RESUMO
STUDY QUESTION: To what extent is preconception maternal or paternal coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination associated with miscarriage incidence? SUMMARY ANSWER: COVID-19 vaccination in either partner at any time before conception is not associated with an increased rate of miscarriage. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Several observational studies have evaluated the safety of COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy and found no association with miscarriage, though no study prospectively evaluated the risk of early miscarriage (gestational weeks [GW] <8) in relation to COVID-19 vaccination. Moreover, no study has evaluated the role of preconception vaccination in both male and female partners. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: An Internet-based, prospective preconception cohort study of couples residing in the USA and Canada. We analyzed data from 1815 female participants who conceived during December 2020-November 2022, including 1570 couples with data on male partner vaccination. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Eligible female participants were aged 21-45 years and were trying to conceive without use of fertility treatment at enrollment. Female participants completed questionnaires at baseline, every 8 weeks until pregnancy, and during early and late pregnancy; they could also invite their male partners to complete a baseline questionnaire. We collected data on COVID-19 vaccination (brand and date of doses), history of SARS-CoV-2 infection (yes/no and date of positive test), potential confounders (demographic, reproductive, and lifestyle characteristics), and pregnancy status on all questionnaires. Vaccination status was categorized as never (0 doses before conception), ever (≥1 dose before conception), having a full primary sequence before conception, and completing the full primary sequence ≤3 months before conception. These categories were not mutually exclusive. Participants were followed up from their first positive pregnancy test until miscarriage or a censoring event (induced abortion, ectopic pregnancy, loss to follow-up, 20 weeks' gestation), whichever occurred first. We estimated incidence rate ratios (IRRs) for miscarriage and corresponding 95% CIs using Cox proportional hazards models with GW as the time scale. We used propensity score fine stratification weights to adjust for confounding. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Among 1815 eligible female participants, 75% had received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine by the time of conception. Almost one-quarter of pregnancies resulted in miscarriage, and 75% of miscarriages occurred <8 weeks' gestation. The propensity score-weighted IRR comparing female participants who received at least one dose any time before conception versus those who had not been vaccinated was 0.85 (95% CI: 0.63, 1.14). COVID-19 vaccination was not associated with increased risk of either early miscarriage (GW: <8) or late miscarriage (GW: 8-19). There was no indication of an increased risk of miscarriage associated with male partner vaccination (IRR = 0.90; 95% CI: 0.56, 1.44). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The present study relied on self-reported vaccination status and infection history. Thus, there may be some non-differential misclassification of exposure status. While misclassification of miscarriage is also possible, the preconception cohort design and high prevalence of home pregnancy testing in this cohort reduced the potential for under-ascertainment of miscarriage. As in all observational studies, residual or unmeasured confounding is possible. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: This is the first study to evaluate prospectively the relation between preconception COVID-19 vaccination in both partners and miscarriage, with more complete ascertainment of early miscarriages than earlier studies of vaccination. The findings are informative for individuals planning a pregnancy and their healthcare providers. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This work was supported by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, the National Institute of Health [R01-HD086742 (PI: L.A.W.); R01-HD105863S1 (PI: L.A.W. and M.L.E.)], the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (R03-AI154544; PI: A.K.R.), and the National Science Foundation (NSF-1914792; PI: L.A.W.). The funders had no role in the study design, data collection, analysis and interpretation of data, writing of the report, or the decision to submit the paper for publication. L.A.W. is a fibroid consultant for AbbVie, Inc. She also receives in-kind donations from Swiss Precision Diagnostics (Clearblue home pregnancy tests) and Kindara.com (fertility apps). M.L.E. received consulting fees from Ro, Hannah, Dadi, VSeat, and Underdog, holds stock in Ro, Hannah, Dadi, and Underdog, is a past president of SSMR, and is a board member of SMRU. K.F.H. reports being an investigator on grants to her institution from UCB and Takeda, unrelated to this study. S.H.-D. reports being an investigator on grants to her institution from Takeda, unrelated to this study, and a methods consultant for UCB and Roche for unrelated drugs. The authors report no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.
Assuntos
Aborto Espontâneo , Vacinas contra COVID-19 , COVID-19 , Criança , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Gravidez , Aborto Espontâneo/epidemiologia , Aborto Espontâneo/etiologia , Estudos de Coortes , COVID-19/epidemiologia , COVID-19/prevenção & controle , Vacinas contra COVID-19/efeitos adversos , Estudos Prospectivos , SARS-CoV-2 , Vacinação/psicologiaRESUMO
We examined the associations of male depression and psychotropic medication use with fecundability in a North American preconception cohort study (2013-2020). Men aged ≥21 years completed a baseline questionnaire with questions on history of diagnosed depression, the Major Depression Inventory (MDI), and psychotropic medication use. Pregnancy status was updated via bimonthly female follow-up questionnaires until pregnancy or 12 menstrual cycles, whichever occurred first. Analyses were restricted to 2,398 couples attempting conception for ≤6 menstrual cycles at entry. We fit proportional probabilities models to estimate fecundability ratios (FRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs), adjusting for age (male and female), education, (male and female), race/ethnicity, physical activity, alcohol intake, body mass index, smoking, and having previously impregnated a partner. Nearly 12% of participants reported a depression diagnosis; 90.6% had low depressive symptoms (MDI <20), 3.5% had mild symptoms (MDI: 20-24), 2.7% had moderate symptoms (MDI: 25-29), and 3.3% had severe symptoms (MDI: ≥30). A total of 8.8% of participants reported current use of psychotropic medications. History of depression was associated with slightly reduced fecundability, although this result was also reasonably compatible with chance (FR = 0.89; 95% CI: [0.76, 1.04]). FRs for mild, moderate, and severe compared with low depressive symptoms were 0.89 (95% CI: [0.66, 1.21]), 0.90 (95% CI: [0.62, 1.31]), and 0.88 (95% CI: [0.65, 1.20]), respectively. This indicates little evidence of a dose-response relationship for depressive symptoms with fecundability, although estimates were imprecise. Current psychotropic medication use mediated 44% of the association between depressive symptoms and fecundability.
Assuntos
Depressão , Fertilidade , Adulto , Estudos de Coortes , Depressão/tratamento farmacológico , Depressão/epidemiologia , Feminino , Fertilização , Humanos , Masculino , Gravidez , Estudos Prospectivos , Adulto JovemRESUMO
STUDY QUESTION: Can we derive adequate models to predict the probability of conception among couples actively trying to conceive? SUMMARY ANSWER: Leveraging data collected from female participants in a North American preconception cohort study, we developed models to predict pregnancy with performance of â¼70% in the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Earlier work has focused primarily on identifying individual risk factors for infertility. Several predictive models have been developed in subfertile populations, with relatively low discrimination (AUC: 59-64%). STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: Study participants were female, aged 21-45 years, residents of the USA or Canada, not using fertility treatment, and actively trying to conceive at enrollment (2013-2019). Participants completed a baseline questionnaire at enrollment and follow-up questionnaires every 2 months for up to 12 months or until conception. We used data from 4133 participants with no more than one menstrual cycle of pregnancy attempt at study entry. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: On the baseline questionnaire, participants reported data on sociodemographic factors, lifestyle and behavioral factors, diet quality, medical history and selected male partner characteristics. A total of 163 predictors were considered in this study. We implemented regularized logistic regression, support vector machines, neural networks and gradient boosted decision trees to derive models predicting the probability of pregnancy: (i) within fewer than 12 menstrual cycles of pregnancy attempt time (Model I), and (ii) within 6 menstrual cycles of pregnancy attempt time (Model II). Cox models were used to predict the probability of pregnancy within each menstrual cycle for up to 12 cycles of follow-up (Model III). We assessed model performance using the AUC and the weighted-F1 score for Models I and II, and the concordance index for Model III. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Model I and II AUCs were 70% and 66%, respectively, in parsimonious models, and the concordance index for Model III was 63%. The predictors that were positively associated with pregnancy in all models were: having previously breastfed an infant and using multivitamins or folic acid supplements. The predictors that were inversely associated with pregnancy in all models were: female age, female BMI and history of infertility. Among nulligravid women with no history of infertility, the most important predictors were: female age, female BMI, male BMI, use of a fertility app, attempt time at study entry and perceived stress. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Reliance on self-reported predictor data could have introduced misclassification, which would likely be non-differential with respect to the pregnancy outcome given the prospective design. In addition, we cannot be certain that all relevant predictor variables were considered. Finally, though we validated the models using split-sample replication techniques, we did not conduct an external validation study. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Given a wide range of predictor data, machine learning algorithms can be leveraged to analyze epidemiologic data and predict the probability of conception with discrimination that exceeds earlier work. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The research was partially supported by the U.S. National Science Foundation (under grants DMS-1664644, CNS-1645681 and IIS-1914792) and the National Institutes for Health (under grants R01 GM135930 and UL54 TR004130). In the last 3 years, L.A.W. has received in-kind donations for primary data collection in PRESTO from FertilityFriend.com, Kindara.com, Sandstone Diagnostics and Swiss Precision Diagnostics. L.A.W. also serves as a fibroid consultant to AbbVie, Inc. The other authors declare no competing interests. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.
Assuntos
Fertilidade , Infertilidade , Estudos de Coortes , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Gravidez , Estudos Prospectivos , Inquéritos e QuestionáriosRESUMO
STUDY QUESTION: What are the comparative pregnancy outcomes in women who receive up to six consecutive cycles of ovulation induction with letrozole versus clomiphene citrate? SUMMARY ANSWER: The risks of pregnancy, livebirth, multiple gestation, preterm birth, neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission and congenital malformations were higher for letrozole compared with clomiphene in participants with polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS), though no treatment differences were observed in those with unexplained infertility. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Randomized trials have reported higher pregnancy and livebirth rates for letrozole versus clomiphene among individuals with PCOS, but no differences among those with unexplained infertility. None of these trials were designed to study maternal or neonatal complications. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We emulated a hypothetical trial of the comparative effectiveness of letrozole versus clomiphene citrate for ovulation induction among all women, then stratified by PCOS and unexplained infertility status. We used real-world data from a large healthcare claims database in the USA (2011-2015). PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: We analyzed data from 18â120 women who initiated letrozole and 49â647 women who initiated clomiphene during 2011-2014, and who were aged 18-45 years with no history of diabetes, thyroid disease, liver disease or breast cancer and had no fertility treatments for 3 months before trial initiation. The treatment strategies were clomiphene citrate or letrozole for six consecutive cycles. The outcomes were pregnancy, livebirth, multiple gestation, preterm birth, small for gestational age (SGA), NICU admission and major congenital malformations. We estimated the probability of each outcome under each strategy via pooled logistic regression and used standardization to adjust for confounding and selection bias due to loss to follow-up. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The estimated probabilities of pregnancy, livebirth and neonatal outcomes were similar under each strategy, both overall and among individuals with unexplained infertility. Among women with PCOS, the probability of pregnancy was 43% for letrozole vs 37% for clomiphene (risk difference [RD] = 6.0%; 95% CI: 4.4, 7.7) in the intention-to-treat analyses. The corresponding probability of livebirth was 32% vs 29% (RD = 3.1%; 95% CI: 1.5, 4.8). In per protocol analyses, the risk of multiple gestation was 19% vs 9%, the risk of preterm birth was 20% vs 15%, the risk of SGA was 5% vs 3%, the risk of NICU admission was 22% vs 16% and the risk of congenital malformation was 8% vs 2% among those with a livebirth. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: We cannot completely rule out the possibility of residual confounding by body mass index or duration of infertility. However, we adjusted for proxies identified in administrative data and results did not change. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Our findings suggest that for women with unexplained infertility, the two treatments result in comparable probabilities of a livebirth. For women with PCOS, letrozole appears slightly more effective for attaining a livebirth. Neonatal outcomes were similar for the two treatments among women with unexplained infertility; we did not confirm the hypothesized higher risk of adverse neonatal outcomes for clomiphene versus letrozole. The risks of adverse neonatal outcomes were slightly greater among women with PCOS who were treated with letrozole versus clomiphene. It is likely that these effects are partially mediated through an increased risk of multiple gestation among women who received letrozole. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This work was supported by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R01HD088393). Y.-H.C. reports grants from the American Heart Association (834106) and NIH (R01HD097778). P.R. reports grants from the National Institutes of Health. J.H. reports grants from the National Institutes of Health, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the California Health Care Foundation during the conduct of the study; and consulting for several health care delivery organizations including Cambridge Health Alliance, Columbia University, University of Southern California, Community Servings, and the Delta Health Alliance. S.H.-D. reports grants from the National Institutes of Health and the US Food and Drug Administration during the conduct of the study; grants to her institution from Takeda outside the submitted work; consulting for UCB (biopharmaceutical company) and Roche; and being an adviser for the Antipsychotics Pregnancy Registry and epidemiologist for the North American Antiepileptics Pregnancy Registry, both at Massachusetts General Hospital. M.A.H. reports grants from the National Institutes of Health and the U.S. Veterans Administration during the conduct of the study; being a consultant for Cytel; and being an adviser for ProPublica. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.
Assuntos
Infertilidade Feminina , Síndrome do Ovário Policístico , Nascimento Prematuro , Adolescente , Adulto , Criança , Clomifeno/uso terapêutico , Feminino , Fármacos para a Fertilidade Feminina/uso terapêutico , Humanos , Recém-Nascido , Infertilidade Feminina/etiologia , Letrozol/uso terapêutico , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Indução da Ovulação/métodos , Síndrome do Ovário Policístico/complicações , Síndrome do Ovário Policístico/tratamento farmacológico , Gravidez , Taxa de Gravidez , Adulto JovemRESUMO
Preconception and prenatal exposure to phthalates has been associated with an increased risk of preterm birth. However, it is unclear whether there are periods of heightened susceptibility during pregnancy. This prospective cohort study included 386 women undergoing fertility treatment who gave birth to a singleton infant during 2005 through 2018. Eleven phthalate metabolites were measured in spot urine samples collected at each trimester. In approximately 50% of participants, two metabolites of 1,2-cyclohexane dicarboxylic acid diisononyl ester (DINCH), a phthalate substitute, were also measured. The molar sum of four di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate metabolites (∑DEHP) was calculated. We evaluated the associations of mean maternal biomarker concentrations with risk of preterm birth using modified log-binomial models and utilized multiple informant models to compare trimester-specific associations. We examined the relative biomarker concentration across gestation comparing women with preterm birth to women with term delivery using quadratic mixed model. The risk ratio for preterm birth associated with a one-unit increase in the natural log-transformed urinary concentrations of ∑DEHP (mean during pregnancy) was 1.21 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.84, 1.72). In multiple informant models, these associations were strongest in the third trimester (RR = 1.51; 95% CI: 1.17, 1.95). Estimated mean ∑DEHP concentrations were higher among women with preterm than term delivery, especially late in gestation. Associations with preterm birth were also observed for each of the four individual DEHP metabolites. Detection of cyclohexane-1,2-dicarboxylic acid monocarboxyisooctyl ester (MCOCH), a metabolite of DINCH, appeared to be positively related to preterm birth. In this prospective cohort of subfertile couples, maternal ∑DEHP metabolite concentrations during pregnancy were associated with an increased risk of preterm birth, particularly during late gestation.