Perspectives | Correspondence October 2013 | Volume 121 | Issue 10
Urinary Cadmium as a Marker of Exposure in Epidemiological Studies: Bernard and Chaumont Respond
Alfred Bernard and Agnès Chaumont
Laboratory of Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology, Catholic University of Louvain, Brussels, Belgium
Citation: Bernard A, Chaumont A. 2013. Urinary cadmium as a marker of exposure in epidemiological studies: Bernard and Chaumont respond. Environ Health Perspect 121:A296–A297; http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1307376R
The authors declare they have no actual or potential competing financial interests.
Published: 1 October 2013
We thank Adams and Newcomb for their interest in our article about the significance of low-level urinary cadmium (U-Cd) (Chaumont et al. 2013). Adams and Newcomb are correct that a constant offset between curves on a log scale implies a constant ratio but not a difference. The issue, however, is that the U-Cd ratio between current smokers and never-smokers in Figure 2 of our article does not show the increase seen in the ratio of kidney Cd concentrations because the concentration was already increased at 20 years of age (~ 1.40), peaked around 40 years (~ 1.80), and returned to its baseline level at 60 years (~ 1.50) and even lower at 70 years (~ 1.30). Although U-Cd steadily increased with age, the increase of U-Cd in current smokers leveled off around 40 years of age. Thus, at the ages of 20, 30, 40, 60, and 70 years, the differences in U-Cd between current smokers and never-smokers were 0.09, 0.16, 0.29, 0.29, and 0.20 µg/L, respectively. The increase in U-Cd in smokers leveled off around 30 years of age, evident when U-Cd curves were fitted on a linear scale (0.12, 0.25, 0.33, 0.29, and 0.21 µg/L for 20, 30, 40, 60, and 70 years, respectively). This is not the expected result for a biomarker that is envisaged to reflect the rise of Cd body burden in smokers.
Adams and Newcomb also cite several studies that have demonstrated higher U-Cd in former smokers. We will not comment on the study by Adams and Newcomb (2013), which was not yet available at the time this letter was written, nor on the study of Gunier et al. (2013), which actually did not compare U-Cd between former and current smokers. McElroy et al. (2007) and Adams et al. (2011) reported higher creatinine-adjusted U-Cd in women who were former smokers compared with those who never smoked. However, it would be interesting to consolidate these findings by analyzing U-Cd expressed in micrograms per liter. In the study by Adams et al. (2011), for instance, women had a mean urinary creatinine concentration around 0.4 g/L; thus, U-Cd values were overestimated for a large proportion of their subjects because of very low urinary creatinine values (< 0.3 g/L). The study by Olsson et al. (2002) involved very small groups of former smokers (10 females and 16 males); the males were much older than their referents, so no conclusion can be drawn about their higher U-Cd levels. Results from Paschal et al. (2000) are much more conclusive because they were based on a multivariate analysis of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) III database (n = 22,162) stratified by never-, current, and former smokers according to serum cotinine. In agreement with our study, these authors observed no increase of U-Cd in former smokers who had even “minimally” lower U-Cd levels than current smokers. Male and female current smokers in that study had mean U-Cd levels higher than that of never-smokers (0.34 and 0.42 µg/L, respectively), which fits rather well with our estimates. Paschal et al. (2000) also provided evidence of coexcretion of Cd and albumin in urine, thus anticipating our observations and those of Akerstrom et al. (2013).
We agree with Adams and Newcomb that there is no better way to assess individual exposure to Cd than by measuring the metal directly in urine or in blood. However, the question is whether one can reliably assess the long-term effects of low-level environmental Cd by means of a biomarker that reflects mostly recent exposure. A cautious interpretation of data is also needed because U-Cd is physiologically linked to proteinuria and albuminuria (Akerstrom et al. 2013), which are well-known predictors of bone and cardiovascular diseases (Barzilay et al. 2013; Smink et al. 2012).
Akerstrom M, Sallsten G, Lundh T, Barregard L. 2013. Associations between urinary excretion of cadmium and proteins in a nonsmoking population: renal toxicity or normal physiology? Environ Health Perspect 121:187–191; doi:10.1289/ehp.1205418.
Chaumont A, Voisin C, Deumer G, Haufroid V, Annesi-Maesano I, Roels H, et al. 2013. Associations of urinary cadmium with age and urinary proteins: further evidence of physiological variations unrelated to metal accumulation and toxicity. Environ Health Perspect 121:1047–1053; http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1306607.
Gunier RB, Horn-Ross PL, Canchola AJ, Duffy CN, Reynolds P, Hertz A, et al. 2013. Determinants and within-person variability of urinary cadmium concentrations among women in northern California. Environ Health Perspect 121:643–649; doi:10.1289/ehp.1205524.
McElroy JA, Shafer MM, Trentham-Dietz A, Hampton JM, Newcomb PA. 2007. Urinary cadmium levels and tobacco smoke exposure in women age 20–69 years in the United States. J Toxicol Environ Health A 70:1779–1782.
Olsson IM, Bensryd I, Lundh T, Ottosson H, Skerfving S, Oskarsson A. 2002. Cadmium in blood and urine—impact of sex, age, dietary intake, iron status, and former smoking—association of renal effects. Environ Health Perspect 110:1185–1190.
Paschal DC, Burt V, Caudill SP, Gunter EW, Pirkle JL, Sampson EJ, et al. 2000. Exposure of the U.S. population aged 6 years and older to cadmium:1988–1994. Arch Environ Contamin Toxicol 38(3):377–383.
Smink PA, Lambers Heerspinck HJ, Gansevoort RT, de Jong PE, Hillege H, Bakker SJ, et al. 2012. Albuminuria, estimated GFR, traditional risk factors, and incident cardiovascular disease: the PREVEND (Prevention of Renal and Vascular Endstage Disease) study. Am J Kidney Dis 60:804–811.
Since 1993 the News section of EHP has provided readers with objective, accurate information on timely environmental health topics. After years as one of the most popular features of EHP, and as our main tool for reaching a broader audience, we felt it was time the News had its own home on our website. We are now pleased to present our brand-new page devoted exclusively to EHP News! (more…)
EHP is proud to announce that “Acute Impact of Hourly Ambient Air Pollution on Preterm Birth,” published in EHP on 29 April 2016, has been selected by the Children’s Environmental Health Network (CEHN) as its November 2016 Article of the Month. CEHN Article of the Month summaries discuss the potential policy implications of current children’s environmental health research. The CEHN summary can be viewed here.
If you’re attending the American Public Health Association (APHA) 2016 Annual Meeting and Expo in Denver (October 30–November 2), stop by the NIEHS booth (#1214) in the Exhibition Hall. Children’s Health Editor Martha M. Dimes will be available to discuss EHP submissions, Children’s Health topics, and more.
Featured Children’s Health
Veronica A. Tinney, Jerad M. Denton, Lucy Sciallo-Tyler, and Jerome A. Paulson
Jerome A. Paulson and Claire L. Barnett
Kim G. Harley, Katherine Kogut, Daniel S. Madrigal, Maritza Cardenas, Irene A. Vera, Gonzalo Meza-Alfaro, Jianwen She, Qi Gavin, Rana Zahedi, Asa Bradman, Brenda Eskenazi, and Kimberly L. Parra
Rebecca Massa Nachman, Guangyun Mao, Xingyou Zhang, Xiumei Hong, Zhu Chen, Claire Sampankanpanich Soria, Huan He, Guoying Wang, Deanna Caruso, Colleen Pearson, Shyam Biswal, Barry Zuckerman, Marsha Wills-Karp, and Xiaobin Wang