Slone Epidemiology Center at Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts and 2Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center at Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, District of ColumbiaROR
To quantify the frequency of use of selected fertility awareness indicators and to assess their influence on fecundability.
Design
Web-based prospective cohort study.
Setting
Not applicable.
PATIENT(S): Female pregnancy planners, aged 21-45 years, attempting conception for ≤6 cycles at study entry.
INTERVENTION(S): None.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): We ascertained time to pregnancy, in menstrual cycles, with bimonthly questionnaires. We estimated adjusted fecundability ratios (FRs) and confidence intervals (CIs) using proportional probabilities models, controlling for age, income, education, smoking, intercourse frequency, and other lifestyle and reproductive factors.
RESULT(S): A total of 5,688 women were analyzed, with a mean age of 29.9 years and mean time trying of 2.1 cycles at baseline; 30% had ever been pregnant. At baseline, 75% were using one or more fertility indicators (counting days or charting menstrual cycles [71%], measuring basal body temperature [BBT, 21%], monitoring cervical fluid [39%], using urine LH tests [32%], or feeling for changes in position of the cervix [12%]). Women using any fertility indicator at baseline had higher subsequent fecundability (adjusted FR 1.25, 95% CI 1.16-1.35) than those not using any fertility indicators. For each individual indicator, adjusted FRs ranged from 1.28-1.36, where 1.00 would indicate no relation with fecundability. The adjusted FR for women using a combination of charting days, cervical fluid, and urine LH was 1.48 (95% CI 1.31-1.67) relative to women using no fertility indicators.
CONCLUSION(S): In a North American preconception cohort study, use of fertility indicators indicating the fertile window was common, and was associated with greater fecundability.
fertility awareness indicators, fecundability cohort study, cervical mucus monitoring, basal body temperature tracking, urine LH ovulation test, PRESTO cohort, time to pregnancy, fertility biomarkers, intercourse timing conception, preconception planning
PMID 31731946 31731946 DOI 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2019.06.036 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2019.06.036
Cite this article
Stanford, J. B., Willis, S. K., Hatch, E. E., Rothman, K. J., & Wise, L. A. (2019). Fecundability in relation to use of fertility awareness indicators in a North American preconception cohort study. Fertility and sterility, 112(5), 892-899. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2019.06.036
Stanford JB, Willis SK, Hatch EE, Rothman KJ, Wise LA. Fecundability in relation to use of fertility awareness indicators in a North American preconception cohort study. Fertil Steril. 2019;112(5):892-899. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2019.06.036
Stanford, J. B., et al. "Fecundability in relation to use of fertility awareness indicators in a North American preconception cohort study." Fertility and sterility, vol. 112, no. 5, 2019, pp. 892-899.
Keywords
Adult, Awareness/physiology, Cohort Studies, Female, Fertility/physiology, Humans, North America/epidemiology, Preconception Care/methods/trends, Pregnancy, Prospective Studies, Surveys and Questionnaires, Time-to-Pregnancy/physiology, Fertility Awareness, Cohort Studies, Fertility, Preconception, Time to Pregnancy
To assess the effect of randomization to FertilityFriend.com, a mobile computing fertility-tracking app, on fecundability.
Parallel non-blinded randomized controlled trial nested within the Pregnancy Study Online (PRESTO), a North American preconception cohort. PATIENT(S): Female participants aged 21 to 45 years attempting conception for ≤6 menstrual cycles at enrolment (2013-2019). Randomization (1:1) of 5532 participants to receive a premium Fertility Friend (FF) subscription. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): 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). 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). 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.
To what extent does the use of mobile computing apps to track the menstrual cycle and the fertile window influence fecundability among women trying to conceive? After adjusting for potential confounders, use of any of several different apps was associated with increased fecundability ranging from 12% to 20% per cycle of attempt. Many women are using mobile computing apps to track their menstrual cycle and the fertile window, including while trying to conceive. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, The Pregnancy Study Online (PRESTO) is a North American prospective internet-based cohort of women who are aged 21-45 years, trying to conceive and not using contraception or fertility treatment at baseline. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, We restricted the analysis to 8363 women trying to conceive for no more than 6 months at baseline; the women were recruited from June 2013 through May 2019. Women completed questionnaires at baseline and every 2 months for up to 1 year. The main outcome was fecundability, i.e. the per-cycle probability of conception, which we assessed using self-reported data on time to pregnancy (confirmed by positive home pregnancy test) in menstrual cycles. On the baseline and follow-up questionnaires, women reported whether they used mobile computing apps to track their menstrual cycles ('cycle apps') and, if so, which one(s). We estimated fecundability ratios (FRs) for the use of cycle apps, adjusted for female age, race/ethnicity, prior pregnancy, BMI, income, current smoking, education, partner education, caffeine intake, use of hormonal contraceptives as the last method of contraception, hours of sleep per night, cycle regularity, use of prenatal supplements, marital status, intercourse frequency and history of subfertility. We also examined the impact of concurrent basal body temperature, cervical fluid, cervix position and/or urine LH. MAIN Among 8363 women, 6077 (72.7%) were using one or more cycle apps at baseline. A total of 122 separate apps were reported by women. We designated five of these apps before analysis as more likely to be effective (Clue, Fertility Friend, Glow, Kindara, Ovia; hereafter referred to as 'selected apps'). The use of any app at baseline was associated with 20% increased fecundability, with little difference between selected apps versus other apps (selected apps FR (95% CI): 1.20 (1.13, 1.28); all other apps 1.21 (1.13, 1.30)). In time-varying analyses, cycle app use was associated with 12-15% increased fecundability (selected apps FR (95% CI): 1.12 (1.04, 1.21); all other apps 1.15 (1.07, 1.24)). When apps were used at baseline with one or more fertility indicators, there was higher fecundability than without fertility indicators (selected apps with indicators FR (95% CI): 1.23 (1.14, 1.34) versus without indicators 1.17 (1.05, 1.30); other apps with indicators 1.30 (1.19, 1.43) versus without indicators 1.16 (1.06, 1.27)). In time-varying analyses, results were similar when stratified by time trying at study entry (<3 vs. 3-6 cycles) or cycle regularity. For use of the selected apps, we observed higher fecundability among women FR 1.33 (1.05-1.67). LIMITATIONS, Neither regularity nor intensity of app use was ascertained. The prospective time-varying assessment of app use was based on questionnaires completed every 2 months, which would not capture more frequent changes. Intercourse frequency was also reported retrospectively and we do not have data on timing of intercourse relative to the fertile window. Although we controlled for a wide range of covariates, we cannot exclude the possibility of residual confounding (e.g. choosing to use an app in this observational study may be a marker for unmeasured health habits promoting fecundability). Half of the women in the study received a free premium subscription for one of the apps (Fertility Friend), which may have increased the overall prevalence of app use in the time-varying analyses, but would not affect app use at baseline. Most women in the study were college educated, which may limit application of results to other populations. Use of a cycle app, especially in combination with observation of one or more fertility indicators (basal body temperature, cervical fluid, cervix position and/or urine LH), may increase fecundability (per-cycle pregnancy probability) by about 12-20% for couples trying to conceive. We did not find consistent evidence of improved fecundability resulting from use of one specific app over another. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This research was supported by grants, R21HD072326 and R01HD086742, from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, USA. In the last 3 years, Dr L.A.W. has served as a fibroid consultant for AbbVie.com. Dr L.A.W. has also received in-kind donations from Sandstone Diagnostics, Swiss Precision Diagnostics, FertilityFriend.com and Kindara.com for primary data collection and participant incentives in the PRESTO cohort. Dr J.B.S. reports personal fees from Swiss Precision Diagnostics, outside the submitted work. The remaining authors have nothing to declare. N/A.
To assess the use of cervical mucus monitoring (CMM) in women trying to conceive and determine whether monitoring is associated with increased cycle-specific probability of conception (fecundability). Time-to-pregnancy cohort study. Population-based cohort. PATIENT(S): Three hundred thirty-one women trying to conceive, ages 30 to 44 years, without known infertility. INTERVENTION(S): None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): CMM prevalence and fecundability. RESULT(S): During the first cycle of the study, CMM was performed consistently (checked on >66% of pertinent cycle days) by 20 women (6%), inconsistently (34% to 66% of days) by 60 women (18%), infrequently (≤33% of days) by 73 women (22%), and not performed by 178 women (54%). Cycles in which CMM was consistently performed were statistically significantly more likely to result in conception after adjusting for age, race, previous pregnancy, body mass index, intercourse frequency, and urinary luteinizing hormone (LH) monitoring. Fecundability also increased with increasing consistency of CMM. CONCLUSION(S): Among women trying to conceive, CMM is uncommon, but our study suggests that CMM-a free, self-directed method to determine the fertile window-is associated with increased fecundability independent of intercourse frequency or use of urinary LH monitoring.
Does sexual intercourse in the implantation time window (5-9 days after ovulation) reduce fecundability? After adjustment for intercourse in the fecund window and clustering by couple, there was no association between intercourse in the implantation time window and fecundity. Previous research has suggested an association between intercourse in the peri-implantation time window (5-9 days after estimated ovulation) and reduced fecundability. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, We used data from the FERTILI study, a prospective observational study conducted in five European countries, with data collected from 1992 to 1996. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, Women who were experienced in fertility awareness tracking kept a daily diary of cervical mucus observations, basal body temperature measurements, coitus and clinically identified pregnancy. We estimated the day of ovulation as cycle length minus 13 days. From 661 women, 2606 cycles had intercourse during the fecund window (from 5 days before to 3 days after the estimated day of ovulation), resulting in 418 pregnancies (conception cycles). An established Bayesian fecundability model was used to estimate the fecundability ratio (FR) of peri-implantation intercourse on fecundability, while adjusting for each partner's age, prior pregnancy, the couple's probability of conception and intercourse pattern(s). We conducted sensitivity analyses estimating ovulation as cycle length minus 12 days, or alternatively, as the peak day of estrogenic cervical mucus. MAIN There was no effect of peri-implantation adjusted FR for three or more acts of peri-implantation 1.00, 95% 0.76-1.13. Results were essentially the same with sensitivity analyses. There was an inverse relationship between frequency of intercourse in the fecund window and intercourse in the peri-implantation window. LIMITATIONS, Women with known subfertility were excluded from this study. Many couples in the study were avoiding pregnancy during much of the study, so 61% of otherwise eligible cycles in the database were not at meaningful risk of pregnancy and did not contribute to the analysis. Some couples may not have recorded all intercourse. We believe the current balance of evidence does not support a recommendation for avoiding intercourse in the peri-implantation period among couples trying to conceive. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): No external funding. The authors have no potential competing interests. N/A.