Abstract
STUDY QUESTION
Is bacterial vaginosis (BV) associated with fecundability?
SUMMARY ANSWER
Women with BV may be at increased risk for sub-fecundity.
WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY
While BV has been associated with poor IVF outcomes, the association between vaginal microbiota disruption and non-medically assisted conception has not been thoroughly explored.
STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION
Kenyan women with fertility intent were enrolled in prospective cohort that included monthly preconception visits with vaginal fluid specimen collection and pregnancy testing. Four hundred fifty-eight women attempting pregnancy for ≤3 menstrual cycles at enrollment were eligible for this fecundability analysis.
PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS
At monthly preconception visits, participants reported the first day of last menstrual period and sexual behavior, underwent pregnancy testing and provided vaginal specimens. Discrete time proportional probabilities models were used to estimate fecundability ratios (FRs) and 95% CI in menstrual cycles with and without BV (Nugent score ≥ 7) at the visit prior to each pregnancy test. We also assessed the association between persistent BV (BV at two consecutive visits) and fecundability.
MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE
Participants contributed 1376 menstrual cycles; 18.5% (n = 255) resulted in pregnancy. After adjusting for age, frequency of condomless sex and study site, BV at the visit prior to pregnancy testing was associated with a 17% lower fecundability (adjusted FR (aFR) 0.83, 95% CI 0.6–1.1). Persistent BV was associated with a 43% reduction in fecundability compared to cycles characterized by optimal vaginal health (aFR 0.57, 95% CI 0.4–0.8).
LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION
Detection of vaginal microbiota disruption using Gram stain and a point-of-care test for elevated sialidase identified a non-optimal vaginal environment, but these non-specific methods may miss important relationships that could be identified by characterizing individual vaginal bacteria and bacterial communities using molecular methods. In addition, results may be subject to residual confounding by condomless sex as this was reported for the prior month rather than for the fertile window during each cycle.
WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS
Given the high global prevalence of BV and infertility, an association between BV and reduced fecundability could have important implications for a large number of women who wish to conceive. Multi-omics approaches to studying the vaginal microbiota may provide key insights into this association and identify potential targets for intervention.
STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)
This work was supported by a National Institutes of Health grant (NICHD R01 HD087346-R.S.M.). R.S.M. received additional support for mentoring (NICHD K24 HD88229). E.M.L. was supported by pre- and post-doctoral fellowships (NIAID T32 AI07140, NICHD F32 HD100202). Data collection and management were made possible using REDCap electronic data capture tools hosted at the University of Washington’s Institute of Translational Health Science supported by grants from NCATS/NIH (UL1 TR002319). The content of this paper is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. R.S.M. receives research funding, paid to the University of Washington, from Hologic Corporation, and has received honoraria for consulting from Lupin Pharmaceuticals. L.E.M. receives research funding, paid to the University of Washington, from Hologic Corporation, and has received honoraria for service on scientific advisory boards from Hologic and Nabriva Therapeutics.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER
N/A.
Keywords: bacterial vaginosis / vaginal microbiota / fecundability / infertility / conception
Introduction
Bacterial vaginosis (BV) is characterized by replacement of optimal Lactobacillus-dominated vaginal microbiota with diverse anaerobic and facultative bacteria (Brotman, 2011). This condition has been associated with increased risk of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and pelvic inflammatory disease (PID), which in turn, are associated with ectopic pregnancy and tubal factor infertility (Taylor et al., 2013; Tsevat et al., 2017). During pregnancy, BV and vaginal microbiota disruption are associated with spontaneous abortion and preterm birth (Leitich and Kiss, 2007; Fettweis et al., 2019; Al-Memar et al., 2020). The effects of BV on fecundity are not well understood outside the context of medically assisted reproduction.
Several studies have found that infertile women have a higher BV prevalence compared to fertile women (Mania-Pramanik et al., 2009; Dhont et al., 2010; Haahr et al., 2019b). A meta-analysis of pregnancy outcomes associated with BV among women undergoing IVF found that while BV was not associated with lower incidence of biochemical pregnancy, clinical pregnancy or live birth, it was associated with early spontaneous abortion (Haahr et al., 2019b). In studies using molecular methods to characterize the vaginal microbiota in women seeking assisted reproduction, higher vaginal bacterial diversity was associated with decreased clinical pregnancy and live birth, but not biochemical pregnancy (Hyman et al., 2012; Amato et al., 2019; Haahr et al., 2019a). There are conflicting results regarding the association between Lactobacillus-dominated endometrial microbiota and IVF outcomes (Franasiak et al., 2016; Moreno et al., 2016).
Few prospective studies have examined the association between vaginal microbiota disruption and female fertility in non-medically assisted reproduction (Wiesenfeld et al., 2012; Haggerty et al., 2016). None have assessed fecundability, the per-menstrual cycle probability of pregnancy. The objective of this study was to assess the associations between BV and elevated sialidase, two measures of vaginal microbiota disruption, and fecundability in Kenyan women trying to conceive.
Materials and methods
Study design and population
Participants for this prospective fecundability analysis were in the Microbiota and Preterm Birth (MPTB) Study, which enrolled non-pregnant women with immediate fertility intent in Nairobi and Mombasa, Kenya (Lokken et al., 2020). Inclusion criteria included: planning to conceive, HIV-negative, ≤45 years old and having a menstrual period in the prior 3 months or recent discontinuation of the implant, hormonal intrauterine device (IUD) or depo medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA). Exclusion criteria included: pregnant at enrollment, contraception at enrollment other than condoms for HIV/STI prevention, DMPA injection in prior 3 months, history of cervical/uterine surgery (excluding cesarean section), autoimmune disease, antibiotic use in prior 4 weeks or history of infertility care-seeking. The institutional review boards of Kenyatta National Hospital and the University of Washington approved the study. All participants provided written informed consent.
Participants who contributed ≥1 menstrual cycle between 18 April 2017 and 18 March 2020 were eligible for this analysis. Women reporting a history of hospitalization for PID, ectopic pregnancy, polycystic ovarian syndrome or endometriosis were excluded to minimize inclusion of women with potential sub-fertility requiring medical intervention. Participants reporting >3 menstrual cycles of pre-enrollment conception attempt time were excluded to reduce bias associated with unobserved cycle time (Weinberg et al., 1994; Schisterman et al., 2013).
Enrollment and monthly preconception visits
At enrollment, participants completed a structured interview on demographics, socio-behavioral characteristics, and medical history. Participants underwent a pelvic examination with vaginal fluid collection for Neisseria gonorrhoeae, Chlamydia trachomatis and Trichomonas vaginalis detection by nucleic acid amplification tests, vaginal Gram stain and elevated sialidase detection. If participants were menstruating, examination was deferred.
At monthly preconception visits, participants completed a urine pregnancy test and interview reporting condomless sex frequency and other behaviors for the prior month. Women self-collected vaginal swabs for Gram stain and sialidase detection. Most women who remained non-pregnant after 6 months exited the study; those discontinuing DMPA within 6 months of enrollment were eligible for 9 months of follow-up due to delayed return to fertility (Yland et al., 2020).
Women received counseling on healthy preconception behaviors and an estimate of their next fertile window using calendar methods. Participants with genital symptoms were treated using syndromic management (National AIDS & STI Control Programme of Kenya, 2018). Treatment for laboratory-detected STIs was provided at the first monthly preconception visit.
Enrollment samples were tested for N. gonorrhoeae, C. trachomatis and T. vaginalis (Aptima Combo-2 CT/NG Detection System, Aptima T. vaginalis assay; Hologic Corporation; San Diego, CA, USA). Vaginal Gram stained slides from each visit were evaluated for BV using the criteria of Nugent and Hillier (Nugent et al., 1991). Detection of elevated vaginal sialidase concentrations was performed using a point-of-care diagnostic test for BV (≥0.25 µg; Diagnosit BVBlue; Gryphus Diagnostics; Knoxville, TN, USA).
Defining time-at-risk and outcome
At each visit, women reported the first day of their last menstrual period (LMP). Women who missed preconception visits were asked to report interim menstrual cycles; 130 participants were unable to report interim menstrual cycles for visits missed before July 2018 when this question was added. For these cases, cycles were derived based on menstrual cycle duration reported at enrollment. For women reporting irregular cycles, a cycle length of 28 days was used. Three percent of cycles (41/1376; 19 for irregular cyclers, 22 for regular cyclers) were derived and 6.3% (87/1376) were reported after missed visits.
Discrete menstrual cycles were modeled utilizing the LMPs reported by participants and the derived cycles (Supplementary Fig. S1). Only complete menstrual cycles with known outcomes and first incident pregnancies were included. Participants were considered pregnant in a cycle if the urine pregnancy test was positive. They were considered not pregnant in a cycle if their pregnancy test was negative and they reported a new LMP at their next visit, demonstrating they did not become pregnant later in the cycle.
Statistical analysis
Cumulative incidence of pregnancy was estimated using Kaplan–Meier methods. Discrete time proportional probabilities models with robust standard errors were used to estimate fecundability ratios (FRs) and 95% CI (Weinberg et al., 1989, 1994). The FR is interpreted as the per-cycle probability of pregnancy comparing exposed to unexposed cycles (i.e. BV vs no BV). To account for left truncation, participants reporting conception attempt time prior to enrollment were delayed entry into the analysis by the number of reported menstrual cycles of prior trying time (Weinberg et al., 1994). Censoring criteria included initiation of biomedical infertility treatment, resumption of contraception, participant withdrawal, loss to follow-up and completing preconception follow-up without pregnancy.
Two primary time-varying measures of vaginal microbiota disruption were assessed: BV (Nugent score ≥ 7) and elevated sialidase by the point-of-care test. BV served as an overall indicator of vaginal microbiota disruption. Sialidase is a mucin-degrading enzyme produced by some BV-associated bacteria (Wiggins et al., 2001), which may be one mechanism through which disrupted vaginal microbiota impacts fecundability. In primary analyses, BV and elevated sialidase status were lagged from the visit prior to each pregnancy test to align the vaginal microbiota assessment with the preconception period for each cycle. For cycles reported following a missed visit and for derived cycles, missing exposure and time-varying confounder data were imputed using data from the last visit carried forward and then lagged.
Age (<25, 25–29, 30–34, 35–39, 40–45) and frequency of condomless sex in the prior month (time-varying; none, 1–4, 5–8, ≥9) were included a priori in adjusted models due to associations with both vaginal microbiota disruption and fecundity (Gallo et al., 2011; Wesselink et al., 2017). Study site was also included a priori. Additional potential confounders were selected based on potential associations with both vaginal microbiota and fecundability. These included body mass index (Lokken et al., 2019), vaginal washing in last month (Baird et al., 1996; Ness et al., 2004), any condom use in last month, maternal education and household income. Potential confounding factors were evaluated for inclusion in the multivariable model using a manual forward stepwise model-building approach. None of the potential confounding factors changed the FR estimate by >10%, so none were retained in the final adjusted models.
A sensitivity analysis was conducted after excluding women with potential underlying subfertility based on more restrictive exclusion criteria. These included N. gonorrhoeae, C. trachomatis, T. vaginalis or PID diagnosis at enrollment; history of any PID diagnosis; history of treatment for N. gonorrhoeae, C. trachomatis, T. vaginalis or syphilis; self-report of fibroids or unknown uterine abnormality; DMPA use within prior 6 months (Yland et al., 2020), and having an HIV-seropositive partner (Iyer et al., 2019). Two sensitivity analyses were conducted examining the effects of deriving menstrual cycles and missing exposure and confounder data on the effect estimates by (i) excluding these cycles, and (ii) excluding participants who enrolled prior to the addition of the interim missed LMP question in the parent study. An additional analysis was conducted to evaluate effect modification by recent contraceptive method (Yland et al., 2020).
Pre-defined secondary analyses were conducted to further assess the association between vaginal microbiota and fecundability. Models were run utilizing vaginal microbiota status measured at enrollment only, as fecundability studies more commonly use time-independent measures. In addition, to assess stable vs dynamic vaginal microbiota, a variable was created combining the measurement from the visit prior to and the measurement at each menstrual cycle’s ultimate pregnancy test. This method resulted in four categories: negative at both visits (optimal vaginal health); positive at prior visit but negative at current visit; negative at prior visit but positive at current visit; and positive at both visits (persistent disrupted). Women conceiving in the first menstrual cycle were eligible for this analysis as they contributed an enrollment sample and a sample at their first monthly preconception visit. To further assess persistence, a sensitivity analysis was conducted by generating a variable combining the vaginal microbiota status from the two visits prior to each pregnancy test (i.e. a double-lag).
Results
Baseline and follow-up characteristics
Of the 701 women enrolled in the MPTB Study, 458 were eligible for this fecundability analysis (Supplementary Fig. S1 and Table SI). Included participants were a median of 29 years old (interquartile range (IQR) 25–34, Table I). Most had been pregnant before (93.9%, n = 430). One participant reported smoking (0.2%) and a minority drank alcohol (14.2%, n = 65). The most common methods of recent contraception were implant (38.2%, n = 175), copper IUD (27.7%, n = 127) and none (22.5%, n = 103). Five percent (n = 22) of participants reported that their male partner was living with HIV. C. trachomatis was detected in 34 (7.5%) women, three had N. gonorrhoeae (0.7%) and four had T. vaginalis (0.9%). BV (35.8%, n = 164) and elevated sialidase (35.2%, n = 161) were detected in one third of participants. BV and elevated sialidase prevalence were similar between eligible and ineligible participants (Supplementary Table SI). Compared to participants from Mombasa, participants in Nairobi were older (median 30 vs 27), more likely to have been pregnant before (96.8% vs 82.0%), and recently used an IUD (32.8% vs 6.7%). Participants from Nairobi were less likely to report no recent contraception (19.0% vs 37.1%), prior conception attempt time (14.9% vs 50.5%) and vaginal washing (28.7% vs 62.9%) (Supplementary Table SII).
Table I.
Characteristic | N | All eligible |
---|---|---|
Total (n = 458) | ||
Demographic and partnership characteristics | ||
Age | 458 | |
<25 | 87 (19.0) | |
25–29 | 147 (32.1) | |
30–34 | 121 (26.4) | |
35–39 | 84 (18.3) | |
40–45 | 19 (4.2) | |
Education level | 458 | |
<8 years | 29 (6.3) | |
8–11 years | 137 (29.9) | |
12–15 years | 207 (45.2) | |
≥16 years | 85 (18.6) | |
Monthly household income (KSh) | 455 | |
<2500 | 13 (2.9) | |
25 000–10 000 | 136 (29.9) | |
10 000–30 000 | 197 (43.3) | |
30 000–75 000 | 70 (15.4) | |
>75 000 | 39 (8.6) | |
Partner’s age | 454 | |
<25 | 14 (3.1) | |
25–29 | 85 (18.6) | |
30–34 | 134 (29.3) | |
35–39 | 114 (24.9) | |
40–44 | 83 (18.1) | |
≥45 | 28 (6.1) | |
Partner’s HIV-serostatus | 456 | |
HIV-seronegative | 345 (75.7) | |
HIV-seropositive | 22 (4.8) | |
Unknown | 89 (19.5) | |
Substances | ||
Smoke cigarettes | 458 | 1 (0.2) |
Frequency of alcohol use | 458 | |
None | 393 (85.8) | |
Monthly or less | 52 (11.4) | |
2–4 times per month | 10 (2.2) | |
2–3 times per week | 2 (0.4) | |
≥4 times per week | 1 (0.2) | |
Contraception | ||
Most recent contraceptive methodi | 458 | |
None | 103 (22.5) | |
Condoms | 24 (5.2) | |
OCP | 9 (2.0) | |
Injectable (DMPA) | 18 (3.9) | |
Copper IUD | 127 (27.7) | |
Implant | 175 (38.2) | |
Other | 2 (0.4) | |
Any DMPA injection in last 6 months | 458 | 20 (4.4) |
Reproductive history | ||
Ever pregnant | 458 | 430 (93.9) |
Parous | 458 | 413 (90.2) |
Number of menstrual cycles of prior conception attempt timeii | 458 | |
0 | 367 (80.1) | |
1 | 59 (13.0) | |
2 | 19 (4.2) | |
3 | 13 (2.8) | |
Regular menses | 458 | 245 (53.5) |
History of PID (not treated in a hospital) | 458 | 1 (0.2) |
Abnormal uterusiii | ||
Fibroids | 457 | 3 (0.7) |
Other/unknown | 457 | 3 (0.7) |
Sexual risk behavior in last 4 weeks | ||
Any vaginal washing | 458 | 162 (35.4) |
Frequency of condomless sex | 457 | |
No condomless sexiv | 43 (9.4) | |
1–4 | 152 (33.3) | |
5–8 | 115 (25.2) | |
≥9 | 147 (32.2) | |
Any condom use | 456 | 23 (5.0) |
Clinical | ||
BMI | 455 | |
Underweight | 8 (1.8) | |
Normal | 171 (37.6) | |
Overweight | 164 (36.0) | |
Obese | 112 (24.6) | |
History of STIv | 458 | 6 (1.3) |
Vaginal dischargeiii | 458 | 46 (10.0) |
BV (Nugent ≥7) | 458 | 164 (35.8) |
Elevated sialidase | 458 | 161 (35.2) |
N. gonorrhoeae | 454 | 3 (0.7) |
C. trachomatis | 454 | 34 (7.5) |
T. vaginalis | 453 | 4 (0.9) |
Metronidazole prescription | 458 | 4 (0.9) |
BMI, body mass index; BV, bacterial vaginosis; DMPA, depo medroxyprogesterone acetate; IUD, intrauterine device; KSh, Kenyan shillings; OCP, oral contraceptive pills; PID, pelvic inflammatory disease; STI, sexually transmitted infection.
Reported dates of IUD and implant removal and last date of DMPA were reviewed. Women reporting device removal >2 months prior to enrollment were re-classified as non-contraceptors (none) for the purpose of this analysis. Women reporting a last DMPA injection >6 months prior were reclassified as non-contraceptors.
Participants reporting >3 cycles were excluded from this fecundability analysis.
Self-reported.
Of the 43 women reporting no unprotected sex in the prior 4 weeks, 22 (51.2%) reported no vaginal intercourse and 21 (48.8%) reported 100% condom use with vaginal intercourse in the prior 4 weeks. Nine (20.9%) of these women had HIV-positive male partners. The most recent method of contraception reported by these participants included no contraception (n = 13, 30.2%), condoms only (n = 11, 25.6%), DMPA (n = 2, 4.7%), copper IUD (n = 8, 18.6%) and implant (n = 9, 20.9%). Only 5 (11.6%) reported actively trying to conceive prior to study enrollment.
Self-report of syphilis, chlamydia, gonorrhea and/or trichomoniasis.
Participants attended 1266 preconception visits with a median of 29 (IQR 28–35) days between visits. Participants contributed 1376 menstrual cycles (n = 128 missing cycles derived or reported by participants). Enrollment characteristics did not differ between participants with and without these cycles (Supplementary Table SIII). There were 255 pregnancies (18.5% of cycles). The median time-to-pregnancy was four menstrual cycles (IQR 2–7) and the cumulative six-cycle pregnancy rate was 70.4% (95% CI 65.1–75.4; Supplementary Fig. S2).
By the end of the study period, 55.7% (n = 255) of participants were pregnant, 7.6% (n = 35) remained in preconception follow-up, 15.9% (n = 73) did not conceive during preconception follow-up, 3.7% (n = 17) had withdrawn and 17.0% (n = 78) were lost to follow-up (Supplementary Fig. S1). Compared to those who remained in the study, women who withdrew or were lost to follow-up were less likely to have been pregnant before, less likely to be parous, and less likely to have recently used contraception (Supplementary Table SIV). Three participants reported initiating biomedical infertility treatment.
Bacterial vaginosis and fecundability
Thirty-one percent (527/1724) of study visits were BV-positive (Nugent ≥7), though abnormal vaginal discharge (7.8%, 41/526 BV-positive visits) and BV treatment were rare (2.9%, 15/527 BV-positive visits). In unadjusted analysis, BV at the visit prior was associated with a 16% lower fecundability (FR 0.84, 95% CI 0.65–1.07) (Table II). Adjusting for age, frequency of condomless sex and study site did not change the association (adjusted FR (aFR) 0.83, 95% CI 0.64–1.07). These results were attenuated in sensitivity analysis excluding 88 participants who did not meet the more restrictive inclusion criteria (aFR 0.93, 95% CI 0.70–1.24) but were robust to sensitivity analyses excluding derived and reported missed menstrual cycles and excluding participants enrolled prior to addition of the interim missed LMP question (Supplementary Table SV). There was no association between BV and fecundability in a secondary analysis assessing BV at enrollment only (aFR 1.06, 95% CI 0.83–1.34; Table II), and no effect modification by most recent contraceptive method (P-value for interaction: P = 0.5; Supplementary Table SV).
Table II.
Periconceptual exposure | Menstrual cycles exposed (n %) | Pregnancies (n %) | Unadjusted FR (95% CI) | Adjusted FR (95% CI)i | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Primary analysis | n = 1376 | n = 255 | |||
BV at the visit prior to pregnancy testii | 460 (33.4) | 76 (29.8) | 0.84 (0.65, 1.07) | 0.83 (0.64, 1.07) | |
Secondary analyses | |||||
BV at enrollment | 477 (34.7) | 93 (36.5) | 1.07 (0.86, 1.35) | 1.06 (0.83, 1.34) | |
Persistent BV: visit before and at pregnancy test | |||||
Prior visit | Current visit | n = 1376 | n = 255 | ||
No | No | 848 (61.6) | 167 (65.5) | Ref | Ref |
Yes | No | 110 (8.0) | 36 (14.2) | 1.63 (1.17, 2.26) | 1.55 (1.12, 2.14) |
No | Yes | 68 (4.9) | 12 (4.7) | 0.91 (0.52, 1.57) | 0.89 (0.52, 1.55) |
Yes | Yes | 350 (25.4) | 40 (15.7) | 0.58 (0.42, 0.80) | 0.57 (0.41, 0.79) |
Persistent BV: two visits prioriii | |||||
Two visits prior | One visit prior | n = 679 | n = 174 | ||
No | No | 393 (57.9) | 104 (59.8) | Ref | Ref |
Yes | No | 67 (9.9) | 24 (13.8) | 1.18 (0.86.1.62) | 1.14 (0.82, 1.59) |
No | Yes | 54 (8.0) | 12 (6.9) | 0.82 (0.50, 1.33) | 0.78 (0.48, 1.25) |
Yes | Yes | 165 (24.3) | 34 (19.5) | 0.81 (0.58,1.12) | 0.81 (0.59, 1.13) |
BV, bacterial vaginosis; FR, fecundability ratio.
Adjusted for age, study site and frequency of condomless sex in last 4 weeks.
Lagged, time-varying exposure.
Unadjusted and adjusted fecundability models in the analyses assessing the association between BV at the two visits prior to each pregnancy test were run using the Poisson family due to convergence issues with the adjusted models and reduced sample size.
When BV status was re-evaluated utilizing measurements across two visits including the visit prior to and the measurement at each menstrual cycle’s pregnancy test, 61.6% of cycles were BV-negative at both visits (n = 848), 25.4% (n = 350) had persistent BV and the remaining 12.9% (n = 178) were BV-positive at one but not the other visit (Table II). Compared to menstrual cycles with optimal vaginal health, persistent BV was associated with a 43% lower fecundability (aFR 0.57, 95% CI 0.41–0.79) (Table II). In comparison, BV at the visit prior to and no BV at the visit with pregnancy testing was associated with a 1.6-fold higher fecundability (aFR 1.55, 95% CI 1.12–2.14). Results were similar in sensitivity analyses (Supplementary Table SVI). When categorizing participants based on BV status at two preceding visits (double-lagged), there were 679 menstrual cycles and 174 pregnancies for analysis (Table II). Compared to cycles preceded by optimal microbiota, both persistent BV (aFR 0.81, 95% CI 0.59–1.13) and BV at the most recent visit only (aFR 0.78, 95% CI 0.48–1.25) were associated with reduced fecundability, though confidence intervals are wider. Participants with BV two visits prior but not at the visit prior, had a slightly elevated fecundability (aFR 1.14, 95% CI 0.82–1.59) (Table II).
Elevated sialidase and fecundability
Concordance between BV by Gram stain and elevated sialidase test results was 85.9% (1469/1710, kappa = 0.67). Of 241 discordant samples, 48.5% (117/241) were BV-negative but sialidase positive and 51.5% (124/241) were BV-positive but sialidase negative.
There were no associations between elevated sialidase at the visit prior (aFR 0.99, 95% CI 0.77–1.27) or at enrollment (aFR 1.03, 95% CI 0.81–1.31) and fecundability (Table III). When compared to menstrual cycles that were sialidase test negative at the visit prior to and at the current pregnancy test, persistent sialidase test positivity was associated with a 33% reduction in fecundability (aFR 0.67, 95% CI 0.48–0.94). Cycles that were sialidase test positive at the visit prior and negative at the current visit had a 1.8-fold increased per-cycle probability of pregnancy (aFR 1.76, 95% CI 1.30–2.38) (Table III). In sensitivity analysis categorizing status using the measures from two prior visits, these associations were attenuated and close to null (Table III).
Table III.
Periconceptual exposure | Menstrual cycles exposed (n %) | Pregnancies (n %) | Unadjusted FR (95% CI) | Adjusted FR (95% CI)i | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Primary analysis | n = 1376 | n = 255 | |||
Elevated sialidase at the visit prior to pregnancy test ii | 448 (32.6) | 82 (32.2) | 0.99 (0.77, 1.26) | 0.99 (0.77, 1.27) | |
Secondary analyses | |||||
Elevated sialidase at enrollment | 463 (33.7) | 87 (34.1) | 1.02 (0.81, 1.29) | 1.03 (0.81, 1.31) | |
Persistent elevated sialidase: visit before and at pregnancy test | |||||
Prior visit | Current visit | n = 1373 | n = 252 | ||
No | No | 831 (60.5) | 151 (59.9) | Ref | Ref |
Yes | No | 130 (9.5) | 43 (17.1) | 1.82 (1.34, 2.46) | 1.76 (1.30, 2.38) |
No | Yes | 95 (6.9) | 20 (7.9) | 1.15 (0.75, 1.76) | 1.13 (0.74, 1.72) |
Yes | Yes | 317 (23.1) | 38 (15.1) | 0.66 (0.47, 0.92) | 0.67 (0.48, 0.94) |
Persistent elevated sialidase: two visits prior iii | |||||
Two visits prior | One visit prior | n = 679 | n = 174 | ||
No | No | 385 (56.7) | 98 (56.3) | Ref | Ref |
Yes | No | 77 (11.3) | 25 (14.4) | 1.09 (0.78, 1.51) | 1.09 (0.78, 1.51) |
No | Yes | 70 (10.3) | 18 (10.3) | 1.00 (0.66, 1.51) | 0.97 (0.65, 1.45) |
Yes | Yes | 147 (21.7) | 33 (19.0) | 0.90 (0.64, 1.28) | 0.93 (0.66, 1.31) |
FR, fecundability ratio.
Adjusted for age, study site and frequency of condomless sex in last 4 weeks.
Lagged, time-varying exposure.
Unadjusted and adjusted fecundability models in the analyses assessing the association between elevated sialidase at the two visits prior to each pregnancy test were run using the Poisson family due to convergence issues with the adjusted models and reduced sample size.
Discussion
This study is the first to assess whether vaginal microbiota disruption is associated with fecundability among women trying to conceive without medical intervention. BV at the visit prior to each pregnancy test was associated with a 17% reduction in fecundability. Persistent BV was associated with a 19–43% lower per-cycle probability of pregnancy compared to cycles with optimal vaginal health depending on how persistent BV was defined. There was no association between elevated sialidase at the visit prior to each pregnancy test and fecundability, but persistent detection of elevated sialidase was associated with reduced fecundability.
When interpreting these results, it is important to consider that frequency of condomless sex is associated with both BV and with becoming pregnant (Gallo et al., 2011). Without accurate ascertainment and adjustment for frequency of condomless sex, this confounder would introduce a bias toward finding an association between BV and increased fecundability. This is the opposite of the hypothesis under study.
When defining persistent BV as BV at both the visit prior to and at the visit with pregnancy testing, there was a 43% lower fecundability in cycles with persistent BV. In contrast, there was a 55% higher fecundability in cycles characterized by a transition from BV-positive to BV-negative, which is likely a result of reverse causality due to collection of the second sample during early pregnancy (for those who became pregnant). During pregnancy the vaginal microbiota shifts toward a Lactobacillus-dominated community (Romero et al., 2014; DiGiulio et al., 2015; MacIntyre et al., 2015; Stout et al., 2017; Serrano et al., 2019). The strength of the analysis including BV at the visit before and the visit concurrent with each pregnancy test is that participants with optimal microbiota or persistent BV across two points likely had similar vaginal microbiota at the time of conception.
Persistent disruption of the vaginal microbiota could impact fecundability through multiple mechanisms. First, BV and BV-associated bacteria have been associated with PID and tubal factor infertility (Taylor et al., 2013; Haggerty et al., 2016, 2020). Second, ascension of BV-associated bacteria into the upper reproductive tract and persistent sub-clinical inflammation may upset the carefully modulated fetal-maternal immune interaction leading to implantation failure and pre-clinical pregnancy loss (D’Ippolito et al., 2018; Moreno and Simon, 2018). Lastly, sialidase and other mucin-degrading enzymes produced by bacteria associated with BV can degrade cervical mucus, disrupting its functions (Wiggins et al., 2001). Healthy cervical mucus supports conception by reducing bacterial ascension to the uterus and supporting selection, movement and capacitation of sperm (Wiggins et al., 2001; Chrétien, 2003).
In this Kenyan preconception cohort, the six-cycle pregnancy rate was 70%, which is within the 58–81% range reported for prospective fecundability cohorts in the USA and Europe (Bonde et al., 1998; Gnoth et al., 2003; Wildenschild et al., 2014; Wesselink et al., 2017). Retrospective studies in South Africa and Ethiopia have reported slightly lower 6-month pregnancy rates of 50% and 66%, respectively (Bello et al., 2010; Kassa and Kebede, 2018) In Nigeria, the median time-to-pregnancy was estimated at 5.1 months using Demographic and Health Survey data and the current duration approach to estimate fecundability (Polis et al., 2017).
This fecundability analysis has several strengths. The prospective design is the gold standard for assessing fecundability (Buck Louis and Platt, 2011). In addition, monthly specimen sampling allowed for time-varying evaluation of the association between vaginal microbiota and fecundability, which is important given the temporal variation in Nugent score (Brotman et al., 2010; Thoma et al., 2011). The participant population was an additional strength; the first cycle at-risk for pregnancy was observed for a majority of participants. Participants also reported low rates of smoking and alcohol use, so these results are unlikely to be confounded by these behaviors. Lastly, most cases of BV detected by Nugent’s criteria were asymptomatic, so few received syndromic treatment with metronidazole. Therefore, it is unlikely that observed associations between BV and fecundability were due to treatment.
There were also a number of limitations. First, participants could not report interim menstrual cycles if they missed a visit in the study’s first year, so missed menstrual cycles were derived based on self-reported menstrual cycle regularity during this period. A 28-day cycle was assumed for irregular cyclers, which may have overestimated cycles to pregnancy; however, only 1.4% of cycles were affected reducing concern for bias. In addition, results were similar in sensitivity analyses excluding these visits. Second, condomless sex was reported for the prior month rather than for the fertile window during each cycle, so these analyses are subject to residual confounding by condomless sex frequency. Third, excluding women without a menstrual cycle in the prior 3 months (in the absence of hormonal contraception) may have induced selection bias by excluding women with long or irregular menstrual cycles. However, only 3% (26/940) of women screened for the study met this criterion, reducing the likelihood of enrolling a more fecund cohort. Fourth, about 20% of participants were lost to follow-up, which may bias study results if vaginal microbiota disruption or fecundability were associated with remaining in the study. While most enrollment characteristics were similar between women lost to follow-up and those remaining in the study, women who did not complete follow-up may have been less fertile as they were less likely to ever have been pregnant and more likely to report no recent contraceptive method. Fifth, detection of vaginal microbiota disruption using Gram stain and a point-of-care sialidase test are non-specific methods of detection that may miss important relationships that could be identified using molecular methods to characterize individual bacteria and bacterial communities. Lastly, this study did not characterize the endometrial microbiota, which may be mechanistically important (Mitchell et al., 2015; Chen et al., 2017).
This prospective study of Kenyan women attempting to conceive found an association between BV and reduced fecundability. Studies using multi-omics approaches to interrogate the vaginal and endometrial microbiota may provide additional insights into this association and could identify potential targets for intervention. Given the high global prevalence of BV and infertility (Mascarenhas et al., 2012; Peebles et al., 2019), these findings could have important implications for a large number of women.
Data availability
This study was conducted with approval from the Kenyatta National Hospital—University of Nairobi Ethics and Research Committee (KNH-UON ERC), which requires that we release data from Kenyan studies (including de-identified data) only after they have provided their written approval for additional analyses. As such, data for this study will be available from the authors upon request, with written approval for the proposed analysis from the KNH/UON ERC. Their application forms and guidelines can be accessed at http://erc.uonbi.ac. To request these data, please contact KRTC Administrator at kenyares@uw.edu.
Supplementary Material
Acknowledgements
We would like to acknowledge the clinic, laboratory and administrative study staff in Nairobi, Mombasa, and Seattle for their dedication and teamwork. We are also grateful to Kenyatta National Hospital, Coast Provincial General Hospital and the Mombasa County Department of Health for supporting this research and providing clinical and laboratory space. Lastly, we thank the participants whose commitment to this study made it all possible.
Authors’ roles
R.S.M. is the principal investigator of the parent study, supervising study protocol development and implementation. J.K. and W.J. served as site principal investigators, overseeing study staff and implementation at Kenyatta National Hospital and Ganjoni Health Center. R.S.M., E.M.L., J.K., W.J. and K.M. participated in designing the study, protocol, data collection tools, and staff training. W.J. and K.M. oversaw laboratory methods. C.J. and K.M. read the Gram stained slides for Nugent scoring and managed laboratory quality control. E.M.L., R.S.M., J.P.H., L.E.M. and C.H.M. designed this analysis and developed the statistical analysis plan for the study. E.M.L. directs the study, conducted the statistical analyses, and wrote the first draft of the manuscript. All authors reviewed and approved the final manuscript.
Funding
This work was supported by a National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant (NICHD R01 HD087346-R.S.M.). R.S.M. received additional support for mentoring (NICHD K24 HD88229). E.M.L. was supported by pre- and post-doctoral fellowships (NIAID T32 AI07140, NICHD F32 HD100202). Data collection and management were made possible using REDCap electronic data capture tools hosted at the University of Washington’s Institute of Translational Health Science supported by grants from NCATS/NIH (UL1 TR002319). The content of this paper is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.
Conflict of interest
R.S.M. receives research funding, paid to the University of Washington, from Hologic Corporation, and has received honoraria for consulting from Lupin Pharmaceuticals. L.E.M. receives research funding, paid to the University of Washington, from Hologic Corporation, and has received honoraria for service on scientific advisory boards from Hologic and Nabriva Therapeutics.
References
- Al Memar M, Bobdiwala S, Fourie H, Mannino R, Lee YS, Smith A, Marchesi JR, Timmerman D, Bourne T, Bennett PR. et al. The association between vaginal bacterial composition and miscarriage: a nested case control study. BJOG 2020;127:264–274. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Amato V, Papaleo E, Pasciuta R, Viganò P, Ferrarese R, Clementi N, Sanchez AM, Quaranta L, Burioni R, Ambrosi A. et al. Differential composition of vaginal microbiome, but not of seminal microbiome, is associated with successful intrauterine insemination in couples with idiopathic infertility: a prospective observational study. Open Forum Infect Dis 2019;7:ofz525. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Baird DD, Weinberg CR, Voigt LF, Daling JR.. Vaginal douching and reduced fertility. Am J Public Health 1996;86:844–850. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Bello B, Kielkowski D, Heederik D, Wilson K.. Time-to-pregnancy and pregnancy outcomes in a South African population. BMC Public Health 2010;10:565. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Bonde JPE, Hjollund NHI, Jensen TK, Ernst E, Kolstad H, Henriksen TB, Giwercman A, Skakkebæk NE, Andersson AM, Olsen J.. A follow-up study of environmental and biologic determinants of fertility among 430 Danish first-pregnancy planners: design and methods. Reprod Toxicol 1998;12:19–27. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Brotman RM, Ravel J, Cone RA, Zenilman JM.. Rapid fluctuation of the vaginal microbiota measured by Gram stain analysis. Sex Transm Infect 2010;86:297–302. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Brotman RM. Vaginal microbiome and sexually transmitted infections: an epidemiologic perspective. J Clin Invest 2011;121:4610–4617. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Buck Louis GM, Platt RW (ed).Reproductive and Perinatal Epidemiology. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Chen C, Song X, Wei W, Zhong H, Dai J, Lan Z, Li F, Yu X, Feng Q, Wang Z. et al. The microbiota continuum along the female reproductive tract and its relation to uterine-related diseases. Nat Commun 2017;8:875. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Chrétien FC. Involvement of the glycoproteic meshwork of cervical mucus in the mechanism of sperm orientation. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2003;82:449–461. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- D’Ippolito S, Nicuolo F, Di Pontecorvi A, Gratta M, Scambia G, Di Simone N.. Endometrial microbes and microbiome: Recent insights on the inflammatory and immune “players” of the human endometrium. Am J Reprod Immunol 2018;80:e13065. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Dhont N, Wijgert J, Van De Luchters S, Muvunyi C, Vyankandondera J, Temmerman M.. Sexual violence, HSV-2 and HIV are important predictors for infertility in Rwanda. Hum Reprod 2010;25:2507–2515. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- DiGiulio DB, Callahan BJ, McMurdie PJ, Costello EK, Lyell DJ, Robaczewska A, Sun CL, Goltsman DSA, Wong RJ, Shaw G. et al. Temporal and spatial variation of the human microbiota during pregnancy. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2015;112:11060–11065. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Fettweis JM, Serrano MG, Brooks JP, Edwards DJ, Girerd PH, Parikh HI, Huang B, Arodz TJ, Edupuganti L, Glascock AL. et al. The vaginal microbiome and preterm birth. Nat Med 2019;25:1012–1021. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Franasiak JM, Werner MD, Juneau CR, Tao X, Landis J, Zhan Y, Treff N, Scott R.. Endometrial microbiome at the time of embryo transfer: next-generation sequencing of the 16S ribosomal subunit. J Assist Reprod Genet 2016;33:129–136. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Gallo MF, Warner L, King CC, Sobel JD, Klein RS, Cu-Uvin S, Rompalo AM, Jamieson DJ.. Association between semen exposure and incident bacterial vaginosis. Infect Dis Obstet Gynecol 2011;2011:842652. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Gnoth C, Godehardt D, Godehardt E, Frank-Herrmann P, Freundl G.. Time to pregnancy: results of the German prospective study and impact on the management of infertility. Hum Reprod 2003;18:1959–1966. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Haahr T, Humaidan P, Elbaek HO, Alsbjerg B, Laursen RJ, Rygaard K, Johannesen TB, Andersen PS, Ng KL, Jensen JS.. Vaginal microbiota and in vitro fertilization outcomes: development of a simple diagnostic tool to predict patients at risk of a poor reproductive outcome. J Infect Dis 2019a;219:1809–1817. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Haahr T, Zacho J, Bräuner M, Shathmigha K, Skov Jensen J, Humaidan P.. Reproductive outcome of patients undergoing in vitro fertilisation treatment and diagnosed with bacterial vaginosis or abnormal vaginal microbiota: a systematic PRISMA review and meta-analysis. BJOG 2019b;126:200–207. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Haggerty CL, Ness RB, Totten PA, Farooq F, Tang G, Ko D, Hou X, Fiedler TL, Srinivasan S, Astete SG. et al. Presence and concentrations of select bacterial vaginosis-associated bacteria are associated with increased risk of pelvic inflammatory disease. Sex Transm Dis 2020;47:344–346. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Haggerty CL, Totten PA, Tang G, Astete SG, Ferris MJ, Norori J, Bass DC, Martin DH, Taylor BD, Ness RB.. Identification of novel microbes associated with pelvic inflammatory disease and infertility. Sex Transm Infect 2016;92:441–446. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Hyman RW, Herndon CN, Jiang H, Palm C, Fukushima M, Bernstein D, Vo KC, Zelenko Z, Davis RW, Giudice LC.. The dynamics of the vaginal microbiome during infertility therapy with in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer. J Assist Reprod Genet 2012;29:105–115. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Iyer JR, Van Rie A, Haberlen SA, Mudavanhu M, Mutunga L, Bassett J, Schwartz SR.. Subfertility among HIV-affected couples in a safer conception cohort in South Africa. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2019;221:48.e1–48.e18. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Kassa EM, Kebede E.. Time-to-pregnancy and associated factors among couples with natural planned conception in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Afr J Reprod Health 2018;22:33–43. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Leitich H, Kiss H.. Asymptomatic bacterial vaginosis and intermediate flora as risk factors for adverse pregnancy outcome. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2007;21:375–390. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Lokken EM, Mandaliya K, Srinivasan S, Richardson BA, Kinuthia J, Lannon S, Jaoko W, Alumera H, Kemoli A, Fay E. et al. Impact of preconception vaginal microbiota on women ’s risk of spontaneous preterm birth: protocol for cohort study a prospective case-cohort study. BMJ Open 2020;10:e035186. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Lokken EM, Richardson BA, Kinuthia J, Mwinyikai K, Abdalla A, Jaoko W, Mandaliya K, Shafi J, McClelland RS.. A prospective cohort study of the association between body mass index and incident bacterial vaginosis. Sex Transm Dis 2019;46:31–36. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- MacIntyre DA, Chandiramani M, Lee YS, Kindinger L, Smith A, Angelopoulos N, Lehne B, Arulkumaran S, Brown R, Teoh TG. et al. The vaginal microbiome during pregnancy and the postpartum period in a European population. Sci Rep 2015;5:8988. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Mania-Pramanik J, Kerkar SC, Salvi VS.. Bacterial vaginosis: a cause of infertility? Int J STD AIDS 2009;20:778–781. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Mascarenhas MN, Flaxman SR, Boerma T, Vanderpoel S, Stevens GA.. National, regional, and global trends in infertility prevalence since 1990: a systematic analysis of 277 health surveys. PLoS Med 2012;9:e1001356. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Mitchell CM, Haick A, Nkwopara E, Garcia R, Rendi M, Agnew K, Fredricks DN, Eschenbach D.. Colonization of the upper genital tract by vaginal bacterial species in nonpregnant women. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2015;212:611.e1–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Moreno I, Codoñer FM, Vilella F, Valbuena D, Martinez-Blanch JF, Jimenez-Almazán J, Alonso R, Alamá P, Remohí J, Pellicer A. et al. Evidence that the endometrial microbiota has an effect on implantation success or failure. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2016;215:684–703. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Moreno I, Simon C.. Relevance of assessing the uterine microbiota in infertility. Fertil Steril 2018;110:337–343. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- National AIDS & STI Control Programme of Kenya. Kenya National Guidelines for Prevention, Management and Control of Sexually Transmitted Infections. Nairobi, Kenya, 2018.
- Ness RB, Hillier SL, Kip KE, Soper DE, Stamm CA, McGregor JA, Bass DC, Sweet RL, Rice P, Richter HE.. Bacterial vaginosis and risk of pelvic inflammatory disease. Obstet Gynecol 2004;104:761–769. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Nugent RP, Krohn MA, Hillier SL.. Reliability of diagnosing bacterial vaginosis is improved by a standardized method of Gram stain interpretation. J Clin Microbiol 1991;29:297–301. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Peebles K, Velloza J, Balkus JE, McClelland RS, Barnabas RV.. High global burden and costs of bacterial vaginosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sex Transm Dis 2019;46:304–311. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Polis CB, Cox CM, Tunçalp Ö, McLain AC, Thoma ME.. Estimating infertility prevalence in low-to-middle-income countries: an application of a current duration approach to Demographic and Health Survey data. Hum Reprod 2017;32:1064–1074. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Romero R, Hassan SS, Gajer P, Tarca AL, Fadrosh DW, Nikita L, Galuppi M, Lamont RF, Chaemsaithong P, Miranda J. et al. The composition and stability of the vaginal microbiota of normal pregnant women is different from that of non-pregnant women. Microbiome 2014;2:4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Schisterman EF, Cole SR, Ye A, Platt RW.. Accuracy loss due to selection bias in cohort studies with left truncation. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 2013;27:491–502. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Serrano MG, Parikh HI, Brooks JP, Edwards DJ, Arodz TJ, Edupuganti L, Huang B, Girerd PH, Bokhari YA, Bradley SP. et al. Racioethnic diversity in the dynamics of the vaginal microbiome during pregnancy. Nat Med 2019;25:1001–1011. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Stout MJ, Zhou Y, Wylie KM, Tarr PI, Macones GA, Tuuli MG.. Early pregnancy vaginal microbiome trends and preterm birth. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2017;217:356.e1–356.e18. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Taylor BD, Darville T, Haggerty CL.. Does bacterial vaginosis cause pelvic inflammatory disease? Sex Transm Dis 2013;40:117–122. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Thoma ME, Gray RH, Kiwanuka N, Aluma S, Wang MC, Sewankambo N, Wawer MJ.. The short-term variability of bacterial vaginosis diagnosed by nugent gram stain criteria among sexually active women in Rakai, Uganda. Sex Transm Dis 2011;38:111–116. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Tsevat D, Wiesenfeld H, Parks C, Peipert JF.. Sexually transmitted diseases and infertility. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2017;216:1–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Weinberg C, Wilcox A, Baird DD.. Reduced fecundability in women with prenatal exposure to cigarette smoking. Am J Epidemiol 1989;129:1072–1078. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Weinberg CR, Baird DD, Wilcox AJ.. Sources of bias in studies of time to pregnancy. Stat Med 1994;13:671–681. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Wesselink AK, Rothman KJ, Hatch EE, Mikkelsen EM, Sorensen HT, Wise LA.. Age and fecundability in a North American preconception cohort study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2017;217:667.e1–667.e8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Wiesenfeld HC, Hillier SL, Meyn LA, Amortegui AJ, Sweet RL.. Subclinical pelvic inflammatory disease and infertility. Obstet Gynecol 2012;120:37–43. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Wiggins R, Hicks SJ, Soothill PW, Millar MR, Corfield AP.. Mucinases and sialidases: their role in the pathogenesis of sexually transmitted infections in the female genital tract. Sex Transm Infect 2001;77:402–408. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Wildenschild C, Riis AH, Ehrenstein V, Heitmann BL, Hatch EE, Wise LA, Rothman KJ, Sorensen HT, Mikkelsen EM.. Weight at birth and subsequent fecundability: a prospective cohort study. PLoS One 2014;9:e95257. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Yland JJ, Bresnick KA, Hatch EE, Wesselink AK, Mikkelsen EM, Rothman KJ, Sørensen HT, Huybrechts KF, Wise LA.. Pregravid contraceptive use and fecundability: prospective-cohort study. Hum Reprod 2020;371:m3966. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Data Availability Statement
This study was conducted with approval from the Kenyatta National Hospital—University of Nairobi Ethics and Research Committee (KNH-UON ERC), which requires that we release data from Kenyan studies (including de-identified data) only after they have provided their written approval for additional analyses. As such, data for this study will be available from the authors upon request, with written approval for the proposed analysis from the KNH/UON ERC. Their application forms and guidelines can be accessed at http://erc.uonbi.ac. To request these data, please contact KRTC Administrator at kenyares@uw.edu.