Symielle A Gaston1, Linda S Birnbaum2, Chandra L Jackson3,4. 1. Epidemiology Branch, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, 111 TW Alexander Drive, MD A3-05, Research Triangle Park, NC, 27709, USA. 2. Office of the Director, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the National Toxicology Program, Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA. 3. Epidemiology Branch, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, 111 TW Alexander Drive, MD A3-05, Research Triangle Park, NC, 27709, USA. Chandra.Jackson@nih.gov. 4. Intramural Program, National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities, Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA. Chandra.Jackson@nih.gov.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Although vulnerable populations are disproportionately exposed to synthetic chemicals with endocrine disrupting properties, few recent reviews have summarized the impact of synthetic chemicals on cardiometabolic health among these groups. RECENT FINDINGS: Of 37 eligible epidemiological studies among vulnerable populations published between January 2018 and April 2019 in which over half were prospective, the most investigated populations were pregnant women and children. Racial/ethnic minorities, individuals of low socioeconomic status (SES), and those occupationally exposed were studied the least. The most studied persistent organic pollutants (POPs) were per-/poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), and the most studied non-POPs were phenols. Across chemical classes, studies found certain POPs (e.g., PFAS) and non-POPs (i.e., phenols, phthalates, and parabens) to be associated with gestational diabetes and dysregulated glucose metabolism. Results for other cardiometabolic health outcomes were inconsistent but suggested certain chemicals may negatively affect cardiometabolic health. Synthetic chemicals likely adversely affect cardiometabolic health, but current findings were inconclusive. Few recent studies focused on racial/ethnic minorities, low SES, and occupationally exposed populations. To address poor cardiometabolic health and related disparities, more studies across vulnerable populations are warranted.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Although vulnerable populations are disproportionately exposed to synthetic chemicals with endocrine disrupting properties, few recent reviews have summarized the impact of synthetic chemicals on cardiometabolic health among these groups. RECENT FINDINGS: Of 37 eligible epidemiological studies among vulnerable populations published between January 2018 and April 2019 in which over half were prospective, the most investigated populations were pregnant women and children. Racial/ethnic minorities, individuals of low socioeconomic status (SES), and those occupationally exposed were studied the least. The most studied persistent organic pollutants (POPs) were per-/poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), and the most studied non-POPs were phenols. Across chemical classes, studies found certain POPs (e.g., PFAS) and non-POPs (i.e., phenols, phthalates, and parabens) to be associated with gestational diabetes and dysregulated glucose metabolism. Results for other cardiometabolic health outcomes were inconsistent but suggested certain chemicals may negatively affect cardiometabolic health. Synthetic chemicals likely adversely affect cardiometabolic health, but current findings were inconclusive. Few recent studies focused on racial/ethnic minorities, low SES, and occupationally exposed populations. To address poor cardiometabolic health and related disparities, more studies across vulnerable populations are warranted.
Authors: Andrea Bellavia; David E Cantonwine; John D Meeker; Russ Hauser; Ellen W Seely; Thomas F McElrath; Tamarra James-Todd Journal: Environ Int Date: 2018-01-28 Impact factor: 9.621
Authors: Kate Hoffman; Heather M Stapleton; Amelia Lorenzo; Craig M Butt; Linda Adair; Amy H Herring; Julie L Daniels Journal: Environ Int Date: 2018-04-24 Impact factor: 9.621
Authors: Douglas W Dockery; Heike Luttmann-Gibson; David Q Rich; Mark S Link; Murray A Mittleman; Diane R Gold; Petros Koutrakis; Joel D Schwartz; Richard L Verrier Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 9.031
Authors: Gang Liu; Klodian Dhana; Jeremy D Furtado; Jennifer Rood; Geng Zong; Liming Liang; Lu Qi; George A Bray; Lilian DeJonge; Brent Coull; Philippe Grandjean; Qi Sun Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2018-02-13 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Tanya L Alderete; Ran Jin; Douglas I Walker; Damaskini Valvi; Zhanghua Chen; Dean P Jones; Cheng Peng; Frank D Gilliland; Kiros Berhane; David V Conti; Michael I Goran; Lida Chatzi Journal: Environ Int Date: 2019-03-04 Impact factor: 9.621
Authors: Wei-Jen Chen; Candace Robledo; Erin M Davis; Jean R Goodman; Chao Xu; Jooyeon Hwang; Amanda E Janitz; Tabitha Garwe; Antonia M Calafat; Jennifer D Peck Journal: Environ Res Date: 2022-07-15 Impact factor: 8.431
Authors: Suril S Mehta; Tamarra James-Todd; Katie M Applebaum; Andrea Bellavia; Kimberly Coleman-Phox; Nancy Adler; Barbara Laraia; Elissa Epel; Emily Parry; Miaomiao Wang; June-Soo Park; Ami R Zota Journal: Environ Res Date: 2020-12-02 Impact factor: 6.498
Authors: Symielle A Gaston; Tamarra James-Todd; Nyree M Riley; Micaela N Gladney; Quaker E Harmon; Donna D Baird; Chandra L Jackson Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-12-10 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Abee L Boyles; Brandiese E Beverly; Suzanne E Fenton; Chandra L Jackson; Anne Marie Z Jukic; Vicki L Sutherland; Donna D Baird; Gwen W Collman; Darlene Dixon; Kelly K Ferguson; Janet E Hall; Elizabeth M Martin; Thaddeus T Schug; Alexandra J White; Kelly J Chandler Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2020-11-18 Impact factor: 2.681