Amelia K Wesselink1, Elizabeth E Hatch1, Ellen M Mikkelsen2, Ellen Trolle3, Sydney K Willis1, Susan E McCann4, Liisa Valsta5, Annamari Lundqvist5, Katherine L Tucker6, Kenneth J Rothman1,7, Lauren A Wise1. 1. Department of Epidemiology, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA. 2. Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark. 3. Division of Risk Assessment and Nutrition, National Food Institute, Technical University of Denmark, Kongens Lyngby, Denmark. 4. Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, NY, USA. 5. Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare, Helsinki, Finland. 6. Zuckerberg College of Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts, Lowell, MA, USA. 7. Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Phytoestrogens are plant-derived hormonally active compounds found in soy, cruciferous vegetables, nuts, and seeds. Although phytoestrogens have been associated with altered endogenous hormonal activity, luteal phase deficiency, and reduced endometrial decidualization, the literature reporting examinations of phytoestrogen intake and fertility presents mixed findings. OBJECTIVES: We sought to evaluate prospectively the association between dietary phytoestrogen intake (isoflavones, lignans, and coumestans) and fecundability, the per-cycle probability of conception, in 2 cohorts of women planning pregnancy. METHODS: Pregnancy Study Online (PRESTO) and Snart Foraeldre (SF) are parallel web-based preconception cohort studies of women from North America and Denmark, respectively, who are trying to conceive. Participants complete an online baseline questionnaire on sociodemographic, lifestyle, and medical factors. We ascertained intake of individual phytoestrogens from validated FFQs. We measured fecundability using data on menstruation and pregnancy status from bimonthly follow-up questionnaires. We analyzed data from 4880 PRESTO and 2898 SF female study participants who had been attempting conception for ≤6 cycles at study entry. We used proportional probabilities regression models to estimate fecundability ratios (FRs) and 95% CIs. RESULTS: Phytoestrogen intake varied across cohorts, yet was associated with higher socioeconomic status and healthier behaviors in both cohorts. After adjustment for potential confounders, phytoestrogen intake was not substantially associated with fecundability in either cohort. We observed some evidence of improved fecundability with increasing isoflavone intake among women age ≥30 years in PRESTO (FR: 1.12; 95% CI: 0.94, 1.34, for comparison of ≥90th with <25th percentile intake) and SF (corresponding FR: 1.19; 95% CI: 0.92, 1.55). Lignan intake was associated with slightly increased fecundability in SF (FR for comparison of 75th to 90th with <25th percentile: 1.10; 95% CI: 0.96, 1.26), but decreased fecundability in PRESTO (FR for comparison of ≥90th with <25th percentile: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.72, 0.97). CONCLUSIONS: We did not observe strong associations between phytoestrogen intake and prospectively-measured fecundability among North American or Danish pregnancy planners.
BACKGROUND: Phytoestrogens are plant-derived hormonally active compounds found in soy, cruciferous vegetables, nuts, and seeds. Although phytoestrogens have been associated with altered endogenous hormonal activity, luteal phase deficiency, and reduced endometrial decidualization, the literature reporting examinations of phytoestrogen intake and fertility presents mixed findings. OBJECTIVES: We sought to evaluate prospectively the association between dietary phytoestrogen intake (isoflavones, lignans, and coumestans) and fecundability, the per-cycle probability of conception, in 2 cohorts of women planning pregnancy. METHODS: Pregnancy Study Online (PRESTO) and Snart Foraeldre (SF) are parallel web-based preconception cohort studies of women from North America and Denmark, respectively, who are trying to conceive. Participants complete an online baseline questionnaire on sociodemographic, lifestyle, and medical factors. We ascertained intake of individual phytoestrogens from validated FFQs. We measured fecundability using data on menstruation and pregnancy status from bimonthly follow-up questionnaires. We analyzed data from 4880 PRESTO and 2898 SF female study participants who had been attempting conception for ≤6 cycles at study entry. We used proportional probabilities regression models to estimate fecundability ratios (FRs) and 95% CIs. RESULTS: Phytoestrogen intake varied across cohorts, yet was associated with higher socioeconomic status and healthier behaviors in both cohorts. After adjustment for potential confounders, phytoestrogen intake was not substantially associated with fecundability in either cohort. We observed some evidence of improved fecundability with increasing isoflavone intake among women age ≥30 years in PRESTO (FR: 1.12; 95% CI: 0.94, 1.34, for comparison of ≥90th with <25th percentile intake) and SF (corresponding FR: 1.19; 95% CI: 0.92, 1.55). Lignan intake was associated with slightly increased fecundability in SF (FR for comparison of 75th to 90th with <25th percentile: 1.10; 95% CI: 0.96, 1.26), but decreased fecundability in PRESTO (FR for comparison of ≥90th with <25th percentile: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.72, 0.97). CONCLUSIONS: We did not observe strong associations between phytoestrogen intake and prospectively-measured fecundability among North American or Danish pregnancy planners.
Authors: Patricia M Guenther; Sharon I Kirkpatrick; Jill Reedy; Susan M Krebs-Smith; Dennis W Buckman; Kevin W Dodd; Kellie O Casavale; Raymond J Carroll Journal: J Nutr Date: 2014-01-22 Impact factor: 4.798
Authors: Kristine M Shedd-Wise; D Lee Alekel; Heike Hofmann; Kathy B Hanson; Dan J Schiferl; Laura N Hanson; Marta D Van Loan Journal: J Clin Densitom Date: 2011 Jan-Mar Impact factor: 2.617
Authors: Lauren A Wise; Kenneth J Rothman; Ellen M Mikkelsen; Joseph B Stanford; Amelia K Wesselink; Craig McKinnon; Siobhan M Gruschow; Casie E Horgan; Aleta S Wiley; Kristen A Hahn; Henrik Toft Sørensen; Elizabeth E Hatch Journal: Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol Date: 2015-07 Impact factor: 3.980
Authors: Jose C Vanegas; Myriam C Afeiche; Audrey J Gaskins; Lidia Mínguez-Alarcón; Paige L Williams; Diane L Wright; Thomas L Toth; Russ Hauser; Jorge E Chavarro Journal: Fertil Steril Date: 2015-01-07 Impact factor: 7.329
Authors: Elisa V Bandera; Melony G Williams; Camelia Sima; Sharon Bayuga; Katherine Pulick; Homer Wilcox; Robert Soslow; Ann G Zauber; Sara H Olson Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2009-04-08 Impact factor: 2.506