Workshop to identify critical windows of exposure for children's health: neurobehavioral work group summary.

This paper summarizes the deliberations of a work group charged with addressing specific questions relevant to risk estimation in developmental neurotoxicology. We focused on eight questions. a) Does it make sense to think about discrete windows of vulnerability in the development of the nervous system? If it does, which time periods are of greatest importance? b) Are there cascades of developmental disorders in the nervous system? For example, are there critical points that determine the course of development that can lead to differences in vulnerabilities at later times? c) Can information on critical windows suggest the most susceptible subgroups of children (i.e., age groups, socioeconomic status, geographic areas, race, etc.)? d) What are the gaps in existing data for the nervous system or end points of exposure to it? e) What are the best ways to examine exposure-response relationships and estimate exposures in vulnerable life stages? f) What other exposures that affect development at certain ages may interact with exposures of concern? g) How well do laboratory animal data predict human response? h) How can all of this information be used to improve risk assessment and public health (risk management)? In addressing these questions, we provide a brief overview of brain development from conception through adolescence and emphasize vulnerability to toxic insult throughout this period. Methodological issues focus on major variables that influence exposure or its detection through disruptions of behavior, neuroanatomy, or neurochemical end points. Supportive evidence from studies of major neurotoxicants is provided

Association of Cumulative Lead Exposure with Parkinson’s Disease

BACKGROUND: Research using reconstructed exposure histories has suggested an association between heavy metal exposures, including lead, and Parkinson’s disease (PD), but the only study that used bone lead, a biomarker of cumulative lead exposure, found a nonsignificant increase in risk of PD with increasing bone lead. OBJECTIVES: We sought to assess the association between bone lead and PD. METHODS: Bone lead concentrations were measured using (109)Cd excited K-shell X-ray fluorescence from 330 PD patients (216 men, 114 women) and 308 controls (172 men, 136 women) recruited from four clinics for movement disorders and general-community cohorts. Adjusted odds ratios (ORs) for PD were calculated using logistic regression. RESULTS: The average age of cases and controls at bone lead measurement was 67 (SD = 10) and 69 (SD = 9) years of age, respectively. In primary analyses of cases and controls recruited from the same groups, compared with the lowest quartile of tibia lead, the OR for PD in the highest quartile was 3.21 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.17–8.83]. Results were similar but slightly weaker in analyses restricted to cases and controls recruited from the movement disorders clinics only (fourth-quartile OR = 2.57; 95% CI, 1.11–5.93) or when we included controls recruited from sites that did not also contribute cases (fourth-quartile OR = 1.91; 95% CI, 1.01–3.60). We found no association with patella bone lead. CONCLUSIONS: These findings, using an objective biological marker of cumulative lead exposure among typical PD patients seen in our movement disorders clinics, strengthen the evidence that cumulative exposure to lead increases the risk of PD