UV "Indices"-What Do They Indicate?

Pterygium in adults from the Brazilian Amazon Region: prevalence, visual status and refractive errors

AIMS

To determine prevalence of pterygium, its role as main cause of unilateral and bilateral visual impairment and blindness and its impact on refractive errors from adults living in a high ultraviolet exposure area in the Brazilian Amazon Region.

METHODS

Cluster sampling was used in randomly selecting subjects ≥45 years of age from urban and rural areas of Parintins city. Eligible subjects were enumerated through a door-to-door household survey and invited for an eye exam including refraction. Pterygium was assessed considering location (nasal, temporal or both) and size (<3 mm or ≥3 mm reaching or not pupillary margin).

RESULTS

A total of 2384 persons were enumerated and 2041 (85.6%) were examined. Prevalence of pterygium was 58.8% (95% CI 53.8% to 63.7%) and associated with male gender (OR=1.63; 95% CI 1.37 to 1.94; p=0.001), while higher education was a protective factor (OR=0.63; 95% CI 0.44 to 0.92; p=0.018). Older age and rural residence were associated with pterygium ≥3 mm reaching or not pupillary margin, while higher education was a protective factor for pterygium ≥3 mm reaching pupillary margin. Prevalence of pterygium as cause of visual impairment and blindness was 14.3% and 3.9%, respectively. Significantly higher hyperopic refractive errors were found in eyes with pterygium ≥3 mm reaching or not pupillary margin.

CONCLUSIONS

Pterygium was highly prevalent and the second cause of visual impairment and blindness after provision of refractive correction. Risk factors for pterygium were male gender, advanced age, lower education and rural residency. Strategies to provide pterygium early detection and proper management should be considered by healthcare authorities in this population.

Menopausal hormone therapy and risk of melanoma: Do estrogens and progestins have a different role?

The association between use of menopausal hormone therapy (HT) and occurrence of skin malignant melanoma (SMM) is controversial. We investigated the issue in a nationwide cohort of 684,696 Norwegian women, aged 45-79 years, followed from 2004 to 2008. The study was based on linkage between Norwegian population registries. Multivariable Poisson regression models were used to estimate the effect of HT use, different HT types, routes of administration and doses of estrogen and progestin on the risk of SMM. During the median follow-up of 4.8 years, 178,307 (26%) women used HT, and 1,476 incident SMM cases were identified. Current use of HT was associated with increased risk of SMM (rate ratios (RR) = 1.19; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03-1.37). Plain estrogen therapy was associated with an increased risk of SMM (RR 1.45; 95% CI 1.21-1.73), both for oral (RR 1.45; 95% CI 1.09-1.93) and vaginal (RR 1.44; 95% CI 1.14-1.84) formulations, while combined estrogen and progestin therapy (EPT) was not (RR 0.91; 95% CI 0.70-1.19). We performed a dose-response analysis of estrogen and progestin in women using tablets, and found that use of estrogens was associated with increased risk (RR 1.24; 95% CI 1.00-1.53 per 1 mg/day) and use of progestins with decreased risk (RR 0.71; 95% CI 0.57-0.89 per 10 mg/month) of SMM. In conclusion, estrogens were associated with increased risk of SMM, while combinations of estrogens and progestins were not. Our results suggest that estrogens and progestins might affect the risk of SMM in opposite ways.

UV-Radiation: From Physics to Impacts

Ultraviolet (UV) radiation has affected life at least since the first life forms moved out of the seas and crawled onto the land. Therefore, one might assume that evolution has adapted to natural UV radiation. However, evolution is mostly concerned with the propagation of the genetic code, not with a long, happy, and fulfilling life. Because rickets is bad for a woman giving birth, the beneficial effects of UV-radiation outweigh the adverse effects like aged skin and skin tumors of various grades of malignancy that usually only afflict us at older age. Anthropogenic damage to the stratospheric ozone layer and frighteningly high rates of melanoma skin cancer in the light-skinned descendants of British settlers in Australia piqued interest in the health impacts of UV radiation. A changing cultural perception of the beauty of tanned versus light skin and commercial interests in selling UV-emitting devices such as tanning booths caught public health experts off-guard. Counseling and health communication are extremely difficult when dealing with a “natural” risk factor, especially when this risk factor cannot (and should not) be completely avoided. How much is too much for whom or for which skin type? How even measure “much”? Is it the (cumulative) dose or the dose rate that matters most? Or should we even construct a more complex metric such as the cumulative dose above a certain dose rate threshold? We find there are still many open questions, and we are glad that this special issue offered us the opportunity to present many interesting aspects of this important topic.