7
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      A Case-Cohort Study of Cadmium Body Burden and Gestational Diabetes Mellitus in American Women

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Environmental cadmium (Cd) exposure is associated with type 2 diabetes. However, the association of Cd and gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is unknown.

          Objectives

          We examined the association between body burden of Cd and GDM risk.

          Methods

          We used 140 GDM cases and 481 randomly selected noncase subcohort members from the Omega Study to conduct a case-cohort study. Creatinine (Cr)–corrected Cd in early pregnancy urine (U-Cd) was measured by inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry. Tertiles (< 0.29; 0.29–0.42; ≥ 0.43 μg/g Cr) were defined using the subcohort’s U-Cd distribution. GDM was diagnosed using the 2004 American Diabetes Association guidelines. Adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using logistic regression.

          Results

          GDM cases had higher geometric mean U-Cd (0.39 μg/g Cr; 95% CI: 0.37, 0.41) than noncases (0.31 μg/g Cr; 95% CI: 0.29, 0.33). Odds ratios for GDM increased with increasing U-Cd tertile (OR = 1.64; 95% CI: 0.88, 3.05 for middle vs. low tertile; OR = 2.07; 95% CI: 1.15, 3.73 for high vs. low tertile; p-trend = 0.015). Overweight/obesity (body mass index ≥ 25 kg/m 2) did not modify the association between U-Cd and GDM ( p = 0.26).

          Conclusions

          Our findings suggest that body burden of Cd increases risk of GDM in a dose-dependent manner. Improved understanding of environmental factors influencing GDM may facilitate early identification of women at high risk of GDM.

          Citation

          Romano ME, Enquobahrie DA, Simpson CD, Checkoway H, Williams MA. 2015. A case-cohort study of cadmium body burden and gestational diabetes mellitus in American women. Environ Health Perspect 123:993–998;  http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1408282

          Related collections

          Most cited references43

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Current status of cadmium as an environmental health problem.

          Cadmium is a toxic metal occurring in the environment naturally and as a pollutant emanating from industrial and agricultural sources. Food is the main source of cadmium intake in the non-smoking population. The bioavailability, retention and toxicity are affected by several factors including nutritional status such as low iron status. Cadmium is efficiently retained in the kidney (half-time 10-30 years) and the concentration is proportional to that in urine (U-Cd). Cadmium is nephrotoxic, initially causing kidney tubular damage. Cadmium can also cause bone damage, either via a direct effect on bone tissue or indirectly as a result of renal dysfunction. After prolonged and/or high exposure the tubular injury may progress to glomerular damage with decreased glomerular filtration rate, and eventually to renal failure. Furthermore, recent data also suggest increased cancer risks and increased mortality in environmentally exposed populations. Dose-response assessment using a variety of early markers of kidney damage has identified U-Cd points of departure for early kidney effects between 0.5 and 3 microg Cd/g creatinine, similar to the points of departure for effects on bone. It can be anticipated that a considerable proportion of the non-smoking adult population has urinary cadmium concentrations of 0.5 microg/g creatinine or higher in non-exposed areas. For smokers this proportion is considerably higher. This implies no margin of safety between the point of departure and the exposure levels in the general population. Therefore, measures should be put in place to reduce exposure to a minimum, and the tolerably daily intake should be set in accordance with recent findings.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Prepregnancy BMI and the risk of gestational diabetes: a systematic review of the literature with meta-analysis.

            The objective of this study is to assess and quantify the risk for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) according to prepregnancy maternal body mass index (BMI). The design is a systematic review of observational studies published in the last 30 years. Four electronic databases were searched for publications (1977-2007). BMI was elected as the only measure of obesity, and all diagnostic criteria for GDM were accepted. Studies with selective screening for GDM were excluded. There were no language restrictions. The methodological quality of primary studies was assessed. Some 1745 citations were screened, and 70 studies (two unpublished) involving 671 945 women were included (59 cohorts and 11 case-controls). Most studies were of high or medium quality. Compared with women with a normal BMI, the unadjusted pooled odds ratio (OR) of an underweight woman developing GDM was 0.75 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.69 to 0.82). The OR for overweight, moderately obese and morbidly obese women were 1.97 (95% CI 1.77 to 2.19), 3.01 (95% CI 2.34 to 3.87) and 5.55 (95% CI 4.27 to 7.21) respectively. For every 1 kg m(-2) increase in BMI, the prevalence of GDM increased by 0.92% (95% CI 0.73 to 1.10). The risk of GDM is positively associated with prepregnancy BMI. This information is important when counselling women planning a pregnancy.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Measurement characteristics of the Women's Health Initiative food frequency questionnaire.

              The Women's Health Initiative (WHI) is the largest research program ever initiated in the United States with a focus on diet and health. Therefore, it is important to understand and document the measurement characteristics of the key dietary assessment instrument: the WHI food frequency questionnaire (FFQ). Data are from 113 women screened for participation in the WHI in 1995. We assessed bias and precision of the FFQ by comparing the intake of 30 nutrients estimated from the FFQ with means from four 24-hour dietary recalls and a 4-day food record. For most nutrients, means estimated by the FFQ were within 10% of the records or recalls. Precision, defined as the correlation between the FFQ and the records and recalls, was similar to other FFQs. Energy adjusted correlation coefficients ranged from 0.2 (vitamin B12) to 0.7 (magnesium) with a mean of 0.5. The correlation for percentage energy from fat (a key measure in WHI) was 0.6. Vitamin supplement use was common. For example, almost half of total vitamin E intake was obtained from supplements. Including supplemental vitamins and minerals increased micronutrient correlation coefficients, which ranged from 0.2 (thiamin) to 0.8 (vitamin E) with a mean of 0.6. The WHI FFQ produced nutrient estimate, that were similar to those obtained from short-term dietary recall and recording methods. Comparison of WHI FFQ nutrient intake measures to independent and unbiased measures, such as doubly labeled water estimates of energy expenditure, are needed to help address the validity of the FFQ in this population.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Environ Health Perspect
                Environ. Health Perspect
                EHP
                Environmental Health Perspectives
                NLM-Export
                0091-6765
                1552-9924
                24 February 2015
                October 2015
                : 123
                : 10
                : 993-998
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Epidemiology, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, USA
                [2 ]Department of Epidemiology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA
                [3 ]Center for Perinatal Studies, Swedish Medical Center, Seattle, Washington, USA
                [4 ]Department of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA
                [5 ]Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California, USA
                [6 ]Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
                Author notes
                Address correspondence to M.E. Romano, Center for Environmental Health and Technology, Box G-S121-2, Brown University, Providence, RI 02912 USA. Telephone: (401) 863-5124. E-mail: megan_romano@ 123456brown.edu
                Article
                ehp.1408282
                10.1289/ehp.1408282
                4590743
                25712731
                c16ed29a-3460-4862-9f64-c6352f4647cb

                Publication of EHP lies in the public domain and is therefore without copyright. All text from EHP may be reprinted freely. Use of materials published in EHP should be acknowledged (for example, “Reproduced with permission from Environmental Health Perspectives”); pertinent reference information should be provided for the article from which the material was reproduced. Articles from EHP, especially the News section, may contain photographs or illustrations copyrighted by other commercial organizations or individuals that may not be used without obtaining prior approval from the holder of the copyright.

                History
                : 17 February 2014
                : 20 February 2015
                : 24 February 2015
                : 01 October 2015
                Categories
                Research

                Public health
                Public health

                Comments

                Comment on this article