According to a report, exposure to perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) appears to be associated with cardiovascular disease and peripheral arterial disease in a study of 1,216 individuals. PFOA is manmade chemical used in the manufacture of some common household products. The report was published Online First by Archives of Internal Medicine, a JAMA Network publication.
Surveys have suggested that PFOA (widely used in the manufacture of products such as lubricants, polishes, paper and textile coatings, and food packaging) is detectable in the blood of more than 98 percent of the U.S. population. Some evidence has suggested that an association may be biologically plausible between PFOA exposure and cardiovascular disease (CVD), according to the study background.
"Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a major public health problem. Identifying novel risk factors for CVD, including widely prevalent environmental exposures, is therefore important," according to the study background.
The study suggests that increasing serum PFOA levels were positively associated with the presence of CVD and PAD, and the association appeared to be independent of confounders such as age, sex, race/ethnicity, smoking status, body mass index, diabetes mellitus, hypertension and serum cholesterol level, the authors comment.
"Our results contribute to the emerging data on health effects of PFCs [perfluoroalkyl chemicals], suggesting for the first time that PFOA exposure is potentially related to CVD and PAD. However, owing to the cross-sectional nature of the present study, we cannot conclude that the association is causal," the authors comment.
Compared with the reference level of PFOA in quartile 1, the multivariable odds ratio among participants in quartile 4 was 2.01 for CVD and 1.78 for PAD, according to the results.
"In summary, in a representative cross-sectional sample of the U.S. population, we found that higher PFOA levels are positively associated with self-reported CVD and objectively measured PAD. Our findings, however, should be interpreted with caution because of the possibility of residual confounding and reverse causality. Future prospective studies are needed to confirm or refute our findings," the authors conclude.