Sandie Ha1, Rajeshwari Sundaram2, Germaine M Buck Louis3, Carrie Nobles4, Indulaxmi Seeni4, Seth Sherman5, Pauline Mendola6. 1. Epidemiology Branch, Division of Intramural Population Health Research, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Bethesda, Maryland; Department of Public Health, School of Social Sciences, Humanities and Arts, University of California, Merced, California. 2. Biostatistics and Bioinformatics Branch, Bethesda, Maryland. 3. Office of the Director, Division of Intramural Population Health Research, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Bethesda, Maryland. 4. Epidemiology Branch, Division of Intramural Population Health Research, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Bethesda, Maryland. 5. The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, Maryland. 6. Epidemiology Branch, Division of Intramural Population Health Research, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Bethesda, Maryland. Electronic address: pauline.mendola@nih.gov.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To estimate the association of pregnancy loss with common air pollutant exposure. Ambient air pollution exposure has been linked to adverse pregnancy outcomes, but few studies have investigated its relationship with pregnancy loss. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Not applicable. PATIENT(S): A total of 343 singleton pregnancies in a multisite prospective cohort study with detailed protocols for ovulation and pregnancy testing. INTERVENTION(S): None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Timing of incident pregnancy loss (from ovulation). RESULT(S): The incidence of pregnancy loss was 28% (n = 98). Pollutant levels at women's residences were estimated using modified Community Multiscale Air Quality models and averaged during the past 2 weeks (acute) and the whole pregnancy (chronic). Adjusted Cox proportional hazards models showed that an interquartile range increase in average whole pregnancy ozone (hazard ratio [HR] 1.12, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.07-1.17) and particulate matter <2.5 μm (HR 1.13, 95% CI 1.03-1.24) concentrations were associated with faster time to pregnancy loss. Sulfate compounds also appeared to increase risk (HR 1.58, 95% CI 1.07-2.34). Last 2 weeks of exposures were not associated with loss. CONCLUSION(S): In a prospective cohort of couples trying to conceive, we found evidence that exposure to air pollution throughout pregnancy was associated with loss, but delineating specific periods of heightened vulnerability await larger preconception cohort studies with daily measured air quality.
OBJECTIVE: To estimate the association of pregnancy loss with common air pollutant exposure. Ambient air pollution exposure has been linked to adverse pregnancy outcomes, but few studies have investigated its relationship with pregnancy loss. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Not applicable. PATIENT(S): A total of 343 singleton pregnancies in a multisite prospective cohort study with detailed protocols for ovulation and pregnancy testing. INTERVENTION(S): None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Timing of incident pregnancy loss (from ovulation). RESULT(S): The incidence of pregnancy loss was 28% (n = 98). Pollutant levels at women's residences were estimated using modified Community Multiscale Air Quality models and averaged during the past 2 weeks (acute) and the whole pregnancy (chronic). Adjusted Cox proportional hazards models showed that an interquartile range increase in average whole pregnancy ozone (hazard ratio [HR] 1.12, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.07-1.17) and particulate matter <2.5 μm (HR 1.13, 95% CI 1.03-1.24) concentrations were associated with faster time to pregnancy loss. Sulfate compounds also appeared to increase risk (HR 1.58, 95% CI 1.07-2.34). Last 2 weeks of exposures were not associated with loss. CONCLUSION(S): In a prospective cohort of couples trying to conceive, we found evidence that exposure to air pollution throughout pregnancy was associated with loss, but delineating specific periods of heightened vulnerability await larger preconception cohort studies with daily measured air quality.
Authors: A García-Enguídanos; M E Calle; J Valero; S Luna; V Domínguez-Rojas Journal: Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol Date: 2002-05-10 Impact factor: 2.435
Authors: Laura Andrea Rodriguez-Villamizar; Adam Magico; Alvaro Osornio-Vargas; Brian H Rowe Journal: Can Respir J Date: 2015-05-11 Impact factor: 2.409
Authors: Pauline Mendola; Sandie Ha; Anna Z Pollack; Yeyi Zhu; Indulaxmi Seeni; Sung Soo Kim; Seth Sherman; Danping Liu Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2017-07-06 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Heejoo Jo; Sandrah P Eckel; Jiu-Chiuan Chen; Myles Cockburn; Mayra P Martinez; Ting Chow; Fred Lurmann; William E Funk; Rob McConnell; Anny H Xiang Journal: Environ Int Date: 2019-06-21 Impact factor: 9.621
Authors: Claire L Leiser; Heidi A Hanson; Kara Sawyer; Jacob Steenblik; Ragheed Al-Dulaimi; Troy Madsen; Karen Gibbins; James M Hotaling; Yetunde Oluseye Ibrahim; James A VanDerslice; Matthew Fuller Journal: Fertil Steril Date: 2018-12-05 Impact factor: 7.329
Authors: Audrey J Gaskins; Jaime E Hart; Lidia Mínguez-Alarcón; Jorge E Chavarro; Francine Laden; Brent A Coull; Jennifer B Ford; Irene Souter; Russ Hauser Journal: Environ Int Date: 2018-03-30 Impact factor: 9.621
Authors: Abigail Muñoz-Rodríguez; Jorge Alfonso Maciel-Ruiz; Ana María Salazar; Monserrat Sordo; Patricia Ostrosky-Wegman; Jorge H Limón-Pacheco; Andrés Eduardo Nepomuceno-Hernández; Rodrigo Ayala-Yáñez; María Eugenia Gonsebatt; Citlalli Osorio-Yáñez Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-06-18 Impact factor: 3.390