Search

BACKGROUND: Residential green space can have positive physiological effects on human health through various mechanisms, including reducing stress and/or depression or facilitating physical activity. Although green space has been consistently associated with improved birth outcomes in several studies, there has been limited study of its effect on other reproductive outcomes, including fertility. OBJECTIVE: We examined associations between residential green space and fecundability, the per-cycle probability of conception. METHODS: We analyzed data from 8,563 female participants enrolled between 2013 and 2019 in Pregnancy Study Online (PRESTO), a prospective preconception cohort study of North American couples attempting conception. Participants completed a baseline questionnaire on sociodemographic, behavioral, and reproductive factors, and bimonthly follow-up questionnaires for up to 12 months to ascertain pregnancies. Using geocoded addresses, we calculated residential green space exposure using the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) within 50-, 100-, 250-, and 500-m buffers across multiple temporal scales: annual maximum, seasonal maximum, and seasonal mean. We used proportional probabilities regression models to estimate fecundability ratios (FRs), adjusting for sociodemographic, behavioral, and neighborhood characteristics. We also evaluated the extent to which associations were mediated by reductions in perceived stress or depressive symptoms and increased physical activity. RESULTS: When comparing the highest (=0.8) with the lowest (<0.2) NDVI exposures within 50 m, we observed positive associations in the annual maximum NDVI [FR: 1.33; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.06, 1.67] and seasonal maximum NDVI (FR: 1.19; 95% CI: 1.00, 1.41) models, but little association in the seasonal mean NDVI models (FR: 0.98; 95% CI: 0.73, 1.30). Restricted cubic splines showed evidence of nonlinearity in this association. Results were similar across buffer distances. Perceived stress, depressive symptoms, and physical activity explained =5:0% of mediation across all NDVI metrics. DISCUSSION: In this cohort, greater residential green space was associated with a modest increase in fecundability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Question: To what extent is dietary folate intake and total folate intake (dietary and supplemental intakes) associated with fecundability, the per cycle probability of conception?Summary Answer: Preconception dietary folate intake was positively associated with fecundability in a monotonic pattern.What Is Known Already: Supplemental folic acid has been associated with improved fertility, but little is known about the relation between dietary folate and fecundability.Study Design, Size, Duration: A prospective cohort study including 9559 women trying to conceive without fertility treatment and enrolled in the period 2013-2020.Participants/materials, Setting, Methods: We used data from two internet-based prospective cohort studies of pregnancy planners from Denmark, where folic acid fortification is not performed (SnartForældre.dk (SF); n = 3755) and North America, where the food supply is fortified with folic acid (Pregnancy Study Online (PRESTO); n = 5804). Women contributed menstrual cycles at risk until they reported conception or experienced a censoring event. We used proportional probabilities regression models to compute fecundability ratios (FRs) and 95% CI, adjusting for potential confounders.Main Results and the Role Of Chance: Compared with a dietary folate intake ≥400 µg/day, the adjusted FRs for women in SF were 0.92 (95% CI: 0.85-0.99) for intake 250-399 µg/day, and 0.80 (95% CI: 0.68-0.94) for intake of <250 µg/day. The corresponding FRs in PRESTO were 0.95 (95% CI: 0.89-1.01) and 0.81 (95% CI: 0.65-1.00). Compared with the highest level of total folate intake (diet folate ≥400 µg/day plus folic acid supplementation), in both cohorts fecundability was lowest among women with the lowest dietary intake <250 µg/day dietary folate and no supplementation (FR: 0.76, 95% CI: 0.59-0.98 [SF] and 0.49, 95% CI: 0.31-0.77 [PRESTO]). Further, total intake dietary folate <250 µg/day plus supplementation was associated with reduced fecundability for SF participants (FR; 0.79, 95% CI: 0.65-0.98) and for PRESTO participants (FR; 0.92, 95% CI: 0.72-1.16).Limitations, Reasons For Caution: It is unknown whether dietary folate and folic acid intake affect fecundability on its own or if there is an interaction with other micronutrients provided in healthy diet. Thus, the observed associations may not reflect dietary folate intake alone, but overall healthy diet.Wider Implications Of the Findings: Recommendations for preconception dietary folate intake and folic acid supplementation are of importance not only to prevent neural tube defects but also to enhance fecundability.Study Funding/competing Interest(s): The study was supported by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R01-HD086742). The authors report no competing interests.Trial Registration Number: N/A. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Phytoestrogens are plant-derived hormonally active compounds found in soy, cruciferous vegetables, nuts, and seeds. Although phytoestrogens have been associated with altered endogenous hormonal activity, luteal phase deficiency, and reduced endometrial decidualization, the literature reporting examinations of phytoestrogen intake and fertility presents mixed findings.Objectives: We sought to evaluate prospectively the association between dietary phytoestrogen intake (isoflavones, lignans, and coumestans) and fecundability, the per-cycle probability of conception, in 2 cohorts of women planning pregnancy.Methods: Pregnancy Study Online (PRESTO) and Snart Foraeldre (SF) are parallel web-based preconception cohort studies of women from North America and Denmark, respectively, who are trying to conceive. Participants complete an online baseline questionnaire on sociodemographic, lifestyle, and medical factors. We ascertained intake of individual phytoestrogens from validated FFQs. We measured fecundability using data on menstruation and pregnancy status from bimonthly follow-up questionnaires. We analyzed data from 4880 PRESTO and 2898 SF female study participants who had been attempting conception for ≤6 cycles at study entry. We used proportional probabilities regression models to estimate fecundability ratios (FRs) and 95% CIs.Results: Phytoestrogen intake varied across cohorts, yet was associated with higher socioeconomic status and healthier behaviors in both cohorts. After adjustment for potential confounders, phytoestrogen intake was not substantially associated with fecundability in either cohort. We observed some evidence of improved fecundability with increasing isoflavone intake among women age ≥30 years in PRESTO (FR: 1.12; 95% CI: 0.94, 1.34, for comparison of ≥90th with <25th percentile intake) and SF (corresponding FR: 1.19; 95% CI: 0.92, 1.55). Lignan intake was associated with slightly increased fecundability in SF (FR for comparison of 75th to 90th with <25th percentile: 1.10; 95% CI: 0.96, 1.26), but decreased fecundability in PRESTO (FR for comparison of ≥90th with <25th percentile: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.72, 0.97).Conclusions: We did not observe strong associations between phytoestrogen intake and prospectively-measured fecundability among North American or Danish pregnancy planners. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While some epidemiologic studies support the hypothesis that stress can adversely affect fertility, few prospective studies have assessed the association in couples from the general population. We used data from Pregnancy Study Online, a web-based preconception cohort study of pregnancy planners from the United States and Canada (2013–2018), to examine the association between women's and men's perceived stress levels prior to conception and fecundability. Women (aged 21–45 years) and their male partners (aged ≥21 years) who were attempting conception without fertility treatment were eligible. We measured perceived stress using the 10-item Perceived Stress Scale (PSS). We ascertained pregnancy information using bimonthly follow-up questionnaires of female participants. We followed 4,769 couples until self-reported pregnancy, initiation of fertility treatment, loss to follow-up, or 12 menstrual cycles of attempt time, whichever came first. We used proportional probabilities regression models to estimate fecundability ratios and 95% confidence intervals, adjusting for potential confounders. Higher PSS scores among the women were associated with slight reductions in fecundability (comparing PSS scores of ≥25 vs. <10, fecundability ratio = 0.87, 95% confidence interval: 0.74, 1.02). PSS scores among the men were not substantially associated with fecundability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Question: To what extent is preconception use of pain-relieving medication associated with female fecundability?Summary Answer: 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.What Is Known Already: 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.Study Design, Size, Duration: 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.Participants/materials, Setting, Methods: 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.Main Results and the Role Of Chance: 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.Limitations, Reasons For Caution: 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.Wider Implications Of the Findings: 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.Study Funding/competing Interests: 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.Trial Registration Number: Not applicable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Pregnancy planners are a priority group for influenza vaccination. • The extent to which influenza vaccination affects fecundability is unclear. • Influenza vaccination was common (47% of females and 37% of males). • Our data indicate no adverse effect of influenza vaccination on fecundability. Although pregnancy planners are a priority group for influenza vaccination in the United States, little is known about the extent to which influenza vaccination affects fecundability. We analyzed data from Pregnancy Study Online (PRESTO), an ongoing preconception cohort study of North American pregnancy planners. During June 2013 to August 2019, 8654 female participants and 2137 of their male partners completed a baseline questionnaire and were followed until reported pregnancy, fertility treatment initiation, loss to follow-up, or 12 menstrual cycles of attempt time, whichever came first. At baseline, male and female participants reported whether they received an influenza vaccination in the past year and the date of vaccination. We used proportional probabilities regression models to estimate fecundability ratios (FR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) comparing those who did and did not report influenza vaccination, adjusting for demographics, anthropometrics, behavioral factors, and medical history. Influenza vaccination in the past year was more common among female participants than male participants (47% vs. 37%). FRs were 1.04 (95% CI: 0.98–1.10) for female vaccination and 1.03 (95% CI: 0.93–1.14) for male vaccination. Among the 2137 couples with complete data on both partners, for 40% neither partner was vaccinated, 23% had female-only vaccination, 9% had male-only vaccination, and in 28% both partners were vaccinated. Compared with couples in which neither participant was vaccinated, FRs were 1.13 for female-only vaccination (95% CI: 0.99–1.29), 0.94 for male-only vaccination (95% CI: 0.78–1.12), and 1.07 when both partners were vaccinated (95% CI: 0.94–1.21). When restricted to recent vaccination before peak influenza season, results were similar. Our data indicate no adverse effect of influenza vaccination on fecundability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]