Search

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]

Study Question: To what extent does fecundability vary across seasons?Summary Answer: 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.What Is Known Already: 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.Study Design, Size, Duration: 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.Participants/material, Setting, Methods: 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.Main Results and the Role Of Chance: 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.Limitations, Reasons For Caution: 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.Wider Implications Of the Findings: 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.Study Funding/competing Interest(s): 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Animal studies have shown that a high intake of galactose, a breakdown product of lactose, increases ovarian toxicity. Few epidemiologic studies, to our knowledge, have examined the association between dairy intake and fertility, and they have had conflicting findings. Objective: We prospectively evaluated dairy intake in relation to fecundability among women who were planning for pregnancy. Design: Data were derived from preconception cohort studies in Denmark (Snart Foraeldre) and North America [PRESTO (Pregnancy Study Online)] in which women completed a validated food-frequency questionnaire 10 d after enrollment. The dietary intake of dairy foods and their constituents was calculated based on reported frequencies, mean serving sizes, and standard recipes for mixed foods. Outcome data were updated every 8 wk for 12 mo or until reported conception. Analyses were restricted to 2426 women attempting pregnancy for =6 cycles at study entry. Fecundability ratios (FRs) and 95% CIs were estimated with the use of proportional probabilities regression models adjusted for potential confounders. Results: FRs for total dairy intake (=18 compared with <7 servings/wk) were 1.37 (95% CI: 1.05, 1.78) among 1126 Snart Foraeldre participants and 1.04 (95% CI: 0.78, 1.38) among 1300 PRESTO participants (pooled FR: 1.11; 95% CI: 0.94, 1.31). The elevated FR for total dairy intake among Snart Foraeldre participants was limited to milk consumption and found only among women aged <30 y. There was no clear association between low- or high-fat dairy intake and fecundability in either cohort. Although there was little evidence of an association between dietary intake of calcium, potassium, magnesium, or vitamin D and fecundability, a greater consumption of phosphorus and lactose was associated with slightly higher fecundability in both cohorts. Conclusions: Associations between dairy intake and fecundability were generally small and inconsistent across cohorts. Our findings do not support the hypotheses that a greater consumption of high-fat dairy improves fertility or that a greater consumption of lactose or low-fat dairy harms fertility. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]