Commentary
Environmental chemicals and diabetes: which ones are we missing? Chin-Chi Kuo 1-4 and Ana Navas-Acien1-3
1Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland,
USA
2Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health,
Baltimore, Maryland, USA
3Welch Center for Prevention, Epidemiology and Clinical Research, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions,
Baltimore, Maryland, USA
4 Kidney Institute and Division of Nephrology, Department of Internal Medicine, China Medical University
Hospital and College of Medicine, China Medical University, Taichung, Taiwan
Acknowledgement: Dr. Navas-Acien is supported by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (R01ES021367).
The ever-increasing global epidemic of type 2 diabetes has overwhelmed the capacity of health
care systems and economies in both developing and developed countries.1 Economic development,
rapid industrialization and social re-organization may play a critical role in driving the diabetes epidemic, possibly maybe due to discordant gene-environment interactions.1, 2 The evolution discordance induced
by rapid environment modifications is most acknowledged in nutrition transition to ubiquitous refined and processed foods, and in physical activity transition to sedentary lifestyle – especially screen watching
and driving.1, 2 Compared to diet and physical activity, the impact of environmental chemicals on diabetes
development has been grossly under-researched and their effects possibly under-estimated. By the end
of the 20th century, however, growing epidemiological and mechanistic evidence started to link
environmental chemicals (both synthetic and naturally occurring) to type 2 diabetes and obesity.3, 4
In 2011, the U.S. National Toxicological Program (NTP) at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) in the United States organized a workshop to systematically review the
epidemiologic and experimental evidence on the relationship of environmental chemicals with obesity, diabetes and the metabolic syndrome for a wide variety of chemicals including metals (arsenic),
persistent organic pollutants, phthalates, bisphenol A, non-persistent pesticides, and air pollution.4
Although the evidence has been updated in recent reviews, the evidence is far from establishing causality. A major limitation is that most available studies are cross-sectional, except maybe for arsenic, hexachlorobenzene (HCB) and total polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) , for which increasing prospective
evidence is generally consistent with an increased risk of type 2 diabetes .3
Among toxic metals associated with the risk of diabetes, arsenic, a metalloid, has received special attention for more than two decades since the publication in 1994 of a cross-sectional study in
the historically high arsenic area of Southwestern Taiwan.5 The research focus has since then expanded
with increasing evidence supporting the diabetogenic effects of arsenic even at exposure levels below the WHO standard of 10 ppb in drinking water. However, the debate on the causality of the observed associations between arsenic and diabetes remains unresolved, mainly because limited quality
assessment of arsenic and diabetes outcomes and still relatively limited prospective data.3, 4
For other metals, the evidence is scarce. A handful of studies are available for mercury, with
inconsistent evidence, and for cadmium, with evidence generally supporting no association.3 In this issue
of the International Journal of Epidemiology, Liu et al. report a cross-sectional association between nickel exposure, as measured in urine, with the prevalence of diabetes in a representative sample of adults 50
to 70 years from two main cities in China, Beijing and Shanghai.6 This is the first study formally evaluating
the hypothesis of an association between nickel exposure and the risk of diabetes, and the results could represent a novel finding. However, we must exert great caution in interpreting the findings of this single study, especially given important limitations, namely the cross-sectional design. Reverse causation is an inherent limitation in cross-sectional studies especially when the exposure is based on urine analysis and the disease outcome is potentially associated with kidney injury ranging from glomerular hyper-filtration to impaired glomerular filtration. The possibility of reverse causality in the exposure-outcome
relationship poses a serious challenge for researchers investigating the association between diabetes and urinary chemicals. For example, in Liu et al.’s study, it would be important to report the association between estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine nickel concentrations and whether the eGFR is comparable between participants with and without diabetes. This information, however, was not reported. In general, for diseases that could affect kidney function, prospective evidence is particularly important when exposure assessment is based on urine biomarkers.
Another challenge is how to deal with multiple toxic metals, or by extension with multiple environmental chemicals, that are potentially diabetogenic. Liu et al. mentioned that urine arsenic and
cadmium levels were adjusted for in sensitivity analyses yielding consistent results.6 However, effect
modification by arsenic or cadmium exposure was not approached systematically, including the evaluation of additive or multiplicative effects. It would have been useful to report the association of arsenic and cadmium with prevalent diabetes in this population, since the information was available and given the increasing need to assess for multi-exposure. approaches. Residual confounding is an inherent threat to the validity of any observational study. For instance, higher nickel exposure may be attributable to higher particulate air pollution, which has also been linked to the development of diabetes, as nickel
concentrations and particulate matter (PM) exposure can be correlated.7, 8 Other sources of nickel
exposure include electronic devices such as laptops and cell phones.9 Clarifying the main source of nickel
exposure in the general population would be critical to control residual confounding and perform bias estimation.
Unlike arsenic, where the evidence at high levels of exposure is generally consistent, no information is available on a link between nickel exposure and type 2 diabetes in occupational populations or in highly exposed general populations. Targeting prospective research studies in
occupationally exposed populations in industries such as mining, alloy manufacturing, and production of nickel-based batteries may be a practical and cost-effective approach. Overall, well-designed prospective studies are warranted to evaluate the joint effect between nickel and other nutrients and toxicants and its impact on the risk of diabetes. It is also fundamental to estimate the repeatability of urine nickel measurements collected over time to justify the use of single urine nickel measurements, as the half-life of nickel in urine is relatively short. As multi-element analytical methods have become standard in metal assessment, developing statistical methods to deal with multi-exposures is critical.
With the publication of this study,6 nickel appears as a potential new chemical that was missing
available is insufficient to evaluate this relationship. In one ecological study, nickel concentration in the
air was associated with diabetes mortality.10 In two case-control studies, on the other hand, serum nickel
levels were similar between participants with and without diabetes.11, 12 This study, however, highlights
the possibility that a number of diabetes-related environmental chemicals might have been overlooked. With hundreds of new chemicals been released every year, and studies that tend to focus on the same chemicals, it is important to acknowledge that new approaches are needed that can identify a larger number of environmental chemicals simultaneously while appropriately preserving quality in exposure assessment and control of bias, in particular confounding. Identifying environmental hazards for chronic disease such as diabetes is an urgent need as modernization contributes to rapid changes in
environmental exposures. Environmental chemicals could also challenge the dynamic interplay with genetic, nutritional and physical activity factors and alter public health risk to chronic diseases, especially
in countries with rapid socio-economic growth and urbanization, such as China and India.1
References:
1. Hu FB. Globalization of diabetes: the role of diet, lifestyle, and genes. Diabetes care 2011; 34:
1249-57.
2. Cordain L, Eaton SB, Sebastian A, et al. Origins and evolution of the Western diet: health
implications for the 21st century. The American journal of clinical nutrition 2005; 81: 341-54.
3. Kuo CC, Moon K, Thayer KA, Navas-Acien A. Environmental chemicals and type 2 diabetes: an
updated systematic review of the epidemiologic evidence. Current diabetes reports 2013; 13: 831-49.
4. Thayer KA, Heindel JJ, Bucher JR, Gallo MA. Role of environmental chemicals in diabetes and
obesity: a National Toxicology Program workshop review. Environmental health perspectives 2012; 120: 779-89.
5. Lai MS, Hsueh YM, Chen CJ, et al. Ingested inorganic arsenic and prevalence of diabetes mellitus.
American journal of epidemiology 1994; 139: 484-92.
6. Liu G, Sun L, Pan A, et al. Nickel exposure is associated with the prevalence of type 2 diabetes in
Chinese adults. International journal of epidemiology 2014.
7. Rajagopalan S, Brook RD. Air pollution and type 2 diabetes: mechanistic insights. Diabetes 2012;
61: 3037-45.
8. Park SK, Wang W. Ambient Air Pollution and Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review of
Epidemiologic Research. Current environmental health reports 2014; 1: 275-86.
9. Aquino M, Mucci T, Chong M, Lorton MD, Fonacier L. Mobile Phones: Potential Sources of Nickel
10. Spangler JG. Diabetes mortality and environmental heavy metals in North Carolina counties: An ecological study. Journal of Diabetes Mellitus 2012; 2: 369-272.
11. Yarat A, Nokay S, Ipbuker A, Emekli N. Serum nickel levels of diabetic patients and healthy
controls by AAS with a graphite furnace. Biological trace element research 1992; 35: 273-80.
12. Kazi TG, Afridi HI, Kazi N, et al. Copper, chromium, manganese, iron, nickel, and zinc levels in
biological samples of diabetes mellitus patients. Biological trace element research 2008; 122: 1-18.
