REPRODUCTIVE PERFORMANCE IN THE DES-EXPOSED DAUGHTERS

This research examined the relation between prenatal exposure to diethylstilbestrol (DES) and subsequent reproductive performance in females. Although previous studies have agreed that unfavorable pregnancy outcomes (spontaneous abortions, stillbirths, ectopic pregnancies, and premature births) occur with greater frequency in the exposed as compared to unexposed women, the role of exposure to DES in-utero on subsequent fertility (pregnancy achievement) remains controversial. Also, the possibility that the reproductive dysfunction reported in exposed women might be due to familial predisposition to reproductive dysfunction rather than to DES exposure has not been examined heretofore.^ The purposes of the research were to: (1) measure the overall differences in rates of live births between exposed and unexposed women; (2) determine if infertility or early unrecognized spontaneous miscarriages (as opposed to recognized fetal death) contributes to poor reproductive performance in the exposed; and (3) determine if constitutional predisposition contributes to poor reproductive performance in exposed daughters.^ The study population comprised those participants in the National Cooperative Diethylstilbestrol Adenosis (DESAD) Project who were identified through review of prenatal records. Birth interval curves (survival analyses) were used to compare the reproductive performance of exposed daughters and unexposed women. Birth interval curves were also constructed for unexposed siblings (of exposed participants) and unexposed nonsiblings to determine the role of constitutional predisposition in the reproductive performance of exposed daughters.^ The DES-daughters, as compared to unexposed women, were found to be at a reproductive disadvantage when the overall differences in rates of live births were compared.^ When the differences in rates of live births due specifically to infertility or early unrecognized spontaneous miscarriages (as opposed to recognized fetal death) were examined, the exposed maintained the reproductive disadvantage. This analysis was suggestive but not statistically significant for the first-birth-interval and was neither suggestive nor significant in the second-birth-interval. (Abstract shortened with permission of author.) ^