OBJECTIVES: Limited evidence is available regarding the impact of paternal occupation and its combined effect with maternal occupation on preterm birth. Therefore, we assessed the association of maternal and paternal occupations with preterm birth. METHODS: We used the national birth data of Korea between 2010 and 2020. Parental occupations were divided into 5 categories: (1) managers; (2) professionals, technicians, and related workers; (3) clerks and support workers; (4) service and sales workers; and (5) manual workers. A multinomial logistic regression model was used to calculate the adjusted odds ratios (aORs) of extremely, very, and moderate-to-late preterm births per occupational category considering individual risk factors. RESULTS: For the 4,004,976 singleton births, 40.2% of mothers and 95.5% of fathers were employed. Compared to non-employment, employment was associated with a lower risk of preterm birth. Among employed mothers, service and sales occupations were associated with a higher risk of preterm birth than managerial occupations (aOR, 1.06; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01 to 1.10 for moderate-to-late preterm births). The father’s manual occupation was associated with a higher risk of preterm birth (aOR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.05 to 1.13 for moderate-to-late preterm) than managerial occupations. When both parents had high-risk occupations, the risk of preterm birth was higher than in cases where only the mother or neither of the parents had a high-risk occupation. CONCLUSIONS Paternal occupation was associated with preterm birth regardless of maternal employment and occupation and modified the effect of maternal occupation. Detailed occupational environment data are needed to identify the paternal exposures that increase the risk.

We explored the annual risks of mild and severe preeclampsia (PE) among nulliparous women. Using the National Health Information Database of South Korea, 1,317,944 nulliparous women who gave live births were identified. Mild PE increased from 0.9% in 2010 to 1.4% in 2019 (P for trend=0.006), while severe PE decreased from 0.4% in 2010 to 0.3% in 2019 (P=0.049). The incidence of all types of PE (mild and severe) showed no linear change (P=0.514). Adjusted odds ratio (OR) of severe PE decreased in 2013 (0.68; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.60, 0.77) and beyond compared to that in 2010, while the OR of mild PE increased in 2017 (1.14; 95% CI: 1.06, 1.22) and beyond. Mild PE was found to be less likely to progress to the severe form since 2010; however, the overall risk of PE among women did not change.

Background: This study aimed to estimate the association between mRNA coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine exposure during pregnancy and the risks of preterm birth and congenital malformations leveraging a national population data. Methods: This retrospective cohort study utilized national data from the National Health Insurance System, linking maternal and infant records with COVID-19 vaccination registries.Newborns with congenital malformations were identified using diagnosis codes. The analysis included women aged 20–49 who gave live births between February 2022 and December 2022. Odds ratios (ORs) for preterm birth and any congenital malformation per COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy compared to 1:4 matched unvaccinated controls, adjusted for maternal age, residential area, employment, income, disability, month of conception, prepregnancy obesity, smoking, and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection prior to pregnancy, were calculated. We compared the risk of two outcomes between BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273. Results: Among 106,692 women who gave birth during the study period, 8,966 (8.4%) received a COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy. Of the newborns, 7,039 (6.6%) were preterm births and 7,658 (7.2%) had congenital malformations. COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy was associated with a comparable risk of preterm birth (OR, 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.77–1.36) and a similar risk of congenital malformations (0.90; 95% CI, 0.72–1.12) compared to non-vaccinees. The ORs of preterm birth (1.02; 95% CI, 0.77–1.36) and congenital malformation (0.91; 95% CI, 0.73–1.14) for mRNA-1273 were comparable to those for BNT162b2. Conclusion COVID-19 vaccines during pregnancy poses no increased risk of preterm birth and congenital malformations compared to those not exposed to the vaccine, with similar risk levels observed between the two mRNA vaccines. This finding provides additional evidence supporting the safety of COVID-19 vaccines.

Background: This study aimed to estimate the association between mRNA coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine exposure during pregnancy and the risks of preterm birth and congenital malformations leveraging a national population data. Methods: This retrospective cohort study utilized national data from the National Health Insurance System, linking maternal and infant records with COVID-19 vaccination registries.Newborns with congenital malformations were identified using diagnosis codes. The analysis included women aged 20–49 who gave live births between February 2022 and December 2022. Odds ratios (ORs) for preterm birth and any congenital malformation per COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy compared to 1:4 matched unvaccinated controls, adjusted for maternal age, residential area, employment, income, disability, month of conception, prepregnancy obesity, smoking, and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection prior to pregnancy, were calculated. We compared the risk of two outcomes between BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273. Results: Among 106,692 women who gave birth during the study period, 8,966 (8.4%) received a COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy. Of the newborns, 7,039 (6.6%) were preterm births and 7,658 (7.2%) had congenital malformations. COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy was associated with a comparable risk of preterm birth (OR, 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.77–1.36) and a similar risk of congenital malformations (0.90; 95% CI, 0.72–1.12) compared to non-vaccinees. The ORs of preterm birth (1.02; 95% CI, 0.77–1.36) and congenital malformation (0.91; 95% CI, 0.73–1.14) for mRNA-1273 were comparable to those for BNT162b2. Conclusion COVID-19 vaccines during pregnancy poses no increased risk of preterm birth and congenital malformations compared to those not exposed to the vaccine, with similar risk levels observed between the two mRNA vaccines. This finding provides additional evidence supporting the safety of COVID-19 vaccines.

Background: This study aimed to estimate the association between mRNA coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine exposure during pregnancy and the risks of preterm birth and congenital malformations leveraging a national population data. Methods: This retrospective cohort study utilized national data from the National Health Insurance System, linking maternal and infant records with COVID-19 vaccination registries.Newborns with congenital malformations were identified using diagnosis codes. The analysis included women aged 20–49 who gave live births between February 2022 and December 2022. Odds ratios (ORs) for preterm birth and any congenital malformation per COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy compared to 1:4 matched unvaccinated controls, adjusted for maternal age, residential area, employment, income, disability, month of conception, prepregnancy obesity, smoking, and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection prior to pregnancy, were calculated. We compared the risk of two outcomes between BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273. Results: Among 106,692 women who gave birth during the study period, 8,966 (8.4%) received a COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy. Of the newborns, 7,039 (6.6%) were preterm births and 7,658 (7.2%) had congenital malformations. COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy was associated with a comparable risk of preterm birth (OR, 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.77–1.36) and a similar risk of congenital malformations (0.90; 95% CI, 0.72–1.12) compared to non-vaccinees. The ORs of preterm birth (1.02; 95% CI, 0.77–1.36) and congenital malformation (0.91; 95% CI, 0.73–1.14) for mRNA-1273 were comparable to those for BNT162b2. Conclusion COVID-19 vaccines during pregnancy poses no increased risk of preterm birth and congenital malformations compared to those not exposed to the vaccine, with similar risk levels observed between the two mRNA vaccines. This finding provides additional evidence supporting the safety of COVID-19 vaccines.

Background: This study aimed to estimate the association between mRNA coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine exposure during pregnancy and the risks of preterm birth and congenital malformations leveraging a national population data. Methods: This retrospective cohort study utilized national data from the National Health Insurance System, linking maternal and infant records with COVID-19 vaccination registries.Newborns with congenital malformations were identified using diagnosis codes. The analysis included women aged 20–49 who gave live births between February 2022 and December 2022. Odds ratios (ORs) for preterm birth and any congenital malformation per COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy compared to 1:4 matched unvaccinated controls, adjusted for maternal age, residential area, employment, income, disability, month of conception, prepregnancy obesity, smoking, and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection prior to pregnancy, were calculated. We compared the risk of two outcomes between BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273. Results: Among 106,692 women who gave birth during the study period, 8,966 (8.4%) received a COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy. Of the newborns, 7,039 (6.6%) were preterm births and 7,658 (7.2%) had congenital malformations. COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy was associated with a comparable risk of preterm birth (OR, 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.77–1.36) and a similar risk of congenital malformations (0.90; 95% CI, 0.72–1.12) compared to non-vaccinees. The ORs of preterm birth (1.02; 95% CI, 0.77–1.36) and congenital malformation (0.91; 95% CI, 0.73–1.14) for mRNA-1273 were comparable to those for BNT162b2. Conclusion COVID-19 vaccines during pregnancy poses no increased risk of preterm birth and congenital malformations compared to those not exposed to the vaccine, with similar risk levels observed between the two mRNA vaccines. This finding provides additional evidence supporting the safety of COVID-19 vaccines.

Sleep deprivation or insomnia is one of the most common but neglected health conditions, with serious long-term consequences. In addition, insomnia is linked to poor work performance, impaired memory, and lack of concentration. Improving sleep quality is a crucial aspect of health care. Hypnotic agents, such as benzodiazepines, antidepressants, and antihistamines, are often used to enhance sleep quality; however, these medications often result in tolerance and dependence, resulting in withdrawal syndrome upon discontinuation. In recent years, studies have focused on natural and herbal therapies as alternative sleep aids to overcome the adverse effects of available sleep medications. Plant extracts contain phytochemicals that exert anxiolytic and sedative properties. This includes Passiflora incarnata (FSD-PI) and Lactuca sativa L. (FSD-LS) which can induce sleep. Herein, we assessed the effects of natural products, FSD-PI and FSD-LS, as well as their synergistic effects on pentobarbital sleep-induced ICR mice. We observed that natural extracts did not cause any behavioral changes capable of negative effects in mice. Furthermore, sleep duration was prolonged in pentobarbital-treated mice administered with FSD-LS (100 mg/kg). Our data suggest that FSD-LS may be a safe and effective sleep promoter.

Background: Only limited data are available regarding postural stability between anterior cruciate ligament (ACL)-injured patients with medial meniscus (MM) tear and those with lateral meniscus (LM) tear. The purpose of this study was to compare preoperative postural stability for both involved and uninvolved knees in ACL rupture combined with MM and LM tears. It was hypothesized that there would be a significant difference in postural stability between these two groups. Methods: Ninety-three ACL-injured patients (53 combined with MM tears vs. 40 combined with LM tears) were included. Static and dynamic postural stability were evaluated with the overall stability index (OSI), anterior– posterior stability index (APSI), and medial–lateral stability index (MLSI) using stabilometry. Knee muscle strength was evaluated using an isokinetic testing device. Results: In the static postural stability test, none of the stability indices showed significant differences between the two groups for both knees (p > 0.05). In the dynamic postural stability test for involved side knees, the OSI and APSI were significantly higher in the LM tear group compared to the MM tear group (OSI: 2.0 ± 0.8 vs. 1.6 ± 0.5, p = 0.001; APSI:1.5 ± 0.6 vs. 1.3 ± 0.5, p = 0.023), but not the MLSI ( p > 0.05). In the static and dynamic postural stability tests in each group, there were no significant differences between the involved and uninvolved side knees ( p > 0.05). There was no significant difference in the knee muscle strength between the two groups ( p > 0.05). All postural stability showed no significant correlation with knee muscle strength ( p > 0.05). Conclusion Dynamic postural stability was poorer in patients with ACL rupture combined with LM tear than in those with MM tear. Therefore, close monitoring for postural stability would be necessary during preoperative and postoperative rehabilitation, especially for patients with ACL rupture combined with LM tear.Level of evidence: Level III:

Background: We aimed to assess the risk of maternal severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and early abortive outcomes after the association between coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination during the preconceptional period and preclinical pregnancy, which are likely to be inadvertent vaccination. Methods: We used data from the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency-COVID19-National Health Insurance Service cohort from December 2020 to December 2021. The vaccinated pregnant women were matched to unvaccinated pregnant controls at a 1:4 ratio.The risks of SARS-CoV-2 infection and intensive care unit (ICU) admission within 14 days of infection were analyzed to assess its effectiveness. For safety measures, the adjusted relative risks (aRRs) of early abortive outcomes for the first COVID-19 vaccination during the preconceptional and preclinical periods were calculated considering covariates. We compared the risk of early abortion between mRNA and viral vector vaccines. Results: The overall COVID-19 vaccination rates during the preconceptional period and preclinical pregnancy were 3.1% (6,662/215,211) and 2.6% (5,702/215,211), respectively.The cumulative incidence of ICU admission within 14 days of SARS-CoV-2 infection was 6/100,000 in the unvaccinated group, whereas there were no ICU admissions in the vaccinated groups. The risks of early abortive outcomes were not significantly different between the preconceptional vaccination group and the unvaccinated group (aRR, 1.04; 95% confidence interval [CI],0.99–1.10) or between preclinical pregnancy vaccination and their matched controls (1.02; 95% CI, 0.96–1.08). mRNA and viral vector vaccines have shown similar risks for early abortive outcomes and miscarriages. Conclusion Our findings have provided compelling evidence regarding the effectiveness and safety of COVID-19 vaccination prior to and during early pregnancy. Further research is required to extend the safety and efficacy profiles of COVID-19 vaccines to pregnant women and their babies.