-
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Mar 2023To systematically review and perform a meta-analysis of radiation associated risks of cardiovascular disease in all groups exposed to radiation with individual radiation... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To systematically review and perform a meta-analysis of radiation associated risks of cardiovascular disease in all groups exposed to radiation with individual radiation dose estimates.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES
Excess relative risk per unit dose (Gy), estimated by restricted maximum likelihood methods.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed and Medline, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science Core collection databases.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES
Databases were searched on 6 October 2022, with no limits on date of publication or language. Animal studies and studies without an abstract were excluded.
RESULTS
The meta-analysis yielded 93 relevant studies. Relative risk per Gy increased for all cardiovascular disease (excess relative risk per Gy of 0.11 (95% confidence interval 0.08 to 0.14)) and for the four major subtypes of cardiovascular disease (ischaemic heart disease, other heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, all other cardiovascular disease). However, interstudy heterogeneity was noted (P<0.05 for all endpoints except for other heart disease), possibly resulting from interstudy variation in unmeasured confounders or effect modifiers, which is markedly reduced if attention is restricted to higher quality studies or those at moderate doses (<0.5 Gy) or low dose rates (<5 mGy/h). For ischaemic heart disease and all cardiovascular disease, risks were larger per unit dose for lower dose (inverse dose effect) and for fractionated exposures (inverse dose fractionation effect). Population based excess absolute risks are estimated for a number of national populations (Canada, England and Wales, France, Germany, Japan, USA) and range from 2.33% per Gy (95% confidence interval 1.69% to 2.98%) for England and Wales to 3.66% per Gy (2.65% to 4.68%) for Germany, largely reflecting the underlying rates of cardiovascular disease mortality in these populations. Estimated risk of mortality from cardiovascular disease are generally dominated by cerebrovascular disease (around 0.94-1.26% per Gy), with the next largest contribution from ischaemic heart disease (around 0.30-1.20% per Gy).
CONCLUSIONS
Results provide evidence supporting a causal association between radiation exposure and cardiovascular disease at high dose, and to a lesser extent at low dose, with some indications of differences in risk between acute and chronic exposures, which require further investigation. The observed heterogeneity complicates a causal interpretation of these findings, although this heterogeneity is much reduced if only higher quality studies or those at moderate doses or low dose rates are considered. Studies are needed to assess in more detail modifications of radiation effect by lifestyle and medical risk factors.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42020202036.
Topics: Humans; Cardiovascular Diseases; Myocardial Ischemia; Risk Factors; France; Radiation, Ionizing; Coronary Artery Disease
PubMed: 36889791
DOI: 10.1136/bmj-2022-072924 -
Pharmacological Research Sep 2021Glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) is a WHO grade IV glioma and the most common malignant, primary brain tumor with a 5-year survival of 7.2%. Its highly infiltrative nature,...
Glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) is a WHO grade IV glioma and the most common malignant, primary brain tumor with a 5-year survival of 7.2%. Its highly infiltrative nature, genetic heterogeneity, and protection by the blood brain barrier (BBB) have posed great treatment challenges. The standard treatment for GBMs is surgical resection followed by chemoradiotherapy. The robust DNA repair and self-renewing capabilities of glioblastoma cells and glioma initiating cells (GICs), respectively, promote resistance against all current treatment modalities. Thus, durable GBM management will require the invention of innovative treatment strategies. In this review, we will describe biological and molecular targets for GBM therapy, the current status of pharmacologic therapy, prominent mechanisms of resistance, and new treatment approaches. To date, medical imaging is primarily used to determine the location, size and macroscopic morphology of GBM before, during, and after therapy. In the future, molecular and cellular imaging approaches will more dynamically monitor the expression of molecular targets and/or immune responses in the tumor, thereby enabling more immediate adaptation of tumor-tailored, targeted therapies.
Topics: Animals; Antineoplastic Agents; Brain Neoplasms; Drug Resistance, Neoplasm; Glioblastoma; Humans
PubMed: 34302977
DOI: 10.1016/j.phrs.2021.105780 -
Ophthalmic & Physiological Optics : the... Nov 2017Blue-blocking (BB) spectacle lenses, which attenuate short-wavelength light, are being marketed to alleviate eyestrain and discomfort when using digital devices, improve... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
Blue-blocking (BB) spectacle lenses, which attenuate short-wavelength light, are being marketed to alleviate eyestrain and discomfort when using digital devices, improve sleep quality and potentially confer protection from retinal phototoxicity. The aim of this review was to investigate the relative benefits and potential harms of these lenses.
METHODS
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), recruiting adults from the general population, which investigated the effect of BB spectacle lenses on visual performance, symptoms of eyestrain or eye fatigue, changes to macular integrity and subjective sleep quality. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and clinical trial registers, until 30 April 2017. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool.
RESULTS
Three studies (with 136 participants) met our inclusion criteria; these had limitations in study design and/or implementation. One study compared the effect of BB lenses with clear lenses on contrast sensitivity (CS) and colour vision (CV) using a pseudo-RCT crossover design; there was no observed difference between lens types (log CS; Mean Difference (MD) = -0.01 [-0.03, 0.01], CV total error score on 100-hue; MD = 1.30 [-7.84, 10.44]). Another study measured critical fusion frequency (CFF), as a proxy for eye fatigue, on wearers of low and high BB lenses, pre- and post- a two-hour computer task. There was no observed difference between low BB and standard lens groups, but there was a less negative change in CFF between the high and low BB groups (MD = 1.81 [0.57, 3.05]). Both studies compared eyestrain symptoms with Likert scales. There was no evidence of inter-group differences for either low BB (MD = 0.00 [-0.22, 0.22]) or high BB lenses (MD = -0.05 [-0.31, 0.21]), nor evidence of a difference in the proportion of participants showing an improvement in symptoms of eyestrain or eye fatigue. One study reported a small improvement in sleep quality in people with self-reported insomnia after wearing high compared to low-BB lenses (MD = 0.80 [0.17, 1.43]) using a 10-point Likert scale. A study involving normal participants found no observed difference in sleep quality. We found no studies investigating effects on macular structure or function.
CONCLUSIONS
We find a lack of high quality evidence to support using BB spectacle lenses for the general population to improve visual performance or sleep quality, alleviate eye fatigue or conserve macular health.
Topics: Circadian Rhythm; Contrast Sensitivity; Eye Pain; Eyeglasses; Humans; Light; Macula Lutea; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sleep; Sleep Initiation and Maintenance Disorders; Visual Acuity
PubMed: 29044670
DOI: 10.1111/opo.12406 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2023'Blue-light filtering', or 'blue-light blocking', spectacle lenses filter ultraviolet radiation and varying portions of short-wavelength visible light from reaching the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
'Blue-light filtering', or 'blue-light blocking', spectacle lenses filter ultraviolet radiation and varying portions of short-wavelength visible light from reaching the eye. Various blue-light filtering lenses are commercially available. Some claims exist that they can improve visual performance with digital device use, provide retinal protection, and promote sleep quality. We investigated clinical trial evidence for these suggested effects, and considered any potential adverse effects.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of blue-light filtering lenses compared with non-blue-light filtering lenses, for improving visual performance, providing macular protection, and improving sleep quality in adults.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; containing the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register; 2022, Issue 3); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; LILACS; the ISRCTN registry; ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP, with no date or language restrictions. We last searched the electronic databases on 22 March 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), involving adult participants, where blue-light filtering spectacle lenses were compared with non-blue-light filtering spectacle lenses.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Primary outcomes were the change in visual fatigue score and critical flicker-fusion frequency (CFF), as continuous outcomes, between baseline and one month of follow-up. Secondary outcomes included best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), contrast sensitivity, discomfort glare, proportion of eyes with a pathological macular finding, colour discrimination, proportion of participants with reduced daytime alertness, serum melatonin levels, subjective sleep quality, and patient satisfaction with their visual performance. We evaluated findings related to ocular and systemic adverse effects. We followed standard Cochrane methods for data extraction and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 1 (RoB 1) tool. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 17 RCTs, with sample sizes ranging from five to 156 participants, and intervention follow-up periods from less than one day to five weeks. About half of included trials used a parallel-arm design; the rest adopted a cross-over design. A variety of participant characteristics was represented across the studies, ranging from healthy adults to individuals with mental health and sleep disorders. None of the studies had a low risk of bias in all seven Cochrane RoB 1 domains. We judged 65% of studies to have a high risk of bias due to outcome assessors not being masked (detection bias) and 59% to be at high risk of bias of performance bias as participants and personnel were not masked. Thirty-five per cent of studies were pre-registered on a trial registry. We did not perform meta-analyses for any of the outcome measures, due to lack of available quantitative data, heterogenous study populations, and differences in intervention follow-up periods. There may be no difference in subjective visual fatigue scores with blue-light filtering lenses compared to non-blue-light filtering lenses, at less than one week of follow-up (low-certainty evidence). One RCT reported no difference between intervention arms (mean difference (MD) 9.76 units (indicating worse symptoms), 95% confidence interval (CI) -33.95 to 53.47; 120 participants). Further, two studies (46 participants, combined) that measured visual fatigue scores reported no significant difference between intervention arms. There may be little to no difference in CFF with blue-light filtering lenses compared to non-blue-light filtering lenses, measured at less than one day of follow-up (low-certainty evidence). One study reported no significant difference between intervention arms (MD - 1.13 Hz lower (indicating poorer performance), 95% CI - 3.00 to 0.74; 120 participants). Another study reported a less negative change in CFF (indicating less visual fatigue) with high- compared to low-blue-light filtering and no blue-light filtering lenses. Compared to non-blue-light filtering lenses, there is probably little or no effect with blue-light filtering lenses on visual performance (BCVA) (MD 0.00 logMAR units, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.02; 1 study, 156 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and unknown effects on daytime alertness (2 RCTs, 42 participants; very low-certainty evidence); uncertainty in these effects was due to lack of available data and the small number of studies reporting these outcomes. We do not know if blue-light filtering spectacle lenses are equivalent or superior to non-blue-light filtering spectacle lenses with respect to sleep quality (very low-certainty evidence). Inconsistent findings were evident across six RCTs (148 participants); three studies reported a significant improvement in sleep scores with blue-light filtering lenses compared to non-blue-light filtering lenses, and the other three studies reported no significant difference between intervention arms. We noted differences in the populations across studies and a lack of quantitative data. Device-related adverse effects were not consistently reported (9 RCTs, 333 participants; low-certainty evidence). Nine studies reported on adverse events related to study interventions; three studies described the occurrence of such events. Reported adverse events related to blue-light filtering lenses were infrequent, but included increased depressive symptoms, headache, discomfort wearing the glasses, and lower mood. Adverse events associated with non-blue-light filtering lenses were occasional hyperthymia, and discomfort wearing the spectacles. We were unable to determine whether blue-light filtering lenses affect contrast sensitivity, colour discrimination, discomfort glare, macular health, serum melatonin levels or overall patient visual satisfaction, compared to non-blue-light filtering lenses, as none of the studies evaluated these outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review found that blue-light filtering spectacle lenses may not attenuate symptoms of eye strain with computer use, over a short-term follow-up period, compared to non-blue-light filtering lenses. Further, this review found no clinically meaningful difference in changes to CFF with blue-light filtering lenses compared to non-blue-light filtering lenses. Based on the current best available evidence, there is probably little or no effect of blue-light filtering lenses on BCVA compared with non-blue-light filtering lenses. Potential effects on sleep quality were also indeterminate, with included trials reporting mixed outcomes among heterogeneous study populations. There was no evidence from RCT publications relating to the outcomes of contrast sensitivity, colour discrimination, discomfort glare, macular health, serum melatonin levels, or overall patient visual satisfaction. Future high-quality randomised trials are required to define more clearly the effects of blue-light filtering lenses on visual performance, macular health and sleep, in adult populations.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Eyeglasses; Asthenopia; Melatonin; Sleep; Light; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions
PubMed: 37593770
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013244.pub2 -
The British Journal of Dermatology Nov 2019Sunscreen use can prevent skin cancer, but there are concerns that it may increase the risk of vitamin D deficiency.
BACKGROUND
Sunscreen use can prevent skin cancer, but there are concerns that it may increase the risk of vitamin D deficiency.
OBJECTIVES
We aimed to review the literature to investigate associations between sunscreen use and vitamin D or 25 hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] concentration.
METHODS
We systematically reviewed the literature following the Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) guidelines. We identified manuscripts published in English between 1970 and 21 November 2017. Eligible studies were experimental [using an artificial ultraviolet radiation (UVR) source], field trials or observational studies. The results of each of the experimental studies and field trials are described in detail. Two authors extracted information from observational studies, and applied quality scoring criteria that were developed specifically for this question. These have been synthesized qualitatively.
RESULTS
We included four experimental studies, three field trials (two were randomized controlled trials) and 69 observational studies. In the experimental studies sunscreen use considerably abrogated the vitamin D or 25(OH)D production induced by exposure to artificially generated UVR. The randomized controlled field trials found no effect of daily sunscreen application, but the sunscreens used had moderate protection [sun protection factor SPF) ~16]. The observational studies mostly found no association or that self-reported sunscreen use was associated with higher 25(OH)D concentration.
CONCLUSIONS
There is little evidence that sunscreen decreases 25(OH)D concentration when used in real-life settings, suggesting that concerns about vitamin D should not negate skin cancer prevention advice. However, there have been no trials of the high-SPF sunscreens that are now widely recommended. What's already known about this topic? Previous experimental studies suggest that sunscreen can block vitamin D production in the skin but use artificially generated ultraviolet radiation with a spectral output unlike that seen in terrestrial sunlight. Nonsystematic reviews of observational studies suggest that use in real life does not cause vitamin D deficiency. What does this study add? This study systematically reviewed all experimental studies, field trials and observational studies for the first time. While the experimental studies support the theoretical risk that sunscreen use may affect vitamin D, the weight of evidence from field trials and observational studies suggests that the risk is low. We highlight the lack of adequate evidence regarding use of the very high sun protection factor sunscreens that are now recommended and widely used.
Topics: Administration, Cutaneous; Humans; Observational Studies as Topic; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk Assessment; Self Report; Skin; Skin Neoplasms; Sun Protection Factor; Sunlight; Sunscreening Agents; Ultraviolet Rays; Vitamin D; Vitamin D Deficiency
PubMed: 30945275
DOI: 10.1111/bjd.17980 -
The Science of the Total Environment Feb 2023This systematic review summarises and evaluates the literature investigating associations between exposure to air pollution and general population cognition, which has... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This systematic review summarises and evaluates the literature investigating associations between exposure to air pollution and general population cognition, which has important implications for health, social and economic inequalities, and human productivity.
METHODS
The engines MEDLINE, Embase Classic+Embase, APA PsycInfo, and SCOPUS were searched up to May 2022. Our inclusion criteria focus on the following pollutants: particulate matter, NOx, and ozone. The cognitive abilities of interest are: general/global cognition, executive function, attention, working memory, learning, memory, intelligence and IQ, reasoning, reaction times, and processing speed. The collective evidence was assessed using the NTP-OHAT framework and random-effects meta-analyses.
RESULTS
Eighty-six studies were identified, the results of which were generally supportive of associations between exposures and worsened cognition, but the literature was varied and sometimes contradictory. There was moderate certainty support for detrimental associations between PM and general cognition in adults 40+, and PM, NOx, and PM and executive function (especially working memory) in children. There was moderate certainty evidence against associations between ozone and general cognition in adults age 40+, and NOx and reasoning/IQ in children. Some associations were also supported by meta-analysis (N = 14 studies, all in adults aged 40+). A 1 μg/m increase in NO was associated with reduced performance on general cognitive batteries (β = -0.02, p < 0.05) as was a 1 μg/m increase in PM exposure (β = -0.02, p < 0.05). A 1μgm increase in PM was significantly associated with lower verbal fluency by -0.05 words (p = 0.01) and a decrease in executive function task performance of -0.02 points (p < 0.001).
DISCUSSION
Evidence was found in support of some exposure-outcome associations, however more good quality research is required, particularly with older teenagers and young adults (14-40 years), using multi-exposure modelling, incorporating mechanistic investigation, and in South America, Africa, South Asia and Australasia.
Topics: Child; Adolescent; Young Adult; Humans; Air Pollutants; Environmental Exposure; Air Pollution; Particulate Matter; Ozone; Cognition
PubMed: 36427724
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160234 -
Environmental Science and Pollution... Sep 2020Protection of normal tissues against ionizing radiation-induced damages is a critical issue in clinical and environmental radiobiology. One of the ways of accomplishing...
Protection of normal tissues against ionizing radiation-induced damages is a critical issue in clinical and environmental radiobiology. One of the ways of accomplishing radiation protection is through the use of radioprotectors. In the search for the most effective radioprotective agent, factors such as toxicity, effect on tumors, number of tissues protected, ease of administration, long-term stability, and compatibility with other drugs need to be assessed. Thus, in the present study, we systematically review existing studies on a chemical radioprotector, Ex-RAD, with the aim of examining its efficacy of radiation protection as well as underlying mechanisms. To this end, a systematic search of the electronic databases including Pubmed, Scopus, Embase, and Google Scholar was conducted to retrieve articles investigating the radioprotective effect of Ex-RAD. From an initial search of 268 articles, and after removal of duplicates as well as applying the predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria, 10 articles were finally included for this systematic review. Findings from the reviewed studies indicated that Ex-RAD showed potentials for effective radioprotection of the studied organs with no side effect. Furthermore, the inhibition of apoptosis through p53 signaling pathway was the main mechanism of radioprotection by Ex-RAD. However, its radioprotective effect would need to be investigated for more organs in future studies.
Topics: Radiation Protection; Radiation, Ionizing; Radiation-Protective Agents; Sulfonamides
PubMed: 32583118
DOI: 10.1007/s11356-020-09618-y -
Drug Research Jun 2016Radiation is widely used in the treatment of various cancers and in radiological imaging procedures. Ionizing radiation causes adverse effects, leading to decreased... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Radiation is widely used in the treatment of various cancers and in radiological imaging procedures. Ionizing radiation causes adverse effects, leading to decreased quality of life in patients, by releasing free radicals that cause oxidative stress and tissue damage. The sleep-hormone melatonin is a free radical scavenger, and induces several anti-oxidative enzymes. This review investigates the scientific literature on the protective effects of melatonin against exposure to ionizing radiation, and discusses the clinical potential of melatonin as prophylactic treatment against ionizing radiation damage.
METHODS
A systematic literature search was performed and included experimental or clinical studies written in English that investigated the protective effects of melatonin against gamma or X-ray irradiation in vivo. Studies were excluded if patients were treated with chemotherapy concomitantly.
RESULTS
37 studies were included in the review. All were of experimental case-control design and employed animals. The studies demonstrated that exogenous melatonin reduced oxidative stress and inflammation in all investigated tissues. Furthermore, melatonin increased 30-day survival and protected against radiation enteritis. These protective effects were only documented when melatonin was administered prior to exposure to ionizing radiation.
DISCUSSION
This review documents that melatonin effectively protects animals against injury to healthy tissues from ionizing radiation. However, no studies have been performed in humans. If clinical studies can document similar protective effects, melatonin could have a great potential to prevent side effects of radiotherapy for cancer, to protect against increased long-term cancer risk in radiological imaging procedures, and to protect from radiation due to nuclear incidents.
Topics: Animals; Antioxidants; Melatonin; Radiation Injuries
PubMed: 26789653
DOI: 10.1055/s-0035-1569358 -
Neoplasia (New York, N.Y.) Oct 2022The carcinogenic risk from space radiation has always been a health risk issue of great concern during space exploration. In recent years, a large number of cellular and... (Review)
Review
The carcinogenic risk from space radiation has always been a health risk issue of great concern during space exploration. In recent years, a large number of cellular and animal experiments have demonstrated that space radiation, composed of high-energy protons and heavy ions, has shown obvious carcinogenicity. However, different from radiation on Earth, space radiation has the characteristics of high energy and low dose rate. It is rich in high-atom-number and high-energy particles and, as it is combined with other space environmental factors such as microgravity and a weak magnetic field, the study of its carcinogenic effects and mechanisms of action is difficult, which leads to great uncertainty in its carcinogenic risk assessment. Here, we review the latest progress in understanding the effects and mechanisms of action related to cell transformation and carcinogenesis induced by space radiation in recent years and summarize the prediction models of cancer risk caused by space radiation and the methods to reduce the uncertainty of prediction to provide reference for the research and risk assessment of space radiation.
Topics: Animals; Carcinogenesis; Cell Transformation, Neoplastic; Cosmic Radiation; Protons; Space Flight
PubMed: 35908380
DOI: 10.1016/j.neo.2022.100828 -
Reviews on Environmental Health Jun 2021This study was performed to determine the knowledge, attitude, and practice (KAP) of health care workers (HCWs) towards radiation protection. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
This study was performed to determine the knowledge, attitude, and practice (KAP) of health care workers (HCWs) towards radiation protection.
METHODS
In this systematic review study, three international databases (Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus) were searched for related published articles in the English language from 1 January 2000 to 1 February 2020. The quality of the included studies was evaluated using the Hoy et al. tool.
RESULTS
Out of the 1,848 studies examined, 41 studies that were performed on 11,050 HCWs were included in the final stage. The results indicated that in most studies, more than half (50%) of the participants had average knowledge. Furthermore, 60% of the participants had a positive attitude, but in most studies, they had average practice regarding radiation protection. The most important recommendation for improving KAP among the participants was incorporating radiation protection standards in the student curriculum.
CONCLUSION
Considering the results of the study, further attention should be paid to proper education regarding radiation protection standards and improvement of HCW performance.
Topics: Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice; Health Personnel; Humans; Radiation Protection
PubMed: 32894727
DOI: 10.1515/reveh-2020-0063