Maternal progestin intake and risk of hypospadias.

March of Dimes Birth Defect Foundation/California Department of Health Services, California Birth Defects Monitoring Program, 1017 Fifth Street, Berkeley, CA 94710 , USA.
Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine (Impact Factor: 4.25). 11/2005; 159(10):957-62. DOI: 10.1001/archpedi.159.10.957
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Previous studies have suggested that maternal intake of progestins during early pregnancy may be associated with an increased risk of hypospadias. Progesterone and its derivatives are commonly prescribed during early pregnancy, for example, in cases of luteal phase dysfunction and in conjunction with ovulation stimulation drugs.
To examine whether risk of hypospadias was associated with periconceptional progestin intake.
The National Birth Defects Prevention Study, a population-based, multistate, case-control study including deliveries that had estimated due dates from October, 1997 to December, 2000.
Participation in the study was 71% among case mothers and 68% among control mothers. This analysis included 502 subjects diagnosed with second- or third-degree hypospadias (ie, the urethra opened at the penile shaft, scrotum, or perineum) and 1286 male, live-born, nonmalformed control subjects.
Forty-two case mothers (8.4%) and 31 control mothers (2.4%) reported any pregnancy-related progestin intake from 4 weeks before through 14 weeks after conception, resulting in an odds ratio of 3.7 (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.3-6.0). Analyses stratified by several potential covariates also suggested elevated risks. For example, among the 10 cases and 13 controls who did not report any fertility-related procedures or treatments other than progestins, the odds ratio was 2.2 (95% CI, 1.0-5.0). Progestin intake for the purpose of contraception was not associated with increased risk.
This study found that pregnancy-related intake of progestins was associated with increased hypospadias risk.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Recurrent miscarriage (RM; > or =3 consecutive early pregnancy losses) affects around 1% of fertile couples. Parental chromosomal anomalies, maternal thrombophilic disorders and structural uterine anomalies have been directly associated with recurrent miscarriage; however, in the vast majority of cases the pathophysiology remains unknown. We have updated the ESHRE Special Interest Group for Early Pregnancy (SIGEP) protocol for the investigation and medical management of RM. Based on the data of recently published large randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses, we recommend that basic investigations of a couple presenting with recurrent miscarriage should include obstetric and family history, age, BMI and exposure to toxins, full blood count, antiphospholipid antibodies (lupus anticoagulant and anticardiolipin antibodies), parental karyotype, pelvic ultrasound and/or hysterosalpingogram. Other investigations should be limited to particular cases and/or used within research programmes. Tender loving care and health advice are the only interventions that do not require more RCTs. All other proposed therapies, which require more investigations, are of no proven benefit or are associated with more harm than good.
    Human Reproduction 10/2006; 21(9):2216-22. DOI:10.1093/humrep/del150 · 4.59 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This article reviews the current evidence and knowledge of the aetiology of hypospadias. Hypospadias remains a fascinating anomaly of the male phallus. It may be an isolated occurrence or part of a syndrome or field defect. The increasing use of assisted reproductive techniques and hormonal manipulation during pregnancy may have been associated with an apparent rise in the incidence of hypospadias. Genetic studies and gene analysis have suggested some defects that could result in hypospadias. New light has also been thrown on environmental factors that could modulate candidate genes, causing altered development of the male external genitalia.
    Pediatric Surgery International 03/2015; 31(6). DOI:10.1007/s00383-015-3686-z · 1.06 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Hypospadias is a relatively common birth defect affecting the male urinary tract. We explored the etiology of hypospadias by examining its spatial distribution in North Carolina and the spatial clustering of residuals from individual and environmental risk factors.Methods We used data collected by the North Carolina Birth Defects Monitoring Program from 2003 to 2005 to estimate local Moran's I statistics to identify geographic clustering of overall and severe hypospadias, using 995 overall cases and 16,013 controls. We conducted logistic regression and local Moran's I statistics on standardized residuals to consider the contribution of individual variables (maternal age, maternal race/ethnicity, maternal education, smoking, parity, and diabetes) and environmental variables (block group land cover) to this clustering.ResultsLocal Moran's I statistics indicated significant clustering of overall and severe hypospadias in eastern central North Carolina. Spatial clustering of hypospadias persisted when controlling for individual factors, but diminished somewhat when controlling for environmental factors. In adjusted models, maternal residence in a block group with more than 5% crop cover was associated with overall hypospadias (odds ratio = 1.22; 95% confidence interval = 1.04–1.43); that is living in a block group with greater than 5% crop cover was associated with a 22% increase in the odds of having a baby with hypospadias. Land cover was not associated with severe hypospadias.Conclusion This study illustrates the potential contribution of mapping in generating hypotheses about disease etiology. Results suggest that environmental factors including proximity to agriculture may play some role in the spatial distribution of hypospadias. Birth Defects Research (Part A), 2014. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
    Birth Defects Research Part A Clinical and Molecular Teratology 11/2014; 100(11). DOI:10.1002/bdra.23306 · 2.21 Impact Factor