Department of Pharmacology & Toxicology, Brody School of Medicine, East Carolina University, 600 Moye Blvd, Greenville, NC, 27834, USA.
Department of Pediatrics, College of Medicine, Arkansas Children's Research Institute, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, 13 Children's Way, Little Rock, AR, 72202, USA.
J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol. 2019 Mar;29(2):148-156. doi: 10.1038/s41370-018-0097-y. Epub 2018 Nov 27.
In this perspective, we evaluate key and emerging epidemiological and toxicological data concerning immunotoxicity of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and seek to reconcile conflicting conclusions from two reviews published in 2016. We summarize ways that immunosuppression and immunoenhancement are defined and explain how specific outcomes are used to evaluate immunotoxicity in humans and experimental animals. We observe that different approaches to defining immunotoxicological outcomes, particularly those that do not produce clinical disease, may lead to different conclusions from epidemiological and toxicological studies. The fundamental point that we make is that aspects of epidemiological studies considered as limitations can be minimized when data from toxicological studies support epidemiological findings. Taken together, we find that results of epidemiological studies, supported by findings from toxicological studies, provide strong evidence that humans exposed to PFOA and PFOS are at risk for immunosuppression.
从这个角度出发,我们评估了关于全氟辛酸(PFOA)和全氟辛烷磺酸(PFOS)免疫毒性的关键和新兴流行病学及毒理学数据,并试图调和 2016 年发表的两项综述中的相互矛盾的结论。我们总结了免疫抑制和免疫增强的定义方法,并解释了如何使用特定的结果来评估人类和实验动物的免疫毒性。我们注意到,对免疫毒理学结果的不同定义方法,特别是那些不会导致临床疾病的方法,可能会导致来自流行病学和毒理学研究的不同结论。我们要强调的要点是,当毒理学研究的数据支持流行病学发现时,可将流行病学研究中被视为局限性的方面降到最低。总的来说,我们发现,有来自毒理学研究结果支持的流行病学研究提供了有力的证据,表明接触 PFOA 和 PFOS 的人类存在免疫抑制的风险。