Maternal age at delivery and fertility of the next generation.


Journal

Paediatric and perinatal epidemiology
ISSN: 1365-3016
Titre abrégé: Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 8709766

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
11 2020
Historique:
received: 20 11 2019
revised: 29 12 2019
accepted: 21 01 2020
pubmed: 10 3 2020
medline: 25 11 2021
entrez: 10 3 2020
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

While most known causes of infertility relate to the health of the woman and/or her partner, questions have been raised regarding the possible contributions of transgenerational or epigenetic factors. The goal of this hypothesis-generating work was to examine whether Generation 1's (G1's) age at the delivery of G2 (Generation 2) was associated with G2's fertility in later life. We conducted a retrospective cohort study of women (G2s) recruited online in 2016. A questionnaire queried G2s regarding demographics and fertility. The primary exposure was G1's age at G2's birth. Outcome measures included the following: 12-month infertility, time to pregnancy, and childlessness. The adjusted relative risk (RR) of G2 infertility and childlessness by G1 age at G2's birth was estimated through a modified Poisson regression approach. The fecundity odds ratio (FOR) for the association between G1's age at G2 birth and time to pregnancy for G2 was estimated by discrete-time survival models, with complementary log-log link. A total of 2,854 women enrolled. We found no association between G1 age at G2's birth and G2 infertility. Being born to a G1 aged 15-19 years was associated with a longer time to pregnancy for G2 (FOR 0.84, 95% confidence interval 0.72, 0.99), relative to being born to a G1 aged 20-24 years. We observed the suggestion of a possible increased risk of childlessness among G2s born to older G1s, but the estimate was imprecise. While being born to a G1 who was 15-19 years old was associated with an increase in G2 time to pregnancy, we found no association between G1 age at G2's birth and infertility and only the suggestion of a modest association with childlessness. These data suggest a possible subtle effect of G1 age at G2's birth on G2 fertility, which warrants further study.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
While most known causes of infertility relate to the health of the woman and/or her partner, questions have been raised regarding the possible contributions of transgenerational or epigenetic factors.
OBJECTIVE
The goal of this hypothesis-generating work was to examine whether Generation 1's (G1's) age at the delivery of G2 (Generation 2) was associated with G2's fertility in later life.
METHODS
We conducted a retrospective cohort study of women (G2s) recruited online in 2016. A questionnaire queried G2s regarding demographics and fertility. The primary exposure was G1's age at G2's birth. Outcome measures included the following: 12-month infertility, time to pregnancy, and childlessness. The adjusted relative risk (RR) of G2 infertility and childlessness by G1 age at G2's birth was estimated through a modified Poisson regression approach. The fecundity odds ratio (FOR) for the association between G1's age at G2 birth and time to pregnancy for G2 was estimated by discrete-time survival models, with complementary log-log link.
RESULTS
A total of 2,854 women enrolled. We found no association between G1 age at G2's birth and G2 infertility. Being born to a G1 aged 15-19 years was associated with a longer time to pregnancy for G2 (FOR 0.84, 95% confidence interval 0.72, 0.99), relative to being born to a G1 aged 20-24 years. We observed the suggestion of a possible increased risk of childlessness among G2s born to older G1s, but the estimate was imprecise.
CONCLUSIONS
While being born to a G1 who was 15-19 years old was associated with an increase in G2 time to pregnancy, we found no association between G1 age at G2's birth and infertility and only the suggestion of a modest association with childlessness. These data suggest a possible subtle effect of G1 age at G2's birth on G2 fertility, which warrants further study.

Identifiants

pubmed: 32150298
doi: 10.1111/ppe.12666
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

629-636

Subventions

Organisme : NCATS NIH HHS
ID : UL1TR002733
Pays : United States

Informations de copyright

© 2020 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Références

Aghajanova L, Hoffman J, Mok-Lin E, Herndon CN. Obstetrics and gynecology residency and fertility need. Reprod Sci. 2017;24:428-434.
Quaas AM, Hansen KR. The role of steroid hormone supplementation in non-assisted reproductive technology treatments for unexplained infertility. Fertil Steril. 2016;106:1600-1607.
Hanson B, Johnstone E, Dorais J, Silver B, Peterson CM, Hotaling J. Female infertility, infertility-associated diagnoses, and comorbidities: a review. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2017;34:167-177.
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on Gynecologic Practice, Practice Committee of the American Society of Reproductive Medicine. Female age-related fertility decline. Committee Opinion No. 589. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123:719-721.
Wainer-Katsir K, Zou JY, Linial M. Extended fertility and longevity: the genetic and epigenetic link. Fertil Steril. 2015;103:1117-1124.
Skakkebaek NE, Giwercman A, de Kretser D. Pathogenesis and management of male infertility. Lancet. 1994;343:1473-1479.
Minai-Tehrani A, Jafarzadeh N, Gilany K. Metabolomics: a state-of-the-art technology for better understanding of male infertility. Andrologia. 2016;48:609-616.
Tarín JJ, García-Pérez MA, Cano A. Potential risks to offspring of intrauterine exposure to maternal age-related obstetric complications. Reprod Fertil Dev. 2017;29:1468-1476.
Ho SM, Cheong A, Adgent MA, et al. Environmental factors, epigenetics, and developmental origin of reproductive disorders. Reprod Toxicol. 2017;68:85-104.
Alexander BT, Dasinger JH, Intapad S. Fetal programming and cardiovascular pathology. Compr Physiol. 2015;5:997-1025.
Vom Saal FS, Moyer CL. Prenatal effects on reproductive capacity during aging in female mice. Biol Reprod. 1985;32:1116-1126.
Aiken CE, Tarry-Adkins JL, Ozanne SE. Transgenerational developmental programming of ovarian reserve. Sci Rep. 2015;5:16175.
Hercus MJ, Hoffmann AA. Maternal and grandmaternal age influence offspring fitness in Drosophila. Proc Biol Sci. 2000;267:2105-2110.
Perez MF, Francesconi M, Hidalgo-Carcedo C, Lehner B. Maternal age generates phenotypic variation in Caenorhabditis elegans. Nature. 2017;552:106-109.
Smits LJ, Zielhuis GA, Jongbloet PH, Van Poppel FW. Mother's age and daughter's fecundity. An epidemiological analysis of late 19th to early 20th century family reconstitutions. Int J Epidemiol. 2002;31:349-358.
Basso O, Weinberg CR, D'Aloisio AA, Sandler DP. Maternal age at birth and daughters’ subsequent childlessness. Hum Reprod. 2018;33:311-319.
Daugherty J, Martinez G. Birth Expectations of U.S. women aged 15-44. NCHS Data Brief. 2016;260:1-8.
Greenland S, Pearl J, Robins JM. Causal diagrams for epidemiologic research. Epidemiology. 1999;10:37-48.
Hernán MA, Robins JM. Estimating causal effects from epidemiological data. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2006;60:578-586.
Shrier I, Platt RW. Reducing bias through directed acyclic graphs. BMC MedRes Methodol. 2008;30(8):70.
Zou G. A modified poisson regression approach to prospective studies with binary data. Am J Epidemiol. 2004;159:702-706.
StataCorp. Stata Statistical Software: Release 13. College Station, TX: StataCorp LP; 2013.
Cooney MA, Buck Louis GM, Sundaram R, McGuiness BM, Lynch CD. Validity of self-reported time to pregnancy. Epidemiology. 2009;20(1):56-59.
VanderWeele TJ, Ding P. Sensitivity analysis in observational research: introducing the E-value. Ann Intern Med. 2017;167:268-274.
Perrin A, Duggan M. “Americans’ Internet Access: 2000-2015.” Pew Research Center, June 2015. http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/06/26/americans-internet-access-2000-2015/. Accessed July, 20, 2018.
Watson B, Robinson DH, Harker L, Arriola KR. The inclusion of African-American study participants in web-based research studies. J Med Internet Res. 2016;18(6), e168.
Luebbert R, Perez A. Barriers to clinical research participation among African Americans. J Transcult Nurs. 2016;27(5):456-463.
Blomberg M, Birch Tyrberg R, Kjølhede P. Impact of maternal age on obstetric and neonatal outcome with emphasis on primiparous adolescents and older women: a Swedish Medical Birth Register Study. BMJ Open. 2014;4:e005840.
Kang G, Lim J, Kale AS, Lee LY. Adverse effects of young maternal age on neonatal outcomes. Singapore Med J. 2015;56:157-163.
de Vienne CM, Creveuil C, Dreyfus M. Does young maternal age increase the risk of adverse obstetric, fetal and neonatal outcomes: a cohort study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2009;147:151-156.
Kaplanoglu M, Bülbül M, Konca C, Kaplanoglu D, Tabak MS, Ata B. Gynecologic age is an important risk factor for obstetric and perinatal outcomes in adolescent pregnancies. Women Birth. 2015;28:e119-123.
De Felici M, Klinger FG, Farini D, Scaldaferri ML, Iona S, Lobascio M. Establishment of oocyte population in the fetal ovary: primordial germ cell proliferation and oocyte programmed cell death. Reprod Biomed Online. 2005;10:182-191.
Nichols HB, Trentham-Dietz A, Hampton JM, et al. From menarche to menopause: trends among US women born from 1912 to 1969. Am J Epidemiol. 2006;164:1003-1011.

Auteurs

Tamara S Reynolds (TS)

Genetic Counseling Graduate Program, Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Human Genetics, The Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, Ohio, United States.

Courtney D Lynch (CD)

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, Ohio, United States.

Erinn M Hade (EM)

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, Ohio, United States.
Department of Biomedical Informatics, Center for Biostatistics, The Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, Ohio, United States.

Dawn C Allain (DC)

Genetic Counseling Graduate Program, Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Human Genetics, The Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, Ohio, United States.

Judith A Westman (JA)

Genetic Counseling Graduate Program, Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Human Genetics, The Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, Ohio, United States.

Amanda E Toland (AE)

Genetic Counseling Graduate Program, Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Human Genetics, The Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, Ohio, United States.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH