4.0 Article

Infertility among male UK veterans of the 1990-1 Gulf War: reproductive cohort study

Journal

BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL
Volume 329, Issue 7459, Pages 196-200

Publisher

B M J PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.38163.620972.AE

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives To examine the hypothesis that, theoretically at least, exposure to toxicants of the type present in the Gulf war could affect spermatogenesis, Which might be observed as increased levels of infertility. Design Retrospective reproductive cohort analysis. Setting Male UK Gulf war veterans and matched comparison group of non-deployed servicemen, surveyed by postal questionnaire. Participants 42 818 completed questionnaires were returned, representing response rates of 53% for Gulf veterans and 42% for non-Gulf veterans; 10465 Gulf veterans and 7376 non-Gulf veterans reported fathering or trying to father pregnancies after the Gulf war. Main outcome measures Failure to achieve conceptions (type I infertility) or live births (type II infertility) after the Gulf war, having tried for at least a year and consulted a doctor; time to conception among pregnancies fathered by men not reporting fertility problems. Results Risk of reported infertility was higher among Gulf war veterans than among non-Gulf veterans (odds ratio for type I infertility 1.41, 95% confidence interval 1.05 to 1.89; type II 1.50, 1.18 to 1.89). This small effect was constant over time since the war and was observed whether or riot the men had fathered pregnancies before the war. Results were similar when analyses were restricted to clinically confirmed diagnoses. Pregnancies fathered by Gulf veterans not reporting fertility problems also took longer to conceive (odds ratio for >1 year 1.18, 1.04 to 1.34). Conclusions We found some evidence of an association between Gulf war service and reported infertility Pregnancies fathered by Gulf veterans with no fertility problems also reportedly took longer to conceive.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available