Fertility Awareness · Effectiveness

A randomized trial of web-based fertility-tracking software and fecundability

Wise LA, Wang TR, Stanford JB, Wesselink AK, Ncube CN, Rothman KJ, Murray EJ

Published June 2023 Fertility and sterility, 119(6), 1045-1056
DOI 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2023.02.005 PMID 36774978 PMC PMC10225320

RRM Academy Synopsis

Fertility app subscription did not raise pregnancy rates overall

In a randomized trial of 5,542 people trying to get pregnant, a free fertility app subscription made no appreciable difference in overall pregnancy rates. After 12 cycles, 64 out of 100 in the app group and 63 out of 100 in the comparison group had conceived.

Key Findings

  • Of 2,775 participants randomized to Fertility Friend and 2,767 who were not, 64% and 63% conceived during 12 cycles (life-table methods).
  • Intent-to-treat analysis found no appreciable association overall: fecundability ratio (FR) 0.97, 95% confidence interval 0.90–1.04. Fecundability is the per-cycle probability of conception.
  • In the app group, 72% of participants counted as adherent (68% of the menstrual cycles observed), and 1,102 participants (40%) entered any data into the app.
  • Per-protocol analysis showed little association overall (FR 1.06, confidence interval 0.99–1.14) and a weak positive association at ages <25 years (FR 1.29, confidence interval 1.01–1.66).
  • Among participants with no hormonal contraception, a suppressive medication, in the 3 months before enrollment, the per-protocol ratio was 1.10 (confidence interval 1.02–1.19).

Interpretation

A free subscription to the Fertility Friend app made no difference in overall pregnancy rates. A closer look at people who used the app as told found a weak positive link to pregnancy among women under 25. It also found a weak positive link among women who had not used hormonal contraception, a suppressive medication, in the three months before the study began. The authors note that findings like these, found across many group comparisons, can happen by chance. The results support larger, more focused studies of app-based cycle tracking in these groups.

RRM Context

Fertility awareness methods rely on charting fertility signs, and apps are one way for couples to track them. The authors point to a 2020 randomized trial of an ovulation-testing app, where 36.2% of the test group and 28.6% of the control group got pregnant within two cycles.

Abstract

Objective

To assess the effect of randomization to FertilityFriend.com, a mobile computing fertility-tracking app, on fecundability.

Design

Parallel non-blinded randomized controlled trial nested within the Pregnancy Study Online (PRESTO), a North American preconception cohort.

Patients

Female participants aged 21 to 45 years attempting conception for ≤6 menstrual cycles at enrolment (2013-2019).

Intervention

Randomization (1:1) of 5532 participants to receive a premium Fertility Friend (FF) subscription.

Main Outcome Measures

Fecundability (per-cycle probability of conception). Participants completed bimonthly follow-up questionnaires until pregnancy or a censoring event, whichever came first. We first performed an intent-to-treat analysis of the effect of FF randomization on fecundability. In secondary analyses, we used a per-protocol approach that accounted for adherence in each trial arm. In both analyses, we used proportional probabilities regression models to estimate fecundability ratios (FR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) comparing those randomized vs. not randomized and applied inverse probability weights to account for loss-to-follow-up (intent-to-treat and per-protocol analyses) and adherence (per-protocol analyses only).

Results

Using life-table methods, 64% of the 2775 participants randomized to FF and 63% of the 2767 participants not randomized to FF conceived during 12 cycles; these respective percentages were each 70% among those with 0-1 cycles of attempt time at enrolment. Of those randomized to FF, 72% were defined as adherent (68% of observed menstrual cycles). In intent-to-treat analyses, there was no appreciable association overall (FR = 0.97; 95% CI, 0.90-1.04) or within strata of pregnancy attempt time at enrolment, age, education, or other characteristics. In per-protocol analyses, we observed little association overall (FR = 1.06; 95% CI, 0.99-1.14), but weak-to-moderate positive associations among participants who had longer attempt times at enrolment (FR = 1.15; 95% CI, 0.98-1.35 for 3-4 cycles; FR = 1.14; 95% CI, 0.87-1.48 for 5-6 cycles), were aged <25 years (FR = 1.29; 95% CI, 1.01-1.66), had ≤12 years of education (FR = 1.32; 95% CI, 0.92-1.89), or were non-users of hormonal contraception within 3 months before enrolment (FR = 1.10; 95% CI, 1.02-1.19).

Conclusion

No appreciable associations were observed in intent-to-treat analyses. In secondary per-protocol analyses that accounted for adherence, randomization to FF was associated with slightly greater fecundability among selected subgroups of participants; however, these results are susceptible to unmeasured confounding.

Topics

By this author

Related research

Fertility Awareness › Effectiveness › Comparative Effectiveness
Lauren A Wise, Tanran R Wang, Joseph B Stanford, Amelia K Wesselink, Collette N Ncube, Kenneth J Rothman, Eleanor J Murray
L Wise, T Wang, Joe Stanford, Joey Stanford, J Stanford, A Wesselink, C Ncube, Ken Rothman, K Rothman, E Murray
PMID 36774978 36774978 DOI 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2023.02.005 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2023.02.005 Wise et al. 2023, Wise 2023