A peer-reviewed open access journal published by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences

Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) are compounds that do not occur in nature but have been widely used since World War II and persist indefinitely in the environment. They are present in the serum of Americans with median levels of 4 ng/mL and 21 ng/mL, respectively. PFOA has been positively associated with cholesterol in several studies of workers. A cross-sectional study of lipids and PFOA and PFOS was conducted among 46,294 community residents aged 18 years or above, who drank water contaminated with PFOA from a chemical plant in West Virginia. The mean levels of serum PFOA and PFOS in 2005–2006 were 80 ng/mL (median, 27 ng/mL) and 22 ng/mL (median, 20 ng/mL), respectively. All lipid outcomes except high density lipoprotein cholesterol showed significant increasing trends by increasing decile of either compound; high density lipoprotein cholesterol showed no association. The predicted increase in cholesterol from lowest to highest decile for either compound was 11–12 mg/dL. The odds ratios for high cholesterol (≥240 mg/dL), by increasing quartile of PFOA, were 1.00, 1.21 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.12, 1.31), 1.33 (95% CI: 1.23, 1.43), and 1.40 (95% CI: 1.29, 1.51) and were similar for PFOS quartiles. Because these data are cross-sectional, causal inference is limited. Nonetheless, the associations between these compounds and lipids raise concerns, given their common presence in the general population.

There are a number of measures that quantify the public health burden due to specific risk factors for specific diseases. Although these measures are of importance for policymakers, epidemiologists do not often calculate them or may be unfamiliar with some of the issues involved when they do. The primary measure of interest is the attributable fraction (AF), representing the fraction of cases or deaths from a specific disease that would not have occurred in the absence of exposure to a specific risk factor either in the exposed population or the population as a whole. AFs can be multiplied by the total number of cases of a given disease to obtain a “body count”—the absolute number of preventable cases due to a specific risk factor. Two other measures of public health burden, used in conjunction with AFs, are attributable years-of-life-lost and attributable disability-adjusted life-years. We provide an overview of the AF and related measures and discuss some of the specific issues involved in calculating AFs. These issues include calculating the variance of AFs (such as Monte Carlo sensitivity methods), biases arising from some formulas for the AF, sources of data for calculating AFs, dependence of AFs on basic decisions about what exposure–disease associations are causal, and extrapolation from the source population to the target population.

A peer-reviewed open access journal published by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences

In 1997 the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified 2,3,7,8-tetra-chlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD; the most potent dioxin congener) as a group 1 carcinogen based on limited evidence in humans, sufficient evidence in experimental animals, and extensive mechanistic information indicating that TCDD acts through a mechanism involving the aryl hydrocarbon receptor (AhR), which is present in both humans and animals. The judgment of limited evidence in humans was based primarily on an elevation of all cancers combined in four industrial cohorts. The group 1 classification has been somewhat controversial and has been challenged in the literature in recent years. In this article we review the epidemiologic and mechanistic evidence that has emerged since 1997. New epidemiologic evidence consists primarily of positive exposure–response analyses in several of the industrial cohorts, as well as evidence of excesses of several specific cancers in the Seveso accident cohort. There are also new data re...

Background: Several studies have shown higher Alzheimer’s disease (AD) incidence rates are in African-Americans (AAs) than Caucasians (CCs). If this finding is consistent across studies, it raises important etiologic questions regarding factors responsible for this discrepancy. It also affects the likely public health burden of AD in the US in the future, as the non-Caucasian population becomes the majority. Objective: Estimate the AA/CC rate ratio for AD incidence across all available studies. Methods: We conducted a meta-analysis of population-based studies for the rate ratio (RR) of AD incidence for AAs versus CCs, after identifying six relevant studies from the literature. We calculated an AA/CC rate ratio across all studies using inverse-variance weighting, and assessed inter-study heterogeneity. Using these incidence data, as well as data on survival after diagnosis, and on all-cause mortality, we also estimated the US prevalence of AD among AAs and CCs. Results: There were six population-based studies with data comparing AD incidence between AAs and CCs, with an estimated 370 AA and 640 CC incident cases. The meta-analysis RR showed that the AD rate for AAs was 64% higher than for CCs (RR = 1.64 (95% CI 1.35-2.00)) 1.35-2.00)), with no evidence of heterogeneity. We estimated the current US AD prevalence for ages 65–90 to be 5.5% for CCs, and 8.6% for AAs (prevalence ratio 1.56). Conclusion: AAs have an increased risk of incident and prevalent AD compared to CCs for reasons which are unknown, but are hypothesized to reflect biological, psychological, and socioeconomic factors.