RESUMO
BACKGROUND: There is evidence that in-utero exposure to PBBs, and similar chemicals, are associated with several adverse reproductive health outcomes including altered pubertal timing. However, less is known about the effects of in-utero exposure to PBBs on menstrual cycle function and reproductive hormone levels in adulthood. METHODS: For this menstrual cycle study, we recruited reproductive-aged women in the Michigan PBB Registry who were not pregnant, lactating, or taking hormonal medications (2004-2014). A total of 41 women who were born after the PBB contamination incident (1973-1974) and were prenatally exposed to PBBs, were included in this analysis. We estimated in-utero PBB exposure using maternal serum PBB measurements taken after exposure and extrapolated to time of pregnancy using a PBB elimination model. Women were followed for up to 6 months during which they provided daily urine samples and completed daily diaries. The urine samples were assayed for estrone 3-glucuronide (E13G), pregnanediol 3-glucuronide (Pd3G), and follicle stimulating hormone (FSH). RESULTS: Women in our study were, on average, 27.5 (SD:5.3) years old and contributed 4.9 (SD:1.9) menstrual cycles of follow-up. Compared to women with low in-utero PBB exposure (≤1 ppb), women with medium (>1.0-3.0 ppb) and high (>3.0 ppb) exposure had higher maximum 3-day mean Pd3G levels during the luteal phase. Specifically, the age- and creatinine-adjusted maximum 3-day mean luteal phase Pd3G levels (95% CI) in increasing categories of in-utero PBB exposure were 9.2 (4.6,13.9), 14.8 (11.6,18.0), and 16.1 (12.9,19.3) µg/mg creatinine. There were no meaningful differences in average cycle length, follicular or luteal phase cycle length, bleed length, or creatinine-adjusted E13G or FSH levels by category of in-utero PBB exposure. CONCLUSION: Higher exposure to PBB in-utero was associated with increased progesterone levels across the luteal phase, however, most other menstrual cycle characteristics were largely unassociated with in-utero PBB exposure. Given our modest sample size, our results require cautious interpretation.