Biological plausibility in environmental health systematic reviews: a GRADE concept paper

A systematic review and BMD modeling approach to develop an AOP for humidifier disinfectant-induced pulmonary fibrosis and cell death

Dosimetry modeling and point of departure (POD) estimation using in vitro data are essential for mechanism-based hazard identification and risk assessment. This study aimed to develop a putative adverse outcome pathway (AOP) for humidifier disinfectant (HD) substances used in South Korea through a systematic review and benchmark dose (BMD) modeling. We collected in vitro toxicological studies on HD substances, including polyhexamethylene guanidine hydrochloride (PHMG-HCl), PHMG phosphate (PHMG-p), a mixture of 5-chloro-2-methyl-4-isothiazolin-3-one and 2-methyl-4-isothiazolin-3-one (CMIT/MIT), CMIT, and MIT from scientific databases. A total of 193 sets of dose-response data were extracted from 34 articles reporting in vitro experimental results of HD toxicity. The risk of bias (RoB) in each study was assessed following the office of health assessment and translation (OHAT) guideline. The BMD of each HD substance at different toxicity endpoints was estimated using the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) BMD software (BMDS). Interspecies- or interorgan differences or most critical effects in the toxicity of the HD substances were analyzed using a 95% lower confidence limit of the BMD (BMDL). We found a critical molecular event and cells susceptible to each HD substance and constructed an AOP of PHMG-p- or CMIT/MIT-induced damage. Notably, PHMG-p induced ATP depletion at the lowest in vitro concentration, endoplasmic reticulum (ER) stress, epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition (EMT), inflammation, leading to fibrosis. CMIT/MIT enhanced mitochondrial reactive oxygen species (ROS) production, oxidative stress, mitochondrial dysfunction, resulting in cell death. Our approach will increase the current understanding of the effects of HD substances on human health and contribute to evidence-based risk assessment of these compounds.

Systems for rating bodies of evidence used in systematic reviews of air pollution exposure and reproductive and children's health: a methodological survey

BACKGROUND

Translating findings from systematic reviews assessing associations between environmental exposures and reproductive and children's health into policy recommendations requires valid and transparent evidence grading.

METHODS

We aimed to evaluate systems for grading bodies of evidence used in systematic reviews of environmental exposures and reproductive/ children's health outcomes, by conducting a methodological survey of air pollution research, comprising a comprehensive search for and assessment of all relevant systematic reviews. To evaluate the frameworks used for rating the internal validity of primary studies and for grading bodies of evidence (multiple studies), we considered whether and how specific criteria or domains were operationalized to address reproductive/children's environmental health, e.g., whether the timing of exposure assessment was evaluated with regard to vulnerable developmental stages.

RESULTS

Eighteen out of 177 (9.8%) systematic reviews used formal systems for rating the body of evidence; 15 distinct internal validity assessment tools for primary studies, and nine different grading systems for bodies of evidence were used, with multiple modifications applied to the cited approaches. The Newcastle Ottawa Scale (NOS) and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) framework, neither developed specifically for this field, were the most commonly used approaches for rating individual studies and bodies of evidence, respectively. Overall, the identified approaches were highly heterogeneous in both their comprehensiveness and their applicability to reproductive/children's environmental health research.

CONCLUSION

Establishing the wider use of more appropriate evidence grading methods is instrumental both for strengthening systematic review methodologies, and for the effective development and implementation of environmental public health policies, particularly for protecting pregnant persons and children.

Evidence integration on health damage for humidifier disinfectant exposure and legal presumption of causation

OBJECTIVES

Inhalation exposure to humidifier disinfectants has resulted to various types of health damages in Korea. To determine the epidemiological correlation necessary for presuming the legal causation, we aimed to develop a method to synthesize the entire evidence.

METHODS

Epidemiological and toxicological studies are systematically reviewed. Target health problems are selected by criteria such as frequent complaints of claimants. Relevant epidemiologic studies are reviewed and the risk of bias and confidence level of the total evidence are evaluated. Toxicological literature reviews are conducted on three lines of evidence including hazard information, animal studies, and mechanistic studies, considering the source-to-exposure-to-outcome continuum. The confidence level of the body of evidence is then translated into the toxicological evidence levels for the causality between humidifier disinfectant exposure and health effects. Finally, the levels of epidemiological and toxicological evidence are synthesized.

RESULTS

Under the Special Act revised in 2020, if the history of exposure and the disease occurred/worsened after exposure were approved, and the epidemiological correlation between the exposure and disease was verified, the legal causation is presumed unless the company proves the evidence against it. The epidemiological correlation can be verified through epidemiological investigations, health monitoring, cohort investigations and/or toxicological studies. It is not simply as statistical association as understood in judicial precedents, but a general causation established by the evidence as a whole, i.e., through weight-of-the-evidence approach.

CONCLUSIONS

The weight-of-the-evidence approach differs from the conclusive single study approach and this systematic evidence integration can be used in presumption of causation.

Mapping Strategies to Assess and Increase the Validity of Published Disproportionality Signals: A Meta-Research Study

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Disproportionality analysis is traditionally used in spontaneous reporting systems to generate working hypotheses about potential adverse drug reactions: the so-called disproportionality signals. We aim to map the methods used by researchers to assess and increase the validity of their published disproportionality signals.

METHODS

From a systematic literature search of published disproportionality analyses up until 1 January 2020, we randomly selected and analyzed 100 studies. We considered five domains: (1) rationale for the study, (2) design of disproportionality analyses, (3) case-by-case assessment, (4) use of complementary data sources, and (5) contextualization of the results within existing evidence.

RESULTS

Among the articles, multiple strategies were adopted to assess and enhance the results validity. The rationale, in 95 articles, was explicitly referred to the accrued evidence, mostly observational data (n = 46) and regulatory documents (n = 45). A statistical adjustment was performed in 34 studies, and specific strategies to correct for biases were implemented in 33 studies. A case-by-case assessment was complementarily performed in 35 studies, most often by investigating temporal plausibility (n = 26). Complementary data sources were used in 25 articles. In 78 articles, results were contextualized using accrued evidence from the literature and regulatory documents, the most important sources being observational (n = 45), other disproportionalities (n = 37), and case reports (n = 36).

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-research study highlighted the heterogeneity in methods and strategies used by researchers to assess the validity of disproportionality signals. Mapping these strategies is a first step towards testing their utility in different scenarios and developing guidelines for designing future disproportionality analysis.

A review of statistical strategies to integrate biomarkers of chemical exposure with biomarkers of effect applied in omic-scale environmental epidemiology

Humans are exposed to a growing list of synthetic chemicals, some of them becoming a major public health concern due to their capacity to impact multiple biological endpoints and contribute to a range of chronic diseases. The integration of endogenous (omic) biomarkers of effect in environmental health studies has been growing during the last decade, aiming to gain insight on the potential mechanisms linking the exposures and the clinical conditions. The emergence of high-throughput omic platforms has raised a list of statistical challenges posed by the large dimension and complexity of data generated. Thus, the aim of the present study was to critically review the current state-of-the-science about statistical approaches used to integrate endogenous biomarkers in environmental-health studies linking chemical exposures with health outcomes. The present review specifically focused on internal exposure to environmental chemical pollutants, involving both persistent organic pollutants (POPs), non-persistent pollutants like phthalates or bisphenols, and metals. We identified 42 eligible articles published since 2016, reporting 48 different statistical workflows, mostly focused on POPs and using metabolomic profiling in the intermediate layer. The outcomes were mainly binary and focused on metabolic disorders. A large diversity of statistical strategies were reported to integrate chemical mixtures and endogenous biomarkers to characterize their associations with health conditions. Multivariate regression models were the most predominant statistical method reported in the published workflows, however some studies applied latent based methods or multipollutant models to overcome the specific constraints of omic or exposure of data. A minority of studies used formal mediation analysis to characterize the indirect effects mediated by the endogenous biomarkers. The principles of each specific statistical method and overall workflow set-up are summarized in the light of highlighting their applicability, strengths and weaknesses or interpretability to gain insight into the causal structures underlying the triad: exposure, effect-biomarker and outcome.

Perspectives on the application of CONSORT guidelines to randomised controlled trials in nutrition

PURPOSE

Reporting guidelines facilitate quality and completeness in research reporting. The CONsolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement is widely applied to dietary and nutrition trials but has no extension specific to nutrition. Evidence suggests poor reporting in nutrition research. The Federation of European Nutrition Societies led an initiative to make recommendations for a nutrition extension to the CONSORT statement towards a more robust reporting of the evidence base.

METHODS

An international working group was formed of nutrition researchers from 14 institutions in 12 different countries and on five continents. Using meetings over a period of one year, we interrogated the CONSORT statement specifically for its application to report nutrition trials.

RESULTS

We provide a total of 28 new nutrition-specific recommendations or emphasised recommendations for the reporting of the introduction (three), methods (twelve), results (five) and discussion (eight). We also added two additional recommendations that were not allocated under the standard CONSORT headings.

CONCLUSION

We identify a need to provide guidance in addition to CONSORT to improve the quality and consistency of the reporting and propose key considerations for further development of formal guidelines for the reporting of nutrition trials. Readers are encouraged to engage in this process, provide comments and conduct specific studies to inform further work on the development of reporting guidelines for nutrition trials.

How we promote rigour in systematic reviews and evidence maps at Environment International

In 2016, Environment International became the first environmental health journal to adopt specialist policies for handling systematic review (SR) submissions. This included the appointment of a dedicated editor of SRs, the use of the CREST_Triage tool for transparent and consistent enforcement of editorial standards for SRs, the acceptance of SR protocols as full manuscripts, and the extension of SR handling policies to systematic evidence maps as a novel evidence synthesis methodology. Our data on triage decisions for SR submissions, gathered via CREST_Triage, indicates several ways in which researchers are challenged by SR methods, including problem formulation, critical appraisal methods, and certainty assessment. We recommend that author teams invest in developing protocols as a means to de-risk SR projects, arguing that the benefits outweigh the potential increase in time it may take to complete the research project. Finally, we present evidence that reliance among environmental health journals on informal peer-review and editorial checks for standards compliance and quality control is insufficient for ensuring the rigour of SR publications. This emphasises the importance of specialist editors using triage instruments for the effective enforcement of standards. Observing that Environment International appears to be one of few journals implementing effective quality control measures for SR publications, we suggest that adoption of our SR policies by other journals may be beneficial to the field at large.