BACKGROUND: Long-term arsenic exposure is a major global health problem. However, few epidemiologic studies have evaluated the association of arsenic with kidney measures. Our objective was to evaluate the cross-sectional association between inorganic arsenic exposure and albuminuria in American Indian adults from rural areas of Arizona, Oklahoma, and North and South Dakota. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional. SETTING & PARTIPANTS: Strong Heart Study locations in Arizona, Oklahoma, and North and South Dakota. 3,821 American Indian men and women aged 45-74 years with urine arsenic and albumin measurements. PREDICTOR: Urine arsenic. OUTCOMES: Urine albumin-creatinine ratio and albuminuria status. MEASUREMENTS: Arsenic exposure was estimated by measuring total urine arsenic and urine arsenic species using inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICPMS) and high-performance liquid chromatography-ICPMS, respectively. Urine albumin was measured by automated nephelometric immunochemistry. RESULTS: The prevalence of albuminuria (albumin-creatinine ratio ≥30 mg/g) was 30%. Median value for the sum of inorganic and methylated arsenic species was 9.7 (IQR, 5.8-15.6) μg per gram of creatinine. Multivariable-adjusted prevalence ratios of albuminuria (albumin-creatinine ratio ≥30 mg/g) comparing the 3 highest to lowest quartiles of the sum of inorganic and methylated arsenic species were 1.16 (95% CI, 1.00-1.34), 1.24 (95% CI, 1.07-1.43), and 1.55 (95% CI, 1.35-1.78), respectively (P for trend <0.001). The association between urine arsenic and albuminuria was observed across all participant subgroups evaluated and was evident for both micro- and macroalbuminuria. LIMITATIONS: The cross-sectional design cannot rule out reverse causation. CONCLUSIONS: Increasing urine arsenic concentrations were cross-sectionally associated with increased albuminuria in a rural US population with a high burden of diabetes and obesity. Prospective epidemiologic and mechanistic evidence is needed to understand the role of arsenic as a kidney disease risk factor.
BACKGROUND: Long-term arsenic exposure is a major global health problem. However, few epidemiologic studies have evaluated the association of arsenic with kidney measures. Our objective was to evaluate the cross-sectional association between inorganic arsenic exposure and albuminuria in American Indian adults from rural areas of Arizona, Oklahoma, and North and South Dakota. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional. SETTING & PARTIPANTS: Strong Heart Study locations in Arizona, Oklahoma, and North and South Dakota. 3,821 American Indian men and women aged 45-74 years with urine arsenic and albumin measurements. PREDICTOR: Urine arsenic. OUTCOMES: Urine albumin-creatinine ratio and albuminuria status. MEASUREMENTS: Arsenic exposure was estimated by measuring total urine arsenic and urine arsenic species using inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICPMS) and high-performance liquid chromatography-ICPMS, respectively. Urine albumin was measured by automated nephelometric immunochemistry. RESULTS: The prevalence of albuminuria (albumin-creatinine ratio ≥30 mg/g) was 30%. Median value for the sum of inorganic and methylated arsenic species was 9.7 (IQR, 5.8-15.6) μg per gram of creatinine. Multivariable-adjusted prevalence ratios of albuminuria (albumin-creatinine ratio ≥30 mg/g) comparing the 3 highest to lowest quartiles of the sum of inorganic and methylated arsenic species were 1.16 (95% CI, 1.00-1.34), 1.24 (95% CI, 1.07-1.43), and 1.55 (95% CI, 1.35-1.78), respectively (P for trend <0.001). The association between urine arsenic and albuminuria was observed across all participant subgroups evaluated and was evident for both micro- and macroalbuminuria. LIMITATIONS: The cross-sectional design cannot rule out reverse causation. CONCLUSIONS: Increasing urine arsenic concentrations were cross-sectionally associated with increased albuminuria in a rural US population with a high burden of diabetes and obesity. Prospective epidemiologic and mechanistic evidence is needed to understand the role of arsenic as a kidney disease risk factor.
Authors: Conall M O'Seaghdha; Shih-Jen Hwang; Ashish Upadhyay; James B Meigs; Caroline S Fox Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2010-11 Impact factor: 8.860
Authors: Brian P Jackson; Vivien F Taylor; Margaret R Karagas; Tracy Punshon; Kathryn L Cottingham Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2012-02-16 Impact factor: 9.031
Authors: Darcy Weidemann; Chin-Chi Kuo; Ana Navas-Acien; Alison G Abraham; Virginia Weaver; Jeffrey Fadrowski Journal: Environ Res Date: 2015-04-21 Impact factor: 6.498
Authors: Clint R Carroll; Carolyn Noonan; Eva M Garroutte; Ana Navas-Acien; Steven P Verney; Dedra Buchwald Journal: Environ Res Date: 2017-05-12 Impact factor: 6.498
Authors: Brandilyn A Peters; Megan N Hall; Xinhua Liu; Vesna Slavkovich; Vesna Ilievski; Shafiul Alam; Abu B Siddique; Tariqul Islam; Joseph H Graziano; Mary V Gamble Journal: Environ Res Date: 2015-10-19 Impact factor: 6.498
Authors: Laura Zheng; Chin-Chi Kuo; Jeffrey Fadrowski; Jackie Agnew; Virginia M Weaver; Ana Navas-Acien Journal: Curr Environ Health Rep Date: 2014-09-01
Authors: Laura Y Zheng; Jason G Umans; Fawn Yeh; Kevin A Francesconi; Walter Goessler; Ellen K Silbergeld; Karen Bandeen-Roche; Eliseo Guallar; Barbara V Howard; Virginia M Weaver; Ana Navas-Acien Journal: Epidemiology Date: 2015-07 Impact factor: 4.822
Authors: Yuanjie Pang; Roger D Peng; Miranda R Jones; Kevin A Francesconi; Walter Goessler; Barbara V Howard; Jason G Umans; Lyle G Best; Eliseo Guallar; Wendy S Post; Joel D Kaufman; Dhananjay Vaidya; Ana Navas-Acien Journal: Environ Res Date: 2016-03-02 Impact factor: 6.498