Prospective study of cigarette smoking and fecundability.

To what extent is cigarette smoking associated with reduced fecundability? Current female smokers, particularly those who had smoked ≥10 cigarettes/day for ≥10 years, had lower fecundability than never smokers, but current male smoking and passive smoking in either partner showed little association with reduced fecundability. Female smoking has been identified as a cause of infertility, yet there has been limited characterization of the dose and duration at which an effect is observed. Results for male active smoking and passive smoking in both partners are less consistent. We analyzed data from a North American internet-based preconception cohort study of 5473 female and 1411 male pregnancy planners, enrolled from 2013 to 2018. Participants had been attempting conception for ≤6 menstrual cycles at study entry. We collected information on active and passive smoking history on baseline questionnaires. Pregnancy was reported on female bi-monthly follow-up questionnaires. We calculated fecundability ratios (FR) and 95% CI using proportional probabilities regression models, adjusted for demographic, behavioral, medical, reproductive and dietary variables. Female current regular smoking (FR = 0.90, 95% CI: 0.77, 1.07), current occasional smoking (FR = 0.88, 95% CI: 0.73, 1.06), and former smoking (FR = 0.89, 95% CI: 0.81, 0.98) were associated with small reductions in fecundability. Results were stronger among women who smoked ≥10 cigarettes/day for ≥10 years (FR = 0.77, 95% CI: 0.53, 1.10). Male current regular and former smoking, and current passive smoking in either partner were not meaningfully associated with reduced fecundability. In utero exposure to ≥10 cigarettes/day among females was associated with reduced fecundability (FR = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.52, 1.06). Numbers of cigarette smokers, particularly within categories of intensity and duration, were small. Under-reporting of smoking may have resulted in non-differential misclassification, and smokers were more likely to be lost to follow-up. Given the consistency of our findings with results from previous studies and our observation of a dose-response relation in intensity of smoking, this study supports an association between female cigarette smoking and lower fecundability. This study was funded by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R01-HD086742, R21-HD072326, R03-HD090315 and T32-HD052458). The authors declare no competing interests.

Wesselink AK ，Hatch EE ，Rothman KJ ，Mikkelsen EM ，Aschengrau A ，Wise LA ... -  《-》

Male alcohol consumption and fecundability.

Does male alcohol consumption affect fecundability? In data pooled across Danish and North American preconception cohort studies, we found little evidence of an association between male alcohol consumption and reduced fecundability. Experimental and clinical studies have shown that alcohol affects male reproductive physiology, mainly by altering male reproductive hormones and spermatogenesis. However, few epidemiologic studies have examined the association between alcohol consumption and male fertility. Data were collected from two ongoing prospective preconception cohort studies: the Danish 'SnartForaeldre' (SF) study (662 couples) and the North American 'Pregnancy Study Online' (PRESTO) (2017 couples). Participants included in the current analysis were enrolled from August 2011 through June 2019 (SF) and from June 2013 through June 2019 (PRESTO). Eligible men were aged ≥18 years in SF and ≥21 years in PRESTO, in a stable relationship with a female partner and not using contraception or receiving fertility treatment. In both cohorts, alcohol consumption/serving size was self-reported as number of beers (330 mL/12 oz.), glasses of white or red wine (120 mL/4 oz. each), dessert wine (50 mL/2 oz.) and spirits (20 mL/1.5 oz.). Overall alcohol consumption was categorized as none, 1-5, 6-13 and ≥14 standard servings per week. Total menstrual cycles at risk were calculated using data from female partners' follow-up questionnaires, which were completed every 8 weeks until self-reported pregnancy or 12 menstrual cycles, whichever came first. Analyses were restricted to couples that had been trying to conceive for ≤6 cycles at study entry. Proportional probability regression models were used to compute fecundability ratios (FRs) and 95% confidence interval (CIs). We adjusted for male and female age, female partner's alcohol consumption, intercourse frequency, previous history of fathering a child, race/ethnicity, education, BMI, smoking and consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages and caffeine. The cumulative proportion of couples who conceived during 12 cycles of follow-up were 1727 (64.5%). The median (interquartile range) of total male alcohol consumption was 4.5 (2.0-7.8) and 4.1 (1.0-8.6) standard servings per week in the SF and PRESTO cohorts, respectively. In pooled analyses, adjusted FRs for male alcohol consumption of 1-5, 6-13 and ≥14 standard servings per week compared with no alcohol consumption were 1.02 (95% CI: 0.90-1.17), 1.10 (95% CI: 0.96-1.27) and 0.98 (95% CI: 0.81-1.18), respectively. For SF, adjusted FRs of 1-5, 6-13 and ≥14 standard servings per week compared with no alcohol consumption were 0.97 (95% CI: 0.73-1.28), 0.81 (95% CI: 0.60-1.10) and 0.82 (95% CI: 0.51-1.30), respectively. For PRESTO, adjusted FRs of 1-5, 6-13 and ≥14 standard servings per week compared with no alcohol consumption were 1.02 (95% CI: 0.88-1.18), 1.20 (95% CI: 1.03-1.40) and 1.03 (95% CI: 0.84-1.26), respectively. Male alcohol consumption was ascertained at baseline only, and we did not distinguish between regular and binge drinking. In addition, we had insufficient numbers to study the effects of specific types of alcoholic beverages. As always, residual confounding by unmeasured factors, such as dietary factors and mental health, cannot be ruled out. Comorbidities thought to play a role in the reproductive setting (i.e. cancer, metabolic syndrome) were not considered in this study; however, the prevalence of cancer and diabetes was low in this age group. Findings for the highest categories of alcohol consumption (6-13 and ≥14 servings/week) were not consistent across the two cohorts. Despite little evidence of an association between male alcohol consumption and reduced fecundability in the pooled analysis, data from the Danish cohort might indicate a weak association between reduced fecundability and consumption of six or more servings per week. This study was supported by the National Institutes of Health (R01-HD060680, R01-HD086742, R21-HD050264, R21-HD072326, R03-HD090315), the Novo Nordisk Foundation, Oticon Fonden, Politimester J.P.N. Colind og hustru Asmine Colinds mindelegat and Erna og Peter Houtveds studielegat. PRESTO receives in-kind donations from FertilityFriend.com, Kindara.com, Swiss Precision Diagnostics and Sandstone Diagnostics for the collection of data pertaining to fertility. Dr Wise serves as a consultant on uterine leiomyomata for AbbVie.com. All other authors declare no conflict of interest.

Høyer S ，Riis AH ，Toft G ，Wise LA ，Hatch EE ，Wesselink AK ，Rothman KJ ，Sørensen HT ，Mikkelsen EM ... -  《-》

Antibiotics and fecundability among female pregnancy planners: a prospective cohort study.

To what extent is female preconception antibiotic use associated with fecundability? Preconception antibiotic use overall was not appreciably associated with fecundability. Antibiotics are commonly used by women and are generally thought to be safe for use during pregnancy. However, little is known about possible effects of antibiotic use on fecundability, the per-cycle probability of conception. Previous research on this question has been limited to occupational rather than therapeutic exposure. We analyzed data from an Internet-based preconception cohort study of 9524 female pregnancy planners aged 21-45 years residing in the USA and Canada who had been attempting to conceive for six or fewer cycles at study entry. Participants enrolled between June 2013 and September 2020 and completed baseline and bimonthly follow-up questionnaires for up to 12 months or until a reported pregnancy, whichever came first. The questions pertaining to antibiotic type and indication were added to the PRESTO questionnaires in March 2016. We assessed antibiotic use in the previous 4 weeks at baseline and on each follow-up questionnaire. Participants provided the name of the specific antibiotic and the indication for use. Antibiotics were classified based on active ingredient (penicillins, macrolides, nitrofurantoin, nitroimidazole, cephalosporins, sulfonamides, quinolones, tetracyclines, lincosamides), and indications were classified by type of infection (respiratory, urinary tract, skin, vaginal, pelvic, and surgical). Participants reported pregnancy status on follow-up questionnaires. We used proportional probabilities regression to estimate fecundability ratios (FR), the per-cycle probability of conception comparing exposed with unexposed individuals, and 95% confidence intervals (CI), adjusting for sociodemographics, lifestyle factors, and reproductive history. Overall, women who used antibiotics in the past 4 weeks at baseline had similar fecundability to those who had not used antibiotics (FR: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.89-1.07). Sulfonamides and lincosamides were associated with slightly increased fecundability (FR: 1.39, 95% CI: 0.90-2.15, and FR: 1.58 95% CI: 0.96-2.60, respectively), while macrolides were associated with slightly reduced fecundability (FR: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.47-1.04). Analyses of the indication for antibiotic use suggest that there is likely some confounding by indication. Findings were imprecise for some antibiotic classes and indications for use owing to small numbers of antibiotic users in these categories. There are likely heterogeneous effects of different combinations of indications and treatments, which may be obscured in the overall null results, but cannot be further elucidated in this analysis. There is little evidence that use of most antibiotics is associated with reduced fecundability. Antibiotics and the infections they treat are likely associated with fecundability through differing mechanisms, resulting in their association with increased fecundability in some circumstances and decreased fecundability in others. This study was supported through funds provided by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health (R01-HD086742, R21-HD072326). L.A.W. has received in-kind donations from Swiss Precision Diagnostics, Sandstone Diagnostics, Fertility Friend, and Kindara for primary data collection in PRESTO. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose. N/A.

Crowe HM ，Wesselink AK ，Wise LA ，Wang TR ，Horsburgh CR ，Mikkelsen EM ，Hatch EE ... -  《-》

Preconception use of pain-relievers and time-to-pregnancy: a prospective cohort study.

To what extent is preconception use of pain-relieving medication associated with female fecundability? Women who used naproxen or opioids had slightly lower fecundability than women who did not use any pain-relieving medications; use of acetaminophen, aspirin and ibuprofen was not appreciably associated with fecundability. Over-the-counter pain-relieving medications are commonly used by women of reproductive age in the USA. Studies investigating the effects of pain-relieving medication use on ovulation, implantation and fecundability have shown conflicting results. We analyzed data from an internet-based prospective cohort study of 2573 female pregnancy planners aged 21-45 years from the USA and Canada. Participants were enrolled and followed from June 2013 through September 2015. Participants completed a baseline questionnaire and bimonthly follow-up questionnaires until a reported pregnancy or for 12 months, whichever occurred first. Over 80% of participants completed at least one follow-up questionnaire. Use of pain-relieving medication during the past month was assessed at baseline and on each follow-up questionnaire. Medications were categorized according to type (acetaminophen, aspirin, ibuprofen, naproxen and opioids) and total monthly dose. Self-reported pregnancy was assessed at each follow-up. Multivariable-adjusted fecundability ratios (FRs) and 95% CI were calculated using proportional probabilities regression. Models were adjusted for demographic, lifestyle and anthropometric factors; reproductive history; gynecologic morbidity; and indications for use of pain medications. Models were also run with and without adjustment for parity. After restricting to women with 6 or fewer months of attempt time at study entry, 1763 were included in the analyses. At baseline, 1279 (73%) women reported using ≥1 pain-relieving medications in the previous month. When compared with non-use of pain-relieving medications, FRs for use of naproxen and opioids at baseline were 0.78 (95% CI: 0.64-0.97) and 0.81 (95% CI: 0.60-1.10), respectively. A dose-response relation was observed between naproxen use and fecundability; FRs for use of <1500 and ≥1500 mg of naproxen were 0.85 (95% CI: 0.68-1.07) and 0.58 (95% CI: 0.36-0.94), respectively. Small numbers (n = 74) precluded the examination of opioid use by dose. Overall, there was little evidence of an association between fecundability and acetaminophen (FR 1.04, 95% CI: 0.92-1.18), aspirin (FR 1.00, 95% CI: 0.80-1.25), or ibuprofen (FR 1.00, 95% CI: 0.89-1.11). Similar results were observed when exposure information was updated over time. Numbers of opioid users were small. Information collected on reason for use of pain medications was not specific to each type of pain medication. Therefore, we cannot rule out confounding by indication as an explanation of these results. Use of naproxen and opioids was associated with a small reduction in fecundability, but there was little association between other pain-relieving medications and fecundability. This study was supported through funds provided by National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institute of Health (R21 HD072326, T32 HD052458). The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose. Not applicable.

McInerney KA ，Hatch EE ，Wesselink AK ，Rothman KJ ，Mikkelsen EM ，Wise LA ... -  《-》

Seasonal patterns in fecundability in North America and Denmark: a preconception cohort study.

To what extent does fecundability vary across seasons? After accounting for seasonal patterns in pregnancy planning, we observed higher fecundability in the fall and lower fecundability in the spring, particularly at lower latitudes. In human populations, there are strong seasonal patterns of births that vary across geographic regions and time periods. However, previous studies of seasonality and fecundity are limited because they examine season of birth rather than season of conception and therefore neglect to account for seasonal variation in initiating attempts to conceive or pregnancy loss or differences in gestational length. We conducted a preconception cohort study of 14 331 women residing in North America (June 2013-May 2018: n = 5827) and Denmark (June 2007-May 2018: n = 8504). Participants were attempting to conceive without fertility treatment and had been attempting pregnancy for ≤6 menstrual cycles at enrolment. We collected information on season of each pregnancy attempt using last menstrual period dates over the study period. Pregnancy was reported on female bi-monthly follow-up questionnaires. We fit log-binomial models with trigonometric regression to examine periodic variation in fecundability. We accounted for seasonal variation in initiation of pregnancy attempts by including indicator variables for menstrual cycle of attempt in the regression models. Initiation of pregnancy attempts peaked in September, with stronger seasonality in North America than in Denmark (48 vs. 16% higher probability initiating attempts in September compared with March). After accounting for seasonal variation in initiation of pregnancy attempts, we observed modest seasonal variation in fecundability, with a peak in the late fall and early winter in both cohorts, but stronger peak/low ratios in North America (1.16; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.05, 1.28) than in Denmark (1.08; 95% CI: 1.00, 1.16). When we stratified the North American data by latitude, we observed the strongest seasonal variation in the southern USA (peak/low ratio of 1.45 [95% CI: 1.14, 1.84]), with peak fecundability in late November. We estimated menstrual cycle dates between follow-up questionnaires, which may have introduced exposure misclassification, particularly when women skipped follow-up questionnaires. We were unable to measure seasonally varying factors that may have influenced fecundability, including ambient temperature, vitamin D levels or infectious disease. An understanding of how fecundability varies across seasons could help identify factors that can impair reproductive function. Neglecting to account for seasonal variation in initiation of pregnancy attempts could bias estimates of seasonal patterns in fecundability. This is the first preconception cohort study to examine seasonal variation in fecundability after accounting for seasonality in initiation of pregnancy attempts. Fecundability was highest in the fall and lowest in the spring, with stronger effects in southern latitudes of North America, suggesting that seasonal exposures may affect fecundity. This research was funded by the Eunice K. Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R21-050264, R01-HD060680, R21-HD072326 and R01-HD086742) and the Danish Medical Research Council (271-07-0338). The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Wesselink AK ，Wise LA ，Hatch EE ，Mikkelsen EM ，Sørensen HT ，Riis AH ，McKinnon CJ ，Rothman KJ ... -  《-》