Conceiving of Questions Before Delivering Analyses: Relevant Question Formulation in Reproductive and Perinatal Epidemiology

Preconception contraceptive use and miscarriage: prospective cohort study

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.

Identification of pregnancies and their outcomes in healthcare claims data, 2008-2019: An algorithm

Pregnancy is a condition of broad interest across many medical and health services research domains, but one not easily identified in healthcare claims data. Our objective was to establish an algorithm to identify pregnant women and their pregnancies in claims data. We identified pregnancy-related diagnosis, procedure, and diagnosis-related group codes, accounting for the transition to International Statistical Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) diagnosis and procedure codes, in health encounter reporting on 10/1/2015. We selected women in Merative MarketScan commercial databases aged 15-49 years with pregnancy-related claims, and their infants, during 2008-2019. Pregnancies, pregnancy outcomes, and gestational ages were assigned using the constellation of service dates, code types, pregnancy outcomes, and linkage to infant records. We describe pregnancy outcomes and gestational ages, as well as maternal age, census region, and health plan type. In a sensitivity analysis, we compared our algorithm-assigned date of last menstrual period (LMP) to fertility procedure-based LMP (date of procedure + 14 days) among women with embryo transfer or insemination procedures. Among 5,812,699 identified pregnancies, most (77.9%) were livebirths, followed by spontaneous abortions (16.2%); 3,274,353 (72.2%) livebirths could be linked to infants. Most pregnancies were among women 25-34 years (59.1%), living in the South (39.1%) and Midwest (22.4%), with large employer-sponsored insurance (52.0%). Outcome distributions were similar across ICD-9 and ICD-10 eras, with some variation in gestational age distribution observed. Sensitivity analyses supported our algorithm's framework; algorithm- and fertility procedure-derived LMP estimates were within a week of each other (mean difference: -4 days [IQR: -13 to 6 days]; n = 107,870). We have developed an algorithm to identify pregnancies, their gestational age, and outcomes, across ICD-9 and ICD-10 eras using administrative data. This algorithm may be useful to reproductive health researchers investigating a broad range of pregnancy and infant outcomes.

Study design flaws and statistical challenges in evaluating fertility treatments

Health interventions should be tested before being introduced into clinical practice, to find out whether they work and whether they are harmful. However, research studies will only provide reliable answers to these questions if they are appropriately designed and analysed. But these are not trivial tasks. We review some methodological challenges that arise when evaluating fertility interventions and explain the implications for a non-statistical audience. These include flexibility in outcomes and analyses; use of surrogate outcomes instead of live birth; use of inappropriate denominators; evaluating cumulative outcomes and time to live birth; allowing each patient or couple to contribute to a research study more than once. We highlight recurring errors and present solutions. We conclude by highlighting the importance of collaboration between clinical and methodological experts, as well as people with experience of subfertility, for realising high-quality research.

Lay summary

We do research to find out whether fertility treatments are beneficial and to make sure they don't cause harm. However, research will only provide reliable answers if it is done properly. It is not unusual for researchers to make mistakes when they are designing research studies and analysing the data that we get from them. In this review, we describe some of the mistakes people make when they do research about fertility treatments and explain how to avoid them. These include challenges which arise due to the large number of things that can be measured and reported when looking to see if fertility treatments work; failure to check whether the treatment increases the number of live births; failing to include all study participants in calculations;challenges in studies where participants may have more than one treatment attempt. We conclude by highlighting the importance of collaboration between clinical and methodological experts, as well as people with experience of fertility problems.

Differences in Perinatal Outcomes of Birthing People in Same-Sex and Different-Sex Marriages

It is unknown whether people in same-sex relationships who give birth have different perinatal outcomes than people in different-sex relationships, despite differences in risk factors such as use of assisted reproductive technologies, obesity, smoking, and poor mental health. Marriage equality has established birth certificates as a promising new source of population-based data on births to same-sex married parents. We used birth certificate data from Massachusetts for 201,873 singletons born to married parents from 2012 to 2016. We estimated the associations of several birth outcomes with having a birth parent in a same-sex marriage using propensity score-matched and -unmatched samples. We also tested whether these associations were modified by the use of assisted reproductive technologies. People in same-sex marriages who gave birth had perinatal outcomes related to decreased fetal growth and preterm birth that were similar to those of their peers in different-sex marriages. Use of assisted reproductive technology was associated with decreased fetal growth and increased risk of preterm birth for infants with different-sex parents but not for infants with same-sex parents. More research is needed across other states and to understand why use of assisted reproductive technology is not a risk factor for poor birth outcomes for those in same-sex marriages.

The implications of outcome truncation in reproductive medicine RCTs: a simulation platform for trialists and simulation study

BACKGROUND

Randomised controlled trials in reproductive medicine are often subject to outcome truncation, where the study outcomes are only defined in a subset of the randomised cohort. Examples include birthweight (measurable only in the subgroup of participants who give birth) and miscarriage (which can only occur in participants who become pregnant). These outcomes are typically analysed by making a comparison between treatment arms within the subgroup (for example, comparing birthweights in the subgroup who gave birth or miscarriages in the subgroup who became pregnant). However, this approach does not represent a randomised comparison when treatment influences the probability of being observed (i.e. survival). The practical implications of this for the design and interpretation of reproductive trials are unclear however.

METHODS

We developed a simulation platform to investigate the implications of outcome truncation for reproductive medicine trials. We used this to perform a simulation study, in which we considered the bias, type 1 error, coverage, and precision of standard statistical analyses for truncated continuous and binary outcomes. Simulation settings were informed by published assisted reproduction trials.

RESULTS

Increasing treatment effect on the intermediate variable, strength of confounding between the intermediate and outcome variables, and the presence of an interaction between treatment and confounder were found to adversely affect performance. However, within parameter ranges we would consider to be more realistic, the adverse effects were generally not drastic. For binary outcomes, the study highlighted that outcome truncation could cause separation in smaller studies, where none or all of the participants in a study arm experience the outcome event. This was found to have severe consequences for inferences.

CONCLUSION

We have provided a simulation platform that can be used by researchers in the design and interpretation of reproductive medicine trials subject to outcome truncation and have used this to conduct a simulation study. The study highlights several key factors which trialists in the field should consider carefully to protect against erroneous inferences. Standard analyses of truncated binary outcomes in small studies may be highly biassed, and it remains to identify suitable approaches for analysing data in this context.