Preconception contraceptive use and miscarriage: prospective cohort study.

BMJ medicine Pub Date : 2023-09-11 eCollection Date: 2023-01-01 DOI:10.1136/bmjmed-2023-000569
Jennifer J Yland, Amelia K Wesselink, Sonia Hernandez-Diaz, Krista Huybrechts, Elizabeth E Hatch, Tanran R Wang, David Savitz, Wendy Kuohung, Kenneth J Rothman, Lauren A Wise
{"title":"Preconception contraceptive use and miscarriage: prospective cohort study.","authors":"Jennifer J Yland, Amelia K Wesselink, Sonia Hernandez-Diaz, Krista Huybrechts, Elizabeth E Hatch, Tanran R Wang, David Savitz, Wendy Kuohung, Kenneth J Rothman, Lauren A Wise","doi":"10.1136/bmjmed-2023-000569","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To evaluate the association between preconception contraceptive use and miscarriage.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Prospective cohort study.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Residents of the United States of America or Canada, recruited from 2013 until the end of 2022.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>13 460 female identified participants aged 21-45 years who were planning a pregnancy were included, of whom 8899 conceived. Participants reported data for contraceptive history, early pregnancy, miscarriage, and potential confounders during preconception and pregnancy.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measure: </strong>Miscarriage, defined as pregnancy loss before 20 weeks of gestation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Preconception use of combined and progestin-only oral contraceptives, hormonal intrauterine devices, copper intrauterine devices, rings, implants, or natural methods was not associated with miscarriage compared with use of barrier methods. Participants who most recently used patch (incidence rate ratios 1.34 (95% confidence interval 0.81 to 2.21)) or injectable contraceptives (1.44 (0.99 to 2.12)) had higher rates of miscarriage compared with recent users of barrier methods, although results were imprecise due to the small numbers of participants who used patch and injectable contraceptives.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Use of most contraceptives before conception was not appreciably associated with miscarriage rate. Individuals who used patch and injectable contraceptives had higher rates of miscarriage relative to users of barrier methods, although these results were imprecise and residual confounding was possible.</p>","PeriodicalId":72433,"journal":{"name":"BMJ medicine","volume":"2 1","pages":"e000569"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/f2/d0/bmjmed-2023-000569.PMC10496668.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjmed-2023-000569","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate the association between preconception contraceptive use and miscarriage.

Design: Prospective cohort study.

Setting: Residents of the United States of America or Canada, recruited from 2013 until the end of 2022.

Participants: 13 460 female identified participants aged 21-45 years who were planning a pregnancy were included, of whom 8899 conceived. Participants reported data for contraceptive history, early pregnancy, miscarriage, and potential confounders during preconception and pregnancy.

Main outcome measure: Miscarriage, defined as pregnancy loss before 20 weeks of gestation.

Results: Preconception use of combined and progestin-only oral contraceptives, hormonal intrauterine devices, copper intrauterine devices, rings, implants, or natural methods was not associated with miscarriage compared with use of barrier methods. Participants who most recently used patch (incidence rate ratios 1.34 (95% confidence interval 0.81 to 2.21)) or injectable contraceptives (1.44 (0.99 to 2.12)) had higher rates of miscarriage compared with recent users of barrier methods, although results were imprecise due to the small numbers of participants who used patch and injectable contraceptives.

Conclusions: Use of most contraceptives before conception was not appreciably associated with miscarriage rate. Individuals who used patch and injectable contraceptives had higher rates of miscarriage relative to users of barrier methods, although these results were imprecise and residual confounding was possible.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
孕前避孕药具的使用与流产:前瞻性队列研究。
目的: 评估孕前避孕与流产之间的关系:评估孕前避孕药具的使用与流产之间的关系:设计:前瞻性队列研究:参与者:13 460 名年龄在 21-45 岁之间、计划怀孕的女性:共纳入 13 460 名年龄在 21-45 岁之间、计划怀孕的女性参与者,其中 8899 人受孕。参与者报告了避孕史、早孕、流产以及孕前和孕期潜在混杂因素的数据。主要结果指标:流产,定义为妊娠 20 周前的妊娠损失:结果:与使用屏障避孕法相比,孕前使用复方和纯孕激素口服避孕药、激素宫内节育器、铜宫内节育器、避孕环、皮下埋植剂或自然避孕法与流产无关。最近使用贴片避孕药(发生率比为1.34(95%置信区间为0.81-2.21))或注射避孕药(1.44(0.99-2.12))的受试者与最近使用屏障避孕法的受试者相比,流产率较高,但由于使用贴片避孕药和注射避孕药的受试者人数较少,结果并不精确:结论:受孕前使用大多数避孕药与流产率并无明显关系。使用贴片避孕药和注射避孕药的人的流产率高于使用屏障避孕法的人,但这些结果并不精确,而且可能存在残余混杂因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Long covid as a long term condition. Blood level of neurofilament light chain as a biomarker for neurological disorders. Vaccine effectiveness against mild and severe covid-19 in pregnant individuals and their infants in England: test negative case-control study. Caesarean section and risk of infection in offspring: systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. Comparative effectiveness of monovalent XBB.1.5 containing covid-19 mRNA vaccines in Denmark, Finland, and Sweden: target trial emulation based on registry data.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1