skip to main content

Explore Research Products in the NSF-PAR

Title: A prospective cohort study of preconception COVID-19 vaccination and miscarriage
Abstract 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.

  more » « less
NSF-PAR ID:
10470066
Author(s) / Creator(s):
; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;
Publisher / Repository:
Oxford University Press
Date Published:
Journal Name:
Human Reproduction
Volume:
38
Issue:
12
ISSN:
0268-1161
Format(s):
Medium: X Size: p. 2362-2372
Size(s):
["p. 2362-2372"]
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. ; ; ; ; ; ; ( , Human Reproduction)
    Abstract STUDY QUESTION

    To what extent is male fatty acid intake associated with fecundability among couples planning pregnancy?

     SUMMARY ANSWER

    We observed weak positive associations of male dietary intakes of total and saturated fatty acids with fecundability; no other fatty acid subtypes were appreciably associated with fecundability.

     WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

    Male fatty acid intake has been associated with semen quality in previous studies. However, little is known about the extent to which male fatty acid intake is associated with fecundability among couples attempting spontaneous conception.

     STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

    We conducted an internet-based preconception prospective cohort study of 697 couples who enrolled during 2015–2022. During 12 cycles of observation, 53 couples (7.6%) were lost to follow-up.

     PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

    Participants were residents of the USA or Canada, aged 21–45 years, and not using fertility treatment at enrollment. At baseline, male participants completed a food frequency questionnaire from which we estimated intakes of total fat and fatty acid subtypes. We ascertained time to pregnancy using questionnaires completed every 8 weeks by female participants until conception or up to 12 months. We used proportional probabilities regression models to estimate fecundability ratios (FRs) and 95% CIs for the associations of fat intakes with fecundability, adjusting for male and female partner characteristics. We used the multivariate nutrient density method to account for energy intake, allowing for interpretation of results as fat intake replacing carbohydrate intake. We conducted several sensitivity analyses to assess the potential for confounding, selection bias, and reverse causation.

     MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

    Among 697 couples, we observed 465 pregnancies during 2970 menstrual cycles of follow-up. The cumulative incidence of pregnancy during 12 cycles of follow-up after accounting for censoring was 76%. Intakes of total and saturated fatty acids were weakly, positively associated with fecundability. Fully adjusted FRs for quartiles of total fat intake were 1.32 (95% CI 1.01–1.71), 1.16 (95% CI 0.88–1.51), and 1.43 (95% CI 1.09–1.88) for the second, third, and fourth vs the first quartile, respectively. Fully adjusted FRs for saturated fatty acid intake were 1.21 (95% CI 0.94–1.55), 1.16 (95% CI 0.89–1.51), and 1.23 (95% CI 0.94–1.62) for the second, third, and fourth vs the first quartile, respectively. Intakes of monounsaturated, polyunsaturated, trans-, omega-3, and omega-6 fatty acids were not strongly associated with fecundability. Results were similar after adjustment for the female partner’s intakes of trans- and omega-3 fats.

     LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

    Dietary intakes estimated from the food frequency questionnaire may be subject to non-differential misclassification, which is expected to bias results toward the null in the extreme categories when exposures are modeled as quartiles. There may be residual confounding by unmeasured dietary, lifestyle, or environmental factors. Sample size was limited, especially in subgroup analyses.

     WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

    Our results do not support a strong causal effect of male fatty acid intakes on fecundability among couples attempting to conceive spontaneously. The weak positive associations we observed between male dietary fat intakes and fecundability may reflect a combination of causal associations, measurement error, chance, and residual confounding.

     STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

    The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, grant numbers R01HD086742 and R01HD105863. In the last 3 years, PRESTO has received in-kind donations from Swiss Precision Diagnostics (home pregnancy tests) and Kindara.com (fertility app). L.A.W. is a consultant for AbbVie, Inc. M.L.E. is an advisor to Sandstone, Ro, Underdog, Dadi, Hannah, Doveras, and VSeat. The other authors have no competing interests to report.

     TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

    N/A.

     
    more » « less
  2. ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ( , Human Reproduction)
    Abstract 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 ∼70% 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.

     
    more » « less
  3. ; ; ; ; ; ; ( , Human Reproduction)
    Abstract STUDY QUESTION To what extent is female preconception antibiotic use associated with fecundability? SUMMARY ANSWER Preconception antibiotic use overall was not appreciably associated with fecundability. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY 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. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION 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. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS 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. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE 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. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION 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. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS 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. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) 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. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER N/A. 
    more » « less
  4. ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ( , Human Reproduction)
    Abstract STUDY QUESTION To what extent is exposure to cellular telephones associated with male fertility? SUMMARY ANSWER Overall, we found little association between carrying a cell phone in the front pants pocket and male fertility, although among leaner men (BMI <25 kg/m2), carrying a cell phone in the front pants pocket was associated with lower fecundability. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY Some studies have indicated that cell phone use is associated with poor semen quality, but the results are conflicting. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION Two prospective preconception cohort studies were conducted with men in Denmark (n = 751) and in North America (n = 2349), enrolled and followed via the internet from 2012 to 2020. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS On the baseline questionnaire, males reported their hours/day of carrying a cell phone in different body locations. We ascertained time to pregnancy via bi-monthly follow-up questionnaires completed by the female partner for up to 12 months or until reported conception. We used proportional probabilities regression models to estimate fecundability ratios (FRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the association between male cell phone habits and fecundability, focusing on front pants pocket exposure, within each cohort separately and pooling across the cohorts using a fixed-effect meta-analysis. In a subset of participants, we examined selected semen parameters (semen volume, sperm concentration and sperm motility) using a home-based semen testing kit. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE There was little overall association between carrying a cell phone in a front pants pocket and fecundability: the FR for any front pants pocket exposure versus none was 0.94 (95% CI: 0.0.83–1.05). We observed an inverse association between any front pants pocket exposure and fecundability among men whose BMI was <25 kg/m2 (FR = 0.72, 95% CI: 0.59–0.88) but little association among men whose BMI was ≥25 kg/m2 (FR = 1.05, 95% CI: 0.90–1.22). There were few consistent associations between cell phone exposure and semen volume, sperm concentration, or sperm motility. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION Exposure to radiofrequency radiation from cell phones is subject to considerable non-differential misclassification, which would tend to attenuate the estimates for dichotomous comparisons and extreme exposure categories (e.g. exposure 8 vs. 0 h/day). Residual confounding by occupation or other unknown or poorly measured factors may also have affected the results. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS Overall, there was little association between carrying one’s phone in the front pants pocket and fecundability. There was a moderate inverse association between front pants pocket cell phone exposure and fecundability among men with BMI <25 kg/m2, but not among men with BMI ≥25 kg/m2. Although several previous studies have indicated associations between cell phone exposure and lower sperm motility, we found few consistent associations with any semen quality parameters. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, grant number R03HD090315. In the last 3 years, PRESTO has received in-kind donations from Sandstone Diagnostics (for semen kits), Swiss Precision Diagnostics (home pregnancy tests), Kindara.com (fertility app), and FertilityFriend.com (fertility app). Dr. L.A.W. is a fibroid consultant for AbbVie, Inc. Dr. H.T.S. reports that the Department of Clinical Epidemiology is involved in studies with funding from various companies as research grants to and administered by Aarhus University. None of these studies are related to the current study. Dr. M.L.E. is an advisor to Sandstone Diagnostics, Ro, Dadi, Hannah, and Underdog. Dr. G.J.S. holds ownership in Sandstone Diagnostics Inc., developers of the Trak Male Fertility Testing System. In addition, Dr. G.J.S. has a patent pending related to Trak Male Fertility Testing System issued. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER N/A 
    more » « less
  5. ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; et al ( , American Journal of Epidemiology)
    Abstract Some reproductive-aged individuals remain unvaccinated against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) because of concerns about potential adverse effects on fertility. Using data from an internet-based preconception cohort study, we examined the associations of COVID-19 vaccination and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection with fertility among couples trying to conceive spontaneously. We enrolled 2,126 self-identified female participants aged 21–45 year residing in the United States or Canada during December 2020–September 2021 and followed them through November 2021. Participants completed questionnaires every 8 weeks on sociodemographics, lifestyle, medical factors, and partner information. We fit proportional probabilities regression models to estimate associations between self-reported COVID-19 vaccination and SARS-CoV-2 infection in both partners with fecundability (i.e., the per-cycle probability of conception), adjusting for potential confounders. COVID-19 vaccination was not appreciably associated with fecundability in either partner (female fecundability ratio (FR) = 1.08, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.95, 1.23; male FR = 0.95, 95% CI: 0.83, 1.10). Female SARS-CoV-2 infection was not strongly associated with fecundability (FR = 1.07, 95% CI: 0.87, 1.31). Male infection was associated with a transient reduction in fecundability (for infection within 60 days, FR = 0.82, 95% CI: 0.47, 1.45; for infection after 60 days, FR = 1.16, 95% CI: 0.92, 1.47). These findings indicate that male SARS-CoV-2 infection may be associated with a short-term decline in fertility and that COVID-19 vaccination does not impair fertility in either partner. 
    more » « less
  • Citation Formats
  • MLA
  • APA
  • Chicago
  • BibTeX
  • Save / Share this Record
  • Send to Email