-
International Journal of Environmental... Aug 2020As part of the assessment and management of chemical risk and occupational hygiene, retrospective exposure assessment (REA) to chemical agents can be defined as the...
As part of the assessment and management of chemical risk and occupational hygiene, retrospective exposure assessment (REA) to chemical agents can be defined as the estimate of exposure associated with a person's work history. The fundamental problem underlying the reconstruction of the exposure is that of transforming this type of information in quantitative terms to obtain an accurate estimate. REA can follow various approaches, some of which are technically complicated and both time and resource consuming. The aim of this systematic review is to present the techniques mainly used for occupational REA. In order to carry out this evaluation, a systematic review of the scientific literature was conducted. Forty-four studies were identified (published from 2010 to date) and analyzed. In exposure reconstruction studies, quantitative approaches should be preferable, especially when estimates will be used in the context of health impact assessment or epidemiology, although it is important to stress how, ideally, the experimental data available for the considered scenario should be used whenever possible as the main starting information base for further processing. To date, there is no single approach capable of providing an accurate estimate of exposure for each reasonably foreseeable condition and situation and the best approach generally depends on the level of information available for the specific case. The use of a combination of different reconstruction techniques can, therefore, represent a powerful tool for weighting and integrating data obtained through qualitative and quantitative approaches, in order to obtain the best possible estimate.
Topics: Asbestos; Environmental Monitoring; Humans; Inhalation Exposure; Occupational Exposure; Occupational Health; Prohibitins; Risk Assessment
PubMed: 32858967
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17176190 -
Implementation Science : IS Jul 2020Cardiovascular disease (CVD) such as ischemic heart disease and stroke is the leading causes of death and disability globally with a growing burden in low and...
BACKGROUND
Cardiovascular disease (CVD) such as ischemic heart disease and stroke is the leading causes of death and disability globally with a growing burden in low and middle-income countries. A credible way of managing the incidence and prevalence of cardiovascular diseases is by reducing risk factors. This understanding has led to the development and recommendation for the clinical use of cardiovascular risk stratification tools. These tools enhance clinical decision-making. However, there is a lag in the implementation of these tools in most countries. This systematic review seeks to synthesise the current knowledge of the factors influencing the implementation of cardiovascular risk scoring in primary care settings.
METHODS
We searched bibliographic databases and grey literature for studies of any design relating to the topic. Titles, abstracts and full texts were independently assessed for eligibility by two reviewers. This was followed by quality assessment and data extraction. We analysed data using an integrated and best fit framework synthesis approach to identify these factors. Quantitative and qualitative forms of data were combined into a single mixed-methods synthesis. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research was used as the guiding tool and template for this analysis.
RESULTS
Twenty-five studies (cross-sectional n = 12, qualitative n = 9 and mixed-methods n = 4) were included in this review. Twenty (80%) of these were conducted in high-income countries. Only four studies (16%) included patients as participants. This review reports on a total of eleven cardiovascular risk stratification tools. The factors influencing the implementation of cardiovascular risk scoring are related to clinical setting and healthcare system (resources, priorities, practice culture and organisation), users (attributes and interactions between users) and the specific cardiovascular risk tool (characteristics, perceived role and effectiveness).
CONCLUSIONS
While these findings bolster the understanding of implementation complexity, there exists limited research in the context of low and middle-income countries. Notwithstanding the need to direct resources in bridging this gap, it is also crucial that these efforts are in concert with providing high-quality evidence on the clinical effectiveness of using cardiovascular risk scoring to improve cardiovascular disease outcomes of mortality and morbidity.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018092679.
Topics: Cardiovascular Diseases; Cross-Sectional Studies; Health Care Rationing; Heart Disease Risk Factors; Humans; Organizational Culture; Primary Health Care; Professional Role; Risk Assessment; Surveys and Questionnaires
PubMed: 32690051
DOI: 10.1186/s13012-020-01022-x -
Journal of the National Cancer... Jul 2020Low-dose, penetrating photon radiation exposure is ubiquitous, yet our understanding of cancer risk at low doses and dose rates derives mainly from high-dose studies....
BACKGROUND
Low-dose, penetrating photon radiation exposure is ubiquitous, yet our understanding of cancer risk at low doses and dose rates derives mainly from high-dose studies. Although a large number of low-dose cancer studies have been recently published, concern exists about the potential for confounding to distort findings. The aim of this study was to describe and assess the likely impact of confounding and selection bias within the context of a systematic review.
METHODS
We summarized confounding control methods for 26 studies published from 2006 to 2017 by exposure setting (environmental, medical, or occupational) and identified confounders of potential concern. We used information from these and related studies to assess evidence for confounding and selection bias. For factors in which direct or indirect evidence of confounding was lacking for certain studies, we used a theoretical adjustment to determine whether uncontrolled confounding was likely to have affected the results.
RESULTS
For medical studies of childhood cancers, confounding by indication (CBI) was the main concern. Lifestyle-related factors were of primary concern for environmental and medical studies of adult cancers and for occupational studies. For occupational studies, other workplace exposures and healthy worker survivor bias were additionally of interest. For most of these factors, however, review of the direct and indirect evidence suggested that confounding was minimal. One study showed evidence of selection bias, and three occupational studies did not adjust for lifestyle or healthy worker survivor bias correlates. Theoretical adjustment for three factors (smoking and asbestos in occupational studies and CBI in childhood cancer studies) demonstrated that these were unlikely to explain positive study findings due to the rarity of exposure (eg, CBI) or the relatively weak association with the outcome (eg, smoking or asbestos and all cancers).
CONCLUSION
Confounding and selection bias are unlikely to explain the findings from most low-dose radiation epidemiology studies.
Topics: Asbestos; Bias; Confounding Factors, Epidemiologic; Epidemiologic Studies; Humans; Occupational Exposure; Selection Bias; Smoking
PubMed: 32657349
DOI: 10.1093/jncimonographs/lgaa008 -
BMC Medicine Mar 2020The risks of harms from opioids increase substantially at high doses, and high-dose prescribing has increased in primary care. However, little is known about what leads... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The risks of harms from opioids increase substantially at high doses, and high-dose prescribing has increased in primary care. However, little is known about what leads to high-dose prescribing, and studies exploring this have not been synthesized. We, therefore, systematically synthesized factors associated with the prescribing of high-dose opioids in primary care.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review of observational studies in high-income countries that used patient-level primary care data and explored any factor(s) in people for whom opioids were prescribed, stratified by oral morphine equivalents (OME). We defined high doses as ≥ 90 OME mg/day. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, reference lists, forward citations, and conference proceedings from database inception to 5 April 2019. Two investigators independently screened studies, extracted data, and appraised the quality of included studies using the Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies. We pooled data on factors using random effects meta-analyses and reported relative risks (RR) or mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CI) where appropriate. We also performed a number needed to harm (NNT) calculation on factors when applicable.
RESULTS
We included six studies with a total of 4,248,119 participants taking opioids, of whom 3.64% (n = 154,749) were taking high doses. The majority of included studies (n = 4) were conducted in the USA, one in Australia and one in the UK. The largest study (n = 4,046,275) was from the USA. Included studies were graded as having fair to good quality evidence. The co-prescription of benzodiazepines (RR 3.27, 95% CI 1.32 to 8.13, I = 99.9%), depression (RR 1.38, 95% CI 1.27 to 1.51, I = 0%), emergency department visits (RR 1.53, 95% CI 1.46 to 1.61, I = 0%, NNT 15, 95% CI 12 to 20), unemployment (RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.27 to 1.63, I = 0%), and male gender (RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.28, I = 78.6%) were significantly associated with the prescribing of high-dose opioids in primary care.
CONCLUSIONS
High doses of opioids are associated with greater risks of harms. Associated factors such as the co-prescription of benzodiazepines and depression identify priority areas that should be considered when selecting, identifying, and managing people taking high-dose opioids in primary care. Coordinated strategies and services that promote the safe prescribing of opioids are needed.
STUDY REGISTRATION
PROSPERO, CRD42018088057.
Topics: Adult; Analgesics, Opioid; Cross-Sectional Studies; Female; Humans; Male; Primary Health Care
PubMed: 32223746
DOI: 10.1186/s12916-020-01528-7 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2020This is the second update of this Cochrane Review. Some studies have suggested a protective effect of antioxidant nutrients and higher dietary levels of fruits and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
This is the second update of this Cochrane Review. Some studies have suggested a protective effect of antioxidant nutrients and higher dietary levels of fruits and vegetables on lung cancer.
OBJECTIVES
To determine whether vitamins and minerals and other potential agents, alone or in combination, reduce lung cancer incidence and lung cancer mortality in healthy populations.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase from 1974 to May 2019 and screened references included in published studies and reviews.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing vitamins or mineral supplements with placebo, administered to healthy people with the aim of preventing lung cancer.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Four review authors independently selected the trials to be included in the review, assessed their methodological quality and extracted data. For dichotomous outcomes we calculated risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and pooled results using the random-effects model. We assessed the risk of bias using Cochrane's 'Risk of bias' assessment tool and certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
In this update, we identified three new trials for a total of 12 studies. Six analysed vitamin A, three vitamin C, three combined vitamin D3 + calcium, four vitamin E combined with other products, one selenium supplements and nine studied combinations of two or more products. Four studies included only men and five only women. Vitamin A results in little to no difference in lung cancer incidence (RR 1.09, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.19; 5 RCTs, 212314 participants; high-certainty evidence) and lung cancer mortality (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.38; 3 RCTs, 190118 participants; high-certainty evidence). But in smokers or asbestos workers vitamin A increases the risk of lung cancer incidence (RR 1.10, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.20; 3 RCTs, 43995 participants; high-certainty evidence), lung cancer mortality (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.38; 2 RCTs, 29426 participants; high-certainty evidence) and all-cause mortality (RR 1.09, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.13; 2 RCTs, 32883 participants; high-certainty evidence). Vitamin A increases the risk of minor side effects, such as yellowing of the skin and minor gastrointestinal symptoms (high-certainty evidence). Vitamin C likely results in little to no difference in lung cancer incidence (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.67 to 2.49; 2 RCTs, 14953 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). In women, vitamin C increases the risk of lung cancer incidence (RR 1.84, 95% CI 1.14 to 2.95; 1 RCT, 7627 participants; high-certainty evidence). In men, vitamin C results in little to no difference in mortality for lung cancer (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.23; 1 RCT, 7326 participants; high-certainty evidence). Vitamin D + calcium may result in little to no difference in lung cancer incidence in postmenopausal women (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.39 to 2.08; 3 RCTs, 37601 women; low-certainty evidence). Vitamin E results in little to no difference in lung cancer incidence (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.14; 3 RCTs, 36841 participants; high-certainty evidence) or to lung cancer mortality (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.18; 2 RCTs, 29214 participants; high-certainty evidence), but increases the risk of haemorrhagic strokes (hazard ratio (HR), 1.74, 95% CI 1.04 to 2.91; 1 RCT, 14641 participants; high-certainty evidence). Calcium results in little to no difference in lung cancer incidence in postmenopausal women (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.13 to 3.18; 1 RCT, 733 participants) or in risk of renal calculi (RR 1.94, 95% CI 0.20 to 18.57; 1 RCT, 733 participants; low-certainty evidence). Selenium in men results in little to no difference in lung cancer incidence (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.54; 1 RCT, 17448 participants; high-certainty evidence) and lung cancer mortality (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.66; 1 RCT, 17448 participants; high-certainty evidence) and increases the risk for grade 1 to 2 dermatitis (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.31; 1 RCT, 17448 participants; high-certainty evidence) and for alopecia (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.53; 1 RCT, 17448 participants; high-certainty evidence). The combination of vitamins A, C, E + selenium + zinc results in little to no difference in lung cancer incidence (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.48; 1 RCT, 12741 participants; high-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Well-designed RCTs have shown no beneficial effect of supplements for the prevention of lung cancer and lung cancer mortality in healthy people. Vitamin A supplements increase lung cancer incidence and mortality in smokers or persons exposed to asbestos. Vitamin C increases lung cancer incidence in women. Vitamin E increases the risk of haemorrhagic strokes.
Topics: Ascorbic Acid; Calcium, Dietary; Cholecalciferol; Confidence Intervals; Dietary Supplements; Female; Health Status; Humans; Incidence; Lung Neoplasms; Male; Minerals; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Selenium; Selenium Compounds; Sex Factors; Vitamin A; Vitamin E; Vitamins; alpha-Tocopherol; beta Carotene
PubMed: 32130738
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002141.pub3 -
The Permanente Journal 2020Asbestos-related diseases and cancers represent a major public health concern. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
Asbestos-related diseases and cancers represent a major public health concern.
OBJECTIVE
To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to demonstrate that asbestos exposure increases the risk of prostate cancer.
METHODS
The PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and ScienceDirect databases were searched using the keywords (prostate cancer OR prostatic neoplasm) AND (asbestos* OR crocidolite* OR chrysotile* OR amphibole* OR amosite*). To be included, articles needed to describe our primary outcome: Risk of prostate cancer after any asbestos exposure.
RESULTS
We included 33 studies with 15,687 cases of prostate cancer among 723,566 individuals. Asbestos exposure increased the risk of prostate cancer (effect size = 1.10, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.05-1.15). When we considered mode of absorption, respiratory inhalation increased the risk of prostate cancer (1.10, 95% CI = 1.05-1.14). Both environmental and occupational exposure increased the risk of prostate cancer (1.25, 95% CI = 1.01-1.48; and 1.07, 1.04-1.10, respectively). For type of fibers, the amosite group had an increased risk of prostate cancer (1.12, 95% CI = 1.05-1.19), and there were no significant results for the chrysotile/crocidolite group. The risk was higher in Europe (1.12, 95% CI = 1.05-1.19), without significant results in other continents.
DISCUSSION
Asbestos exposure seems to increase prostate cancer risk. The main mechanism of absorption was respiratory. Both environmental and occupational asbestos exposure were linked to increased risk of prostate cancer.
CONCLUSION
Patients who were exposed to asbestos should possibly be encouraged to complete more frequent prostate cancer screening.
Topics: Asbestos; Asbestos, Amphibole; Asbestos, Serpentine; Environmental Exposure; Humans; Incidence; Inhalation Exposure; Male; Occupational Exposure; Prostate-Specific Antigen; Prostatic Neoplasms; Ronidazole
PubMed: 32097115
DOI: 10.7812/TPP/19.086 -
International Journal of Environmental... Feb 2020Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is mainly related to previous asbestos exposure. There is still dearth of information on non-invasive biomarkers to detect MPM at...
Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is mainly related to previous asbestos exposure. There is still dearth of information on non-invasive biomarkers to detect MPM at early stages. Human studies on exhaled breath biomarkers of cancer and asbestos-related diseases show encouraging results. The aim of this systematic review was to provide an overview on the current knowledge about exhaled breath analysis in MPM diagnosis. A systematic review was conducted on MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE and Web of Science databases to identify relevant studies. Quality assessment was done by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Six studies were identified, all of which showed fair quality and explored volatile organic compounds (VOC) based breath profile using Gas Chromatography Coupled to Mass Spectrometry (GC-MS), Ion Mobility Spectrometry Coupled to Multi-capillary Columns (IMS-MCC) or pattern-recognition technologies. Sample sizes varied between 39 and 330. Some compounds (i.e, cyclohexane, P3, P5, P50, P71, diethyl ether, limonene, nonanal, VOC IK 1287) that can be indicative of MPM development in asbestos exposed population were identified with high diagnostic accuracy rates. E-nose studies reported breathprints being able to distinguish MPM from asbestos exposed individuals with high sensitivity and a negative predictive value. Small sample sizes and methodological diversities among studies limit the translation of results into clinical practice. More prospective studies with standardized methodologies should be conducted on larger populations.
Topics: Asbestos; Biomarkers, Tumor; Breath Tests; Exhalation; Humans; Mesothelioma; Prospective Studies; Volatile Organic Compounds
PubMed: 32050546
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17031110 -
Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology... Apr 2020We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of epidemiological studies that evaluated occupational exposure to man-made vitreous fibers (MMVF) including glass,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of epidemiological studies that evaluated occupational exposure to man-made vitreous fibers (MMVF) including glass, rock, and slag wools, and respiratory tract cancers (RTC) including cancers of the larynx, trachea, bronchus, and lung. The MEDLINE/PubMed and Web of Science databases were searched in order to identify epidemiological studies that evaluated the association between occupational MMVF exposure and RTCs. We performed random-effects meta-analyses of relevant studies identified by our literature search, and evaluated sources of between-study heterogeneity. The pooled relative risk (RR) of RTC among workers exposed to MMVFs was 1.09 (95% CI = 0.97, 1.22). The RR was closer to 1.0 when limiting the analysis to effect estimates from studies that accounted for the main a priori risk factors for RTC, asbestos exposure and smoking (RR = 1.03, 95% CI = 0.90, 1.18). Overall, our synthesis of the epidemiological literature suggests that occupational MMVF exposure is not associated with risk of RTC.
Topics: Animals; Humans; Lung Neoplasms; Male; Mineral Fibers; Occupational Exposure; Respiratory Tract Neoplasms
PubMed: 31991162
DOI: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2020.104585 -
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology Apr 2020To compare the benefits and harms of naltrexone-bupropion using evidence from clinical study reports. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIMS
To compare the benefits and harms of naltrexone-bupropion using evidence from clinical study reports.
METHODS
We searched Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency websites, PubMed, and Clinicaltrials.gov (May 2016) to identify pivotal trials; we then sent a freedom of information request to the European Medicines Agency (July 2016). We included pivotal, phase III placebo-controlled trials. We assessed the risks of bias using the Cochrane criteria, and the quality of the evidence using GRADE. We used a random-effects model for meta-analyses.
RESULTS
Over a 27-month period (July 2016 to August 2018), we received 31 batches of clinical study report documents containing over 65 000 pages of data from 4 pivotal trials (n = 4536). Significantly more participants who took naltrexone-bupropion achieved ≥5% reduction in body weight: risk ratio (RR) = 2.1 (95% confidence interval 1.35-3.28), P = .001, GRADE = low, number needed to treat (NNT) to benefit = 5 (3-17); this represents a 2.53 kg (1.85-3.21) reduction in baseline body weight compared with placebo. Naltrexone-bupropion had significantly beneficial effects on other cardiovascular risk factors; however, the true effect sizes for these are uncertain because of incomplete outcome data. Naltrexone-bupropion significantly increased the risk of adverse events: RR = 1.11 (1.05-1.18, P = .0004, GRADE = low, NNT to harm = 12 7-27); serious adverse events: RR = 1.70 (1.38-2.1, P < .00001, GRADE = moderate, NNT to harm = 21 13-38); and discontinuation because of adverse events: RR = 1.92 (1.65-2.24, P < .00001, GRADE = moderate, NNT to discontinue treatment = 9 8-13).
CONCLUSIONS
Naltrexone-bupropion significantly reduces body weight by a small amount but significantly increases the risk of adverse events. A rigorous process of postmarketing surveillance is required.
Topics: Bupropion; Drug Combinations; Humans; Naltrexone; Obesity
PubMed: 31918448
DOI: 10.1111/bcp.14210 -
Environmental Health : a Global Access... Dec 2019
Response to the "Letter to the Editor" by Gabor Mezei et al., Comments on Vimercati et al., 2019, "Asbestos exposure and malignant mesothelioma of the tunica vaginalis testis: a systematic review and the experience of the Apulia (Southern Italy) mesothelioma register".
PubMed: 31878930
DOI: 10.1186/s12940-019-0553-8