Prenatal Exposure to Toxic Metals and Neural Tube Defects: A Systematic Review of the Epidemiologic Evidence

BACKGROUND: Neural tube defects (NTDs) affect [Formula: see text] pregnancies worldwide annually. Few nongenetic factors, other than folate deficiency, have been identified that may provide intervenable solutions to reduce the burden of NTDs. Prenatal exposure to toxic metals [arsenic (As), cadmium (Cd), mercury (Hg), manganese (Mn) and lead (Pb)] may increase the risk of NTDs. Although a growing epidemiologic literature has examined associations, to our knowledge no systematic review has been conducted to date. OBJECTIVE: Through adaptation of the Navigation Guide systematic review methodology, we aimed to answer the question “does exposure to As, Cd, Hg, Mn, or Pb during gestation increase the risk of NTDs?” and to assess challenges to evaluating this question given the current evidence. METHODS: We selected available evidence on prenatal As, Cd, Hg, Mn, or Pb exposure and risk of specific NTDs (e.g., spina bifida, anencephaly) or all NTDs via a comprehensive search across MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and TOXLINE databases and applied inclusion/exclusion criteria. We rated the quality and strength of the evidence for each metal. We applied a customized risk of bias protocol and evaluated the sufficiency of evidence of an effect of each metal on NTDs. RESULTS: We identified 30 studies that met our criteria. Risk of bias for confounding and selection was high in most studies, but low for missing data. We determined that, although the evidence was limited, the literature supported an association between prenatal exposure to Hg or Mn and increased risk of NTDs. For the remaining metals, the evidence was inadequate to establish or rule out an effect. CONCLUSION: The role of gestational As, Cd, or Pb exposure in the etiology of NTDs remains unclear and warrants further investigation in high-quality studies, with a particular focus on controlling confounding, mitigating selection bias, and improving exposure assessment. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP11872