Emily W Harville1, Arti Shankar2, Leah Zilversmit3, Pierre Buekens3. 1. Department of Epidemiology, Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, 1440 Canal St. #8318, STE 2000, New Orleans, LA, 70112-2715, USA. harville@tulane.edu. 2. Global Biostatistics and Data Science, Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, New Orleans, LA, USA. 3. Department of Epidemiology, Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, 1440 Canal St. #8318, STE 2000, New Orleans, LA, 70112-2715, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To examine whether reported exposure to the Gulf oil spill (2010) was related to reproductive reported miscarriage or infertility. METHODS: 1524 women aged 18-45 recruited through prenatal and Women, Infant, and Children (WIC) clinics, and community events were interviewed about their experience of the oil spill and reproductive history. 1434 women had information on outcomes of at least one pregnancy, and 633 on a pregnancy both before and after the spill. Generalized estimating equations were used to examine the relationship between contact with oil and economic and social consequences of the spill with postponement of pregnancy, miscarriage, and infertility (time to pregnancy >12 months or reported fertility issues), with adjustment for age, race, BMI, smoking, and socioeconomic status. Results were compared for pregnancies occurring prior to and after the oil spill. RESULTS: 77 (5.1%) women reported postponing pregnancy due to the oil spill, which was more common in those with high contact with oil or overall high exposure (aOR 2.92, 95% CI 1.31-6.51). An increased risk of miscarriage was found with any exposure to the oil spill (aOR, 1.54, 95% CI 1.17-2.02). Fertility issues were more common in the overall most highly exposed women (aOR 1.88, 1.19-2.95), when the data were limited to those with pregnancies before and after. However, no particular aspect of oil spill exposure was strongly associated with the outcomes, and effects were almost as strong for pregnancies prior to the oil spill. CONCLUSIONS: The oil spill appears to have affected reproductive decision-making. The evidence is not strong that exposure to the oil spill was associated with miscarriage or infertility.
PURPOSE: To examine whether reported exposure to the Gulf oil spill (2010) was related to reproductive reported miscarriage or infertility. METHODS: 1524 women aged 18-45 recruited through prenatal and Women, Infant, and Children (WIC) clinics, and community events were interviewed about their experience of the oil spill and reproductive history. 1434 women had information on outcomes of at least one pregnancy, and 633 on a pregnancy both before and after the spill. Generalized estimating equations were used to examine the relationship between contact with oil and economic and social consequences of the spill with postponement of pregnancy, miscarriage, and infertility (time to pregnancy >12 months or reported fertility issues), with adjustment for age, race, BMI, smoking, and socioeconomic status. Results were compared for pregnancies occurring prior to and after the oil spill. RESULTS: 77 (5.1%) women reported postponing pregnancy due to the oil spill, which was more common in those with high contact with oil or overall high exposure (aOR 2.92, 95% CI 1.31-6.51). An increased risk of miscarriage was found with any exposure to the oil spill (aOR, 1.54, 95% CI 1.17-2.02). Fertility issues were more common in the overall most highly exposed women (aOR 1.88, 1.19-2.95), when the data were limited to those with pregnancies before and after. However, no particular aspect of oil spill exposure was strongly associated with the outcomes, and effects were almost as strong for pregnancies prior to the oil spill. CONCLUSIONS: The oil spill appears to have affected reproductive decision-making. The evidence is not strong that exposure to the oil spill was associated with miscarriage or infertility.
Authors: C Dechanet; T Anahory; J C Mathieu Daude; X Quantin; L Reyftmann; S Hamamah; B Hedon; H Dechaud Journal: Hum Reprod Update Date: 2010-08-04 Impact factor: 15.610
Authors: Edwina R Orchard; Phillip G D Ward; Sidhant Chopra; Elsdon Storey; Gary F Egan; Sharna D Jamadar Journal: Cereb Cortex Date: 2021-01-05 Impact factor: 5.357
Authors: Jeffrey K Wickliffe; Thomas H Stock; Jessi L Howard; Ericka Frahm; Bridget R Simon-Friedt; Krista Montgomery; Mark J Wilson; Maureen Y Lichtveld; Emily Harville Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-12-10 Impact factor: 4.379