The concept that preeclampsia is a multisystemic syndrome is appreciated in both research and clinical care. Our understanding of pathophysiology recognizes the role of inflammation, oxidative and endoplasm reticulum stress, and angiogenic dysfunction. Yet, we have not progressed greatly toward clinically useful prediction nor had substantial success in prevention or treatment. One possibility is that the maternal syndrome may be reached through different pathophysiological pathways, that is, subtypes of preeclampsia, that in their specificity yield more clinical utility. For example, early and late onset preeclampsia are increasingly acknowledged as different pathophysiological processes leading to a common presentation. Other subtypes of preeclampsia are supported by disparate clinical outcomes, long-range prognosis, organ systems involved, and risk factors. These insights have been supplemented by discovery-driven methods, which cluster preeclampsia cases into groups indicating different pathophysiologies. In this presentation, we review likely subtypes based on current knowledge and suggest others. We present a consideration of the requirements for a clinically meaningful preeclampsia subtype. A useful subtype should (1) identify a specific pathophysiological pathway or (2) specifically indicate maternal or fetal outcome, (3) be recognizable in a clinically useful time frame, and (4) these results should be reproducible and generalizable (but at varying frequency) including in low resource settings. We recommend that the default consideration be that preeclampsia includes several subtypes rather than trying to force all cases into a single pathophysiological pathway. The recognition of subtypes and deciphering their different pathophysiologies will provide specific targets for prevention, prediction, and treatment directing personalized care.

Beyond conventional risk factors for cardiovascular disease, women face an additional burden of sex-specific risk factors. Key stages of a woman’s reproductive history may influence or reveal short- and long-term cardiometabolic and cardiovascular trajectories. Early and late menarche, polycystic ovary syndrome, infertility, adverse pregnancy outcomes (eg, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, gestational diabetes, preterm delivery, and intrauterine growth restriction), and absence of breastfeeding are all associated with increased future cardiovascular disease risk. The menopause transition additionally represents a period of accelerated cardiovascular disease risk, with timing (eg, premature menopause), mechanism, and symptoms of menopause, as well as treatment of menopause symptoms, each contributing to this risk. Differences in conventional cardiovascular disease risk factors appear to explain some, but not all, of the observed associations between reproductive history and later-life cardiovascular disease; further research is needed to elucidate hormonal effects and unique sex-specific disease mechanisms. A history of reproductive risk factors represents an opportunity for comprehensive risk factor screening, refinement of cardiovascular disease risk assessment, and implementation of primordial and primary prevention to optimize long-term cardiometabolic health in women.

A sex- and gender-informed perspective increases rigor, promotes discovery, and expands the relevance of biomedical research. In the current era of accountability to present data for males and females, thoughtful and deliberate methodology can improve study design and inference in sex and gender differences research. We address issues of motivation, subject selection, sample size, data collection, analysis, and interpretation, considering implications for basic, clinical, and population research. In particular, we focus on methods to test sex/gender differences as effect modification or interaction, and discuss why some inferences from sex-stratified data should be viewed with caution. Without careful methodology, the pursuit of sex difference research, despite a mandate from funding agencies, will result in a literature of contradiction. However, given the historic lack of attention to sex differences, the absence of evidence for sex differences is not necessarily evidence of the absence of sex differences. Thoughtfully conceived and conducted sex and gender differences research is needed to drive scientific and therapeutic discovery for all sexes and genders.

Background—: Although child abuse is widespread and has been associated with cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors, its association with CVD events is not established. Methods and Results—: We examined associations of child abuse with CVD events among 66 798 women in the Nurses' Health Study 2. Proportional hazards models estimated hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for myocardial infarction (n=262), stroke (n=251), and total CVD (n=513). Severe physical abuse was reported by 9% and forced sex by 11% of participants. After adjustment for age, race, childhood body type, parental education, and family CVD history, the hazard ratios for CVD events were 0.91 (95% CI, 0.70–1.17) for mild physical abuse, 1.02 (95% CI, 0.82–1.26) for moderate physical abuse, and 1.46 (95% CI, 1.11–1.92) for severe physical abuse compared with no abuse. Compared with women without childhood sexual abuse, the hazard ratio was 1.10 (95% CI, 0.88–1.35) for unwanted sexual touching and 1.56 (95% CI, 1.23–1.99) for forced sex. After adjustment for adult lifestyle and medical risk factors, the hazard ratio for severe physical abuse was 1.13 (95% CI, 0.85–1.51) and that for forced sex was 1.25 (95% CI, 0.98–1.60); these intermediates accounted for much of the association of severe child abuse with CVD. Associations were similar for retrospectively and prospectively reported events. Women with abuse were less likely to release medical records. The associations were stronger for unconfirmed self-reported events than end points that were corroborated with additional information or medical record review. Conclusion—: Severe child abuse is a prevalent risk for early adult CVD that is partially mediated by preventable risk factors.

Background: Data for frontline healthcare workers (HCWs) and risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection are limited and whether personal protective equipment (PPE) mitigates this risk is unknown. We evaluated risk for COVID-19 among frontline HCWs compared to the general community and the influence of PPE. Methods: We performed a prospective cohort study of the general community, including frontline HCWs, who reported information through the COVID Symptom Study smartphone application beginning on March 24 (United Kingdom, U.K.) and March 29 (United States, U.S.) through April 23, 2020. We used Cox proportional hazards modeling to estimate multivariate-adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) of a positive COVID-19 test. Findings: Among 2,035,395 community individuals and 99,795 frontline HCWs, we documented 5,545 incident reports of a positive COVID-19 test over 34,435,272 person-days. Compared with the general community, frontline HCWs had an aHR of 11·6 (95% CI: 10·9 to 12·3) for reporting a positive test. The corresponding aHR was 3·40 (95% CI: 3·37 to 3·43) using an inverse probability weighted Cox model adjusting for the likelihood of receiving a test. A symptom-based classifier of predicted COVID-19 yielded similar risk estimates. Compared with HCWs reporting adequate PPE, the aHRs for reporting a positive test were 1·46 (95% CI: 1·21 to 1·76) for those reporting PPE reuse and 1·31 (95% CI: 1·10 to 1·56) for reporting inadequate PPE. Compared with HCWs reporting adequate PPE who did not care for COVID-19 patients, HCWs caring for patients with documented COVID-19 had aHRs for a positive test of 4·83 (95% CI: 3·99 to 5·85) if they had adequate PPE, 5·06 (95% CI: 3·90 to 6·57) for reused PPE, and 5·91 (95% CI: 4·53 to 7·71) for inadequate PPE. Interpretation: Frontline HCWs had a significantly increased risk of COVID-19 infection, highest among HCWs who reused PPE or had inadequate access to PPE. However, adequate supplies of PPE did not completely mitigate high-risk exposures. Funding: Zoe Global Ltd., Wellcome Trust, EPSRC, NIHR, UK Research and Innovation, Alzheimer’s Society, NIH, NIOSH, Massachusetts Consortium on Pathogen Readiness RESEARCH IN CONTEXT: Evidence before this study: The prolonged course of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, coupled with sustained challenges supplying adequate personal protective equipment (PPE) for frontline healthcare workers (HCW), have strained global healthcare systems in an unprecedented fashion. Despite growing awareness of this problem, there are few data to inform policy makers on the risk of COVID-19 among HCWs and the impact of PPE on their disease burden. Prior reports of HCW infections are based on cross sectional data with limited individual-level information on risk factors for infection. A PubMed search for articles published between January 1, 2020 and May 5, 2020 using the terms “covid-19”, “healthcare workers”, and “personal protective equipment,” yielded no population-scale investigations exploring this topic. Added value of this study: In a prospective study of 2,135,190 individuals, frontline HCWs may have up to a 12-fold increased risk of reporting a positive COVID-19 test. Compared with those who reported adequate availability of PPE, frontline HCWs with inadequate PPE had a 31% increase in risk. However, adequate availability of PPE did not completely reduce risk among HCWs caring for COVID-19 patients. Implications of all the available evidence: Beyond ensuring adequate availability of PPE, additional efforts to protect HCWs from COVID-19 are needed, particularly as lockdown is lifted in many regions of the world.