Paula I Johnson1, Erica Koustas2, Hanna M Vesterinen3, Patrice Sutton3, Dylan S Atchley3, Allegra N Kim4, Marlissa Campbell4, James M Donald4, Saunak Sen5, Lisa Bero6, Lauren Zeise4, Tracey J Woodruff3. 1. University of California San Francisco, Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment, Oakland, CA, USA. Electronic address: Paula.Johnson@cdph.ca.gov. 2. ORISE Post-doctoral Fellowship, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Policy, National Center for Environmental Economics, Washington, D.C., USA. 3. University of California San Francisco, Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment, Oakland, CA, USA. 4. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, California Environmental Protection Agency, CA, USA. 5. University of California San Francisco, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, San Francisco, CA, USA. 6. University of California San Francisco, Department of Clinical Pharmacy, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There are reports of developmental and reproductive health effects associated with the widely used biocide triclosan. OBJECTIVE: Apply the Navigation Guide systematic review methodology to answer the question: Does exposure to triclosan have adverse effects on human development or reproduction? METHODS: We applied the first 3 steps of the Navigation Guide methodology: 1) Specify a study question, 2) Select the evidence, and 3) Rate quality and strength of the evidence. We developed a protocol, conducted a comprehensive search of the literature, and identified relevant studies using pre-specified criteria. We assessed the number and type of all relevant studies. We evaluated each included study for risk of bias and rated the quality and strength of the evidence for the selected outcomes. We conducted a meta-analysis on a subset of suitable data. RESULTS: We found 4282 potentially relevant records, and 81 records met our inclusion criteria. Of the more than 100 endpoints identified by our search, we focused our evaluation on hormone concentration outcomes, which had the largest human and non-human mammalian data set. Three human studies and 8 studies conducted in rats reported thyroxine levels as outcomes. The rat data were amenable to meta-analysis. Because only one of the human thyroxine studies quantified exposure, we did not conduct a meta-analysis of the human data. Through meta-analysis of the data for rats, we estimated for prenatal exposure a 0.09% (95% CI: -0.20, 0.02) reduction in thyroxine concentration per mg triclosan/kg-bw in fetal and young rats compared to control. For postnatal exposure we estimated a 0.31% (95% CI: -0.38, -0.23) reduction in thyroxine per mg triclosan/kg-bw, also compared to control. Overall, we found low to moderate risk of bias across the human studies and moderate to high risk of bias across the non-human studies, and assigned a "moderate/low" quality rating to the body of evidence for human thyroid hormone alterations and a "moderate" quality rating to the body of evidence for non-human thyroid hormone alterations. CONCLUSION: Based on this application of the Navigation Guide systematic review methodology, we concluded that there was "sufficient" non-human evidence and "inadequate" human evidence of an association between triclosan exposure and thyroxine concentrations, and consequently, triclosan is "possibly toxic" to reproductive and developmental health. Thyroid hormone disruption is an upstream indicator of developmental toxicity. Additional endpoints may be identified as being of equal or greater concern as other data are developed or evaluated.
BACKGROUND: There are reports of developmental and reproductive health effects associated with the widely used biocide triclosan. OBJECTIVE: Apply the Navigation Guide systematic review methodology to answer the question: Does exposure to triclosan have adverse effects on human development or reproduction? METHODS: We applied the first 3 steps of the Navigation Guide methodology: 1) Specify a study question, 2) Select the evidence, and 3) Rate quality and strength of the evidence. We developed a protocol, conducted a comprehensive search of the literature, and identified relevant studies using pre-specified criteria. We assessed the number and type of all relevant studies. We evaluated each included study for risk of bias and rated the quality and strength of the evidence for the selected outcomes. We conducted a meta-analysis on a subset of suitable data. RESULTS: We found 4282 potentially relevant records, and 81 records met our inclusion criteria. Of the more than 100 endpoints identified by our search, we focused our evaluation on hormone concentration outcomes, which had the largest human and non-humanmammalian data set. Three human studies and 8 studies conducted in rats reported thyroxine levels as outcomes. The rat data were amenable to meta-analysis. Because only one of the humanthyroxine studies quantified exposure, we did not conduct a meta-analysis of the human data. Through meta-analysis of the data for rats, we estimated for prenatal exposure a 0.09% (95% CI: -0.20, 0.02) reduction in thyroxine concentration per mg triclosan/kg-bw in fetal and young rats compared to control. For postnatal exposure we estimated a 0.31% (95% CI: -0.38, -0.23) reduction in thyroxine per mg triclosan/kg-bw, also compared to control. Overall, we found low to moderate risk of bias across the human studies and moderate to high risk of bias across the non-human studies, and assigned a "moderate/low" quality rating to the body of evidence for human thyroid hormone alterations and a "moderate" quality rating to the body of evidence for non-human thyroid hormone alterations. CONCLUSION: Based on this application of the Navigation Guide systematic review methodology, we concluded that there was "sufficient" non-human evidence and "inadequate" human evidence of an association between triclosan exposure and thyroxine concentrations, and consequently, triclosan is "possibly toxic" to reproductive and developmental health. Thyroid hormone disruption is an upstream indicator of developmental toxicity. Additional endpoints may be identified as being of equal or greater concern as other data are developed or evaluated.
Authors: Jens Henrichs; Jacoba J Bongers-Schokking; Jacqueline J Schenk; Akhgar Ghassabian; Henk G Schmidt; Theo J Visser; Herbert Hooijkaas; Sabine M P F de Muinck Keizer-Schrama; Albert Hofman; Vincent V W Jaddoe; Willy Visser; Eric A P Steegers; Frank C Verhulst; Yolanda B de Rijke; Henning Tiemeier Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2010-06-09 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Jia-Long Fang; Robin L Stingley; Frederick A Beland; Wafa Harrouk; Debbie L Lumpkins; Paul Howard Journal: J Environ Sci Health C Environ Carcinog Ecotoxicol Rev Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 3.781
Authors: H Bart van der Worp; Emily S Sena; Geoffrey A Donnan; David W Howells; Malcolm R Macleod Journal: Brain Date: 2007-05-03 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Randi J Bertelsen; Stephanie M Engel; Todd A Jusko; Antonia M Calafat; Jane A Hoppin; Stephanie J London; Merete Eggesbø; Heidi Aase; Pål Zeiner; Ted Reichborn-Kjennerud; Gun P Knudsen; Virginia T Guidry; Matthew P Longnecker Journal: J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol Date: 2014-01-29 Impact factor: 5.563
Authors: Hanna M Vesterinen; Paula I Johnson; Erica Koustas; Juleen Lam; Patrice Sutton; Tracey J Woodruff Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2013 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 9.031
Authors: Feiby L Nassan; Lidia Mínguez-Alarcón; Paige L Williams; Ramace Dadd; John C Petrozza; Jennifer B Ford; Antonia M Calafat; Russ Hauser Journal: Environ Res Date: 2019-08-06 Impact factor: 6.498
Authors: Taylor M Etzel; Antonia M Calafat; Xiaoyun Ye; Aimin Chen; Bruce P Lanphear; David A Savitz; Kimberly Yolton; Joseph M Braun Journal: Environ Res Date: 2017-04-26 Impact factor: 6.498
Authors: Amira M Aker; Lauren Johns; Thomas F McElrath; David E Cantonwine; Bhramar Mukherjee; John D Meeker Journal: Environ Int Date: 2018-02-01 Impact factor: 9.621
Authors: Pahriya Ashrap; Deborah J Watkins; Antonia M Calafat; Xiaoyun Ye; Zaira Rosario; Phil Brown; Carmen M Vélez-Vega; Akram Alshawabkeh; José F Cordero; John D Meeker Journal: Environ Int Date: 2018-10-11 Impact factor: 9.621
Authors: Julianne Skarha; Lidia Mínguez-Alarcón; Paige L Williams; Tim I M Korevaar; Ralph A de Poortere; Maarten A C Broeren; Jennifer B Ford; Melissa Eliot; Russ Hauser; Joseph M Braun Journal: Environ Int Date: 2018-11-23 Impact factor: 9.621
Authors: Taylor Etzel; Gina Muckle; Tye E Arbuckle; William D Fraser; Emmanuel Ouellet; Jean R Séguin; Bruce Lanphear; Joseph M Braun Journal: Environ Int Date: 2018-03-02 Impact factor: 9.621
Authors: Vicente Mustieles; Yu Zhang; Jennifer Yland; Joseph M Braun; Paige L Williams; Blair J Wylie; Jill A Attaman; Jennifer B Ford; Alexandra Azevedo; Antonia M Calafat; Russ Hauser; Carmen Messerlian Journal: Environ Int Date: 2020-02-29 Impact factor: 9.621
Authors: Shaina L Stacy; Melissa Eliot; Taylor Etzel; George Papandonatos; Antonia M Calafat; Aimin Chen; Russ Hauser; Bruce P Lanphear; Sheela Sathyanarayana; Xiaoyun Ye; Kimberly Yolton; Joseph M Braun Journal: Environ Sci Technol Date: 2017-05-25 Impact factor: 9.028