Response to letter to the editor regarding "Serum perfluoroalkyl acids and time to pregnancy in nulliparous women"

Preconception exposure to perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances and couple fecundity: A couple-based exploration

Numerous studies have examined the adverse health effects of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) but it remains unclear whether preconception exposure to PFAS affects couple fecundity. This prospective preconception cohort study with 936 Chinese couples aimed to comprehensively assess the effects of PFAS on couple fecundity [measured by the time to pregnancy (TTP)] and infertility (i.e., TTP > 12 menstrual cycles) with a focus on the effects of partner-specific exposure and joint-effects of couple-based exposure. Twenty-five PFAS were quantified in plasma from each partner, including seven branched isomers, two chlorinated polyfluoroalkyl ether sulfonic acids, four emerging PFAS replacements [i.e., 6:2 fluorotelomer phosphate diester (6:2 diPAP) and three short-chain alternatives: perfluoro-n-butanoicacid, perfluorobutane sulfonate and perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA)]. Using a two-phase regression approach composed of elastic net regression and principal component analysis, we found that exposure to 6:2 diPAP and PFHpA rather than legacy PFAS in women and the couple-based exposure patterns characterized by high level of female 6:2 diPAP were significantly associated with reduced couple fecundity, which was independent of the adjustment of co-exposed PFAS homogenous from both partners. For example, a ln unit increase in female 6:2 diPAP was associated with 15 % [fecundity odds ratio (FOR) = 0.85, 95 %CI: 0.76, 0.96)] lower odds of couple fecundability (i.e., longer TTP) and 45 % increased risk of infertility [OR = 1.45 (95 %CI: 1.16, 1.81)], respectively. While most PFAS in men were not associated with couple fecundity, certain PFAS (e.g., perfluorohexane sulfonic acid) in men were negatively associated with infertility risk. However, the combined effects of PFAS mixture in couples were nonsignificant. Our findings suggest that PFAS in men and women may exert different impacts on couple fecundity. Preconception exposure to 6:2 diPAP and PFHpA in women may have the potential to impair couple fecundity.

Conditioning on Parity in Studies of Perfluoroalkyl Acids and Time to Pregnancy: An Example from the Danish National Birth Cohort

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have investigated the associations between perfluoroalkyl acids (PFAAs) in women and time to pregnancy (TTP). Inconsistent results may be explained by differences in conditioning on parity.

OBJECTIVES

We used causal directed acyclic graphs to illustrate potential confounding related to previous pregnancies and exposure measurement error due to differences in the interpregnancy interval in pregnancy-based studies that include parous women. We exemplified the potential importance of these issues using data from the Danish National Birth Cohort.

METHODS

We used discrete time survival models to estimate associations between maternal plasma PFAAs in early pregnancy and TTP in 638 nulliparous and 613 parous women.

RESULTS

PFAA quartiles were not associated with the TTP in nulliparous women. In parous women, higher PFAA quartiles were associated with longer TTP. The strongest associations were estimated for perfluorohexane sulfonate and perfluorooctane sulfonate. PFAA concentrations were higher in women with longer interpregnancy intervals. Accounting for the interpregnancy interval attenuated the estimated associations.

CONCLUSIONS

Associations between PFAAs and TTP in parous women may be biased by confounders related to previous pregnancies and exposure measurement error. To avoid these biases, studies that include parous women may need to condition on a) common causes of PFAAs and the TTP in the index pregnancy, b) previous births (a descendant of a collider), c) PFAA levels or common causes of PFAA levels and the TTP in the previous pregnancy (to alleviate collider stratification bias caused by conditioning on previous births), and d) the interpregnancy interval (in pregnancy-based studies). Alternatives would be to restrict studies to nulliparous women or to use toxicokinetic modeling to correct exposure estimates in parous women. These recommendations may be extended to studies of other chemicals with similar toxicokinetic properties. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP1493.