Endocrine disruptors: Challenges and future directions in epidemiologic research.

Public concern about the impact of endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) on both humans and the environment is growing steadily. Epidemiologic research provides key information towards our understanding of the relationship between environmental exposures like EDCs and human health outcomes. Intended for researchers in disciplines complementary to epidemiology, this paper highlights the importance and challenges of epidemiologic research in order to present the key elements pertaining to the design and interpretation of an epidemiologic study on EDCs. The conduct of observational studies on EDCs derives from a thoughtful research question, which will help determine the subsequent methodological choices surrounding the careful selection of the study population (including the comparison group), the adequate ascertainment of exposure(s) and outcome(s) of interest, and the application of methodological and statistical concepts more specific to epidemiology. The interpretation of epidemiologic results may be arduous due to the latency occurring between EDC exposure and certain outcome(s), the complexity in capturing EDC exposure(s), and traditional methodological and statistical issues that also deserve consideration (e.g., confounding, effect modification, non-monotonic responses). Moving forward, we strongly advocate for an integrative approach of expertise in the fields of epidemiology, exposure science, risk assessment and toxicology to adequately study the health risks associated with EDCs while tackling their challenges.

An approach to classifying occupational exposures to endocrine disrupting chemicals by sex hormone function using an expert judgment process.

Endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) are exogenous substances that interfere with the endocrine system and cause adverse effects. We aimed to classify the effects of 24 known EDCs, prevalent in certain occupations, according to four modes of action (estrogenic, antiestrogenic, androgenic, and/or antiandrogenic). A literature search, stratified into four types of literature was conducted (namely: national and international agency reports; review articles; primary studies; ToxCastTM). The state of the evidence of each EDC on sex hormone function was summarized and reviewed by an expert panel. For each mode of action, the experts evaluated the likelihood of endocrine disruption in five categories: "No", "Unlikely", "Possibly", "Probably", and "Yes". Seven agents were categorized as "Yes," or having strong evidence for their effects on sex hormone function (antiandrogenic: lead, arsenic, butylbenzyl phthalate, dibutyl phthalate, dicyclohexyl phthalate; estrogenic: nonylphenol, bisphenol A). Nine agents were categorized as "Probable," or having probable evidence (antiandrogenic: bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, nonylphenol, toluene, bisphenol A, diisononyl phthalate; androgenic: cadmium; estrogenic: copper, cadmium and; anti-estrogenic: lead). Two agents (arsenic, polychlorinated biphenyls) had opposing conclusions supporting both "probably" estrogenic and antiestrogenic effects. This synthesis will allow researchers to evaluate the health effects of selected EDCs with an added level of precision related to the mode of action.