Abstract
Objective
To evaluate the influence of ABO and Rh blood groups on morbidity among SARS-CoV-2 infected pregnancies.
Design
Prospective observational study.
Setting
78 centers of the Spanish Obstetric Emergency Group.
Population
Pregnant women with SARS-CoV-2 tested with polymerase-chain-reaction between 26-February and 5-November 2020. A cohort of 1278 SARS-CoV-2(+) pregnant women was analyzed and a concurrent comparison group of 1453 SARS-COV-2(−) patients was established.
Methods
Data were collected from medical charts. SARS-COV-2(+) was compared with SARS-COV-2(−) for differences in distribution of blood groups. We performed multivariate analysis, controlling for maternal age and ethnicity, to evaluate association of ABO and Rh blood groups with maternal and perinatal outcomes in SARS-CoV-2(+) patients with adjusted odds ratios (aOR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI).
Main outcomes measures
Medical morbidity: Symptomatic COVID-19 and medical complications. Obstetric outcomes: caesarean delivery, preterm deliveries, preterm premature rupture of membranes (PPROM), hemorrhagic events, pre-eclampsia, maternal and neonatal mortality, stillbirth.
Results
Differences were noted between blood types and Rh for age and ethnicity comparing SARS-CoV-2(+) and SARS-CoV-2(−) groups (p < 0.05). Among the SARS-CoV-2(+) cohort, the odds of symptomatic COVID-19 and obstetric hemorrhagic event were higher in Rh+ vs Rh− mothers (aOR 1.48, 95% CI 1.02–2.14, p = 0.037, and aOR 8.72, 95% CI 1.20–63.57, p = 0.033, respectively), and PPROM were higher among blood type A vs non-A mothers (aOR 2.06, 95% CI 1.01–4.18, p = 0.046).
Conclusions
In SARS-CoV-2(+) pregnant women, Rh− status was associated with a lower risk of symptomatic COVID-19, while Rh+ and blood group A were associated with obstetric hemorrhage and PPROM, respectively.
Keywords: ABO blood group, Coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19, Pregnancy, Disease susceptibility, Maternal morbidity
Introduction
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), identified in December 2019, causes the symptomatic COVID-19 illness [1]. With more than 109 206 497 confirmed cases and at least 2 407 469 deaths by February 8, 2021, Spain remains one of the European countries most severely affected by the ongoing pandemic [2], [3]. At the start of the pandemic, it was widely reported that pregnant women were not at increased risk of COVID-19 susceptibility, infectivity, and severity compared to the general population or non-pregnant women [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. Recently, Zambrano et al. [9] reported, evaluating over 23,000 pregnant women affected by symptomatic COVID-19, the existence of an increased risk of admission in the intensive care unit (ICU), need of invasive ventilation and receive extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) among pregnant COVID-19 patients compared to non-pregnant women of similar age, race and ethnicity. The Spanish Obstetric Emergency group (SOEG), has observed that pregnant women with COVID-19 have a higher rate of obstetric emergencies and caesarean sections [10], as well as a higher rate of obstetric complications with the presence of an increase in prematurity, premature rupture of membranes at term and neonatal intensive care unit admissions [11].
Several risk factors for COVID-19 infection, morbidity, and mortality are now known, including age, sex, and a number of chronic conditions (hypertension, diabetes, cardiovascular and respiratory diseases) and laboratory findings [12], [13]. Additionally, the presence of severe symptoms is associated with a higher risk of complications and mortality from COVID-19 compared to mild symptoms, both in general population [13] and in pregnant women [14]. Recently, it has been reported that the association between ABO blood groups and COVID-19 infection, severity and demise exists in such a way that there is a greater risk of infection and severity in individuals with type A blood whereas there is a lower risk in type O blood groups [15], [16], [17], [18].
We evaluated the influence of the ABO and Rh blood group on COVID-19 and obstetric morbidity in a pregnancy cohort of SARS-CoV-2 positive mothers.
Methods
Study design and population
This was a multicenter prospective study of consecutive cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection in a pregnancy cohort registered by the Spanish Obstetric Emergency Group in 78 hospitals between February 26th and November 5th, 2020. The registry’s objective updates were approved by the coordinating hospital’s Medical Ethics Committee on March 23rd, 2020 (reference number: PI 55/20); each collaborating center subsequently obtained protocol approval locally. The registry protocol is available in ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT04558996. A complete list of the centers contributing to the study is provided in Table S1. Upon recruitment, mothers consented by signing a document. We developed an analysis plan using the recommended contemporaneous methods and followed existing STROBE guidelines (Table S2).
This project was supported by public funds obtained in competitive calls: Grant COV20/00021 (EUR 43,000 from the Instituto de Salud Carlos III—Spanish Ministry of Health and co-financed with Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional (FEDER) funds.
SARS-CoV2 infected [SARS-CoV-2(+)] group
We included infected obstetric patients detected by screening for SARS-CoV-2 infection at admission on delivery ward during the study period. SARS-CoV-2 infection was diagnosed by positive double-sampling polymerase-chain-reaction (PCR) from nasopharyngeal swabs. All identified cases were included in the study, irrespective of clinical signs and symptoms or the result of another serological test. The cases with a clinical presentation of SARS-CoV-2 infection were classified following the WHO classification for adults: mild symptoms, mild-moderate pneumonia, severe pneumonia and septic shock [19]. The patients, regardless of the time of diagnosis or symptoms, were prescribed thromboprophylaxis with Low Molecular Weight Heparin (LMWH) for at least 10 days [20], [21].
SARS-CoV2 non-infected [SARS-CoV-2(−)] concurrent comparison group for blood type distribution
Non-infected patients were those defined by a negative PCR at admission on delivery ward. Each center identified 1–2 PCR negative pregnancies delivered immediately before and/or after delivery of each SARS-CoV-2 infected mother, regardless of the outcome. This method of identifying mothers not exposed to SARS-CoV-2 infection was deployed to adjust for center conditions at the time of delivery and decreased the risk of bias.
Data collection
Hospitals collected the encoded information in two separate phases: during the enrolment period that occurred at the time of the SARS-CoV-2 test during pregnancy and within 6 weeks after birth. Information regarding the demographic characteristics of each pregnant woman, comorbidities and current obstetric history was extracted from the clinical history and from the interview with the patient; subsequently, age and race were categorized following the classification used by the CDC [22]. ABO blood type of patients was determined by standard RBC typing performed for clinical purposes. Medical outcomes (symptomatic COVID-19, thromboembolic events, pulmonary embolism, deep venous thrombosis, invasive ventilation, admitted in ICU) and obstetric and perinatal outcomes [caesarean delivery, preterm deliveries, preterm premature rupture of membranes (PPROM), hemorrhagic events, gestational hypertensive disorders, maternal and neonatal mortality, stillbirth] were recorded. Definitions of obstetric conditions followed international criteria [23], [24], [25]. Patients were followed until six weeks postpartum. Neonatal events were recorded until 14 days postpartum.
Statistical analysis
Quantitative variables, such as maternal age (years) and gestational age at delivery (weeks + days), were tested for normal distribution using Kolmogorov–Smirnov or Shapiro–Wilk tests. Descriptive data were presented as mean (range), or percentage (number). The possible association of ABO and Rh blood group with maternal and perinatal outcomes was analyzed using the Pearson’s Chi-square test or Fisher’s exact test and the Mann–Whitney U test (after checking the absence of normality of the data using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test). Statistical tests were two-sided and were performed with SPSS V.20 (IBM Inc., Chicago, Il, USA); statistically significant associations were considered to exist when the p value was less than 0.05.
For computing measures of association of ABO and Rh blood group with maternal and perinatal outcomes, variables statistically significant in the univariable analysis were controlled for maternal age and ethnicity in multivariable logistic regression modelling (and Poisson regression modelling) to derive adjusted odds ratios (aOR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). Modeling was performed after excluding pregnancies with missing data. Regression analyses were carried out using lme4 package in R, version 3.4 (RCoreTeam, 2017) [26].
Results
A cohort of 1278 SARS-CoV-2(+) pregnant women was analyzed Figure Supplementary figure 1. The comparison group of SARS-COV-2(−) patients was composed of 1453 mothers. Blood type distribution according to SARS-CoV-2 positivity and demographic characteristics of mothers is shown in Table 1 . Differences were noted between blood types and Rh for age and ethnicity and there was a higher proportion of Latin American women in the SARS-CoV-2(+) group compared to the SARS-CoV-2(−) group (p < 0.05).
Table 1.
Demographic characteristics of mothers according to SARS-CoV-2 positivity and blood group.
| SARS-CoV-2 Positive | SARS-CoV-2 Negative | p1 |
p2 |
|||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n = 1287 |
n = 1453 |
|||||||||||||
| Type A | Type B | Type AB | Type O | Rh + | Rh − | Type A | Type B | Type AB | Type O | Rh + | Rh − | 0.312 | 0.186 | |
| 544 (42.3) | 154 (12.0) | 54 (4.2) | 535 (41.6) | 1144/1286 (−89.0) | 142/1286 (−11.0) | 619 (42.6) | 158 (10.9) | 45 (3.1) | 631 (43.4) | 1267/1451 (−87.3) | 184/1451 (−12.7) | |||
| Maternal age | 32.6 | 31.9 | 33 | 31.8 | 32.1 | 32.7 | 32.2 | 31.6 | 31.9 | 31.9 | 32 | 32 | 0.359 | 0.288 |
| (years; mean/range) | (18–49) | (18–48) | (21–47) | (18–48) | (18–49) | (18–44) | (18–49) | (18–44) | (21–45) | (18–46) | (18–49) | (18–42) | ||
| Maternal Age Range | <0.05a | <0.05b | ||||||||||||
| 18–24 | 59 (11.0) | 17 (11.0) | 6 (11.1) | 91 (17.1) | 159 (14.0) | 14 (9.9) | 74 (12.2) | 21 (13.5) | 2 (4.8) | 61 (9.7) | 135 (10.8) | 22 (12.2) | ||
| 25–34 | 258 (48.0) | 89 (57.8) | 25 (46.3) | 237 (44.6) | 540 (47.6) | 68 (48.2) | 312 (51.3) | 85 (54.8) | 27 (64.3) | 355 (56.6) | 689 (55.1) | 89 (49.4) | ||
| 35–49 | 221 (41.1) | 48 (31.2) | 23 (42.6) | 203 (38.2) | 436 (38.4) | 59 (41.8) | 222 (36.5) | 49 (31.6) | 13 (31.0) | 211 (33.7) | 426 (34.1) | 69 (38.3) | ||
| Ethnicity | <0.05c | <0.001 | ||||||||||||
| White European | 364/542 (67.2) | 86/153 (56.2) | 40 (74.1) | 268 (50.1) | 647/1142 (56.7) | 111/141 (–78.7) | 509/616 (82.6) | 115/157 (73.2) | 31/44 (70.5) | 458/629 (72.8) | 943/1260 (74.8) | 169 (91.8) | ||
| Latino Americans | 118/542 (21.8) | 29/153 (19.0) | 7 (13.0) | 203 (37.9) | 336/1142 (29.4) | 20/141 (14.2) | 41/616 (6.7) | 10/157 (6.4) | 1/44 (2.3) | 93/629 (14.8) | 143/1260 (11.3) | 2 (1.1) | ||
| Arab | 39/542 (7.2) | 19/153 (12.4) | 5 (9.3) | 37 (6.9) | 93/1142 (8.1) | 7/141 (5.0) | 51/616 (8.3) | 16/157 (10.2) | 8/44 (18.2) | 56/629 (8.9) | 121/1260 (9.6) | 10 (5.4) | ||
| Asian non-Hispanic | 10/542 (1.8) | 14/153 (9.2) | 1 (1.9) | 12 (2.2) | 36/1142 (3.2) | 1/141 (0.7) | 13/616 (2.1) | 8/157 (5.1) | 4/44 (9.1) | 14/629 (2.2) | 36/1260 (2.9) | 2 (1.1) | ||
| Black non-Hispanic | 11/542 (2.0) | 5/153 (3.3) | 1 (1.9) | 15 (2.8) | 30/1142 (2.6) | 2/141 (1.4) | 2/616 (0.3) | 8/157 (5.1) | 0/44 (0.0) | 8/629 (1.3) | 17/1260 (1.3) | 1 (0.5) | ||
Data are shown as n (% of total), except for maternal age.
p1: comparison by blood group distribution (A, B, AB and O) between SARS-CoV-2 (+) and SARS-CoV-2 (−) patients.
p2: comparison by Rh type (+/-) between SARS-CoV-2 (+) and SARS-CoV-2 (−) patients.
SARS-CoV-2: Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2.
due to differences between O SARS-CoV-2 (+) and O SARS-CoV-2 (−) (p < 0.001).
due to differences between Rh+ SARS-CoV-2 (+) and Rh+ SARS-CoV-2 (−) (p < 0.001).
with the exception of AB SARS-CoV-2 (+) vs AB SARS-CoV-2 (−) (p = 0.085).
Maternal comorbidities, current obstetric history and clinical presentation of SARS-CoV-2 infection among positive pregnancies are shown in Table 2 , whereas medical, obstetric and neonatal morbidity are compiled in Table 3 , both tables stratified by blood group (A vs non-A, O vs non-O, A+AB vs B+O and Rh+/−); p-values correspond to the univariate analysis. Among SARS-CoV-2 infected pregnancies, no associations of blood groups with maternal comorbidities or the current obstetric history were observed (Table 2) nor with neonatal morbidity or maternal medical complications at delivery or (Table 3) except for PPROM that was more prevalent in patients of blood group A (p = 0.0023). After adjusting for maternal age and ethnicity (Table 4 ), the odds of symptomatic COVID-19 and hemorrhagic event were higher in Rh+ (vs Rh-) mothers (aOR 1.48, 95% CI 1.02–2.14, p = 0.037, and aOR 8.72, 95% CI 1.20–63.57, p = 0.033, respectively), and those of preterm premature rupture of membranes (PPROM) were higher among blood type A (vs non-A) mothers (aOR 2.06, 95% CI 1.01–4.18, p = 0.046).
Table 2.
Maternal comorbidities, current obstetric history and clinical presentation of SARS-CoV-2 infection, stratified by blood group (A vs non-A, O vs non-O, A+AB vs B+O and Rh +/−).
| Group | Group | p-value | Group | Group | p-value | Group | Group | p-value | Group | Group | p-value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | Non-A a | O | Non-O b | A+AB | B+O | Rh + | Rh − | |||||
| Number (%) | 544 | 743 | – | 535 | 752 | – | 598 | 689 | – | 1144 | 142 | – |
| (42.3) | (57.7) | (41.6) | (58.4) | (46.5) | (53.5) | (89.0) | (11.0) | |||||
| Maternal comorbidities | ||||||||||||
| Obesity (BMI > 30 kg/m2) |
94 | 133 | 0.842 | 97 | 130 | 0.702 | 100 | 127 | 0.465 | 209 | 17 | 0.054 |
| (17.9) | (18.3) | (18.7) | (17.8) | (17.3) | (18.9) | (18.8) | (12.1) | |||||
| Pulmonary comorbidities | 23 | 29 | 0.770 | 18 | 34 | 0.301 | 26 | 26 | 0.602 | 44 | 8 | 0.311 |
| (4.2) | (3.9) | (3.4) | (4.5) | (4.3) | (3.8) | (3.8) | (5.6) | |||||
| Other comorbidities | 21 | 30 | 0.872 | 19 | 32 | 0.524 | 23 | 28 | 0.842 | 40 | 11 | 0.017 |
| (3.9) | (4.0) | (3.6) | (4.3) | (3.8) | (4.1) | (3.5) | (7.7) | |||||
| Current obstetric history | ||||||||||||
| Multiple pregnancy | 9 | 15 | 0.633 | 10 | 14 | 0.992 | 11 | 13 | 0.950 | 17 | 7 | 0.007 |
| (1.7) | (2.0) | (1.9) | (1.9) | (1.8) | (1.9) | (1.5) | (4.9) | |||||
| In Vitro Fertilization | 33 | 38 | 0.461 | 23 | 48 | 0.110 | 41 | 30 | 0.052 | 58 | 13 | 0.050 |
| (6.1) | (5.1) | (4.3) | (6.4) | (6.9) | (4.4) | (5.1) | (9.2) | |||||
| Haemoglobin < 10 g/dL Platelets < 100,000/µL |
24 | 38 | 0.830 | 25 | 37 | 0.650 | 27 | 35 | 0.936 | 60 | 3 | 0.093 |
| (4.4) | (5.1) | (4.7) | (4.9) | (4.5) | (5.1) | (5.2) | (2.1) | |||||
| Pregnancy-induced Hypertension | 23 | 24 | 0.347 | 17 | 30 | 0.445 | 25 | 22 | 0.347 | 44 | 3 | 0.307 |
| (4.2) | (3.2) | (3.2) | (4.0) | (4.2) | (3.2) | (3.8) | (2.1) | |||||
| Gestational diabetes | 36 | 57 | 0.485 | 38 | 55 | 0.869 | 40 | 53 | 0.499 | 85 | 8 | 0.443 |
| (6.8) | (7.9) | (7.3) | (7.5) | (6.9) | (7.9) | (7.6) | (5.8) | |||||
| SARS-CoV-2 Clinical presentation | ||||||||||||
| Asymptomatic (N = 654) | 282 | 374 | 0.594 | 248 | 408 | 0.005 | 313 | 343 | 0.359 | 567 | 88 | 0.006 |
| (51.8) | (50.3) | (46.4) | (54.3) | (52.3) | (49.8) | (49.6) | (62.0) | |||||
| Symptomatic (N = 633) | 262 | 369 | 287 | 344 | 285 | 346 | 577 | 54 | ||||
| (48.2) | (49.7) | (53.6) | (45.7) | (47.7) | (50.2) | (50.4) | (38.0) | |||||
| Mild symptoms | 192 | 253 | 0.200 | 195 | 250 | 0.195 | 211 | 234 | 0.079 | 406 | 39 | 0.775 |
| (73.3) | (68.6) | (67.9) | (72.7) | (74.0) | (67.6) | (70.4) | (72.2) | |||||
| Severe symptoms | 70 | 116 | 92 | 94 | 74 | 112 | 171 | 15 | ||||
| (26.7) | (31.4) | (32.1) | (27.3) | (26.0) | (32.4) | (29.6) | (27.8) | |||||
| Mild-moderate pneumonia | 57 | 103 | 0.164 | 82 | 78 | 0.229 | 60 | 100 | 0.118 | 146 | 14 | 0.408 |
| (81.4) | (88.8) | (89.1) | (83.0) | (81.1) | (89.3) | (85.4) | (93.3) | |||||
| Severe pneumonia/Shock | 13 | 13 | 10 | 16 | 14 | 12 | 25 | 1 | ||||
| (18.6) | (11.2) | (10.9) | (17.0) | (18.9) | (10.7) | (14.6) | (6.7) | |||||
| (0.4) | (0.3) | (0.2) | (0.4) | (0.5) | (0.1) | (0.3) | (0.7) | |||||
Data are shown as n (% of total). In bold: statistical significant differences between blood groups in the univariate analysis.
Group non-A: AB+B+O blood types.
Group non-O: A+AB+B blood types; SARS-CoV-2: Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2.
Table 3.
Medical, obstetric and neonatal morbidity, stratified by blood group (A vs non-A, O vs non-O, A+AB vs B+O and Rh +/−).
| Group | Group | p-value | Group | Group | p-value | Group | Group | p-value | Group | Group | p-value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | Non-A a | O | Non-O b | A+AB | B+O | Rh + | Rh − | |||||
| Number (%) | 544 | 743 | – | 535 | 752 | – | 598 | 689 | – | 1144 | 142 | – |
| (42.3) | (57.7) | (41.6) | (58.4) | (46.5) | (53.5) | (89.0) | (11.0) | |||||
| Perinatal outcome | ||||||||||||
| Gestational age at delivery (weeks + days; mean/range) |
38 + 4 | 38 + 6 | 0.711 | 38 + 5 | 38 + 5 | 0.482 | 38 + 4 | 38 + 5 | 0.488 | 38 + 6 | 38 + 6 | 0.830 |
| (25–42) | (23–42) | (24–42) | (23–42) | (23–42) | (24–42) | (23–42) | (26–41) | |||||
| Cesarean delivery | 163 | 190 | 0.089 | 132 | 221 | 0.065 | 175 | 178 | 0.173 | 310 | 43 | 0.401 |
| (30.0) | (25.7) | (24.8) | (29.4) | (29.3) | (25.9) | (27.1) | (30.5) | |||||
| Preterm deliveries (<37 weeks of gest age) |
67 | 74 | 0.181 | 48 | 93 | 0.056 | 75 | 66 | 0.091 | 124 | 17 | 0.684 |
| (12.3) | (10.0) | (9.0) | (12.4) | (12.5) | (9.6) | (10.8) | (12.0) | |||||
| PROM | 84 | 112 | 0.856 | 81 | 115 | 0.940 | 93 | 103 | 0.764 | 174 | 22 | 0.929 |
| (15.4) | (15.1) | (15.1) | (15.3) | (15.6) | (14.9) | (15.2) | (15.5) | |||||
| PPROM | 21 | 13 | 0.023 | 11 | 23 | 0.272 | 21 | 13 | 0.074 | 29 | 5 | 0.491 |
| (3.9) | (1.7) | (2.1) | (3.1) | (3.5) | (1.9) | (2.5) | (3.5) | |||||
| Medical complications | ||||||||||||
| TE events/Pulmonary embolism | 5 | 6 | 0.830 | 4 | 7 | 0.725 | 6 | 5 | 0.591 | 11 | 0 | 0.973 |
| (0.9) | (0.8) | (0.7) | (0.9) | (1.0) | (0.7) | (1.0) | (0.0) | |||||
| Deep venous thrombosis | 3 | 3 | 0.702 | 2 | 4 | 0.683 | 4 | 2 | 0.333 | 6 | 0 | 0.971 |
| (0.6) | (0.4) | (0.4) | (0.5) | (0.7) | (0.3) | (0.5) | (0.0) | |||||
| Pulmonary embolism | 4 | 4 | 0.658 | 3 | 5 | 0.815 | 4 | 4 | 0.841 | 8 | 0 | 0.965 |
| (0.7) | (0.5) | (0.6) | (0.7) | (0.7) | (0.6) | (0.7) | (0.0) | |||||
| Pneumonia with ICU admission | 13 | 11 | 0.164 | 8 | 16 | 0.229 | 14 | 10 | 0.118 | 23 | 1 | 0.408 |
| (2.4) | (1.5) | (1.5) | (2.1) | (2.3) | (1.5) | (2.0) | (0.7) | |||||
| Admitted in ICU | 19 | 16 | 0.148 | 12 | 23 | 0.377 | 20 | 15 | 0.202 | 33 | 2 | 0.318 |
| (3.5) | (2.2) | (2.2) | (3.1) | (3.3) | (2.2) | (2.9) | (1.4) | |||||
| Invasive ventilation | 9 | 8 | 0.248 | 5 | 12 | 0.312 | 10 | 7 | 0.309 | 16 | 1 | 0.503 |
| (1.7) | (1.1) | (0.9) | (1.6) | (1.7) | (1.0) | (1.4) | (0.7) | |||||
| Obstetrical complications | ||||||||||||
| Hemorrhagic events | 30 | 40 | 0.918 | 35 | 35 | 0.143 | 31 | 39 | 0.707 | 69 | 1 | 0.029 |
| (5.5) | (5.4) | (6.5) | (4.7) | (5.2) | (5.7) | (6.0) | (0.7) | |||||
| Abruptio placentae | 7 | 4 | 0.165 | 4 | 7 | 0.726 | 7 | 4 | 0.261 | 11 | 0 | 0.974 |
| (1.3) | (0.5) | (0.7) | (0.9) | (1.2) | (0.6) | (1.0) | (0.0) | |||||
| Postpartum hemorrhage | 23 | 37 | 0.528 | 32 | 28 | 0.061 | 24 | 36 | 0.301 | 59 | 1 | 0.044 |
| (4.2) | (5.0) | (6.0) | (3.7) | (4.0) | (5.2) | (5.2) | (0.7) | |||||
| Gestational hypertensive disorders | 30 | 36 | 0.669 | 23 | 43 | 0.219 | 35 | 32 | 0.331 | 60 | 6 | 0.577 |
| (5.5) | (4.8) | (4.3) | (5.9) | (5.9) | (4.6) | (5.3) | (4.2) | |||||
| Maternal mortality | 2 | 0 | 0.958 | 0 | 2 | 0.948 | 2 | 0 | 0.940 | 2 | 0 | 0.974 |
| (0.4) | (0.0) | (0.0) | (0.3) | (0.3) | (0.0) | (0.2) | (0.0) | |||||
| Stillbirth | 2 | 8 | 0.172 | 4 | 6 | 0.919 | 2 | 8 | 0.114 | 9 | 1 | 0.916 |
| (0.4) | (1.1) | (0.7) | (0.8) | (0.3) | (1.2) | (0.8) | (0.7) | |||||
| Neonatal data | ||||||||||||
| Umbilical artery pH < 7.10 | 16 | 20 | 0.722 | 10 | 26 | 0.086 | 17 | 19 | 0.868 | 31 | 5 | 0.677 |
| (3.7) | (3.3) | (2.3) | (4.4) | (3.6) | (3.4) | (3.4) | (4.2) | |||||
| Admitted in NICU number | 52 | 74 | 0.811 | 52 | 74 | 0.942 | 57 | 69 | 0.771 | 112 | 14 | 0.979 |
| (9.6) | (10.0) | (9.7) | (9.8) | (9.5) | (10.0) | (9.8) | (9.9) | |||||
| Neonatal mortality | 2 | 2 | 0.754 | 1 | 3 | 0.511 | 3 | 1 | 0.282 | 3 | 1 | 0.391 |
| (0.4) | (0.3) | (0.2) | (0.4) | (0.5) | (0.1) | (0.3) | (0.7) | |||||
Data are shown as n (% of total). In bold: statistical significant differences between blood groups in the univariate analysis.
Group non-A: AB+B+O blood types.
Group non-O: A+AB+B blood types; PROM: Premature rupture of membranes; PPROM: Preterm Premature Rupture of Membranes; TE events: Thromboembolic events; ICU: Intensive Care Unit.
Table 4.
Odds Ratio and adjusted Odds Ratio for outcomes associated with blood group in SARS-CoV-2 infected pregnancies.
| SARS-CoV-2 Positive (N = 1287) |
Group A |
Group Non-A a |
OR (95%CI) |
aOR* (95%CI) |
Group O |
Group Non-O b |
OR (95%CI) |
aOR* (95%CI) |
Group Rh+ |
Group Rh− |
OR (95%CI) |
aOR* (95%CI) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number (%) | 544 (42.2%) |
743 (57.8%) |
535 (41.5%) |
752 (58.5%) |
1144 (88.8%) |
142 (11.2%) |
||||||
| Clinical presentation of SARS-CoV-2 infection | ||||||||||||
| Asymptomatic (N = 654) |
248 (46.4) |
408 (54.3) |
1.37 (1.10–1.71) |
1.19 (0.94–1.51) |
567 (49.6) |
88 (62.0) |
1.66 (1.16–2.37) |
1.48 (1.02–2.14) |
||||
| Symptomatic (N = 633) |
287 (53.6) |
344 (45.7) |
577 (50.4) |
54 (38.0) |
||||||||
| Perinatal outcomes | ||||||||||||
| PPROM |
21 (3.9) |
13 (1.7) |
2.25 (1.12–4.54) |
2.06 (1.01–4.18) |
||||||||
| Obstetrical complications | ||||||||||||
| Hemorrhagic events |
69 (6.0) |
1 (0.7) |
9.05 (1.25–65.66) |
8.72 (1.20–63.57)§ |
||||||||
| Postpartum hemorrhage |
59 (5.2) |
1 (0.7) |
7.67 (1.05–55.76) |
7.55 (1.03–55.22)§ |
||||||||
Data are shown as n (% of total). In bold: statistical significant differences between blood groups.
PROM: Premature rupture of membranes; PPROM: Preterm Premature Rupture of Membranes; TE events: Thromboembolic events; ICU: Intensive Care Unit.
Odds Ratio adjusted for maternal age and ethnicity.
Poisson regression modelling, adjusting for maternal age and ethnicity, was also applied: Hemorrhagic events aIRR = 8.21 (1.14–59.31), p-value = 0.037; Postpartum hemorrhage aIRR = 7.15 (0.99–51.77), p-value = 0.052.
Group non-A: AB + B + O blood types.
Group non-O: A + AB + B blood types.
Discussion
Main findings
This is the first prospective study with multivariable analysis to evaluate the association of ABO and Rh blood group with medical and obstetric morbidity in SARS-CoV-2 infected mothers. We found that the Rh− status was associated with a lower risk of symptomatic COVID-19 after adjusting for maternal age and ethnicity. In terms of perinatal outcomes, blood group A was associated to PPROM, and regarding obstetric complications Rh+ patients developed more hemorrhagic events, in particular, more postpartum hemorrhage.
Strengths and limitations
The main strength of our work is the large cohort of SARS-CoV-2 positive deliveries (1287) from 78 centers across Spain, adding to the reliability and generalizability of its findings. Our blood type comparison group was representative since was is not a historical cohort but a group of pregnant patients recruited from the same hospitals and at the same time as the SARS-CoV-2 positive group. The main known risk factors for morbidity associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection were included in the analysis, such as age, presence of medical comorbidities and clinical severity. Additionally, we carried out a detailed analysis of medical, obstetric and neonatal complications as well as to have evaluated the relationship between ABO blood groups both simply and associatively (Type A vs Type No A, Type O vs Type No O and Type A+AB vs Type B+O). The main limitations of our study were the following: symptomatic patients are over-represented in our study population since not all participating hospitals had a universal antenatal screening program for SARS-CoV-2 infection (so only identified symptomatic cases by passive surveillance) or implemented the program later; and that early and universal prescription of LMWH thromboembolism prophylaxis in SARS-CoV-2+ pregnant patients could have influenced our results.
Interpretation
It has been suggested that ABO blood group system is related to many bacterial and viral infections, such as helicobacter pylori, norovirus, HBV, SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV [27], [28], [29], [30]. Recently, several studies about COVID-19 in China and America discovered relationships between ABO blood group and COVID–19 infection, severity and demise in general population [15], [16], [17], [18]. About the association between ABO blood groups and infectivity due to SARS-CoV-2, initial studies assessed a greater risk of infectivity in the A blood group [15], [16], [17], [18] and that O blood group protects from infection [15], [16], [18], [31]. However, Dzilk et al. [32] performed a re-evaluation of the data from those studies and did not observe an association between the ABO blood groups and the risk of infection by SARS-CoV-2. There is even greater controversy between the association of the ABO blood group and COVID-19 severity and mortality. According to Wu et al. [15], AB blood group is associated with greater severity and mortality, while Zhao et al. [17] affirmed that A blood group is the one with the greatest association with severity of the disease. Nevertheless, different authors agreed that the O blood group is the one associated to milder symptoms [31], [15], [16], [17], [18]. These associations are not causal, and need further investigation [33].
In our study, we found the presence of Rh− status protective in terms of development of COVID-19 after adjusting for maternal age and ethnicity, in line with Ray et al findings [31]. In terms of obstetric outcomes, blood group A was associated to PPROM. No other adverse obstetric outcomes associations were detected. The early and universal prescription of LMWH thromboembolism prophylaxis in those pregnant patients could have influenced our results. On the other hand, Rh+ patients developed more postpartum haemorrhagic events; we still do not have any explanation for this association, but SARS-CoV-2 infection induces an inflammatory state that could potentially explain this condition.
The reason why the ABO blood group could modify the infection and severity by COVID-19 is not yet fully known. Several mechanisms are suggested: firstly, ABO blood group is a specific antigen in the erythrocyte membrane, but it is also expressed in airway epithelial cells, alveolar epithelial cells and even in body fluids [34], [35], thus, by means of receptor-mediated affinity binding, the difference in susceptibility to infection could be justified as occurs in other infections [36]. Blood group antigens have already been shown to be receptors used by some infectious microorganisms [37] and it seems that the adhesion of cells expressing the SARS-CoV S protein, could be specifically inhibited by anti-A antibodies [35]. In addition, SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2 have a similar nucleic acid sequence and a similar receptor combination with angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) [38], [39]. Therefore, anti-A antibodies could play a similar role in COVID-19. On the other hand, Koike et al. [39] suggest that anti-A and / or anti-B antibodies can neutralize the virus when polymorphic blood group antigens expressed on the surface of red blood cells and epithelia are used as receptors, as occurs in HIV infection [40]. Other authors [15] suggest that type O blood can prevent possible SARS-CoV-2 infections through rosette reduction mechanisms, like what occurs in severe plasmodium falciparum malaria. In addition, the existence of high levels of factor VIII and von Willebrand factor is known in non-O blood group [41], especially A blood group [41], and this situation favors the presence of arterial and venous thrombosis [42]. Finally, there seems to be an association between the presence of no O blood group (particularly the A1A1 / A1B / BB groups) and the risk of venous thrombosis [41].
Conclusion
According to our study the presence of Rh− status was protective in terms of development of symptomatic COVID-19 after adjusting for maternal age and ethnicity. In terms of perinatal and obstetric outcomes, blood group A was associated to PPROM and Rh+ patients developed more hemorrhagic events, in particular, more postpartum hemorrhage.
Contribution to authorship
Concept and design: JAS, OM-P and MdlCC; Data acquisition: JASB, LCG, AA-S, MVRG, RLP, AMFA, RAS, MMO, AC-SO, OM-P and SOEG; Statistical analysis: MdlCC, JASB, AC-SO and OMP; Drafting of manuscript: JASB, MdlCC and OMP; Review of manuscript: JASB, LCG, AA-S, MVRG, RLP, AMFA, MdlCC, RAS, MMO, AC-SO, OM-P and SOEG.
Details of ethics approval
All procedures were approved by Puerta de Hierro University Hospital (Madrid, Spain) ethics committees on 23rd March 2020 (registration number, 55/20).
Funding
This project was supported by public funds obtained in competitive calls: Grant COV20/00021 (EUR 43,000 from the Instituto de Salud Carlos III—Spanish Ministry of Health and co-financed with Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional (FEDER) funds. The funding bodies had no role in the study design, in the collection or analysis of the data, or in manuscript writing.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
Acknowledgements
The authors thank José Montes (Effice Research) for his support in organizing and cleansing the database, and Khalid Saeed Khan (University of Granada) for his scientific advice and critical revision and comments on the manuscript.
Spanish Obstetric Emergency Group (S.O.E.G.): María Belén Garrido Luque (Hospital Axarquia), Camino Fernández Fernández (Complejo Asistencial de León), Ana Villalba Yarza (Complejo Asistencial Universitario de Salamanca), Esther María Canedo Carballeira (Complexo Hospitalario Universitario A Coruña), María Begoña Dueñas Carazo (Hospital Clínico Universitario de Santiago de Compostela), Rosario Redondo Aguilar (Complejo Hospitalario Jaén), Esther Álvarez Silvares (Complejo Hospitalario Universitario de Ourense), María Isabel Pardo Pumar (Complejo Hospitalario Universitario de Pontevedra), Macarena Alférez Álvarez-Mallo (HM Hospitales), Víctor Muñoz Carmona (Hospital Alto Guadalquivir, Andújar), Noelia Pérez Pérez (Hospital Clínico San Carlos), Cristina Álvarez Colomo (Hospital Clínico Universitario de Valladolid), Onofre Alomar Mateu (Hospital Comarcal d’Inca), Claudio Marañon Di Leo (Hospital Costa del Sol), María del Carmen Parada Millán (Hospital da Barbanza), José Navarrina Martínez (Hospital de Donostia), Anna Mundó Fornell (Hospital Universitario Santa Creu i Sant Pau), Elena Pascual Salvador (Hospital de Minas de Riotinto), Tania Manrique Gómez (Hospital de Montilla y Quirón Salud Córdoba), Marta Ruth Meca Casbas (Hospital de Poniente), Noemí Freixas Grimalt (Hospital Universitari Son Llàtzer), Adriana Aquise and María del Mar Gil (Hospital de Torrejón), Eduardo Cazorla Amorós (Hospital de Torrevieja), Alberto Armijo Sánchez (Hospital de Valme), María Isabel Conca Rodero (Hospital de Vinalopó), Ana Belén Oreja Cuesta (Hospital del Tajo), Cristina Ruiz Aguilar (Hospital Doctor Peset, Valencia), Susana Fernández García (Hospital General de L’Hospitalet), Mercedes Ramírez Gómez (Hospital General La Mancha Centro), Antonio Sánchez Muñoz (Hospital General Universitario de Ciudad Real), Carmen Baena Luque (Hospital Infanta Margarita de Cabra), Luz María Jiménez Losa (Hospital Infanta Sofía), Susana Soldevilla Pérez (Hospital Jerez de la Frontera), María Reyes Granell Escobar (Hospital Juan Ramón Jiménez), Manuel Domínguez González (Hospital La Línea), Juan Carlos Wizner de Alva (Hospital San Pedro de Alcántara), Rosa Pedró Carulla (Hospital Sant Joan de Reus), Encarnación Carmona Sánchez (Hospital Santa Ana. Motril), Judit Canet Rodríguez (Hospital Santa Caterina de Salt), Eva Morán Antolín (Hospital Son Espases), Montse Macià (Hospital Universitari Arnau de Vilanova), Laia Pratcorona (Hospital Universitari Germans Trias i Pujol), Irene Gastaca Abásolo (Hospital Universitario Araba), Begoña Martínez Borde (Hospital Universitario de Bilbao), Óscar Vaquerizo Ruiz (Hospital Universitario de Cabueñes), José Ruiz Aragón (Hospital Universitario de Ceuta), Raquel González Seoane (Hospital Universitario de Ferrol), María Teulón González (Hospital Universitario de Fuenlabrada), Monica López Rodríguez (Hospital Joan XXIII de Tarragona), Cristina Lesmes Heredia (Hospital Universitario Parc Taulí de Sabadell), J. Román Broullón Molanes (Hospital Universitario Puerta del Mar, Cádiz), María Joaquina Gimeno Gimeno (Hospital Universitario Reina Sofía), Alma María Posadas San Juan (Hospital Universitario Río Hortega), Otilia González Vanegas (Hospital Universitario San Cecilio, Instituto de Investigación Biosanitaria, Granada), Lucía Díaz Meca (Hospital Universitario Virgen de la Arrixaca, Murcia), Alberto Puerta Prieto (Hospital Universitario Virgen de las Nieves, Instituto de Investigación Biosanitaria, Granada), María del Pilar Guadix Martín (Hospital Universitario Virgen Macarena), Carmen María Orizales Lago (Hospital Universitario Severo Ochoa, Leganés), Mónica Catalina Coello (Hospital Virgen Concha de Zamora), María José Núñez Valera (Hospital Virgen de la Luz), José Adanez García (Hospital Universitario Central de Asturias), Elena Ferriols-Pérez (Hospital del Mar), Marta Roqueta (Hospital Universitario Dr. Josep Trueta), María Begoña Encinas Pardilla (Hospital Universitario Puerta de Hierro), Rodrigo Orozco Fernandez (Hospital Universitario Quirónsalud de Málaga), Laura González Rodríguez (Hospital Álvaro Cunqueiro de Vigo), Pilar Pintado Recarte (Hospital Universitario Gregorio Marañón), Pablo G. Del Barrio Fernández (Hospital Universitario de Getafe), Laura Forcén Acebal (Hospital Universitario 12 de Octubre), Luis San Frutos Llorente (Hospital Universitario Puerta de Hierro), Sara Cruz Melguizo (Hospital General Universitario San Jorge de Huesca), Amalia Sánchez-Migallon (Hospital Universitario QuirónSalud Dexeus), Celia Cuenca Marin (Hospital Regional de Málaga), Beatriz Marcos Puig (Hospital Universitario y Politécnico La Fe), Olga Nieto Velasco (Hospital Universitario QuirónSalud Madrid).
Tweetable Abstract: Among pregnant women with SARS-CoV-2, blood group A and Rh+ are associated with medical and obstetric morbidity.
Footnotes
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2021.07.008.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
The following are the Supplementary data to this article:
Supplementary figure 1.
References
- 1.Zhu N., Zhang D., Wang W., Li X., Yang B., Song J., et al. A novel coronavirus from patients with pneumonia in China, 2019. N Engl J Med. 2020;382:727–733. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2001017. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Panel Covid-19 en España [Internet]. Madrid: Centro Nacional de Epidemiología/Instituto de Salud Carlos III; 2001 [updated 2020 Jul 17; cited 2020 Jul 20]. Available from: https://cnecovid.isciii.es/covid19/.
- 3.COVID-19 situation update worldwide. [Internet] Stockholm: European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control; 2005 [updated 2020 Jul 18; cited 2020 Jul 20]. Available from: https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/geographical-distribution-2019-ncov-cases.
- 4.Chen L., Li Q., Zheng D., Jiang H., Wei Y., Zou L.i., et al. Clinical characteristics of pregnant women with Covid-19 in Wuhan, China. N Engl J Med. 2020;382:e100. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc2009226. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Yan J, Guo J, Fan C, Juan J, et al. 2019 (COVID-19) in A report based on 116 cases. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2020. pii: S0002-9378(20)30462-2. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2020.04.014. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 6.Qiancheng X, Jian S, Lingling P, Lei H, Xiaogan J, Weihua L, et al. Coronavirus disease 2019 in pregnancy. Int J Infect Dis. 2020; 95:376-383. doi: 10.1016/j.ijid.2020.04.065. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 7.Ferrazzi E.M., Frigerio L., Cetin I., et al. COVID-19 Obstetrics Task Force, Lombardy, Italy: executive management summary and short report of outcome. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2020 doi: 10.1002/ijgo.13162. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Breslin N., Baptiste C., Gyamfi-Bannerman C., et al. COVID-19 infection among asymptomatic and symptomatic pregnant women: Two weeks of confirmed presentations to an affiliated pair of New York City hospitals. Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM. 2020 doi: 10.1016/j.ajogmf.2020.100118. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Zambrano LD, Ellington S, Strid P, Galang RR, Oduyebo T, Tong VT, et al. Update: characteristics of symptomatic women of reproductive age with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection by pregnancy status - United States, January 22-October 3, 2020. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020 Nov 6; 69(44):1641-1647. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6944e3. PMID: 33151921; PMCID: PMC7643892. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 10.Martínez-Perez O, Vouga M, Cruz Melguizo S, et al. Association between mode of delivery among pregnant women with COVID-19 and maternal and neonatal outcomes in Spain. JAMA. Epub June 08, 2020. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.10125. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 11.Martínez-Perez O, Prats P, Muner M et al. The association between SARS-CoV-2 infection and preterm delivery: A prospective study with a multivariate analysis. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth, in press. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 12.Zheng Z, Peng F, Xu B, Zhao J, Liu H, Peng J, et al. Risk factors of critical & mortal COVID-19 cases: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis. J Infect. 2020; 81(2):e16-e25. doi: 10.1016/j.jinf.2020.04.021. Epub 2020 Apr 23. PMID: 32335169; PMCID: PMC7177098. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 13.Zhou F, Yu T, Du R, Fan G, Liu Y, Liu Z, et al. Clinical course and risk factors for mortality of adult inpatients with COVID-19 in Wuhan, China: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet. 2020; 395(10229):1054-1062. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30566-3. Epub 2020 Mar 11. Erratum in: Lancet. 2020 Mar 28; 395(10229):1038. Erratum in: Lancet. 2020 Mar 28; 395(10229):1038. PMID: 32171076; PMCID: PMC7270627. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 14.Cruz-Lemini M, Ferriols Perez E, de la Cruz Conty ML, Caño Aguilar A, Encinas, Prats Rodríguez P, et al. Obstetric outcomes of SARS-CoV-2 infection in asymptomatic pregnant women. Viruses. 2021; 13(1):112. doi: 10.3390/v13010112. PMID: 33467629; PMCID: PMC7830626. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 15.Wu BB, Gu DZ, Yu JN, Yang J, Wang-Qin S. Association between ABO blood groups and COVID-19 infection, severity and demise: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Infect Genet Evol. 2020; 84: 104485. doi:10.1016/j.meegid.2020.104485. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 32739464; PMCID: PMC7391292. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 16.Zeng X, Fan H, Lu D, et al., 2020. Association between ABO blood groups and clinical outcome of coronavirus disease 2019: evidence from two cohorts. medRxiv.
- 17.Zhao J, Yang Y, Huang H-P, et al., 2020. Relationship between the ABO Blood Group and the COVID-19 susceptibility. medRxiv.
- 18.(a) Zietz M, Tatonetti NP, 2020. Testing the association between blood type and COVID- 19 infection, intubation, and death. medRxiv; (b) W M; Napoles A; Pérez-Stable E. COVID-19 and racial/ethnic disparities JAMA. 2020; 323(24):2466-2467. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.8598 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 19.WHO. Clinical Management of COVID-19. Interim Guidance 27 May 2020. Geneva; 2020. WHO/2019-nCoV/clinical/2020.5. Available from: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/clinical-management-of-covid-19.
- 20.Walker K.F., O'Donoghue K., Grace N., Dorling J., Comeau J.L., Li W., et al. Maternal transmission of SARS-COV-2 to the neonate, and possible routes for such transmission: a systematic review and critical analysis. BJOG. 2020;127:1324–1336. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.16362. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Mejía Jiménez I, Salvador López R, García Rosas E, Rodriguez de la Torre I, Montes García J, de la Cruz Conty ML, et al. Umbilical cord clamping and skin-to-skin contact in deliveries from women positive for SARS-CoV-2: a prospective observational study. BJOG. 2020. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.16597. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 22.Ellington S., Strid P., Tong Van T., Woodworth K., Galang R.G., Zambrano L.D., et al. Characteristics of women of reproductive age with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection by pregnancy status. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020;69(25):769–775. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6925a1. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/pdfs/mm6925-H.pdf Available from. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Prelabor Rupture of Membranes ACOG practice bulletin summary, Number 217. Obstet Gynecol. 2020;135(3):e80–e97. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003700. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Thomson, AJ, on behalf of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Care of women presenting with suspected preterm prelabour rupture of membranes from 24+ 0 to 36+ 6 weeks of gestation. BJOG 2019; 126: e152–166. Available from https://www.rcog.org.uk/en/guidelines-research-services/guidelines/gtg73/. [DOI] [PubMed]
- 25.Brown MA, Magee LA, Kenny LC, Karumanchi AS, McCarthy FP, Saito S, et al. Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, ISSHP classification, diagnosis, and management recommendations for international practice. Hypertension 2018; 72(1):24-43. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.117.10803. [DOI] [PubMed]
- 26.Bates D., Mächler M., Bolker B., Walker S. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J Stat Softw. 2015;67(1):48. [Google Scholar]
- 27.Chakrani Z., Robinson K., Taye B. Association between ABO blood groups and helicobacter pylori infection: a meta-analysis. Sci Rep. 2018;8(1):17604. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-36006-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Liao Y., Xue L., Gao J., et al. ABO blood group-associated susceptibility to norovirus infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Infect Genet Evol. 2020;81 doi: 10.1016/j.meegid.2020.104245. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Jing W., Zhao S., Liu J., Liu M. ABO blood groups and hepatitis B virus infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open. 2020;10(1):e034114. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-034114. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Guillon P, Clément M, Sébille V, et al. Inhibition of the interaction between the SARS-CoV spike protein and its cellular receptor by anti-histoblood group anti-bodies. Glycobiology 2008; 18 (12), 1085–1093. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 31.Ray J.G., Schull M.J., Vermeulen M.J., Park A.L. Association between ABO and Rh blood groups and SARS-CoV-2 INFECTION OR SEvere COVID-19 illness: a population-based cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2021;174:308–315. doi: 10.7326/M20-4511. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.: Dzik S, Eliason K, Morris EB, Kaufman RM, North CM. COVID-19 and ABO blood groups. Transfusion. 2020; 60(8):1883-1884. doi: 10.1111/trf.15946. Epub 2020 Aug 1. PMID: 32562280; PMCID: PMC7323215. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 33.Ellinghaus D., Degenhardt F., Bujanda L., et al. Genomewide association study of severe covid-19 with respiratory failure. N Engl J Med. 2020 doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2020283. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Stowell C.P., Stowell S.R. Biologic roles of the ABH and Lewis histo-blood group antigens Part I: infection and immunity. Vox Sang. 2019;114 doi: 10.1111/vox.12787. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Cooling L, 2015. Blood groups in infection and host susceptibility. Clin Microbiol Rev 2015;28 (3), 801–870. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 36.Guillon P, Clément M, Sébille V, et al. Inhibition of the interaction between the SARS-CoV spike protein and its cellular receptor by anti-histo-blood group anti-bodies. Glycobiology 2008; 18 (12), 1085–1093. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 37.Wan Y., Shang J., Graham R., Baric R.S., Li F., Gallagher T. Receptor recognition by the novel coronavirus from Wuhan: an analysis based on decade-long structural studies of SARS coronavirus. J Virol. 2020;94(7) doi: 10.1128/JVI.00127-20. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Wang W, Xia Y, Zhu J, et al., 2020. Research progress of the role of angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) in the highly pathogenic human coronavirus pneumonia. Chin J Clin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2020;27 (05), 588–596.
- 39.Koike C., Uddin M., Wildman D.E., et al. Functionally important glycosyl-transferase gain and loss during catarrhine primate emergence. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007;104(2):559–564. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0610012104. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Koster T., Vandenbroucke J.P., Rosendaal F.R., Briët E., Rosendaal F.R., Blann A.D. Role of clotting factor VIII in effect of von Willebrand factor on occurrence of deep-vein thrombosis. Lancet. 1995;345(8943):152–155. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(95)90166-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Platt D., Mühlberg W., Kiehl L., Schmitt-Rüth R. ABO blood group system, age, sex, risk factors and cardiac infarction. Arch Gerontol Geriat. 1985;4(3):241–249. doi: 10.1016/0167-4943(85)90006-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Wu O., Bayoumi N., Vickers M.A., Clark P. ABO(H) blood groups and vascular disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Thromb Haemost. 2008;6(1):62–99. doi: 10.1111/j.1538-7836.2007.02818.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.