06 (95% CI: 0.02, 0.11)
Father: mean difference (SD) 0.01 (95% CI: −0.03, 0.05)
5+ units- Mother: mean difference (SD) 0.01 (95% CI: −0.04, 0.06)
Father: mean difference (SD) −0.01 (95% CI: −0.04, 0.03)
At 3 months post-partum: fully and mutually adjusted modeld
< 1unit- Mother: mean difference (SD) 0.02 (95% CI: −0.00, 0.05)
Father: mean difference (SD) -0.02 (95% CI: -0.08, 0.04)
1–2 units- Mother: mean difference (SD) −0.02 (95% CI: −0.05, 0.02)
Father: mean difference (SD) −0.03 (95% CI: −0.08, 0.02)
3–4 units- Mother: mean difference (SD) 0.04 (95% CI: −0.02, 0.10)
Father: mean difference (SD) −0.04 (95% CI: −0.09, 0.01)
5+ units- Mother: mean difference (SD) 0.05 (95% CI: −0.02, 0.12)
Father: mean difference (SD) −0.05 (95% CI: −0.10, 0.00)
At birth: fully and mutually adjusted modele
<1 unit- Mother: OR 0.68 (95% CI: 0.50, 0.94)
Father: OR 1.00 (95% CI: 0.53, 1.88)
1–2 units- Mother: OR 1.13 (95% CI: 0.81, 1.59)
Father: OR 1.11 (95% CI: 0.66, 1.87)
3–4 units- Mother: OR 0.97 (95% CI: 0.57, 1.68)
Father: OR 1.21 (95% CI: 0.72, 2·06)
5+ units- Mother: OR 1.22 (95% CI: 0.68, 2.20)
Father: OR 1.36 (95% CI: 0.81, 2.28)
At 3 months post-partum: fully and mutually adjusted modelf
<1 unit- Mother: OR 0.82 (95% CI: 0.66, 1.02)
Father: OR 1.25 (95% CI: 0.79, 1.95)
1–2 units- Mother: OR 0.82 (95% CI: 0.62, 1.09)
Father: OR 1.16 (95% CI: 0.79, 1.71)
3–4 units- Mother: OR 1.08 (95% CI: 0.73, 1.59)
Father: OR 1.38 (95% CI: 0.94, 2.03)
5+ units- Mother: OR 0.82 (95% CI: 0.49, 1.39)
Father: OR 1.33 (95% CI: 0.90, 1.95)
|
McCormack et al. (2018)35
|
Australia |
2030 |
Maternal–paternal comparison |
Mother and partner alcohol intake |
First 6 weeks:
Abstinent
Low
Moderate
Binge
Heavy
Second 6 weeks
Abstinence
Low
Trimester 2:
Abstinence
Low
Trimester 3
Abstinence
Low
|
12 months |
Infant cognitive development (Bayley Scales for Infant Development, third edition) |
Maternal alcohol use (compared with abstinence):
Trimester 1: first 6 weeks
Low: (β −0.45, SE 0.86)
Moderate: (β 1.·35, SE 1.61)
Binge: (β −0.90, SE 0.96)
Heavy: (β −0.13, SE 1.02)
Trimester 1: second 6 weeks
Low: (β 0.54, SE 0.86)
Trimester 2
Low: (β 2.11, SE 0.77)
Trimester 3
Low: (β 1·60, SE 0.77)
Partners alcohol use (compared with abstinence):
Low: (β 2.42, SE 1.55)
Moderate: (β 0.67, S.E 1.81)
Heavy: (β 2.19, SE 1.98)
Binge: (β 2.00, SE 1.58)
|
Natural experiments |
Fertig and Watson (2009)36
|
USA |
|
|
Changes in minimum legal drinking age (MLDA) |
Lower (18 years) vs higher (19–21 years) MLDA |
At birth |
|
MLDA of 18 main effect; -0.17% (SE 0·07)g
MLDA of 18 x mother ≤17 years of age interaction; 0.50% (SE 0.18)g
MLDA of 18 x mother 18–20 years of age interaction; 0.26% (SE 0.10)g
MLDA of 18 main effect; −0.35% (SE 0.09)g
MLDA of 18 x mother ≤17 years of age interaction; 0.86% (SE 0.28)g
MLDA of 18 x mother 18–20 years of age interaction; 0.26% (SE 0.12)g
MLDA of 18 main effect; -0.18% (SE 0.12)g
MLDA of 18 x mother ≤17 years of age interaction; −0.04% (SE 0.05)g
MLDA of 18 x mother 18–20 years of age interaction; −0.03% (SE 0.02)g
|
Zhang (2010)37
|
USA |
|
|
Raising alcohol taxes |
Higher vs lower alcohol tax |
At birth |
|
Beer tax (β 0.931, SE 0.003)
Wine tax (β 0.340, SE 0.006)
Liquor tax (β 0·072, SE 0.027)
Beer tax (β -0.023, SE 0.001)
Wine tax (β -0·006, SE 0.0004)
Liquor tax (β -0.001, SE 0·0001)
Beer tax (β −0·002, SE 0·0004)
Wine tax (β −0·002, SE 0·001)
Liquor tax (β −0·001, SE 0·001)
Beer tax (β -0·0002, SE 0·000001)
Wine tax (β 0·0002, SE 0·0002)
Liquor tax (β −0·0001, SE 0·0000)
|
Zhang and Caine (2011)38
|
USA |
|
|
State-specific MLDA when woman is 14 years as proxy of alcohol availability |
Effects of different MLDA (18–2121 years), when woman is 14 (e.g. proxying for different alcohol availability) |
At Birth |
|
MLDA of 18 (vs higher); 0·14% (P< 0·0001)h
MLDA of 19 (vs 18); −0·16% (P=0.002)h
MLDA of 20 (vs 18); −0·05% (P=0·217)h
MLDA of 21 (vs 18); −0·24% (P<0·0001)h
MLDA of 18 (vs higher); 1·12% (P< 0·0001)h
MLDA of 19 (vs 18); −1.80% (P<0·0001)h
MLDA of 20 (vs 18); −1.03% (P<0·0001)h
MLDA of 21 (vs 18); −1.82% (P<0·0001)h
MLDA of 18 (vs higher); 0·02% (P = 0.051)i
MLDA of 19 (vs 18); −0.02% (P =0·051)i
MLDA of 20 (vs 18); 0.01% (P =0·215)i
MLDA of 21 (vs 18); −0.04% (P=0·0002)i
|
Barreca and Page (2015)39
|
USA |
14–17 years at conception
3 314 000
18–20 years at conception
6 287 000
21–24 years at conception
10 178 000
|
|
Differences in MLDA |
Lower (18 years) vs higher (19–21) MLDA |
At birth |
|
MLDA of 18 main effect; -0.19% (SE 0.08)j
MLDA of 18 x mother 14–17 years of age interaction; −0.02% (SE 0.07)j
MLDA of 18 x mother 18–20 years of age interaction; 0.10% (SE 0.05)j
Mean of outcome: 7.5
MLDA of 18 main effect; −0.04% (SE 0.10)j
MLDA of 18 x mother 14–17 years of age interaction; 0.05% (SE 0.12)j
MLDA of 18 x mother 18–20 years of age interaction; 0·04% (SE 0.09)j
Mean of outcome: 10.7
MLDA of 18 main effect; 0.39% (SE 0.32)j
MLDA of 18 x mother 14–17 years of age interaction; 0.46% (SE 0.53)j
MLDA of 18 x mother 18–20 years of age interaction; 0.19% (SE 0.26)j
Mean of outcome: 901.4
MLDA of 18 main effect; −0.28% (SE 0.20)j
MLDA of 18 x mother 14–17 years of age interaction; −0.002% (SE 0.06)j
MLDA of 18 x mother 18–20 years of age interaction; 0.04% (SE 0.03)j
Mean of outcome: 8.0
MLDA of 18 main effect; −0.01% (SE 0.12)j
MLDA of 18 x mother 14–17 years of age interaction; 0.01% (SE 0.10)j
MLDA of 18 x mother 18–20 years of age interaction; 0.18% (SE 0.07)j
Mean of outcome: 48.8
|
Evans et al. (2016)40
|
USA |
|
|
Effect of state alcohol prohibitions |
States with alcohol prohibitions vs states without prohibitions |
In utero, 8, and 10 years of exposure to state alcohol prohibitions |
|
Exposure before 8 years of age 0·04 (SE 0·01) per year
Exposure before 10 years of age 0.05 (SE 0.01) per year
Exposure in utero 0.08 (SE 0.05)
Exposure before 8 years of age 0.·0001 (SE 0.0001) per year
Exposure before 10 years of age 0.0002 (SE 0.0001) per year
Exposure in utero 0.0003 (SE 0·0005)
|
Cil (2017)41
|
USA |
Birth weight: 60 914 264
Pre-term: 53 276 541
FAS: 28 371 025
APGAR: 48 291 613
|
|
Effect of point-of-sale warnings about risks of drinking during pregnancy |
States with warnings vs states without warnings (including pre-/post-intervention within states) |
At birth |
Low birth weight (<2500 g)
Very low birth weight (<1500 g)
Pre-term (<37 weeks)
Very pre-term (<32 weeks)
FAS
Low APGAR (<7)
|
−0.115% (SE 0.082) decreased odds of low birth weight (P > 0.1)
−0.047% (SE 0.023) decreased odds of very low birth weight (P < 0.05)
−0.065% (SE 0.14) decreased odds of pre-term birth (P > 0.1)
−0.052% (SE 0.029) decreased odds of very pre-term birth (P >0.1)
−0.003% (SE 0.002) decreased odds of FAS (P > 0.1)
−0.014% (SE 0.047) decreased odds of low APGAR (P > 0.1)
|
Nilsson (2017)42
|
Sweden |
353 742 |
|
Relaxing the regulation of alcohol sales |
|
Mean age 32 years |
Earning, education and welfare dependency rate |
Exposed children had:
A reduction in years of schooling −0.31 (SE 0.09) years, males −0.52 (SE 0.17) years, females -0.21 (SE 0.12)
Were less likely to complete high school −0.63 (0.02), males −0.1(SE 0.02), females -0.03 (SE 0.03)
Had lower (log) earnings −0.24 (SE 0.09), males −0.24 (SE 0.11), females -0.17 (0.14)
An increased risk of no labour income 0.07 (SE 0.03), males 0.08 (SE 0.02), females 0.06 (SE 0.04)
A higher proportion were on welfare 0.04 (0.01), males 0.05 (SE 0.02), females 0.03 (SE 0.01)
|
Randomized controlled trial |
Tzilos et al. (2011)43
|
USA |
Intervention group 27
Control group 23
|
|
Computer-delivered brief intervention for reduced prenatal alcohol use (33 days) |
Children born to mothers receiving intervention on prenatal alcohol use vs to mothers receiving standard care |
At birth |
Birthweight |
Intervention group: mean= 3189.6, SD=328.0
Control group: mean= 2965.3, SD= 387.7
|