Folic acid supplementation and interpregnancy interval.

BACKGROUND: Maternal folic acid supplementation between subsequent pregnancies may be important to reduce the risk of low folate status associated with short interpregnancy intervals. We examined how the prevalence of preconception folic acid use for a given pregnancy in Norwegian women varied according to the time interval from the previous pregnancy. METHODS: Analysis was based on 48 855 pairs of pregnancies with the second pregnancy included in the Norwegian Mother and Child Cohort Study (birth years 1999-2009). Interpregnancy interval was defined as the time from birth of a child to the conception of the subsequent sibling. Preconception folic acid use was defined as any use of folic acid-containing supplements within the last 4 weeks before the second pregnancy. RESULTS: The prevalence of preconception folic acid use was 31%. Among women with a term birth (≥37 weeks) in the previous pregnancy (92%), those with interpregnancy intervals ≤12 and ≥49 months were associated with up to 35% lower prevalence of preconception folic acid use for the second pregnancy, relative to the reference group (13-24 months). The low use in short intervals was mainly attributable to lower proportion of planned pregnancies and fewer women with higher education. Among women with a preterm birth (<37 weeks) in the previous pregnancy (8%), preconception folic acid use significantly decreased with increasing pregnancy spacing. CONCLUSIONS: Our finding of a lower preconception folic acid use in women with both short and long interpregnancy intervals might help identifying those with higher risk of folate deficiency and preventing unwanted pregnancy outcomes.

Analysis of self-selection bias in a population-based cohort study of autism spectrum disorders.

BACKGROUND: This study examined potential self-selection bias in a large pregnancy cohort by comparing exposure-outcome associations from the cohort to similar associations obtained from nationwide registry data. The outcome under study was specialist-confirmed diagnosis of autism spectrum disorders (ASDs). METHODS: The cohort sample (n = 89 836) was derived from the population-based prospective Norwegian Mother and Child Cohort Study and its substudy of ASDs, the Autism Birth Cohort (ABC) study. The nationwide registry data were derived from the Medical Birth Registry of Norway (n = 507 856). The children were born in 1999­2007, and seven prenatal and perinatal exposures were selected for analyses. RESULTS: ASDs were reported for 234 (0.26%) children in the cohort and 2072 (0.41%) in the nationwide population. Compared with the nationwide population, the cohort had an under-representation of the youngest women (<25 years), those who had single status, mothers who smoked during pregnancy, and non-users of prenatal folic acid supplements. The ratios of the adjusted odds ratios (ORs) in the cohort over the adjusted ORs in the nationwide population were as follows; primipara pregnancy: 1.39/1.22, prenatal folic acid use: 0.85/0.86, prenatal smoking: 1.20/1.17, preterm birth (<37 weeks): 1.48/1.42, low birthweight (<2500 g): 1.60/1.58, male sex: 4.39/4.59 (unadjusted only); and caesarean section history: 1.03/1.04. CONCLUSIONS: Associations estimated between ASDs and perinatal and prenatal exposures in the cohort are close to those estimated in the nationwide population. Self-selection does not appear to compromise validity of exposure-outcome associations in the ABC study.

Self-selection and bias in a large prospective pregnancy cohort in Norway.

Self-selection in epidemiological studies may introduce selection bias and influence the validity of study results. To evaluate potential bias due to self-selection in a large prospective pregnancy cohort in Norway, the authors studied differences in prevalence estimates and association measures between study participants and all women giving birth in Norway. Women who agreed to participate in the Norwegian Mother and Child Cohort Study (43.5% of invited; n = 73 579) were compared with all women giving birth in Norway (n = 398 849) using data from the population-based Medical Birth Registry of Norway in 2000-2006. Bias in the prevalence of 23 exposure and outcome variables was measured as the ratio of relative frequencies, whereas bias in exposure-outcome associations of eight relationships was measured as the ratio of odds ratios. Statistically significant relative differences in prevalence estimates between the cohort participants and the total population were found for all variables, except for maternal epilepsy, chronic hypertension and pre-eclampsia. There was a strong under-representation of the youngest women (<25 years), those living alone, mothers with more than two previous births and with previous stillbirths (relative deviation 30-45%). In addition, smokers, women with stillbirths and neonatal death were markedly under-represented in the cohort (relative deviation 22-43%), while multivitamin and folic acid supplement users were over-represented (relative deviation 31-43%). Despite this, no statistically relative differences in association measures were found between participants and the total population regarding the eight exposure-outcome associations. Using data from the Medical Birth Registry of Norway, this study suggests that prevalence estimates of exposures and outcomes, but not estimates of exposure-outcome associations are biased due to self-selection in the Norwegian Mother and Child Cohort Study.

Fish consumption and breast cancer risk. The European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC).

There is current interest in fish consumption and marine omega-3 (n-3) fatty acids and breast cancer risk. Some in vitro and animal studies have suggested an inhibitory effect of marine n-3 fatty acids on breast cancer growth, but the results from epidemiological studies that have examined the association between fish consumption and breast cancer risk in humans are inconsistent. We examined fish consumption and breast cancer risk in 310,671 women aged between 25 and 70 yr at recruitment into the European Prospective Investigation Into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC). The participants completed a dietary questionnaire between 1992-98 and were followed up for incidence of breast cancer for a median of 6.4 yr. Hazard ratio for breast cancer by intake of total and lean and fatty fish were estimated, stratified by study centre and adjusted for established breast cancer risk factors. During follow-up, 4,776 invasive incident breast cancers were reported. No significant associations between intake of total fish and breast cancer risk were observed, hazard ratio (HR) 1.01 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.99-1.02; p = 0.28 per 10 g fish/day). When examining lean and fatty fish separately, we found a positive significant association only in the highest quintile for fatty fish (HR 1.13, 95% CI 1.01-1.26), but test for trend was not significant (p = 0.10). No associations with breast cancer risk were observed when the study participants were subdivided by menopausal status. Although the period of follow-up is relatively short, the results provide no evidence for an association between fish intake and breast cancer risk.