Andrea Bellavia1, Lidia Mínguez-Alarcón2, Jennifer B Ford2, Myra Keller2, John Petrozza3, Paige L Williams4, Russ Hauser5, Tamarra James-Todd5. 1. Department of Environmental Health, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, United States of America; Department of Biostatistics, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, United States of America. Electronic address: abellavi@hsph.harvard.edu. 2. Department of Environmental Health, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, United States of America. 3. Vincent Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, United States of America. 4. Department of Biostatistics, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, United States of America; Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, United States of America. 5. Department of Environmental Health, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, United States of America; Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, United States of America.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Personal care products (PCPs), known sources of endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) such as phthalates and parabens, are widely used among women of reproductive age. EDCs have been linked to pregnancy complications such as gestational diabetes (GDM), and PCP use could represent a modifiable source of exposure in this sensitive time window. Yet, to our knowledge, no study has directly evaluated the association between pregnancy use of PCP and late pregnancy glucose levels, established risk factors for complications such as GDM. METHODS: A total of 233 women from the Environment and Reproductive Health (EARTH) Study had data available on 1st and/or 2nd trimester PCP use, assessed through self-reported use over the previous 24 h, and blood glucose levels after the glucose loading test (GLT), taken at late 2nd trimester. Associations between each individual PCP and total PCP with glucose levels were evaluated in multivariable adjusted linear regression models. RESULTS: Both positive and negative differences in glucose levels were observed when comparing users vs. non-users of several PCPs including 2nd trimester use of deodorant (adjusted mean difference: 12.2 mg/dL, 95% CI: -0.6, 24.9); bar soap (6.9 mg/dL, 95% CI: -0.9, 14.7 mg/dL); and liquid soap (-13.3, 95% CI: -26.8, 0.1 mg/dL), and 1st trimester use of sunscreen (-14.6 mg/dL, 95% CI: -27.8, -1.5 mg/dL). Total number of PCPs used in the 2nd trimester was also associated with higher glucose levels, with the largest difference of 20 mg/dL when comparing individuals who used eight vs none PCPs (95% CI: 3-37). CONCLUSIONS: In a pregnancy cohort of women seeking care at a fertility clinic, we found the use of several PCPs to be positively or negatively associated with glucose levels in the late second trimester, which may reflect increased risk of GDM and subsequent perinatal outcomes. These results strengthen the role of product use as a potentially modifiable source of EDCs that may impact glucose levels.
BACKGROUND: Personal care products (PCPs), known sources of endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) such as phthalates and parabens, are widely used among women of reproductive age. EDCs have been linked to pregnancy complications such as gestational diabetes (GDM), and PCP use could represent a modifiable source of exposure in this sensitive time window. Yet, to our knowledge, no study has directly evaluated the association between pregnancy use of PCP and late pregnancy glucose levels, established risk factors for complications such as GDM. METHODS: A total of 233 women from the Environment and Reproductive Health (EARTH) Study had data available on 1st and/or 2nd trimester PCP use, assessed through self-reported use over the previous 24 h, and blood glucose levels after the glucose loading test (GLT), taken at late 2nd trimester. Associations between each individual PCP and total PCP with glucose levels were evaluated in multivariable adjusted linear regression models. RESULTS: Both positive and negative differences in glucose levels were observed when comparing users vs. non-users of several PCPs including 2nd trimester use of deodorant (adjusted mean difference: 12.2 mg/dL, 95% CI: -0.6, 24.9); bar soap (6.9 mg/dL, 95% CI: -0.9, 14.7 mg/dL); and liquid soap (-13.3, 95% CI: -26.8, 0.1 mg/dL), and 1st trimester use of sunscreen (-14.6 mg/dL, 95% CI: -27.8, -1.5 mg/dL). Total number of PCPs used in the 2nd trimester was also associated with higher glucose levels, with the largest difference of 20 mg/dL when comparing individuals who used eight vs none PCPs (95% CI: 3-37). CONCLUSIONS: In a pregnancy cohort of women seeking care at a fertility clinic, we found the use of several PCPs to be positively or negatively associated with glucose levels in the late second trimester, which may reflect increased risk of GDM and subsequent perinatal outcomes. These results strengthen the role of product use as a potentially modifiable source of EDCs that may impact glucose levels.
Authors: Tamarra M James-Todd; John D Meeker; Tianyi Huang; Russ Hauser; Kelly K Ferguson; Janet W Rich-Edwards; Thomas F McElrath; Ellen W Seely Journal: Environ Int Date: 2016-09-17 Impact factor: 9.621
Authors: Shelley Ehrlich; Donna Lambers; Andrea Baccarelli; Jane Khoury; Maurizio Macaluso; Shuk-Mei Ho Journal: Am J Perinatol Date: 2016-08-04 Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Joe M Braun; Allan C Just; Paige L Williams; Kristen W Smith; Antonia M Calafat; Russ Hauser Journal: J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol Date: 2013-10-23 Impact factor: 5.563
Authors: Andrea Bellavia; Yu-Han Chiu; Florence M Brown; Lidia Mínguez-Alarcón; Jennifer B Ford; Myra Keller; John Petrozza; Paige L Williams; Xiaoyun Ye; Antonia M Calafat; Russ Hauser; Tamarra James-Todd Journal: Environ Res Date: 2018-10-14 Impact factor: 6.498
Authors: Feiby L Nassan; Brent A Coull; Audrey J Gaskins; Michelle A Williams; Niels E Skakkebaek; Jennifer B Ford; Xiaoyun Ye; Antonia M Calafat; Joseph M Braun; Russ Hauser Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2017-08-18 Impact factor: 9.031
Authors: Tamarra M James-Todd; Yu-Han Chiu; Carmen Messerlian; Lidia Mínguez-Alarcón; Jennifer B Ford; Myra Keller; John Petrozza; Paige L Williams; Xiaoyun Ye; Antonia M Calafat; Russ Hauser Journal: Environ Health Date: 2018-06-14 Impact factor: 5.984
Authors: Andrea L Deierlein; Alexis R Grayon; Xiaotong Zhu; Yanwen Sun; Xun Liu; Kaelyn Kohlasch; Cheryl R Stein Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-05-06 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Dede K Teteh; Marissa Chan; Bing Turner; Brian Hedgeman; Marissa Ericson; Phyllis Clark; Eudora Mitchell; Emily Barrett; Adana Llanos; Rick Kittles; Susanne Montgomery Journal: Am J Mens Health Date: 2020 Nov-Dec