| |
|
|
 |
|
Advisory Committee on Health Effects of Endocrine Disruptors
The Supplement II to the Intermediary Report
1.4.2.2_9 |
| |
contents
Detailed contents
<< prev
next >> |
| |
4. Hormone preparations
Case-control studies on boys exposed to DES in utero have
revealed adverse effects on the urogenital system. Gill et al.
(1979) studied effects of DES administration during pregnancy by
a double-blind placebo-controlled random trial. Cryptorchidism,
epididymal cyst, testicle hypoplasia and ureterostenosis of male
infants were more frequent in the DES-administered group than in
the placebo-administered group. Whitehead et al. (1981) found
cryptorchidism, varicocele, epididymal cyst, testicle hypoplasia
and ureterostenosis among 48 male subjects with DES exposure
history. Cosgrove et al. (1977) interviewed men with DES
exposure history for health conditions (congenital malformation,
operation history, urogenital problems, and cancer).
Cryptorchidism, ureterostenosis and varicocele were found as
major urogenital disorders.
Hormone preparations other than DES administered during
gestation are also reported to affect formation of the
urogenital system. A case-control study by Depue (1984) in the
U.S. on 300 white boys and a control group consisting 599
subjects reports adverse effects by taking estrogen preparations
during pregnancy (RR = 2.8, 95% CI = 0.9-8.8). On the other
hand, Beard et al. (1984) studied 113 cryptorchidism patients in
Minnesota against 226 subject chosen from medical records
(Control I) and 226 chosen from birth records (Control II) and
found no significant effect of administration to mothers of an
estrogen preparation (RR = 1.3, 95% CI = 0.5-3.1 with Control I;
1.1, 0.3-2.9 with Control II) or a progesterone preparation (RR
= 1.0, 95% CI = 0.3-2,9 with Control I, 0,8, 0.3-2.1 with
Control II).
|
|
contents
Detailed contents
<< prev
next >> |
|
|
|
