1
|
Higgins JPT, Morgan RL, Rooney AA, Taylor KW, Thayer KA, Silva RA, Lemeris C, Akl EA, Bateson TF, Berkman ND, Glenn BS, Hróbjartsson A, LaKind JS, McAleenan A, Meerpohl JJ, Nachman RM, Obbagy JE, O'Connor A, Radke EG, Savović J, Schünemann HJ, Shea B, Tilling K, Verbeek J, Viswanathan M, Sterne JAC. A tool to assess risk of bias in non-randomized follow-up studies of exposure effects (ROBINS-E). Environ Int 2024; 186:108602. [PMID: 38555664 PMCID: PMC11098530 DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2024.108602] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/27/2023] [Revised: 02/26/2024] [Accepted: 03/23/2024] [Indexed: 04/02/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Observational epidemiologic studies provide critical data for the evaluation of the potential effects of environmental, occupational and behavioural exposures on human health. Systematic reviews of these studies play a key role in informing policy and practice. Systematic reviews should incorporate assessments of the risk of bias in results of the included studies. OBJECTIVE To develop a new tool, Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies - of Exposures (ROBINS-E) to assess risk of bias in estimates from cohort studies of the causal effect of an exposure on an outcome. METHODS AND RESULTS ROBINS-E was developed by a large group of researchers from diverse research and public health disciplines through a series of working groups, in-person meetings and pilot testing phases. The tool aims to assess the risk of bias in a specific result (exposure effect estimate) from an individual observational study that examines the effect of an exposure on an outcome. A series of preliminary considerations informs the core ROBINS-E assessment, including details of the result being assessed and the causal effect being estimated. The assessment addresses bias within seven domains, through a series of 'signalling questions'. Domain-level judgements about risk of bias are derived from the answers to these questions, then combined to produce an overall risk of bias judgement for the result, together with judgements about the direction of bias. CONCLUSION ROBINS-E provides a standardized framework for examining potential biases in results from cohort studies. Future work will produce variants of the tool for other epidemiologic study designs (e.g. case-control studies). We believe that ROBINS-E represents an important development in the integration of exposure assessment, evidence synthesis and causal inference.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Julian P T Higgins
- Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK; NIHR Bristol Evidence Synthesis Group, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK; NIHR Applied Research Collaboration West (ARC West) at University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK.
| | - Rebecca L Morgan
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Andrew A Rooney
- National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
| | - Kyla W Taylor
- National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
| | - Kristina A Thayer
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Chemical & Pollutant Assessment Division, US Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
| | | | | | - Elie A Akl
- Faculty of Medicine, American University of Beirut, Riad El-Solh, Lebanon
| | - Thomas F Bateson
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Chemical and Pollutant Assessment Division, US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USA
| | | | - Barbara S Glenn
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Chemical and Pollutant Assessment Division, US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Asbjørn Hróbjartsson
- Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Odense (CEBMO) and Cochrane Denmark, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
| | | | - Alexandra McAleenan
- Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Joerg J Meerpohl
- Institute for Evidence in Medicine, Medical Center & Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany; Cochrane Germany, Cochrane Germany Foundation, Freiburg, Germany
| | - Rebecca M Nachman
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Chemical and Pollutant Assessment Division, US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Julie E Obbagy
- Nutrition Evidence Systematic Review Branch, Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion, Food and Nutrition Service, US Department of Agriculture, Alexandria, VA, USA
| | - Annette O'Connor
- Department of Large Animal Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA
| | - Elizabeth G Radke
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Chemical and Pollutant Assessment Division, US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Jelena Savović
- Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK; NIHR Bristol Evidence Synthesis Group, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK; NIHR Applied Research Collaboration West (ARC West) at University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK
| | - Holger J Schünemann
- Cochrane Canada and McMaster GRADE Centres, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | - Beverley Shea
- Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada
| | - Kate Tilling
- Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK; NIHR Applied Research Collaboration West (ARC West) at University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK; MRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK; NIHR Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, Bristol, UK
| | - Jos Verbeek
- Cochrane Work, Department of Public and Occupational Health, Academic Medical Centers Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | | | - Jonathan A C Sterne
- Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK; Health Data Research UK South-West, Bristol, UK
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Shirke AV, Radke EG, Lin C, Blain R, Vetter N, Lemeris C, Hartman P, Hubbard H, Angrish M, Arzuaga X, Congleton J, Davis A, Dishaw LV, Jones R, Judson R, Kaiser JP, Kraft A, Lizarraga L, Noyes PD, Patlewicz G, Taylor M, Williams AJ, Thayer KA, Carlson LM. Expanded Systematic Evidence Map for Hundreds of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) and Comprehensive PFAS Human Health Dashboard. Environ Health Perspect 2024; 132:26001. [PMID: 38319881 PMCID: PMC10846678 DOI: 10.1289/ehp13423] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/01/2023] [Revised: 01/03/2024] [Accepted: 01/04/2024] [Indexed: 02/08/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) encompass a class of chemically and structurally diverse compounds that are extensively used in industry and detected in the environment. The US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) 2021 PFAS Strategic Roadmap describes national research plans to address the challenge of PFAS. OBJECTIVES Systematic Evidence Map (SEM) methods were used to survey and summarize available epidemiological and mammalian bioassay evidence that could inform human health hazard identification for a set of 345 PFAS that were identified by the US EPA's Center for Computational Toxicology and Exposure (CCTE) for in vitro toxicity and toxicokinetic assay testing and through interagency discussions on PFAS of interest. This work builds from the 2022 evidence map that collated evidence on a separate set of ∼ 150 PFAS. Like our previous work, this SEM does not include PFAS that are the subject of ongoing or completed assessments at the US EPA. METHODS SEM methods were used to search, screen, and inventory mammalian bioassay and epidemiological literature from peer-reviewed and gray literature sources using manual review and machine-learning software. For each included study, study design details and health end points examined were summarized in interactive web-based literature inventories. Some included studies also underwent study evaluation and detailed extraction of health end point data. All underlying data is publicly available online as interactive visuals with downloadable metadata. RESULTS More than 13,000 studies were identified from scientific databases. Screening processes identified 121 mammalian bioassay and 111 epidemiological studies that met screening criteria. Epidemiological evidence (available for 12 PFAS) mostly assessed the reproductive, endocrine, developmental, metabolic, cardiovascular, and immune systems. Mammalian bioassay evidence (available for 30 PFAS) commonly assessed effects in the reproductive, whole-body, nervous, and hepatic systems. Overall, 41 PFAS had evidence across mammalian bioassay and epidemiology data streams (roughly 11% of searched chemicals). DISCUSSION No epidemiological and/or mammalian bioassay evidence were identified for most of the PFAS included in our search. Results from this SEM, our 2022 SEM on ∼ 150 PFAS, and other PFAS assessment products from the US EPA are compiled into a comprehensive PFAS dashboard that provides researchers and regulators an overview of the current PFAS human health landscape including data gaps and can serve as a scoping tool to facilitate prioritization of PFAS-related research and/or risk assessment activities. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP13423.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Avanti V. Shirke
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Chemical & Pollutant Assessment Division (CPAD), US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), Washington, DC, USA
| | - Elizabeth G. Radke
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Chemical & Pollutant Assessment Division (CPAD), US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), Washington, DC, USA
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Xabier Arzuaga
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Chemical & Pollutant Assessment Division (CPAD), US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), Washington, DC, USA
| | - Johanna Congleton
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Chemical & Pollutant Assessment Division (CPAD), US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), Washington, DC, USA
| | - Allen Davis
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Chemical & Pollutant Assessment Division (CPAD), US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), Washington, DC, USA
| | | | - Ryan Jones
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Health & Environmental Effects Assessment Division (HEEAD), US EPA, Durham, North Carolina, USA
| | - Richard Judson
- Center for Computational Toxicology and Exposure (CCTE), US EPA, Durham, North Carolina, USA
| | | | - Andrew Kraft
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Chemical & Pollutant Assessment Division (CPAD), US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), Washington, DC, USA
| | | | - Pamela D. Noyes
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Chemical & Pollutant Assessment Division (CPAD), US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), Washington, DC, USA
| | - Grace Patlewicz
- Center for Computational Toxicology and Exposure (CCTE), US EPA, Durham, North Carolina, USA
| | | | - Antony J. Williams
- Center for Computational Toxicology and Exposure (CCTE), US EPA, Durham, North Carolina, USA
| | | | - Laura M. Carlson
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Health & Environmental Effects Assessment Division (HEEAD), US EPA, Durham, North Carolina, USA
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Carlson LM, Angrish M, Shirke AV, Radke EG, Schulz B, Kraft A, Judson R, Patlewicz G, Blain R, Lin C, Vetter N, Lemeris C, Hartman P, Hubbard H, Arzuaga X, Davis A, Dishaw LV, Druwe IL, Hollinger H, Jones R, Kaiser JP, Lizarraga L, Noyes PD, Taylor M, Shapiro AJ, Williams AJ, Thayer KA. Erratum: "Systematic Evidence Map for over One Hundred and Fifty Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)". Environ Health Perspect 2024; 132:19001. [PMID: 38198380 PMCID: PMC10780484 DOI: 10.1289/ehp14191] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/20/2023] [Accepted: 11/27/2023] [Indexed: 01/12/2024]
|
4
|
Keshava C, Nicolai S, Vulimiri SV, Cruz FA, Ghoreishi N, Knueppel S, Lenzner A, Tarnow P, Vanselow JT, Schulz B, Persad A, Baker N, Thayer KA, Williams AJ, Pirow R. Application of systematic evidence mapping to identify available data on the potential human health hazards of selected market-relevant azo dyes. Environ Int 2023; 176:107952. [PMID: 37224677 DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2023.107952] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/13/2022] [Revised: 04/18/2023] [Accepted: 04/25/2023] [Indexed: 05/26/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Azo dyes are used in textiles and leather clothing. Human exposure can occur from wearing textiles containing azo dyes. Since the body's enzymes and microbiome can cleave azo dyes, potentially resulting in mutagenic or carcinogenic metabolites, there is also an indirect health concern on the parent compounds. While several hazardous azo dyes are banned, many more are still in use that have not been evaluated systematically for potential health concerns. This systematic evidence map (SEM) aims to compile and categorize the available toxicological evidence on the potential human health risks of a set of 30 market-relevant azo dyes. METHODS Peer-reviewed and gray literature was searched and over 20,000 studies were identified. These were filtered using Sciome Workbench for Interactive computer-Facilitated Text-mining (SWIFT) Review software with evidence stream tags (human, animal, in vitro) yielding 12,800 unique records. SWIFT Active (a machine-learning software) further facilitated title/abstract screening. DistillerSR software was used for additional title/abstract, full-text screening, and data extraction. RESULTS 187 studies were identified that met populations, exposures, comparators, and outcomes (PECO) criteria. From this pool, 54 human, 78 animal, and 61 genotoxicity studies were extracted into a literature inventory. Toxicological evidence was abundant for three azo dyes (also used as food additives) and sparse for five of the remaining 27 compounds. Complementary search in ECHA's REACH database for summaries of unpublished study reports revealed evidence for all 30 dyes. The question arose of how this information can be fed into an SEM process. Proper identification of prioritized dyes from various databases (including U.S. EPA's CompTox Chemicals Dashboard) turned out to be a challenge. Evidence compiled by this SEM project can be evaluated for subsequent use in problem formulation efforts to inform potential regulatory needs and prepare for a more efficient and targeted evaluation in the future for human health assessments.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Channa Keshava
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), Office of Research and Development, Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment (CPHEA), Chemical Pollutant Assessment Division (CPAD), 109 T.W. Alexander Dr, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, USA.
| | - Suna Nicolai
- German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), Department of Chemical and Product Safety, Max-Dohrn-Strasse 8-10, 10589 Berlin, Germany.
| | - Suryanarayana V Vulimiri
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), Office of Research and Development, Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment (CPHEA), Chemical Pollutant Assessment Division (CPAD), 109 T.W. Alexander Dr, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, USA.
| | - Florenz A Cruz
- German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), Department of Chemical and Product Safety, Max-Dohrn-Strasse 8-10, 10589 Berlin, Germany
| | - Narges Ghoreishi
- German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), Department of Exposure, Max-Dohrn-Strasse 8-10, 10589 Berlin, Germany.
| | - Sven Knueppel
- German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), Department of Food Safety, Max-Dohrn-Strasse 8-10, 10589 Berlin, Germany.
| | - Ariane Lenzner
- German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), Department of Chemical and Product Safety, Max-Dohrn-Strasse 8-10, 10589 Berlin, Germany.
| | - Patrick Tarnow
- German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), Department of Chemical and Product Safety, Max-Dohrn-Strasse 8-10, 10589 Berlin, Germany.
| | - Jens T Vanselow
- German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), Department of Chemical and Product Safety, Max-Dohrn-Strasse 8-10, 10589 Berlin, Germany.
| | - Brittany Schulz
- Oak Ridge Associated Universities (ORAU), Environmental Protection Agency National Student Services Contract (EPA NSSC), 100 ORAU Way, Oak Ridge, TN 37830, USA.
| | - Amanda Persad
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), Office of Research and Development, Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment (CPHEA), Chemical Pollutant Assessment Division (CPAD), 109 T.W. Alexander Dr, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, USA.
| | - Nancy Baker
- Leidos, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, USA.
| | - Kristina A Thayer
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), Office of Research and Development, Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment (CPHEA), Chemical Pollutant Assessment Division (CPAD), 109 T.W. Alexander Dr, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, USA.
| | - Antony J Williams
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), Office of Research and Development, Center for Computational Toxicology and Exposure (CCTE), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, USA.
| | - Ralph Pirow
- German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), Department of Chemical and Product Safety, Max-Dohrn-Strasse 8-10, 10589 Berlin, Germany.
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Thayer KA, Angrish M, Arzuaga X, Carlson LM, Davis A, Dishaw L, Druwe I, Gibbons C, Glenn B, Jones R, Phillip Kaiser J, Keshava C, Keshava N, Kraft A, Lizarraga L, Persad A, Radke EG, Rice G, Schulz B, Shaffer RM, Shannon T, Shapiro A, Thacker S, Vulimiri SV, Williams AJ, Woodall G, Yost E, Blain R, Duke K, Goldstone AE, Hartman P, Hobbie K, Ingle B, Lemeris C, Lin C, Lindahl A, McKinley K, Soleymani P, Vetter N. Corrigendum to "Systematic evidence map (SEM) template: Report format and methods used for the US EPA Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) program, Provisional Peer Reviewed Toxicity Value (PPRTV) program, and other "fit for purpose" literature-based human health analyses" [Environ. Int. 169 (2022) 107468]. Environ Int 2023:107929. [PMID: 37127446 DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2023.107929] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/03/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Kristina A Thayer
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Chemical & Pollutant Assessment Division, US EPA, NC, USA.
| | - Michelle Angrish
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Chemical & Pollutant Assessment Division, US EPA, NC, USA.
| | - Xabier Arzuaga
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Chemical & Pollutant Assessment Division, US EPA, NC, USA.
| | - Laura M Carlson
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Health & Environmental Effects Assessment Division, US EPA, NC, USA.
| | - Allen Davis
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Chemical & Pollutant Assessment Division, US EPA, NC, USA.
| | - Laura Dishaw
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Chemical & Pollutant Assessment Division, US EPA, NC, USA.
| | - Ingrid Druwe
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Chemical & Pollutant Assessment Division, US EPA, NC, USA.
| | - Catherine Gibbons
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Chemical & Pollutant Assessment Division, US EPA, NC, USA.
| | - Barbara Glenn
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Chemical & Pollutant Assessment Division, US EPA, NC, USA.
| | - Ryan Jones
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Health & Environmental Effects Assessment Division, US EPA, NC, USA.
| | - J Phillip Kaiser
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Chemical & Pollutant Assessment Division, US EPA, NC, USA.
| | - Channa Keshava
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Chemical & Pollutant Assessment Division, US EPA, NC, USA.
| | - Nagalakshmi Keshava
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Chemical & Pollutant Assessment Division, US EPA, NC, USA.
| | - Andrew Kraft
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Chemical & Pollutant Assessment Division, US EPA, NC, USA.
| | - Lucina Lizarraga
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Chemical & Pollutant Assessment Division, US EPA, NC, USA.
| | - Amanda Persad
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Chemical & Pollutant Assessment Division, US EPA, NC, USA.
| | - Elizabeth G Radke
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Chemical & Pollutant Assessment Division, US EPA, NC, USA.
| | - Glenn Rice
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Chemical & Pollutant Assessment Division, US EPA, NC, USA.
| | | | - Rachel M Shaffer
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Chemical & Pollutant Assessment Division, US EPA, NC, USA.
| | - Teresa Shannon
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Chemical & Pollutant Assessment Division, US EPA, NC, USA.
| | - Andrew Shapiro
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Health & Environmental Effects Assessment Division, US EPA, NC, USA.
| | - Shane Thacker
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Health & Environmental Effects Assessment Division, US EPA, NC, USA.
| | - Suryanarayana V Vulimiri
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Chemical & Pollutant Assessment Division, US EPA, NC, USA.
| | | | - George Woodall
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Health & Environmental Effects Assessment Division, US EPA, NC, USA.
| | - Erin Yost
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Chemical & Pollutant Assessment Division, US EPA, NC, USA.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
6
|
Thayer KA, Angrish M, Arzuaga X, Carlson LM, Davis A, Dishaw L, Druwe I, Gibbons C, Glenn B, Jones R, Phillip Kaiser J, Keshava C, Keshava N, Kraft A, Lizarraga L, Persad A, Radke EG, Rice G, Schulz B, Shaffer RM, Shannon T, Shapiro A, Thacker S, Vulimiri SV, Williams AJ, Woodall G, Yost E, Blain R, Duke K, Goldstone AE, Hartman P, Hobbie K, Ingle B, Lemeris C, Lin C, Lindahl A, McKinley K, Soleymani P, Vetter N. Systematic evidence map (SEM) template: Report format and methods used for the US EPA Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) program, Provisional Peer Reviewed Toxicity Value (PPRTV) program, and other "fit for purpose" literature-based human health analyses. Environ Int 2022; 169:107468. [PMID: 36174483 DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2022.107468] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/27/2022] [Revised: 08/01/2022] [Accepted: 08/09/2022] [Indexed: 05/03/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Systematic evidence maps (SEMs) are gaining visibility in environmental health for their utility to serve as problem formulation tools and assist in decision-making, especially for priority setting. SEMs are now routinely prepared as part of the assessment development process for the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) and Provisional Peer Reviewed Toxicity Value (PPRTV) assessments. SEMs can also be prepared to explore the available literature for an individual chemical or groups of chemicals of emerging interest. OBJECTIVES This document describes the typical methods used to produce SEMs for the IRIS and PPRTV Programs, as well as "fit for purpose" applications using a variety of examples drawn from existing analyses. It is intended to serve as an example base template that can be adapted as needed for the specific SEM. The presented methods include workflows intended to facilitate rapid production. The Populations, Exposures, Comparators and Outcomes (PECO) criteria are typically kept broad to identify mammalian animal bioassay and epidemiological studies that could be informative for human hazard identification. In addition, a variety of supplemental content is tracked, e.g., studies presenting information on in vitro model systems, non-mammalian model systems, exposure-level-only studies in humans, pharmacokinetic models, and absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion (ADME). The availability of New Approach Methods (NAMs) evidence is also tracked (e.g., high throughput, transcriptomic, in silico, etc.). Genotoxicity studies may be considered as PECO relevant or supplemental material, depending on the topic and context of the review. Standard systematic review practices (e.g., two independent reviewers per record) and specialized software applications are used to search and screen the literature and may include the use of machine learning software. Mammalian bioassay and epidemiological studies that meet the PECO criteria after full-text review are briefly summarized using structured web-based extraction forms with respect to study design and health system(s) assessed. Extracted data is available in interactive visual formats and can be downloaded in open access formats. Methods for conducting study evaluation are also presented which is conducted on a case-by-case basis, depending on the usage of the SEM.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kristina A Thayer
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Chemical & Pollutant Assessment Division, US EPA, DC, USA.
| | - Michelle Angrish
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Chemical & Pollutant Assessment Division, US EPA, DC, USA.
| | - Xabier Arzuaga
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Chemical & Pollutant Assessment Division, US EPA, DC, USA.
| | - Laura M Carlson
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Health & Environmental Effects Assessment Division, US EPA, NC, USA.
| | - Allen Davis
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Chemical & Pollutant Assessment Division, US EPA, DC, USA.
| | - Laura Dishaw
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Chemical & Pollutant Assessment Division, US EPA, DC, USA.
| | - Ingrid Druwe
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Chemical & Pollutant Assessment Division, US EPA, DC, USA.
| | - Catherine Gibbons
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Chemical & Pollutant Assessment Division, US EPA, DC, USA.
| | - Barbara Glenn
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Chemical & Pollutant Assessment Division, US EPA, DC, USA.
| | - Ryan Jones
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Health & Environmental Effects Assessment Division, US EPA, NC, USA.
| | - J Phillip Kaiser
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Chemical & Pollutant Assessment Division, US EPA, DC, USA.
| | - Channa Keshava
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Chemical & Pollutant Assessment Division, US EPA, DC, USA.
| | - Nagalakshmi Keshava
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Chemical & Pollutant Assessment Division, US EPA, DC, USA.
| | - Andrew Kraft
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Chemical & Pollutant Assessment Division, US EPA, DC, USA.
| | - Lucina Lizarraga
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Chemical & Pollutant Assessment Division, US EPA, DC, USA.
| | - Amanda Persad
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Chemical & Pollutant Assessment Division, US EPA, DC, USA.
| | - Elizabeth G Radke
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Chemical & Pollutant Assessment Division, US EPA, DC, USA.
| | - Glenn Rice
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Chemical & Pollutant Assessment Division, US EPA, DC, USA.
| | | | - Rachel M Shaffer
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Chemical & Pollutant Assessment Division, US EPA, DC, USA.
| | - Teresa Shannon
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Chemical & Pollutant Assessment Division, US EPA, DC, USA.
| | - Andrew Shapiro
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Health & Environmental Effects Assessment Division, US EPA, NC, USA.
| | - Shane Thacker
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Health & Environmental Effects Assessment Division, US EPA, NC, USA.
| | - Suryanarayana V Vulimiri
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Chemical & Pollutant Assessment Division, US EPA, DC, USA.
| | | | - George Woodall
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Health & Environmental Effects Assessment Division, US EPA, NC, USA.
| | - Erin Yost
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Chemical & Pollutant Assessment Division, US EPA, DC, USA.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
7
|
Thayer KA, Shaffer RM, Angrish M, Arzuaga X, Carlson LM, Davis A, Dishaw L, Druwe I, Gibbons C, Glenn B, Jones R, Kaiser JP, Keshava C, Keshava N, Kraft A, Lizarraga L, Markey K, Persad A, Radke EG, Rice G, Schulz B, Shannon T, Shapiro A, Thacker S, Vulimiri S, Woodall G, Yost E. Use of systematic evidence maps within the US environmental protection agency (EPA) integrated risk information system (IRIS) program: Advancements to date and looking ahead. Environ Int 2022; 169:107363. [PMID: 36057470 DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2022.107363] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/28/2022] [Accepted: 06/16/2022] [Indexed: 06/15/2023]
Abstract
Systematic evidence maps (SEMs) are increasingly used to inform decision-making and risk management priority-setting and to serve as problem formulation tools to refine the focus of questions that get addressed in full systematic reviews. Within the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Research and Development (ORD) Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), SEMs have been used to inform data gaps, determine the need for updated assessments, inform assessment priorities, and inform development of study evaluation considerations, among other uses. Increased utilization of SEMs across the environmental health field has the potential to increase transparency and efficiency for data gathering, problem formulation, read-across, and evidence surveillance. Use of the SEM templates published in the companion text (Thayer et al.) can promote harmonization in the environmental health community and create more opportunities for sharing extracted content.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kristina A Thayer
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Chemical & Pollutant Assessment Division, US EPA, NC, USA.
| | - Rachel M Shaffer
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Chemical & Pollutant Assessment Division, US EPA, NC, USA.
| | - Michelle Angrish
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Chemical & Pollutant Assessment Division, US EPA, NC, USA.
| | - Xabier Arzuaga
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Chemical & Pollutant Assessment Division, US EPA, NC, USA.
| | - Laura M Carlson
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Health & Environmental Effects Assessment Division, US EPA, NC, USA.
| | - Allen Davis
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Chemical & Pollutant Assessment Division, US EPA, NC, USA.
| | - Laura Dishaw
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Chemical & Pollutant Assessment Division, US EPA, NC, USA.
| | - Ingrid Druwe
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Chemical & Pollutant Assessment Division, US EPA, NC, USA.
| | - Catherine Gibbons
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Chemical & Pollutant Assessment Division, US EPA, NC, USA.
| | - Barbara Glenn
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Chemical & Pollutant Assessment Division, US EPA, NC, USA.
| | - Ryan Jones
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Health & Environmental Effects Assessment Division, US EPA, NC, USA.
| | - J Phillip Kaiser
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Chemical & Pollutant Assessment Division, US EPA, NC, USA.
| | - Channa Keshava
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Chemical & Pollutant Assessment Division, US EPA, NC, USA.
| | - Nagalakshmi Keshava
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Health & Environmental Effects Assessment Division, US EPA, NC, USA.
| | - Andrew Kraft
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Chemical & Pollutant Assessment Division, US EPA, NC, USA.
| | - Lucina Lizarraga
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Chemical & Pollutant Assessment Division, US EPA, NC, USA.
| | - Kristan Markey
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Chemical & Pollutant Assessment Division, US EPA, NC, USA.
| | - Amanda Persad
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Chemical & Pollutant Assessment Division, US EPA, NC, USA.
| | - Elizabeth G Radke
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Chemical & Pollutant Assessment Division, US EPA, NC, USA.
| | - Glenn Rice
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Chemical & Pollutant Assessment Division, US EPA, NC, USA.
| | | | - Teresa Shannon
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Chemical & Pollutant Assessment Division, US EPA, NC, USA.
| | - Andrew Shapiro
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Health & Environmental Effects Assessment Division, US EPA, NC, USA.
| | - Shane Thacker
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Health & Environmental Effects Assessment Division, US EPA, NC, USA.
| | - Suryanarayana Vulimiri
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Chemical & Pollutant Assessment Division, US EPA, NC, USA.
| | - George Woodall
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Health & Environmental Effects Assessment Division, US EPA, NC, USA.
| | - Erin Yost
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Chemical & Pollutant Assessment Division, US EPA, NC, USA
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Radke EG, Wright JM, Christensen K, Lin CJ, Goldstone AE, Lemeris C, Thayer KA. Epidemiology Evidence for Health Effects of 150 per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances: A Systematic Evidence Map. Environ Health Perspect 2022; 130:96003. [PMID: 36178797 PMCID: PMC9524599 DOI: 10.1289/ehp11185] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/06/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) comprise a large class of chemicals with widespread use and persistence in the environment and in humans; however, most of the epidemiology research has focused on a small subset. OBJECTIVES The aim of this systematic evidence map (SEM) is to summarize the epidemiology evidence on approximately 150 lesser studied PFAS prioritized by the EPA for tiered toxicity testing, facilitating interpretation of those results as well as identification of priorities for risk assessment and data gaps for future research. METHODS The Populations, Exposure, Comparators, and Outcomes (PECO) criteria were intentionally broad to identify studies of any health effects in humans with information on associations with exposure to the identified PFAS. Systematic review methods were used to search for literature that was screened using machine-learning software and manual review. Studies meeting the PECO criteria underwent quantitative data extraction and evaluation for risk of bias and sensitivity using the Integrated Risk Information System approach. RESULTS 193 epidemiology studies were identified, which included information on 15 of the PFAS of interest. The most commonly studied health effect categories were metabolic (n=37), endocrine (n=30), cardiovascular (30), female reproductive (n=27), developmental (n=26), immune (n=22), nervous (n=21), male reproductive (n=14), cancer (n=12), and urinary (n=11) effects. In study evaluation, 120 (62%) studies were considered High/Medium confidence for at least one outcome. DISCUSSION Most of the PFAS in this SEM have little to no epidemiology data available to inform evaluation of potential health effects. Although exposure to the 15 PFAS that had data was fairly low in most studies, these less-studied PFAS may be used as replacements for "legacy" PFAS, leading to potentially greater exposure. It is impractical to generate epidemiology evidence to fill the existing gaps for all potentially relevant PFAS. This SEM highlights some of the important research gaps that currently exist. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP11185.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Elizabeth G. Radke
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, District of Columbia, USA
| | - J. Michael Wright
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
| | - Krista Christensen
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, District of Columbia, USA
| | | | | | | | - Kristina A. Thayer
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Durham, North Carolina, USA
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Krewski D, Saunders-Hastings P, Baan RA, Barton-Maclaren TS, Browne P, Chiu WA, Gwinn M, Hartung T, Kraft AD, Lam J, Lewis RJ, Sanaa M, Morgan RL, Paoli G, Rhomberg L, Rooney A, Sand S, Schünemann HJ, Straif K, Thayer KA, Tsaioun K. Development of an Evidence-Based Risk Assessment Framework. ALTEX 2022; 39:667-693. [PMID: 36098377 PMCID: PMC10080579 DOI: 10.14573/altex.2004041] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/07/2020] [Accepted: 06/29/2021] [Indexed: 11/23/2022]
Abstract
Assessment of potential human health risks associated with environmental and other agents requires careful evaluation of all available and relevant evidence for the agent of interest, including both data-rich and data-poor agents. With the advent of new approach methodologies in toxicological risk assessment, guidance on integrating evidence from mul-tiple evidence streams is needed to ensure that all available data is given due consideration in both qualitative and quantitative risk assessment. The present report summarizes the discussions among academic, government, and private sector participants from North America and Europe in an international workshop convened to explore the development of an evidence-based risk assessment framework, taking into account all available evidence in an appropriate manner in order to arrive at the best possible characterization of potential human health risks and associated uncertainty. Although consensus among workshop participants was not a specific goal, there was general agreement on the key consider-ations involved in evidence-based risk assessment incorporating 21st century science into human health risk assessment. These considerations have been embodied into an overarching prototype framework for evidence integration that will be explored in more depth in a follow-up meeting.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Daniel Krewski
- School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada
- McLaughlin Centre for Population Health Risk Assessment, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada
- Risk Sciences International, Ottawa, Canada
| | | | - Robert A. Baan
- The IARC Monographs Programme, International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France (retired)
| | | | - Patience Browne
- Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris, France
| | - Weihsueh A. Chiu
- Department of Veterinary Physiology and Pharmacology, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, USA
| | - Maureen Gwinn
- Office of Research and Development, US Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, USA
| | - Thomas Hartung
- Chair for Evidence-based Toxicology and Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing (CAAT), Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, USA
- CAAT-Europe, University of Konstanz, Konstanz, Germany
| | - Andrew D. Kraft
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Chemical & Pollutant Assessment Division, US EPA, DC, USA
| | - Juleen Lam
- Department of Public Health at California State University, East Bay, USA
| | - R. Jeffrey Lewis
- ExxonMobil Biomedical Sciences, Annandale, New Jersey, USA (retired)
| | - Moez Sanaa
- Agence Nationale Sécurité Sanitaire Alimentaire Nationale, Paris, France
| | | | - Greg Paoli
- Risk Sciences International, Ottawa, Canada
| | | | - Andrew Rooney
- Integrative Health Assessments Branch, National Toxicology Program, US National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, USA
| | - Salomon Sand
- Department of Risk and Benefit Assessment, Swedish Food Agency, Uppsala, Sweden
| | | | - Kurt Straif
- The IARC Monographs Programme, International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France (retired)
| | - Kristina A Thayer
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Chemical & Pollutant Assessment Division, US EPA, NC, USA
| | - Katya Tsaioun
- Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA, USA ISGlobal, Barcelona, Spain
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Carlson LM, Angrish M, Shirke AV, Radke EG, Schulz B, Kraft A, Judson R, Patlewicz G, Blain R, Lin C, Vetter N, Lemeris C, Hartman P, Hubbard H, Arzuaga X, Davis A, Dishaw LV, Druwe IL, Hollinger H, Jones R, Kaiser JP, Lizarraga L, Noyes PD, Taylor M, Shapiro AJ, Williams AJ, Thayer KA. Systematic Evidence Map for Over One Hundred and Fifty Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS). Environ Health Perspect 2022; 130:56001. [PMID: 35580034 PMCID: PMC9113544 DOI: 10.1289/ehp10343] [Citation(s) in RCA: 24] [Impact Index Per Article: 12.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/17/2021] [Revised: 03/28/2022] [Accepted: 03/29/2022] [Indexed: 05/05/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a large class of synthetic (man-made) chemicals widely used in consumer products and industrial processes. Thousands of distinct PFAS exist in commerce. The 2019 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Action Plan outlines a multiprogram national research plan to address the challenge of PFAS. One component of this strategy involves the use of systematic evidence map (SEM) approaches to characterize the evidence base for hundreds of PFAS. OBJECTIVE SEM methods were used to summarize available epidemiological and animal bioassay evidence for a set of ∼ 150 PFAS that were prioritized in 2019 by the U.S. EPA's Center for Computational Toxicology and Exposure (CCTE) for in vitro toxicity and toxicokinetic assay testing. METHODS Systematic review methods were used to identify and screen literature using manual review and machine-learning software. The Populations, Exposures, Comparators, and Outcomes (PECO) criteria were kept broad to identify mammalian animal bioassay and epidemiological studies that could inform human hazard identification. A variety of supplemental content was also tracked, including information on in vitro model systems; exposure measurement-only studies in humans; and absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion (ADME). Animal bioassay and epidemiology studies meeting PECO criteria were summarized with respect to study design, and health system(s) were assessed. Because animal bioassay studies with ≥ 21 -d exposure duration (or reproductive/developmental study design) were most useful to CCTE analyses, these studies underwent study evaluation and detailed data extraction. All data extraction is publicly available online as interactive visuals with downloadable metadata. RESULTS More than 40,000 studies were identified from scientific databases. Screening processes identified 44 animal and 148 epidemiology studies from the peer-reviewed literature and 95 animal and 50 epidemiology studies from gray literature that met PECO criteria. Epidemiological evidence (available for 15 PFAS) mostly assessed the reproductive, endocrine, developmental, metabolic, cardiovascular, and immune systems. Animal evidence (available for 40 PFAS) commonly assessed effects in the reproductive, developmental, urinary, immunological, and hepatic systems. Overall, 45 PFAS had evidence across animal and epidemiology data streams. DISCUSSION Many of the ∼ 150 PFAS were data poor. Epidemiological and animal evidence were lacking for most of the PFAS included in our search. By disseminating this information, we hope to facilitate additional assessment work by providing the initial scoping literature survey and identifying key research needs. Future research on data-poor PFAS will help support a more complete understanding of the potential health effects from PFAS exposures. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP10343.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Laura M Carlson
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Health & Environmental Effects Assessment Division (HEEAD), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), Durham, North Carolina, USA
| | - Michelle Angrish
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Chemical & Pollutant Assessment Division (CPAD), U.S. EPA, Durham, North Carolina, USA
| | - Avanti V Shirke
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Chemical & Pollutant Assessment Division (CPAD), U.S. EPA, Washington, District of Columbia, USA
| | - Elizabeth G Radke
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Chemical & Pollutant Assessment Division (CPAD), U.S. EPA, Washington, District of Columbia, USA
| | - Brittany Schulz
- Oak Ridge Associated Universities (ORAU), Oak Ridge, Tennessee, USA
| | - Andrew Kraft
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Chemical & Pollutant Assessment Division (CPAD), U.S. EPA, Washington, District of Columbia, USA
| | - Richard Judson
- Center for Computational Toxicology and Exposure (CCTE), U.S. EPA, Durham, North Carolina, USA
| | - Grace Patlewicz
- Center for Computational Toxicology and Exposure (CCTE), U.S. EPA, Durham, North Carolina, USA
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Xabier Arzuaga
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Chemical & Pollutant Assessment Division (CPAD), U.S. EPA, Washington, District of Columbia, USA
| | - Allen Davis
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Chemical & Pollutant Assessment Division (CPAD), U.S. EPA, Washington, District of Columbia, USA
| | - Laura V Dishaw
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Chemical & Pollutant Assessment Division (CPAD), U.S. EPA, Durham, North Carolina, USA
| | - Ingrid L Druwe
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Chemical & Pollutant Assessment Division (CPAD), U.S. EPA, Durham, North Carolina, USA
| | - Hillary Hollinger
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Health & Environmental Effects Assessment Division (HEEAD), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), Durham, North Carolina, USA
| | - Ryan Jones
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Health & Environmental Effects Assessment Division (HEEAD), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), Durham, North Carolina, USA
| | - J Phillip Kaiser
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Chemical & Pollutant Assessment Division (CPAD), U.S. EPA, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
| | - Lucina Lizarraga
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Chemical & Pollutant Assessment Division (CPAD), U.S. EPA, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
| | - Pamela D Noyes
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Chemical & Pollutant Assessment Division (CPAD), U.S. EPA, Washington, District of Columbia, USA
| | - Michele Taylor
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Chemical & Pollutant Assessment Division (CPAD), U.S. EPA, Durham, North Carolina, USA
| | - Andrew J Shapiro
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Health & Environmental Effects Assessment Division (HEEAD), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), Durham, North Carolina, USA
| | - Antony J Williams
- Center for Computational Toxicology and Exposure (CCTE), U.S. EPA, Durham, North Carolina, USA
| | - Kristina A Thayer
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Chemical & Pollutant Assessment Division (CPAD), U.S. EPA, Durham, North Carolina, USA
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Whaley P, Piggott T, Morgan RL, Hoffmann S, Tsaioun K, Schwingshackl L, Ansari MT, Thayer KA, Schünemann HJ. Biological plausibility in environmental health systematic reviews: a GRADE concept paper. Environ Int 2022; 162:107109. [PMID: 35305498 DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2022.107109] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/20/2021] [Revised: 01/19/2022] [Accepted: 01/20/2022] [Indexed: 05/11/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND "Biological plausibility" is a concept frequently referred to in environmental and public health when researchers are evaluating how confident they are in the results and inferences of a study or evidence review. Biological plausibility is not, however, a domain of one of the most widely-used approaches for assessing the certainty of evidence (CoE) which underpins the findings of a systematic review, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) CoE Framework. Whether the omission of biological plausibility is a potential limitation of the GRADE CoE Framework is a topic that is regularly discussed, especially in the context of environmental health systematic reviews. OBJECTIVES We analyse how the concept of "biological plausibility", as applied in the context of assessing certainty of the evidence that supports the findings of a systematic review, is accommodated under the processes of systematic review and the existing GRADE domains. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION We argue that "biological plausibility" is a concept which primarily comes into play when direct evidence about the effects of an exposure on a population of concern (usually humans) is absent, at high risk of bias, is inconsistent, or limited in other ways. In such circumstances, researchers look toward evidence from other study designs in order to draw conclusions. In this respect, we can consider experimental animal and in vitro evidence as "surrogates" for the target populations, exposures, comparators and outcomes of actual interest. Through discussion of 10 examples of experimental surrogates, we propose that the concept of biological plausibility consists of two principal aspects: a "generalisability aspect" and a "mechanistic aspect". The "generalisability aspect" concerns the validity of inferences from experimental models to human scenarios, and asks the same question as does the assessment of external validity or indirectness in systematic reviews. The "mechanistic aspect" concerns certainty in knowledge of biological mechanisms and would inform judgements of indirectness under GRADE, and thus the overall CoE. While both aspects are accommodated under the indirectness domain of the GRADE CoE Framework, further research is needed to determine how to use knowledge of biological mechanisms in the assessment of indirectness of the evidence in systematic reviews.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Paul Whaley
- Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, UK; Evidence-based Toxicology Collaboration at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health (EBTC), USA
| | - Thomas Piggott
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, 1280 Main St West, Hamilton, ON L8N 3Z5, Canada
| | - Rebecca L Morgan
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, 1280 Main St West, Hamilton, ON L8N 3Z5, Canada
| | - Sebastian Hoffmann
- Evidence-based Toxicology Collaboration at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health (EBTC), USA
| | - Katya Tsaioun
- Evidence-based Toxicology Collaboration at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health (EBTC), USA
| | - Lukas Schwingshackl
- Institute for Evidence in Medicine, Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
| | - Mohammed T Ansari
- School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Room 101, 600 Peter Morand Crescent, Ottawa, Ontario K1G 5Z3, Canada
| | - Kristina A Thayer
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), Office of Research and Development, Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment (CPHEA), Chemical Pollutant Assessment Division (CPAD), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (8623R), Washington, DC 20460, USA
| | - Holger J Schünemann
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, 1280 Main St West, Hamilton, ON L8N 3Z5, Canada; Michael G DeGroote Cochrane Canada and McMaster GRADE Centres, McMaster University, HSC-2C, 1280 Main St West, Hamilton, ON L8N 3Z5, Canada; Dipartimento di Scienze Biomediche, Humanitas University, Via Rita Levi Montalcini, 4, 20090 Pieve Emanuele, Milan, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Wilkins AA, Whaley P, Persad AS, Druwe IL, Lee JS, Taylor MM, Shapiro AJ, Blanton Southard N, Lemeris C, Thayer KA. Assessing author willingness to enter study information into structured data templates as part of the manuscript submission process: A pilot study. Heliyon 2022; 8:e09095. [PMID: 35846467 PMCID: PMC9280381 DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e09095] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/06/2021] [Revised: 02/16/2022] [Accepted: 03/08/2022] [Indexed: 12/04/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Environmental health and other researchers can benefit from automated or semi-automated summaries of data within published studies as summarizing study methods and results is time and resource intensive. Automated summaries can be designed to identify and extract details of interest pertaining to the study design, population, testing agent/intervention, or outcome (etc.). Much of the data reported across existing publications lack unified structure, standardization and machine-readable formats or may be presented in complex tables which serve as barriers that impede the development of automated data extraction methodologies. As full automation of data extraction seems unlikely soon, encouraging investigators to submit structured summaries of methods and results in standardized formats with meta-data tagging of content may be of value during the publication process. This would produce machine-readable content to facilitate automated data extraction, establish sharable data repositories, help make research data FAIR, and could improve reporting quality. Objectives A pilot study was conducted to assess the feasibility of asking participants to summarize study methods and results using a structured, web-based data extraction model as a potential workflow that could be implemented during the manuscript submission process. Methods Eight participants entered study details and data into the Health Assessment Workplace Collaborative (HAWC). Participants were surveyed after the extraction exercise to ascertain 1) whether this extraction exercise will impact their conducting and reporting of future research, 2) the ease of data extraction, including which fields were easiest and relatively more problematic to extract and 3) the amount of time taken to perform data extractions and other related tasks. Investigators then presented participants the potential benefits of providing structured data in the format they were extracting. After this, participants were surveyed about 1) their willingness to provide structured data during the publication process and 2) whether they felt the potential application of structured data entry approaches and their implementation during the journal submission process should continue to be further explored. Conclusions Routine provision of structured data that summarizes key information from research studies could reduce the amount of effort required for reusing that data in the future, such as in systematic reviews or agency scientific assessments. Our pilot study suggests that directly asking authors to provide that data, via structured templates, may be a viable approach to achieving this: participants were willing to do so, and the overall process was not prohibitively arduous. We also found some support for the hypothesis that use of study templates may have halo benefits in improving the conduct and completeness of reporting of future research. While limitations in the generalizability of our findings mean that the conditions of success of templates cannot be assumed, further research into how such templates might be designed and implemented does seem to have enough chance of success that it ought to be undertaken.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- A. Amina Wilkins
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment (CPHEA), Washington, DC, USA
- Corresponding author.
| | - Paul Whaley
- Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK
- Evidence-Based Toxicology Collaboration, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA
| | - Amanda S. Persad
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment (CPHEA), Washington, DC, USA
| | - Ingrid L. Druwe
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment (CPHEA), Washington, DC, USA
| | - Janice S. Lee
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment (CPHEA), Washington, DC, USA
| | - Michele M. Taylor
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment (CPHEA), Washington, DC, USA
| | - Andrew J. Shapiro
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment (CPHEA), Washington, DC, USA
| | | | | | - Kristina A. Thayer
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment (CPHEA), Washington, DC, USA
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Sasso AF, Pirow R, Andra SS, Church R, Nachman RM, Linke S, Kapraun DF, Schurman SH, Arora M, Thayer KA, Bucher JR, Birnbaum LS. Pharmacokinetics of bisphenol A in humans following dermal administration. Environ Int 2020; 144:106031. [PMID: 32798798 PMCID: PMC9210257 DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2020.106031] [Citation(s) in RCA: 25] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/06/2020] [Revised: 07/29/2020] [Accepted: 07/31/2020] [Indexed: 05/27/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Human exposures to bisphenol A (BPA) are widespread. The current study addresses uncertainties regarding human pharmacokinetics of BPA following dermal exposure. OBJECTIVE To examine the absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion of BPA in humans following dermal administration. METHODS We dermally administered deuterated BPA (d6-BPA) to 10 subjects (6 men and 4 women) at a dose of 100 µg/kg over a 12-hour period and conducted blood and urine analysis from the beginning of dosing through a three- or six-day period. We present time-course serum and urine concentrations of total and unconjugated ("free") d6-BPA and used this information to calculate terminal half-life and area under the curve. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS Detectable serum levels of total d6-BPA were observed at 1.4 h after the start of dosing, and a maximum serum concentration (Cmax) of 3.26 nM was observed. Free d6-BPA was detectable in serum 2.8 h after start of dermal administration, with Cmax of 0.272 nM. Beginning at approximately seven hours and continuing to 12 h (which corresponds to cessation of exposure), the concentration of free and total serum d6-BPA plateaued. The terminal half-lives of total d6-BPA and free d6-BPA in the body were 21.4 ± 9.81 h and 17.6 ± 7.69 h, respectively. Elimination from the body was rate-limited by kinetics in the dermal compartment. Free d6-BPA was a greater percentage of the area under the curve of total serum BPA (8.81%) compared to the 0.56% observed in our previously published oral study. Recovery of total d6-BPA in urine was <2% of the applied dose after six days. Analysis of the area under the curve for dermal and oral administration revealed that 2.2% of the dermal dose became systemically available. These data are in line with prior studies indicating how pharmacokinetics of BPA differ following oral and dermal exposures. Dermal exposure resulted in a longer apparent half-life and higher free:total d6-BPA ratio compared to oral.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alan F Sasso
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), Office of Research and Development, Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment (CPHEA), Chemical Pollutant Assessment Division (CPAD), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (8623R), Washington, DC 20460, USA.
| | - Ralph Pirow
- German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), Department of Chemical and Product Safety, Max-Dohrn-Strasse 8-10, 10589 Berlin, Germany.
| | - Syam S Andra
- Exposure Biology, Senator Frank R. Lautenberg Environmental Health Sciences Laboratory, Department of Environmental Medicine and Public Health, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY 10029, USA.
| | - Rebecca Church
- Clinical Research Unit, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), National Institutes of Health (NIH), Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), P.O. Box 12233, Mail Drop CU-01, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA.
| | - Rebecca M Nachman
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), Office of Research and Development, Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment (CPHEA), Chemical Pollutant Assessment Division (CPAD), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (8623R), Washington, DC 20460, USA.
| | - Susanne Linke
- German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), Department of Chemical and Product Safety, Max-Dohrn-Strasse 8-10, 10589 Berlin, Germany.
| | - Dustin F Kapraun
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), Office of Research and Development, Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment (CPHEA), Chemical Pollutant Assessment Division (CPAD), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (8623R), Washington, DC 20460, USA.
| | - Shepherd H Schurman
- Clinical Research Unit, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), National Institutes of Health (NIH), Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), P.O. Box 12233, Mail Drop CU-01, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA.
| | - Manish Arora
- Exposure Biology, Senator Frank R. Lautenberg Environmental Health Sciences Laboratory, Department of Environmental Medicine and Public Health, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY 10029, USA.
| | - Kristina A Thayer
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), Office of Research and Development, Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment (CPHEA), Chemical Pollutant Assessment Division (CPAD), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (8623R), Washington, DC 20460, USA.
| | - John R Bucher
- Division of the National Toxicology Program (NTP), National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), National Institutes of Health (NIH), Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), P.O. Box 12233, Mail Drop K2-02, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA.
| | - Linda S Birnbaum
- Division of the National Toxicology Program (NTP), National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), National Institutes of Health (NIH), Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), P.O. Box 12233, Mail Drop B2-01, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Blessinger T, Davis A, Chiu WA, Stanek J, Woodall GM, Gift J, Thayer KA, Bussard D. Application of a unified probabilistic framework to the dose-response assessment of acrolein. Environ Int 2020; 143:105953. [PMID: 32768806 PMCID: PMC7877001 DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2020.105953] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/04/2020] [Revised: 05/26/2020] [Accepted: 07/02/2020] [Indexed: 06/11/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND In quantitative chemical risk assessment, a reference value is an estimate of an exposure to a chemical that is "likely to be without appreciable risk." Because current "deterministic" approaches do not quantitatively characterize the likelihood or severity of harm, the National Academies has recommended using reference values derived from a risk-specific dose that are treated as random variables, with probability distributions characterizing uncertainty and variability. OBJECTIVES In order to build familiarity and address issues needed for routine and standardized derivation of probabilistic risk-specific dose distributions, a case example applying the unified probabilistic framework presented in Chiu and Slob (2015) is developed for acrolein. This case study is based on an updated systematic evidence map of literature (Keshava et al., 2020) identifying nasal lesions reported in Dorman et al. (2008) as the most appropriate endpoint and study for reference value derivation. METHODS The probability distribution was calculated for the risk-specific dose, which in this implementation of the approach was calculated for the dose at which 1% of the human population is estimated to experience minimal lesions, and a probabilistic reference value was computed as the 5th percentile of this distribution. A deterministic reference value was also derived for comparison, and a sensitivity analysis of the probabilistic reference value was conducted investigating alternative assumptions for the point of departure type and exposure duration. RESULTS The probabilistic reference value of 6 × 10-4 mg/m3 was slightly lower than the deterministic reference value of 8 × 10-4 mg/m3, and the risk-specific dose distribution had an uncertainty spanning a factor of 137 (95th-5th percentile ratio). Sensitivity analysis yielded slightly higher probabilistic reference values ranging between 9 × 10-4 mg/m3 and 2 × 10-3 mg/m3. CONCLUSIONS Using a probabilistic approach for deriving a reference value allows quantitative characterization of the severity, incidence, and uncertainty of effects at a given dose. The results can be used to inform risk management decisions and improve risk communication.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Todd Blessinger
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment (CPHEA), United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), Mail code 8623R, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington, DC 20460, USA.
| | - Allen Davis
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment (CPHEA), United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), Mail code 8623R, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington, DC 20460, USA.
| | - Weihsueh A Chiu
- Department of Veterinary Integrative Biosciences, 4458 TAMU, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-4458, USA.
| | - John Stanek
- CPHEA, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, US EPA, Mail code B243-01, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, USA.
| | - George M Woodall
- CPHEA, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, US EPA, Mail code B243-01, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, USA.
| | - Jeff Gift
- CPHEA, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, US EPA, Mail code B243-01, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, USA.
| | - Kristina A Thayer
- CPHEA, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, US EPA, Mail code B243-01, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, USA.
| | - David Bussard
- Office of the Science Advisor, Policy and Engagement, US EPA, 1300 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Mail code 8104R, Washington, DC 20460, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Keshava C, Davis JA, Stanek J, Thayer KA, Galizia A, Keshava N, Gift J, Vulimiri SV, Woodall G, Gigot C, Garcia K, Greenhalgh A, Schulz B, Volkoff S, Camargo K, Persad AS. Application of systematic evidence mapping to assess the impact of new research when updating health reference values: A case example using acrolein. Environ Int 2020; 143:105956. [PMID: 32702594 PMCID: PMC7917575 DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2020.105956] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/23/2019] [Revised: 06/30/2020] [Accepted: 07/02/2020] [Indexed: 05/19/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The environmental health community needs transparent, methodologically rigorous, and rapid approaches for updating human health risk assessments. These assessments often contain reference values for cancer and/or noncancer effects. Increasingly, the use of systematic review methods are preferred when developing these assessments. Systematic evidence maps are a type of analysis that has the potential to be very helpful in the update process, especially when combined with machine-learning software advances designed to expedite the process of conducting a review. OBJECTIVES To evaluate the applicability of evidence mapping to determine whether new evidence is likely to result in a change to an existing health reference value, using inhalation exposure to the air pollutant acrolein as a case example. METHODS New literature published since the 2008 California Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Reference Exposure Level (REL) for acrolein was assessed. Systematic review methods were used to search the literature and screening included the use of machine-learning software. The Populations, Exposures, Comparators and Outcomes (PECO) criteria were kept broad to identify studies that characterized acute and chronic exposure and could be informative for hazard characterization. Studies that met the PECO criteria after full-text review were briefly summarized before their suitability for chronic point of departure (POD) derivation and calculation of a reference value was considered. Studies considered potentially suitable underwent a targeted evaluation to determine their suitability for use in dose-response analysis. RESULTS Over 15,000 studies were identified from scientific databases. Both machine-learning and manual screening processes were used to identify 60 studies considered PECO-relevant after full-text review. Most of these PECO-relevant studies were short-term exposure animal studies (acute or less than 1 month of exposure) and considered less suitable for deriving a chronic reference value when compared to the subchronic study in rats used in the 2008 OEHHA assessment. Thirteen epidemiological studies were identified but had limitations in the exposure assessment that made them less suitable for dose-response compared to the subchronic rat study. Among the 13 studies, there were four controlled trial studies that have the potential to be informative for future acute reference value derivation. Thus, the 2008 subchronic rat study used by OEHHA appears to still be the most appropriate study for chronic reference value derivation. In addition, advances in dosimetric modeling for gases, including new evidence pertinent to acrolein, could be considered when updating existing acrolein toxicity values. CONCLUSIONS Evidence mapping is a very useful tool to assess the need for updating an assessment based on understanding the potential impact of new studies on revising an existing health reference value. In this case example, the focus was to identify studies suitable for chronic exposure dose-response analysis, while also identifying studies that may be important to consider for acute exposure scenarios, hazard identification, or for future research. This allows the evidence map to be a useful resource for a range of decision-making contexts. Specialized systematic review software increased the efficiency of the process in terms of human resources and time to conduct the analysis.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Channa Keshava
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, US EPA, NC, USA.
| | - J Allen Davis
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, US EPA, NC, USA.
| | - John Stanek
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, US EPA, NC, USA.
| | - Kristina A Thayer
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, US EPA, NC, USA.
| | - Audrey Galizia
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, US EPA, NC, USA.
| | | | - Jeff Gift
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, US EPA, NC, USA.
| | | | - George Woodall
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, US EPA, NC, USA.
| | - Carolyn Gigot
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, US EPA, NC, USA.
| | - Kelly Garcia
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, US EPA, NC, USA.
| | - Andrew Greenhalgh
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, US EPA, NC, USA.
| | - Brittany Schulz
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, US EPA, NC, USA.
| | | | - Krisa Camargo
- Veterinary Integrative Biosciences and Geochemical Environmental Research Group, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA.
| | - Amanda S Persad
- Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, US EPA, NC, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Brozek JL, Canelo-Aybar C, Akl EA, Bowen JM, Bucher J, Chiu WA, Cronin M, Djulbegovic B, Falavigna M, Guyatt GH, Gordon AA, Hilton Boon M, Hutubessy RCW, Joore MA, Katikireddi V, LaKind J, Langendam M, Manja V, Magnuson K, Mathioudakis AG, Meerpohl J, Mertz D, Mezencev R, Morgan R, Morgano GP, Mustafa R, O'Flaherty M, Patlewicz G, Riva JJ, Posso M, Rooney A, Schlosser PM, Schwartz L, Shemilt I, Tarride JE, Thayer KA, Tsaioun K, Vale L, Wambaugh J, Wignall J, Williams A, Xie F, Zhang Y, Schünemann HJ. GRADE Guidelines 30: the GRADE approach to assessing the certainty of modeled evidence-An overview in the context of health decision-making. J Clin Epidemiol 2020; 129:138-150. [PMID: 32980429 DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.09.018] [Citation(s) in RCA: 64] [Impact Index Per Article: 16.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/21/2020] [Revised: 09/08/2020] [Accepted: 09/17/2020] [Indexed: 12/12/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES The objective of the study is to present the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) conceptual approach to the assessment of certainty of evidence from modeling studies (i.e., certainty associated with model outputs). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING Expert consultations and an international multidisciplinary workshop informed development of a conceptual approach to assessing the certainty of evidence from models within the context of systematic reviews, health technology assessments, and health care decisions. The discussions also clarified selected concepts and terminology used in the GRADE approach and by the modeling community. Feedback from experts in a broad range of modeling and health care disciplines addressed the content validity of the approach. RESULTS Workshop participants agreed that the domains determining the certainty of evidence previously identified in the GRADE approach (risk of bias, indirectness, inconsistency, imprecision, reporting bias, magnitude of an effect, dose-response relation, and the direction of residual confounding) also apply when assessing the certainty of evidence from models. The assessment depends on the nature of model inputs and the model itself and on whether one is evaluating evidence from a single model or multiple models. We propose a framework for selecting the best available evidence from models: 1) developing de novo, a model specific to the situation of interest, 2) identifying an existing model, the outputs of which provide the highest certainty evidence for the situation of interest, either "off-the-shelf" or after adaptation, and 3) using outputs from multiple models. We also present a summary of preferred terminology to facilitate communication among modeling and health care disciplines. CONCLUSION This conceptual GRADE approach provides a framework for using evidence from models in health decision-making and the assessment of certainty of evidence from a model or models. The GRADE Working Group and the modeling community are currently developing the detailed methods and related guidance for assessing specific domains determining the certainty of evidence from models across health care-related disciplines (e.g., therapeutic decision-making, toxicology, environmental health, and health economics).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jan L Brozek
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; McMaster GRADE Centre & Michael DeGroote Cochrane Canada Centre, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Carlos Canelo-Aybar
- Department of Paediatrics, Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Preventive Medicine, and Public Health. PhD Programme in Methodology of Biomedical Research and Public Health. Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Bellaterra, Spain; Iberoamerican Cochrane Center, Biomedical Research Institute (IIB Sant Pau-CIBERESP), Barcelona, Spain
| | - Elie A Akl
- Department of Internal Medicine, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon
| | - James M Bowen
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; Toronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment (THETA) Collaborative, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - John Bucher
- National Toxicology Program, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Durham, NC, USA
| | - Weihsueh A Chiu
- Department of Veterinary Integrative Biosciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA
| | - Mark Cronin
- School of Pharmacy and Chemistry, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, UK
| | - Benjamin Djulbegovic
- Center for Evidence-Based Medicine and Health Outcome Research, Morsani College of Medicine, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida, USA
| | - Maicon Falavigna
- Institute for Education and Research, Hospital Moinhos de Vento, Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
| | - Gordon H Guyatt
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; McMaster GRADE Centre & Michael DeGroote Cochrane Canada Centre, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | | | | | - Raymond C W Hutubessy
- Department of Immunization, Vaccines and Biologicals, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Manuela A Joore
- Clinical Epidemiology and Medical Technology Assessment, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, the Netherlands
| | | | - Judy LaKind
- LaKind Associates, LLC, Catonsville, MD, USA; Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Miranda Langendam
- Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Biostatistics, and Bioinformatics, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Veena Manja
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; Department of Surgery, University of California Davis, Sacramento, CA, USA; Department of Medicine, Department of Veterans Affairs, Northern California Health Care System, Mather, CA, USA
| | | | - Alexander G Mathioudakis
- Division of Infection, Immunity and Respiratory Medicine, University Hospital of South Manchester, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Joerg Meerpohl
- Institute for Evidence in Medicine, Medical Center, University of Freiburg, Freiburg-am-Breisgau, Germany; Cochrane Germany, Freiburg-am-Breisgau, Germany
| | - Dominik Mertz
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Roman Mezencev
- National Center for Environmental Assessment, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Rebecca Morgan
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Gian Paolo Morgano
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; McMaster GRADE Centre & Michael DeGroote Cochrane Canada Centre, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Reem Mustafa
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; Department of Medicine, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS, USA
| | - Martin O'Flaherty
- Institute of Population Health Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
| | - Grace Patlewicz
- National Center for Computational Toxicology, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Durham, NC, USA
| | - John J Riva
- McMaster GRADE Centre & Michael DeGroote Cochrane Canada Centre, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; Department of Family Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Margarita Posso
- Iberoamerican Cochrane Center, Biomedical Research Institute (IIB Sant Pau-CIBERESP), Barcelona, Spain
| | - Andrew Rooney
- National Toxicology Program, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Durham, NC, USA
| | - Paul M Schlosser
- National Center for Environmental Assessment, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Lisa Schwartz
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Ian Shemilt
- EPPI-Centre, Institute of Education, University College London, London, UK
| | - Jean-Eric Tarride
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; Programs for Assessment of Technology in Health, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Kristina A Thayer
- Department of Medicine, Department of Veterans Affairs, Northern California Health Care System, Mather, CA, USA
| | - Katya Tsaioun
- Evidence-Based Toxicology Collaboration, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Luke Vale
- Health Economics Group, Institute of Health and Society, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | - John Wambaugh
- National Center for Computational Toxicology, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Durham, NC, USA
| | | | | | - Feng Xie
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Yuan Zhang
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; Health Quality Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Holger J Schünemann
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; McMaster GRADE Centre & Michael DeGroote Cochrane Canada Centre, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Radke EG, Galizia A, Thayer KA, Cooper GS. Phthalate exposure and metabolic effects: a systematic review of the human epidemiological evidence. Environ Int 2019; 132:104768. [PMID: 31196577 PMCID: PMC9472300 DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2019.04.040] [Citation(s) in RCA: 95] [Impact Index Per Article: 19.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/22/2018] [Revised: 04/15/2019] [Accepted: 04/17/2019] [Indexed: 05/15/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE We performed a systematic review of the epidemiology literature to identify the metabolic effects associated with phthalate exposure. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA Six phthalates were included in the review: di(2‑ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP), diisononyl phthalate (DINP), dibutyl phthalate (DBP), diisobutyl phthalate (DIBP), butyl benzyl phthalate (BBP), and diethyl phthalate (DEP). The initial literature search (of PubMed, Web of Science, and Toxline) included all studies of metabolic effects in humans, and outcomes were selected for full systematic review based on data availability. STUDY EVALUATION AND SYNTHESIS METHODS Studies of diabetes and insulin resistance were evaluated using criteria defined a priori for risk of bias and sensitivity by two reviewers using a domain-based approach; studies identified with a pre-defined critical deficiency were excluded. Evidence was synthesized by outcome and phthalate and strength of evidence was summarized using a structured framework. Studies of obesity and renal effects received "screening level" reviews to determine whether full systematic review was warranted. RESULTS The primary outcomes reviewed here are (number of included/excluded studies in parentheses): type 2 diabetes (1/3), insulin resistance (13/3), and impaired glucose tolerance and blood glucose in pregnancy (4/2). For DEHP exposure, there was consistency among studies of insulin resistance and coherence with the single included study of diabetes, as well as an observed exposure-response gradient observed in a study of insulin resistance. This evidence is considered moderate. Similarly, for DBP and DIBP exposure, the evidence is considered moderate due to strong positive associations in the diabetes study and coherent results for insulin resistance. For DINP, BBP, and DEP, the evidence is considered slight. No association was reported in the single study of diabetes with BBP and DEP exposure (DINP was not investigated). The available evidence does indicate an association between exposure to these phthalates and insulin resistance, but the small number of studies and the lack of coherence with diabetes decreases confidence. The screening level reviews for obesity and renal effects determined that the currently available evidence is inadequate to assess the associations between these outcomes and phthalate exposure. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF KEY FINDINGS Overall, these results support that phthalate exposure at levels seen in human populations may have metabolic effects. Given the mechanistic support, the large effect sizes for incident diabetes in the single available study, and the coherence with insulin resistance, the association between phthalate exposure and diabetes risk should be considered when assessing the risks and costs of exposure to specific phthalates in humans. The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views or policies of the U.S. EPA.
Collapse
|
18
|
Pelch KE, Li Y, Perera L, Thayer KA, Korach KS. Characterization of Estrogenic and Androgenic Activities for Bisphenol A-like Chemicals (BPs): In Vitro Estrogen and Androgen Receptors Transcriptional Activation, Gene Regulation, and Binding Profiles. Toxicol Sci 2019; 172:23-37. [PMID: 31388671 PMCID: PMC6813750 DOI: 10.1093/toxsci/kfz173] [Citation(s) in RCA: 68] [Impact Index Per Article: 13.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/02/2018] [Revised: 06/27/2019] [Accepted: 07/28/2019] [Indexed: 11/14/2022] Open
Abstract
Bisphenol A (BPA) is a high production volume chemical widely used in plastics, food packaging, and many other products. It is well known that endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDC) might be harmful to human health due to interference with normal hormone actions. Recent studies report widespread usage and exposure to many BPA-like chemicals (BPs) that are structurally or functionally similar to BPA. However, the biological actions and toxicity of those BPs are still relatively unknown. To address this data gap, we used in vitro cell models to evaluate the ability of twenty-two BPs to induce or inhibit estrogenic and androgenic activity. BPA, Bisphenol AF (BPAF), bisphenol Z (BPZ), bisphenol C (BPC), tetramethyl bisphenol A (TMBPA), bisphenol S (BPS), bisphenol E (BPE), 4,4-bisphenol F (4,4-BPF), bisphenol AP (BPAP), bisphenol B (BPB), tetrachlorobisphenol A (TCBPA), and benzylparaben (PHBB) induced estrogen receptor (ER)α and/or ERβ-mediated activity. With the exception of BPS, TCBPA, and PHBB, these same BPs were also androgen receptor (AR) antagonists. Only three BPs were found to be ER antagonists. Bisphenol P (BPP) selectively inhibited ERβ-mediated activity and 4-(4-phenylmethoxyphenyl)sulfonylphenol (BPS-MPE) and 2,4-bisphenol S (2,4-BPS) selectively inhibited ERα-mediated activity. None of the BPs induced AR mediated activity. In addition, we identify that the BPs can bind to ER or AR with varying degrees by a molecular modeling analysis. Taken together, these findings help us to understand the molecular mechanism of BPs and further consideration of their usage in consumer products.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Yin Li
- Reproductive and Developmental Biology Laboratory
| | - Lalith Perera
- Genome Integrity and Structure Biology Laboratory, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
19
|
Morgan RL, Beverly B, Ghersi D, Schünemann HJ, Rooney AA, Whaley P, Zhu YG, Thayer KA. GRADE guidelines for environmental and occupational health: A new series of articles in Environment International. Environ Int 2019; 128:11-12. [PMID: 31029974 PMCID: PMC6737525 DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2019.04.016] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/05/2019] [Accepted: 04/05/2019] [Indexed: 05/04/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Rebecca L Morgan
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Health Sciences Centre, Room 2C14, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON L8S 4K1, Canada
| | - Brandy Beverly
- Division of the National Toxicology Program, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, P.O. Box 12233, Mail Drop K2-02, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA
| | - Davina Ghersi
- Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, New South Wales 2006, Australia; National Health and Medical Research Council, 16 Marcus Clarke Street, Canberra City, ACT 2601, Australia
| | - Holger J Schünemann
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Health Sciences Centre, Room 2C14, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON L8S 4K1, Canada; Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Health Sciences Centre, Room 2C14, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON L8S 4K1, Canada.
| | - Andrew A Rooney
- Division of the National Toxicology Program, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, P.O. Box 12233, Mail Drop K2-02, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA
| | - Paul Whaley
- Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 4YQ, UK
| | - Yong-Guan Zhu
- Environmental Soil Science and Biogeochemistry, Research Center for Eco-environmental Sciences, 18 Shuangqing Road, Haidian, Beijing 100085, China; Institute of Urban Environment, Chinese Academy of Sciences, 1799 Jimei Road, Xiamen 361021, China
| | - Kristina A Thayer
- Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) Division, National Center for Environmental Assessment (NCEA), Office of Research and Development, US Environmental Protection Agency, Building B (Room 211i), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, USA
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
O'Connor AM, Tsafnat G, Gilbert SB, Thayer KA, Shemilt I, Thomas J, Glasziou P, Wolfe MS. Still moving toward automation of the systematic review process: a summary of discussions at the third meeting of the International Collaboration for Automation of Systematic Reviews (ICASR). Syst Rev 2019; 8:57. [PMID: 30786933 PMCID: PMC6381675 DOI: 10.1186/s13643-019-0975-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 72] [Impact Index Per Article: 14.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/30/2018] [Accepted: 02/12/2019] [Indexed: 12/28/2022] Open
Abstract
The third meeting of the International Collaboration for Automation of Systematic Reviews (ICASR) was held 17-18 October 2017 in London, England. ICASR is an interdisciplinary group whose goal is to maximize the use of technology for conducting rapid, accurate, and efficient systematic reviews of scientific evidence. The group seeks to facilitate the development and widespread acceptance of automated techniques for systematic reviews. The meeting's conclusion was that the most pressing needs at present are to develop approaches for validating currently available tools and to provide increased access to curated corpora that can be used for validation. To that end, ICASR's short-term goals in 2018-2019 are to propose and publish protocols for key tasks in systematic reviews and to develop an approach for sharing curated corpora for validating the automation of the key tasks.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Annette M O'Connor
- College of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, 1800 Christensen Drive, Ames, IA, 50011, USA.
| | | | | | - Kristina A Thayer
- US Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, 27711, USA
| | - Ian Shemilt
- EPPI-Centre, University College London, London, WC1E 6BT, UK
| | - James Thomas
- EPPI-Centre, University College London, London, WC1E 6BT, UK
| | - Paul Glasziou
- Bond University, Robina, Queensland, 4226, Australia
| | - Mary S Wolfe
- National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, NC, 27709, USA
| |
Collapse
|
21
|
Morgan RL, Thayer KA, Santesso N, Holloway AC, Blain R, Eftim SE, Goldstone AE, Ross P, Ansari M, Akl EA, Filippini T, Hansell A, Meerpohl JJ, Mustafa RA, Verbeek J, Vinceti M, Whaley P, Schünemann HJ. A risk of bias instrument for non-randomized studies of exposures: A users' guide to its application in the context of GRADE. Environ Int 2019; 122:168-184. [PMID: 30473382 PMCID: PMC8221004 DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2018.11.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 147] [Impact Index Per Article: 29.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/14/2018] [Revised: 11/01/2018] [Accepted: 11/01/2018] [Indexed: 05/18/2023]
Abstract
The objective of this paper is to explain how to apply, interpret, and present the results of a new instrument to assess the risk of bias (RoB) in non-randomized studies (NRS) dealing with effects of environmental exposures on health outcomes. This instrument is modeled on the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) instrument. The RoB instrument for NRS of exposures assesses RoB along a standardized comparison to a randomized target experiment, instead of the study-design directed RoB approach. We provide specific guidance for the integral steps of developing a research question and target experiment, distinguishing issues of indirectness from RoB, making individual-study judgments, and performing and interpreting sensitivity analyses for RoB judgments across a body of evidence. Also, we present an approach for integrating the RoB assessments within the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework to assess the certainty of the evidence in the systematic review. Finally, we guide the reader through an overall assessment to support the rating of all domains that determine the certainty of a body of evidence using the GRADE approach.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rebecca L Morgan
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Health Sciences Centre, Room 2C14, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON L8S 4K1, Canada.
| | - Kristina A Thayer
- Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) Division, National Center for Environmental Assessment (NCEA), Office of Research and Development, US Environmental Protection Agency, Building B (Room 211i), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, USA.
| | - Nancy Santesso
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Health Sciences Centre, Room 2C14, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON L8S 4K1, Canada.
| | - Alison C Holloway
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, McMaster University, Health Sciences Centre, Room 3N52A, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON L8S 4K1, Canada.
| | - Robyn Blain
- ICF International Inc., 9300 Lee Highway, Fairfax, VA, USA.
| | - Sorina E Eftim
- ICF International Inc., 9300 Lee Highway, Fairfax, VA, USA.
| | | | - Pam Ross
- ICF International Inc., 9300 Lee Highway, Fairfax, VA, USA.
| | - Mohammed Ansari
- School of Epidemiology and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, ON K1H 8M5, Canada.
| | - Elie A Akl
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Health Sciences Centre, Room 2C14, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON L8S 4K1, Canada; Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, American University of Beirut, P.O. Box: 11-0236, Riad-El-Solh Beirut 1107 2020, Lebanon.
| | - Tommaso Filippini
- Department of Biomedical, Metabolic and Neural Sciences, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Italy.
| | - Anna Hansell
- MRC-PHE Centre for Environment and Health, Imperial College London, St Mary's Campus, Praed St, Paddington, London W2 1PG, UK; Public Health Directorate, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, St Mary's Hospital, Paddington, London, W2 1PG, UK; Centre for Environmental Health and Sustainability, University of Leicester, George Davies Building, University Road, Leicester LE1 7RH, UK.
| | - Joerg J Meerpohl
- Institute for Evidence in Medicine (for Cochrane Germany Foundation), Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Breisacher Strasse 153, 79110 Freiburg, Germany.
| | - Reem A Mustafa
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Health Sciences Centre, Room 2C14, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON L8S 4K1, Canada; Division of Nephrology and Hypertension, Department of Medicine, University of Kansas Medical Center, 3901 Rainbow Boulevard, Kansas City, KS 66160, USA
| | - Jos Verbeek
- Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, Cochrane Work, Neulaniementie 4, 70701 Kuopio, Finland.
| | - Marco Vinceti
- Department of Biomedical, Metabolic and Neural Sciences, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Italy; Department of Epidemiology, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA.
| | - Paul Whaley
- Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 4YQ, UK.
| | - Holger J Schünemann
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Health Sciences Centre, Room 2C14, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON L8S 4K1, Canada; Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Health Sciences Centre, Room 2C14, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON L8S 4K1, Canada.
| |
Collapse
|
22
|
Morgan RL, Whaley P, Thayer KA, Schünemann HJ. Identifying the PECO: A framework for formulating good questions to explore the association of environmental and other exposures with health outcomes. Environ Int 2018; 121:1027-1031. [PMID: 30166065 PMCID: PMC6908441 DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2018.07.015] [Citation(s) in RCA: 435] [Impact Index Per Article: 72.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/31/2018] [Revised: 06/02/2018] [Accepted: 07/07/2018] [Indexed: 05/18/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Rebecca L Morgan
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact (Formerly the Department of Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics) & Michael G. DeGroote Cochrane Canada Centre, McMaster University, Health Sciences Centre, Room 2C14, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON L8S 4K1, Canada.
| | - Paul Whaley
- Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 4YQ, UK.
| | - Kristina A Thayer
- Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) Division, National Center for Environmental Assessment (NCEA), Office of Research and Development, US Environmental Protection Agency, Building B (Room 211i), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, USA.
| | - Holger J Schünemann
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact (Formerly the Department of Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics) & Michael G. DeGroote Cochrane Canada Centre, McMaster University, Health Sciences Centre, Room 2C14, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON L8S 4K1, Canada; Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Health Sciences Centre, Room 2C14, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON L8S 4K1, Canada.
| |
Collapse
|
23
|
Morgan RL, Thayer KA, Santesso N, Holloway AC, Blain R, Eftim SE, Goldstone AE, Ross P, Guyatt G, Schünemann HJ. Evaluation of the risk of bias in non-randomized studies of interventions (ROBINS-I) and the 'target experiment' concept in studies of exposures: Rationale and preliminary instrument development. Environ Int 2018; 120:382-387. [PMID: 30125855 PMCID: PMC9581061 DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2018.08.018] [Citation(s) in RCA: 68] [Impact Index Per Article: 11.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/15/2017] [Revised: 08/03/2018] [Accepted: 08/07/2018] [Indexed: 05/20/2023]
Abstract
Assessing the risk of bias (RoB) of individual studies is a critical part in determining the certainty of a body of evidence from non-randomized studies (NRS) that evaluate potential health effects due to environmental exposures. The recently released RoB in NRS of Interventions (ROBINS-I) instrument has undergone careful development for health interventions. Using the fundamental design of ROBINS-I, which includes evaluating RoB against an ideal target trial, we explored developing a version of the instrument to evaluate RoB in exposure studies. During three sequential rounds of assessment, two or three raters (evaluators) independently applied ROBINS-I to studies from two systematic reviews and one case-study protocol that evaluated the relationship between environmental exposures and health outcomes. Feedback from raters, methodologists, and topic-specific experts informed important modifications to tailor the instrument to exposure studies. We identified the following areas of distinction for the modified instrument: terminology, formulation of the ideal target randomized experiment, guidance for cross-sectional studies and exposure assessment (both quality of measurement method and concern for potential exposure misclassification), and evaluation of issues related to study sensitivity. Using the target experiment approach significantly impacts the process for how environmental and occupational health studies are considered in the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) evidence-synthesis framework.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rebecca L Morgan
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact (formerly the Department of Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics), McMaster University, Health Sciences Centre, Room 2C14, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON L8S 4K1, Canada.
| | - Kristina A Thayer
- Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) Division, National Center for Environmental Assessment (NCEA), Office of Research and Development, US Environmental Protection Agency, Building B (Room 211i), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, USA.
| | - Nancy Santesso
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact (formerly the Department of Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics), McMaster University, Health Sciences Centre, Room 2C14, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON L8S 4K1, Canada.
| | - Alison C Holloway
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, McMaster University, Health Sciences Centre, Room 3N52A, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON L8S 4K1, Canada.
| | - Robyn Blain
- ICF, 9300 Lee Highway, Fairfax, VA 22031, USA.
| | | | | | - Pam Ross
- ICF, 9300 Lee Highway, Fairfax, VA 22031, USA.
| | - Gordon Guyatt
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact (formerly the Department of Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics), McMaster University, Health Sciences Centre, Room 2C14, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON L8S 4K1, Canada.
| | - Holger J Schünemann
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact (formerly the Department of Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics), McMaster University, Health Sciences Centre, Room 2C14, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON L8S 4K1, Canada; Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Health Sciences Centre, Room 2C14, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON L8S 4K1, Canada.
| |
Collapse
|
24
|
Morgan RL, Florez I, Falavigna M, Kowalski S, Akl EA, Thayer KA, Rooney A, Schünemann HJ. Development of rapid guidelines: 3. GIN-McMaster Guideline Development Checklist extension for rapid recommendations. Health Res Policy Syst 2018; 16:63. [PMID: 30005679 PMCID: PMC6043953 DOI: 10.1186/s12961-018-0330-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 50] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/16/2017] [Accepted: 05/22/2018] [Indexed: 11/11/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Practice guidelines require a substantial investment of resources and time, often taking between 1 and 3 years from conceptualisation to publication. However, urgent situations require the development of recommendations in a shorter timeframe. In this third and final article in the series exploring challenges and solutions in developing rapid guidelines (RGs), we propose guiding principles for the development of RGs. METHODS We utilised the Guideline International Network-McMaster Guideline Development Checklist (GDC) as a starting point for elements to consider during RG development. We built on those elements using the findings from a systematic review of guideline manuals, a survey of international organisations conducting RGs, and interviews of guideline developers within WHO. We reviewed initial findings and developed an intermediate list of elements, as well as narrative guidance. We then invited experts to validate the intermediate list, reviewing for placement, brevity and redundancy. We used this iterative process and group consensus to determine the final elements for RG development guidance. RESULTS Our work identified 21 principles within the topics of the Guideline International Network-McMaster GDC to guide the planning and development of RGs. Principles fell within 15 of the 18 checklist topics, highlighting strategies to streamline and expedite the guideline development process. CONCLUSIONS We defined principles to guide the development of RGs, while maintaining a standardised, rigorous and transparent process. These principles will serve as guidance for guideline developers responding to urgent situations such as public health urgencies. Integration of these principles within currently disseminated guideline development standards will facilitate the use of those tools in situations necessitating RG recommendations.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rebecca L. Morgan
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact and McGRADE Center, McMaster University Health Sciences Centre, Room 2C16, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON L8N 4K1 Canada
| | - Ivan Florez
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact and McGRADE Center, McMaster University Health Sciences Centre, Room 2C16, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON L8N 4K1 Canada
- Department of Pediatrics, University of Antioquia, Cra. 51D #62-29, Medellin, 050001 Colombia
| | - Maicon Falavigna
- Hospital Moinhos de Vento, Porto Alegre, Brazil
- National Institute of Science and Technology for Health Technology Assessment, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil
| | - Sergio Kowalski
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact and McGRADE Center, McMaster University Health Sciences Centre, Room 2C16, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON L8N 4K1 Canada
- Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Rheumatology, Universidade Federal do Paraná, R. Gen. Carneiro, 181, Curitiba, PR Brazil
| | - Elie A. Akl
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact and McGRADE Center, McMaster University Health Sciences Centre, Room 2C16, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON L8N 4K1 Canada
- Department of Internal Medicine, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon
| | - Kristina A. Thayer
- National Center for Environmental Assessment (NCEA), Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) Division, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC United States of America
| | - Andrew Rooney
- Division of the National Toxicology Program, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, P.O. Box 12233, Mail Drop K2-02, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 United States of America
| | - Holger J. Schünemann
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact and McGRADE Center, McMaster University Health Sciences Centre, Room 2C16, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON L8N 4K1 Canada
- Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Health Sciences Centre, Room 2C14, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON L8S 4K1 Canada
- Cochrane Canada Center, McMaster University, Health Sciences Centre, Room 2C14, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON L8S 4K1 Canada
| |
Collapse
|
25
|
Walker VR, Boyles AL, Pelch KE, Holmgren SD, Shapiro AJ, Blystone CR, Devito MJ, Newbold RR, Blain R, Hartman P, Thayer KA, Rooney AA. Human and animal evidence of potential transgenerational inheritance of health effects: An evidence map and state-of-the-science evaluation. Environ Int 2018; 115:48-69. [PMID: 29549716 DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2017.12.032] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/08/2017] [Revised: 12/18/2017] [Accepted: 12/20/2017] [Indexed: 05/21/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND An increasing number of reports suggest early life exposures result in adverse effects in offspring who were never directly exposed; this phenomenon is termed "transgenerational inheritance." Given concern for public health implications for potential effects of exposures transmitted to subsequent generations, it is critical to determine how widespread and robust this phenomenon is and to identify the range of exposures and possible outcomes. OBJECTIVES This scoping report examines the evidence for transgenerational inheritance associated with exposure to a wide range of stressors in humans and animals to identify areas of consistency, uncertainty, data gaps, and to evaluate general risk of bias issues for the transgenerational study design. METHODS A protocol was developed to collect and categorize the literature into a systematic evidence map for transgenerational inheritance by health effects, exposures, and evidence streams following the Office of Health Assessment and Translation (OHAT) approach for conducting literature-based health assessments. RESULTS A PubMed search yielded 63,758 unique records from which 257 relevant studies were identified and categorized into a systematic evidence map by evidence streams (46 human and 211 animal), broad health effect categories, and exposures. Data extracted from the individual studies are available in the Health Assessment Workspace Collaborative (HAWC) program. There are relatively few bodies of evidence where multiple studies evaluated the same exposure and the same or similar outcomes. Studies evaluated for risk of bias generally had multiple issues in design or conduct. CONCLUSIONS The evidence mapping illustrated that risk of bias, few studies, and heterogeneity in exposures and endpoints examined present serious limitations to available bodies of evidence for assessing transgenerational effects. Targeted research is suggested to addressed inconsistencies and risk of bias issues identified, and thereby establish more robust bodies of evidence to critically assess transgenerational effects - particularly by adding data on exposure-outcome pairs where there is some evidence (i.e., reproductive, metabolic, and neurological effects).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Vickie R Walker
- Office of Health Assessment and Translation (OHAT), Division of National Toxicology Program (NTP), National Institute of Environmental Sciences (NIEHS), National Institutes of Health (NIH), Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), Research Triangle Park, NC, USA.
| | - Abee L Boyles
- Office of Health Assessment and Translation (OHAT), Division of National Toxicology Program (NTP), National Institute of Environmental Sciences (NIEHS), National Institutes of Health (NIH), Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
| | - Katherine E Pelch
- Office of Health Assessment and Translation (OHAT), Division of National Toxicology Program (NTP), National Institute of Environmental Sciences (NIEHS), National Institutes of Health (NIH), Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
| | | | - Andrew J Shapiro
- Program Operations Branch, DNTP, NIEHS, NIH, DHHS, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
| | - Chad R Blystone
- Toxicology Branch, DNTP, NIEHS, NIH, DHHS, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
| | - Michael J Devito
- NTP Laboratory, DNTP, NIEHS, NIH, DHHS, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
| | - Retha R Newbold
- Researcher Emeritus, DNTP, NIEHS, NIH, DHHS, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
| | | | | | - Kristina A Thayer
- Office of Health Assessment and Translation (OHAT), Division of National Toxicology Program (NTP), National Institute of Environmental Sciences (NIEHS), National Institutes of Health (NIH), Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
| | - Andrew A Rooney
- Office of Health Assessment and Translation (OHAT), Division of National Toxicology Program (NTP), National Institute of Environmental Sciences (NIEHS), National Institutes of Health (NIH), Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
| |
Collapse
|
26
|
Hooijmans CR, de Vries RBM, Ritskes-Hoitinga M, Rovers MM, Leeflang MM, IntHout J, Wever KE, Hooft L, de Beer H, Kuijpers T, Macleod MR, Sena ES, ter Riet G, Morgan RL, Thayer KA, Rooney AA, Guyatt GH, Schünemann HJ, Langendam MW. Facilitating healthcare decisions by assessing the certainty in the evidence from preclinical animal studies. PLoS One 2018; 13:e0187271. [PMID: 29324741 PMCID: PMC5764235 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0187271] [Citation(s) in RCA: 70] [Impact Index Per Article: 11.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/02/2017] [Accepted: 10/17/2017] [Indexed: 12/23/2022] Open
Abstract
Laboratory animal studies are used in a wide range of human health related research areas, such as basic biomedical research, drug research, experimental surgery and environmental health. The results of these studies can be used to inform decisions regarding clinical research in humans, for example the decision to proceed to clinical trials. If the research question relates to potential harms with no expectation of benefit (e.g., toxicology), studies in experimental animals may provide the only relevant or controlled data and directly inform clinical management decisions. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are important tools to provide robust and informative evidence summaries of these animal studies. Rating how certain we are about the evidence could provide important information about the translational probability of findings in experimental animal studies to clinical practice and probably improve it. Evidence summaries and certainty in the evidence ratings could also be used (1) to support selection of interventions with best therapeutic potential to be tested in clinical trials, (2) to justify a regulatory decision limiting human exposure (to drug or toxin), or to (3) support decisions on the utility of further animal experiments. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach is the most widely used framework to rate the certainty in the evidence and strength of health care recommendations. Here we present how the GRADE approach could be used to rate the certainty in the evidence of preclinical animal studies in the context of therapeutic interventions. We also discuss the methodological challenges that we identified, and for which further work is needed. Examples are defining the importance of consistency within and across animal species and using GRADE's indirectness domain as a tool to predict translation from animal models to humans.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Carlijn R. Hooijmans
- Systematic Review Centre for Laboratory Animal Experimentation (SYRCLE), Department of Health Evidence, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Rob B. M. de Vries
- Systematic Review Centre for Laboratory Animal Experimentation (SYRCLE), Department of Health Evidence, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Merel Ritskes-Hoitinga
- Systematic Review Centre for Laboratory Animal Experimentation (SYRCLE), Department of Health Evidence, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Maroeska M. Rovers
- Systematic Review Centre for Laboratory Animal Experimentation (SYRCLE), Department of Health Evidence, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Mariska M. Leeflang
- Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Joanna IntHout
- Systematic Review Centre for Laboratory Animal Experimentation (SYRCLE), Department of Health Evidence, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Kimberley E. Wever
- Systematic Review Centre for Laboratory Animal Experimentation (SYRCLE), Department of Health Evidence, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Lotty Hooft
- Cochrane Netherlands, University Medical Center, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | | | - Ton Kuijpers
- Dutch College of General Practitioners, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Malcolm R. Macleod
- Center for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
| | - Emily S. Sena
- Center for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
| | - Gerben ter Riet
- Department of General Practice, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Rebecca L. Morgan
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
- Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada
| | - Kristina A. Thayer
- Division of the National Toxicology Program, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, D.C., United States of America
| | - Andrew A. Rooney
- Division of the National Toxicology Program, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, D.C., United States of America
| | - Gordon H. Guyatt
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
- Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada
| | - Holger J. Schünemann
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
- Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada
| | - Miranda W. Langendam
- Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | | |
Collapse
|
27
|
O’Connor AM, Tsafnat G, Gilbert SB, Thayer KA, Wolfe MS. Moving toward the automation of the systematic review process: a summary of discussions at the second meeting of International Collaboration for the Automation of Systematic Reviews (ICASR). Syst Rev 2018; 7:3. [PMID: 29316980 PMCID: PMC5759184 DOI: 10.1186/s13643-017-0667-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 32] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/03/2017] [Accepted: 12/12/2017] [Indexed: 01/11/2023] Open
Abstract
The second meeting of the International Collaboration for Automation of Systematic Reviews (ICASR) was held 3-4 October 2016 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. ICASR is an interdisciplinary group whose aim is to maximize the use of technology for conducting rapid, accurate, and efficient systematic reviews of scientific evidence. Having automated tools for systematic review should enable more transparent and timely review, maximizing the potential for identifying and translating research findings to practical application. The meeting brought together multiple stakeholder groups including users of summarized research, methodologists who explore production processes and systematic review quality, and technologists such as software developers, statisticians, and vendors. This diversity of participants was intended to ensure effective communication with numerous stakeholders about progress toward automation of systematic reviews and stimulate discussion about potential solutions to identified challenges. The meeting highlighted challenges, both simple and complex, and raised awareness among participants about ongoing efforts by various stakeholders. An outcome of this forum was to identify several short-term projects that participants felt would advance the automation of tasks in the systematic review workflow including (1) fostering better understanding about available tools, (2) developing validated datasets for testing new tools, (3) determining a standard method to facilitate interoperability of tools such as through an application programming interface or API, and (4) establishing criteria to evaluate the quality of tools' output. ICASR 2016 provided a beneficial forum to foster focused discussion about tool development and resources and reconfirm ICASR members' commitment toward systematic reviews' automation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Annette M. O’Connor
- College of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, 1800 Christensen Drive, Ames, IA 50011-1134 USA
| | - Guy Tsafnat
- Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia
| | | | - Kristina A. Thayer
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, Durham, NC 27711 USA
| | - Mary S. Wolfe
- National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, Durham, NC 27709 USA
| |
Collapse
|
28
|
Lunn RM, Blask DE, Coogan AN, Figueiro MG, Gorman MR, Hall JE, Hansen J, Nelson RJ, Panda S, Smolensky MH, Stevens RG, Turek FW, Vermeulen R, Carreón T, Caruso CC, Lawson CC, Thayer KA, Twery MJ, Ewens AD, Garner SC, Schwingl PJ, Boyd WA. Health consequences of electric lighting practices in the modern world: A report on the National Toxicology Program's workshop on shift work at night, artificial light at night, and circadian disruption. Sci Total Environ 2017; 607-608:1073-1084. [PMID: 28724246 PMCID: PMC5587396 DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.07.056] [Citation(s) in RCA: 204] [Impact Index Per Article: 29.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/08/2017] [Revised: 07/07/2017] [Accepted: 07/07/2017] [Indexed: 05/24/2023]
Abstract
The invention of electric light has facilitated a society in which people work, sleep, eat, and play at all hours of the 24-hour day. Although electric light clearly has benefited humankind, exposures to electric light, especially light at night (LAN), may disrupt sleep and biological processes controlled by endogenous circadian clocks, potentially resulting in adverse health outcomes. Many of the studies evaluating adverse health effects have been conducted among night- and rotating-shift workers, because this scenario gives rise to significant exposure to LAN. Because of the complexity of this topic, the National Toxicology Program convened an expert panel at a public workshop entitled "Shift Work at Night, Artificial Light at Night, and Circadian Disruption" to obtain input on conducting literature-based health hazard assessments and to identify data gaps and research needs. The Panel suggested describing light both as a direct effector of endogenous circadian clocks and rhythms and as an enabler of additional activities or behaviors that may lead to circadian disruption, such as night-shift work and atypical and inconsistent sleep-wake patterns that can lead to social jet lag. Future studies should more comprehensively characterize and measure the relevant light-related exposures and link these exposures to both time-independent biomarkers of circadian disruption and biomarkers of adverse health outcomes. This information should lead to improvements in human epidemiological and animal or in vitro models, more rigorous health hazard assessments, and intervention strategies to minimize the occurrence of adverse health outcomes due to these exposures.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ruth M Lunn
- Office of the Report on Carcinogens, Division of the National Toxicology Program, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), Research Triangle Park, NC, United States
| | - David E Blask
- Department of Structural and Cellular Biology, Laboratory of Chrono-Neuroendocrine Oncology, Tulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans, LA, United States
| | - Andrew N Coogan
- Maynooth University Department of Psychology, National University of Ireland, Maynooth, County Kildare, Ireland
| | - Mariana G Figueiro
- Light and Health Program, Lighting Research Center, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY, United States
| | - Michael R Gorman
- Department of Psychology and Center for Circadian Biology, University of California, San Diego, CA, United States
| | - Janet E Hall
- Division of Intramural Research, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, NC, United States
| | - Johnni Hansen
- Danish Cancer Society Research Centre, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Randy J Nelson
- Department of Neuroscience, Neuroscience Research Institute, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, United States
| | | | - Michael H Smolensky
- Department of Biomedical Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, United States; Sleep Medicine, The University of Texas-Houston McGovern School of Medicine, Houston, TX, United States
| | - Richard G Stevens
- School of Medicine, University of Connecticut, Farmington, CT, United States
| | - Fred W Turek
- Center for Sleep & Circadian Biology, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, United States
| | - Roel Vermeulen
- Division of Environmental Epidemiology, Institute for Risk Assessment Sciences (IRAS), Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Tania Carreón
- National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Cincinnati, OH, United States
| | - Claire C Caruso
- National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Cincinnati, OH, United States
| | - Christina C Lawson
- National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Cincinnati, OH, United States
| | - Kristina A Thayer
- Office of Health Assessment and Translation, Division of the National Toxicology Program, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), Research Triangle Park, NC, United States
| | - Michael J Twery
- National Center on Sleep Disorders Research, Division of Lung Diseases, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), Bethesda, MD, United States
| | - Andrew D Ewens
- Contractor in support of the NIEHS Report on Carcinogens, Integrated Laboratory Systems (ILS), Durham, NC, United States
| | - Sanford C Garner
- Contractor in support of the NIEHS Report on Carcinogens, Integrated Laboratory Systems (ILS), Durham, NC, United States
| | - Pamela J Schwingl
- Contractor in support of the NIEHS Report on Carcinogens, Integrated Laboratory Systems (ILS), Durham, NC, United States
| | - Windy A Boyd
- Office of Health Assessment and Translation, Division of the National Toxicology Program, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), Research Triangle Park, NC, United States.
| |
Collapse
|
29
|
Boyles AL, Blain RB, Rochester JR, Avanasi R, Goldhaber SB, McComb S, Holmgren SD, Masten SA, Thayer KA. Systematic review of community health impacts of mountaintop removal mining. Environ Int 2017; 107:163-172. [PMID: 28738262 PMCID: PMC5562233 DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2017.07.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/20/2017] [Revised: 06/29/2017] [Accepted: 07/03/2017] [Indexed: 05/05/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The objective of this evaluation is to understand the human health impacts of mountaintop removal (MTR) mining, the major method of coal mining in and around Central Appalachia. MTR mining impacts the air, water, and soil and raises concerns about potential adverse health effects in neighboring communities; exposures associated with MTR mining include particulate matter (PM), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), metals, hydrogen sulfide, and other recognized harmful substances. METHODS A systematic review was conducted of published studies of MTR mining and community health, occupational studies of MTR mining, and any available animal and in vitro experimental studies investigating the effects of exposures to MTR-mining-related chemical mixtures. Six databases (Embase, PsycINFO, PubMed, Scopus, Toxline, and Web of Science) were searched with customized terms, and no restrictions on publication year or language, through October 27, 2016. The eligibility criteria included all human population studies and animal models of human health, direct and indirect measures of MTR-mining exposure, any health-related effect or change in physiological response, and any study design type. Risk of bias was assessed for observational and experimental studies using an approach developed by the National Toxicology Program (NTP) Office of Health Assessment and Translation (OHAT). To provide context for these health effects, a summary of the exposure literature is included that focuses on describing findings for outdoor air, indoor air, and drinking water. RESULTS From a literature search capturing 3088 studies, 33 human studies (29 community, four occupational), four experimental studies (two in rat, one in vitro and in mice, one in C. elegans), and 58 MTR mining exposure studies were identified. A number of health findings were reported in observational human studies, including cardiopulmonary effects, mortality, and birth defects. However, concerns for risk of bias were identified, especially with respect to exposure characterization, accounting for confounding variables (such as socioeconomic status), and methods used to assess health outcomes. Typically, exposure was assessed by proximity of residence or hospital to coal mining or production level at the county level. In addition, assessing the consistency of findings was challenging because separate publications likely included overlapping case and comparison groups. For example, 11 studies of mortality were conducted with most reporting higher rates associated with coal mining, but many of these relied on the same national datasets and were unable to consider individual-level contributors to mortality such as poor socioeconomic status or smoking. Two studies of adult rats reported impaired microvascular and cardiac mitochondrial function after intratracheal exposure to PM from MTR-mining sites. Exposures associated with MTR mining included reports of PM levels that sometimes exceeded Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards; higher levels of dust, trace metals, hydrogen sulfide gas; and a report of increased public drinking water violations. DISCUSSION This systematic review could not reach conclusions on community health effects of MTR mining because of the strong potential for bias in the current body of human literature. Improved characterization of exposures by future community health studies and further study of the effects of MTR mining chemical mixtures in experimental models will be critical to determining health risks of MTR mining to communities. Without such work, uncertainty will remain regarding the impact of these practices on the health of the people who breathe the air and drink the water affected by MTR mining.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Abee L Boyles
- Office of Health Assessment and Translation, Division of the National Toxicology Program, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), National Institutes of Health (NIH), Department of Health and Human Services, Durham, NC, USA.
| | | | | | | | | | | | - Stephanie D Holmgren
- Office of Science Information Management, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), National Institutes of Health (NIH), Department of Health and Human Services, Durham, NC, USA
| | - Scott A Masten
- Office of Nomination and Selection, Division of the National Toxicology Program, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), National Institutes of Health (NIH), Department of Health and Human Services, Durham, NC, USA
| | - Kristina A Thayer
- Office of Health Assessment and Translation, Division of the National Toxicology Program, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), National Institutes of Health (NIH), Department of Health and Human Services, Durham, NC, USA
| |
Collapse
|
30
|
Abstract
Adequate folic acid intake is an effective dietary-based prevention tool for reducing the risk of neural tube defects. Achieving adequate intake for the prevention of neural tube defects frequently requires the consumption of foods fortified with folic acid and/or the use of folic acid-containing dietary supplements. To date, research on the potential for adverse effects of high intakes of folic acid has been limited. Without such research, it is difficult to define a value for high intake. In May 2015, an expert panel was tasked with examining the available scientific literature and making research recommendations within 4 general categories of potential folate-related adverse health effects: cancer, cognition in conjunction with vitamin B12 deficiency, hypersensitivity-related outcomes, and thyroid and diabetes-related disorders. This article summarizes the expert panel's conclusions, outlines the challenges faced when reviewing the literature, and examines some of the panel's recommendations for research.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Abee L Boyles
- A.L. Boyles and K.A. Thayer are with the Office of Health Assessment and Translation, Division of the National Toxicology Program, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, Durham, North Carolina, USA. E.A. Yetley and P.M. Coates are with the Office of Dietary Supplements, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
| | - Elizabeth A Yetley
- A.L. Boyles and K.A. Thayer are with the Office of Health Assessment and Translation, Division of the National Toxicology Program, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, Durham, North Carolina, USA. E.A. Yetley and P.M. Coates are with the Office of Dietary Supplements, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, Bethesda, Maryland, USA
| | - Kristina A Thayer
- A.L. Boyles and K.A. Thayer are with the Office of Health Assessment and Translation, Division of the National Toxicology Program, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, Durham, North Carolina, USA. E.A. Yetley and P.M. Coates are with the Office of Dietary Supplements, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, Bethesda, Maryland, USA
| | - Paul M Coates
- A.L. Boyles and K.A. Thayer are with the Office of Health Assessment and Translation, Division of the National Toxicology Program, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, Durham, North Carolina, USA. E.A. Yetley and P.M. Coates are with the Office of Dietary Supplements, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, Bethesda, Maryland, USA
| |
Collapse
|
31
|
Malloy TF, Zaunbrecher VM, Batteate CM, Blake A, Carroll WF, Corbett CJ, Hansen SF, Lempert RJ, Linkov I, McFadden R, Moran KD, Olivetti E, Ostrom NK, Romero M, Schoenung JM, Seager TP, Sinsheimer P, Thayer KA. Advancing Alternative Analysis: Integration of Decision Science. Environ Health Perspect 2017; 125:066001. [PMID: 28669940 PMCID: PMC5743447 DOI: 10.1289/ehp483] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/16/2015] [Revised: 05/09/2016] [Accepted: 09/19/2016] [Indexed: 05/03/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Decision analysis-a systematic approach to solving complex problems-offers tools and frameworks to support decision making that are increasingly being applied to environmental challenges. Alternatives analysis is a method used in regulation and product design to identify, compare, and evaluate the safety and viability of potential substitutes for hazardous chemicals. OBJECTIVES We assessed whether decision science may assist the alternatives analysis decision maker in comparing alternatives across a range of metrics. METHODS A workshop was convened that included representatives from government, academia, business, and civil society and included experts in toxicology, decision science, alternatives assessment, engineering, and law and policy. Participants were divided into two groups and were prompted with targeted questions. Throughout the workshop, the groups periodically came together in plenary sessions to reflect on other groups' findings. RESULTS We concluded that the further incorporation of decision science into alternatives analysis would advance the ability of companies and regulators to select alternatives to harmful ingredients and would also advance the science of decision analysis. CONCLUSIONS We advance four recommendations: a) engaging the systematic development and evaluation of decision approaches and tools; b) using case studies to advance the integration of decision analysis into alternatives analysis; c) supporting transdisciplinary research; and d) supporting education and outreach efforts. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP483.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Timothy F Malloy
- UCLA School of Law, University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), Los Angeles, California, USA
- UCLA Fielding School of Public Health, UCLA, Los Angeles, California, USA
- University of California Center for the Environmental Implications of Nanotechnology, UCLA, Los Angeles, California, USA
| | - Virginia M Zaunbrecher
- UCLA School of Law, University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), Los Angeles, California, USA
- UCLA Fielding School of Public Health, UCLA, Los Angeles, California, USA
| | | | - Ann Blake
- Environmental and Public Health Consulting, Alameda, California, USA
| | - William F Carroll
- Department of Chemistry, Indiana University Bloomington, Bloomington, Indiana, USA
| | - Charles J Corbett
- UCLA Anderson School of Management, UCLA, Los Angeles, California, USA
- UCLA Institute of the Environment and Sustainability, UCLA, Los Angeles, California, USA
| | - Steffen Foss Hansen
- Department of Environmental Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | | | - Igor Linkov
- U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Concord, Massachusetts, USA
| | | | | | - Elsa Olivetti
- Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA
| | - Nancy K Ostrom
- Safer Products and Workplaces Program, Department of Toxic Substances Control, Sacramento, California, USA
| | - Michelle Romero
- UCLA Fielding School of Public Health, UCLA, Los Angeles, California, USA
- University of California Center for the Environmental Implications of Nanotechnology, UCLA, Los Angeles, California, USA
| | - Julie M Schoenung
- Henry Samueli School of Engineering, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, California, USA
| | - Thomas P Seager
- School of Sustainable Engineering and the Built Environment, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, USA
| | - Peter Sinsheimer
- UCLA Fielding School of Public Health, UCLA, Los Angeles, California, USA
| | - Kristina A Thayer
- Office of Health Assessment and Translation, National Toxicology Program, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Morrisville, North Carolina, USA
| |
Collapse
|
32
|
Rosofsky A, Janulewicz P, Thayer KA, McClean M, Wise LA, Calafat AM, Mikkelsen EM, Taylor KW, Hatch EE. Exposure to multiple chemicals in a cohort of reproductive-aged Danish women. Environ Res 2017; 154:73-85. [PMID: 28039828 PMCID: PMC5328929 DOI: 10.1016/j.envres.2016.12.011] [Citation(s) in RCA: 18] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/19/2016] [Revised: 11/16/2016] [Accepted: 12/13/2016] [Indexed: 05/22/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Current exposure assessment research does not sufficiently address multi-pollutant exposure and their correlations in human media. Understanding the extent of chemical exposure in reproductive-aged women is of particular concern due to the potential for in utero exposure and fetal susceptibility. OBJECTIVES The objectives of this study were to characterize concentrations of chemical biomarkers during preconception and examine correlations between and within chemical classes. METHODS We examined concentrations of 135 biomarkers from 16 chemical classes in blood and urine from 73 women aged 18-40 enrolled in Snart Foraeldre/Milieu, a prospective cohort study of pregnancy planners in Denmark (2011-2014). We compared biomarker concentrations with United States similarly-aged, non-pregnant women who participated in the National Health and Nutrition Environmental Survey (NHANES) and with other international biomonitoring studies. We performed principal component analysis to examine biomarker correlations. RESULTS The mean number of biomarkers detected in the population was 92 (range: 60-108). The most commonly detected chemical classes were phthalates, metals, phytoestrogens and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Except blood mercury, urinary barium and enterolactone, geometric means were higher in women from NHANES. Chemical classes measured in urine generally did not load on a single component, suggesting high between-class correlation among urinary biomarkers, while there is high within-class correlation for biomarkers measured in serum and blood. CONCLUSIONS We identified ubiquitous exposure to multiple chemical classes in reproductive-aged Danish women, supporting the need for more research on chemical mixtures during preconception and early pregnancy. Inter- and intra-class correlation between measured biomarkers may reflect common exposure sources, specific lifestyle factors or shared metabolism pathways.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anna Rosofsky
- Department of Environmental Health, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA.
| | - Patricia Janulewicz
- Department of Environmental Health, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Kristina A Thayer
- Office of Health Assessment and Translation, Division of the National Toxicology Program, National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
| | - Michael McClean
- Department of Environmental Health, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Lauren A Wise
- Department of Epidemiology, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Antonia M Calafat
- Division of Laboratory Sciences, National Center for Environmental Health, CDC, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Ellen M Mikkelsen
- Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark
| | - Kyla W Taylor
- Office of Health Assessment and Translation, Division of the National Toxicology Program, National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
| | - Elizabeth E Hatch
- Department of Epidemiology, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
33
|
Cimino AM, Boyles AL, Thayer KA, Perry MJ. Effects of Neonicotinoid Pesticide Exposure on Human Health: A Systematic Review. Environ Health Perspect 2017; 125:155-162. [PMID: 27385285 PMCID: PMC5289916 DOI: 10.1289/ehp515] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/30/2015] [Revised: 05/14/2016] [Accepted: 06/13/2016] [Indexed: 05/19/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Numerous studies have identified detectable levels of neonicotinoids (neonics) in the environment, adverse effects of neonics in many species, including mammals, and pathways through which human exposure to neonics could occur, yet little is known about the human health effects of neonic exposure. OBJECTIVE In this systematic review, we sought to identify human population studies on the health effects of neonics. METHODS Studies published in English between 2005 and 2015 were searched using PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases. No restrictions were placed on the type of health outcome assessed. Risk of bias was assessed using guidance developed by the National Toxicology Program's Office of Health Assessment and Translation. RESULTS Eight studies investigating the human health effects of exposure to neonics were identified. Four examined acute exposure: Three neonic poisoning studies reported two fatalities (n = 1,280 cases) and an occupational exposure study of 19 forestry workers reported no adverse effects. Four general population studies reported associations between chronic neonic exposure and adverse developmental or neurological outcomes, including tetralogy of Fallot (AOR 2.4, 95% CI: 1.1, 5.4), anencephaly (AOR 2.9, 95% CI: 1.0, 8.2), autism spectrum disorder [AOR 1.3, 95% credible interval (CrI): 0.78, 2.2], and a symptom cluster including memory loss and finger tremor (OR 14, 95% CI: 3.5, 57). Reported odds ratios were based on exposed compared to unexposed groups. CONCLUSIONS The studies conducted to date were limited in number with suggestive but methodologically weak findings related to chronic exposure. Given the wide-scale use of neonics, more studies are needed to fully understand their effects on human health. Citation: Cimino AM, Boyles AL, Thayer KA, Perry MJ. 2017. Effects of neonicotinoid pesticide exposure on human health: a systematic review. Environ Health Perspect 125:155-162; http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/EHP515.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andria M. Cimino
- Department of Environmental and Occupational Health, Milken Institute School of Public Health, George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Abee L. Boyles
- Office of Health Assessment and Translation, Division of the National Toxicology Program, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, Durham, North Carolina, USA
| | - Kristina A. Thayer
- Office of Health Assessment and Translation, Division of the National Toxicology Program, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, Durham, North Carolina, USA
| | - Melissa J. Perry
- Department of Environmental and Occupational Health, Milken Institute School of Public Health, George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA
- Address correspondence to M.J. Perry, Department of Environmental and Occupational Health, Milken Institute School of Public Health, George Washington University, 950 New Hampshire Ave., 419-Floor 4, Washington, DC 20052 USA. Telephone: (202) 994-1734. E-mail:
| |
Collapse
|
34
|
Grau-Pérez M, Kuo CC, Spratlen M, Thayer KA, Mendez MA, Hamman RF, Dabelea D, Adgate JL, Knowler WC, Bell RA, Miller FW, Liese AD, Zhang C, Douillet C, Drobná Z, Mayer-Davis EJ, Styblo M, Navas-Acien A. The Association of Arsenic Exposure and Metabolism With Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes in Youth: The SEARCH Case-Control Study. Diabetes Care 2017; 40:46-53. [PMID: 27810988 PMCID: PMC5180459 DOI: 10.2337/dc16-0810] [Citation(s) in RCA: 52] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/13/2016] [Accepted: 10/13/2016] [Indexed: 02/03/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Little is known about arsenic and diabetes in youth. We examined the association of arsenic with type 1 and type 2 diabetes in the SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth Case-Control (SEARCH-CC) study. Because one-carbon metabolism can influence arsenic metabolism, we also evaluated the potential interaction of folate and vitamin B12 with arsenic metabolism on the odds of diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS Six hundred eighty-eight participants <22 years of age (429 with type 1 diabetes, 85 with type 2 diabetes, and 174 control participants) were evaluated. Arsenic species (inorganic arsenic [iAs], monomethylated arsenic [MMA], dimethylated arsenic [DMA]), and one-carbon metabolism biomarkers (folate and vitamin B12) were measured in plasma. We used the sum of iAs, MMA, and DMA (∑As) and the individual species as biomarkers of arsenic concentrations and the relative proportions of the species over their sum (iAs%, MMA%, DMA%) as biomarkers of arsenic metabolism. RESULTS Median ∑As, iAs%, MMA%, and DMA% were 83.1 ng/L, 63.4%, 10.3%, and 25.2%, respectively. ∑As was not associated with either type of diabetes. The fully adjusted odds ratios (95% CI), rescaled to compare a difference in levels corresponding to the interquartile range of iAs%, MMA%, and DMA%, were 0.68 (0.50-0.91), 1.33 (1.02-1.74), and 1.28 (1.01-1.63), respectively, for type 1 diabetes and 0.82 (0.48-1.39), 1.09 (0.65-1.82), and 1.17 (0.77-1.77), respectively, for type 2 diabetes. In interaction analysis, the odds ratio of type 1 diabetes by MMA% was 1.80 (1.25-2.58) and 0.98 (0.70-1.38) for participants with plasma folate levels above and below the median (P for interaction = 0.02), respectively. CONCLUSIONS Low iAs% versus high MMA% and DMA% was associated with a higher odds of type 1 diabetes, with a potential interaction by folate levels. These data support further research on the role of arsenic metabolism in type 1 diabetes, including the interplay with one-carbon metabolism biomarkers.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Maria Grau-Pérez
- Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD .,Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York, NY
| | - Chin-Chi Kuo
- Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD.,Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD.,Kidney Institute and Division of Nephrology, Department of Internal Medicine, China Medical University Hospital and College of Medicine, China Medical University, Taichung, Taiwan
| | - Miranda Spratlen
- Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD
| | - Kristina A Thayer
- Division of the National Toxicology Program, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, Research Triangle Park, NC
| | - Michelle A Mendez
- Department of Nutrition, University of North Carolina Gillings School of Global Public Health, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - Richard F Hamman
- Department of Epidemiology, Colorado School of Public Health, University of Colorado Denver, Aurora, CO
| | - Dana Dabelea
- Department of Epidemiology, Colorado School of Public Health, University of Colorado Denver, Aurora, CO
| | - John L Adgate
- Department of Environmental and Occupational Health, Colorado School of Public Health, University of Colorado Denver, Aurora, CO
| | - William C Knowler
- Diabetes Epidemiology and Clinical Research Section, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, Phoenix, AZ
| | - Ronny A Bell
- Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC
| | - Frederick W Miller
- National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD
| | - Angela D Liese
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC
| | - Chongben Zhang
- Department of Nutrition, University of North Carolina Gillings School of Global Public Health, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - Christelle Douillet
- Department of Nutrition, University of North Carolina Gillings School of Global Public Health, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - Zuzana Drobná
- Department of Nutrition, University of North Carolina Gillings School of Global Public Health, Chapel Hill, NC.,Department of Biological Sciences, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC
| | - Elizabeth J Mayer-Davis
- Department of Nutrition, University of North Carolina Gillings School of Global Public Health, Chapel Hill, NC.,Deparment of Medicine, University of North Carolina Gillings School of Global Public Health, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - Miroslav Styblo
- Department of Nutrition, University of North Carolina Gillings School of Global Public Health, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - Ana Navas-Acien
- Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD .,Welch Center for Prevention, Epidemiology and Clinical Research, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, MD
| |
Collapse
|
35
|
Cote I, Andersen ME, Ankley GT, Barone S, Birnbaum LS, Boekelheide K, Bois FY, Burgoon LD, Chiu WA, Crawford-Brown D, Crofton KM, DeVito M, Devlin RB, Edwards SW, Guyton KZ, Hattis D, Judson RS, Knight D, Krewski D, Lambert J, Maull EA, Mendrick D, Paoli GM, Patel CJ, Perkins EJ, Poje G, Portier CJ, Rusyn I, Schulte PA, Simeonov A, Smith MT, Thayer KA, Thomas RS, Thomas R, Tice RR, Vandenberg JJ, Villeneuve DL, Wesselkamper S, Whelan M, Whittaker C, White R, Xia M, Yauk C, Zeise L, Zhao J, DeWoskin RS. The Next Generation of Risk Assessment Multi-Year Study-Highlights of Findings, Applications to Risk Assessment, and Future Directions. Environ Health Perspect 2016; 124:1671-1682. [PMID: 27091369 PMCID: PMC5089888 DOI: 10.1289/ehp233] [Citation(s) in RCA: 62] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/12/2015] [Revised: 10/30/2015] [Accepted: 03/29/2016] [Indexed: 05/19/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The Next Generation (NexGen) of Risk Assessment effort is a multi-year collaboration among several organizations evaluating new, potentially more efficient molecular, computational, and systems biology approaches to risk assessment. This article summarizes our findings, suggests applications to risk assessment, and identifies strategic research directions. OBJECTIVE Our specific objectives were to test whether advanced biological data and methods could better inform our understanding of public health risks posed by environmental exposures. METHODS New data and methods were applied and evaluated for use in hazard identification and dose-response assessment. Biomarkers of exposure and effect, and risk characterization were also examined. Consideration was given to various decision contexts with increasing regulatory and public health impacts. Data types included transcriptomics, genomics, and proteomics. Methods included molecular epidemiology and clinical studies, bioinformatic knowledge mining, pathway and network analyses, short-duration in vivo and in vitro bioassays, and quantitative structure activity relationship modeling. DISCUSSION NexGen has advanced our ability to apply new science by more rapidly identifying chemicals and exposures of potential concern, helping characterize mechanisms of action that influence conclusions about causality, exposure-response relationships, susceptibility and cumulative risk, and by elucidating new biomarkers of exposure and effects. Additionally, NexGen has fostered extensive discussion among risk scientists and managers and improved confidence in interpreting and applying new data streams. CONCLUSIONS While considerable uncertainties remain, thoughtful application of new knowledge to risk assessment appears reasonable for augmenting major scope assessments, forming the basis for or augmenting limited scope assessments, and for prioritization and screening of very data limited chemicals. Citation: Cote I, Andersen ME, Ankley GT, Barone S, Birnbaum LS, Boekelheide K, Bois FY, Burgoon LD, Chiu WA, Crawford-Brown D, Crofton KM, DeVito M, Devlin RB, Edwards SW, Guyton KZ, Hattis D, Judson RS, Knight D, Krewski D, Lambert J, Maull EA, Mendrick D, Paoli GM, Patel CJ, Perkins EJ, Poje G, Portier CJ, Rusyn I, Schulte PA, Simeonov A, Smith MT, Thayer KA, Thomas RS, Thomas R, Tice RR, Vandenberg JJ, Villeneuve DL, Wesselkamper S, Whelan M, Whittaker C, White R, Xia M, Yauk C, Zeise L, Zhao J, DeWoskin RS. 2016. The Next Generation of Risk Assessment multiyear study-highlights of findings, applications to risk assessment, and future directions. Environ Health Perspect 124:1671-1682; http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/EHP233.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ila Cote
- National Center for Environmental Assessment, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Washington, District of Columbia, USA
- Address correspondence to I. Cote, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, Room 8152, 1595 Wynkoop St., Denver, CO 80202-1129 USA. Telephone: (202) 288-9539. E-mail:
| | | | - Gerald T. Ankley
- National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, U.S. EPA, Duluth, Minnesota, USA
| | - Stanley Barone
- Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, U.S. EPA, Washington, District of Columbia, USA
| | - Linda S. Birnbaum
- National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, and
- National Toxicology Program, National Institutes of Health (NIH), Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA
| | - Kim Boekelheide
- Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, USA
| | - Frederic Y. Bois
- Unité Modèles pour l’Écotoxicologie et la Toxicologie, Institut National de l’Environnement Industriel et des Risques, Verneuil en Halatte, France
| | - Lyle D. Burgoon
- U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA
| | - Weihsueh A. Chiu
- Department of Veterinary Integrative Biosciences, College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, USA
| | | | | | - Michael DeVito
- National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, and
- National Toxicology Program, National Institutes of Health (NIH), Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA
| | - Robert B. Devlin
- National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA
| | - Stephen W. Edwards
- National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA
| | | | - Dale Hattis
- George Perkins Marsh Institute, Clark University, Worcester, Massachusetts, USA
| | | | - Derek Knight
- European Chemicals Agency, Annankatu, Helsinki, Finland
| | - Daniel Krewski
- McLaughlin Centre for Population Health Risk Assessment, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Jason Lambert
- National Center for Environmental Assessment, U.S. EPA, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
| | - Elizabeth Anne Maull
- National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, and
- National Toxicology Program, National Institutes of Health (NIH), Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA
| | - Donna Mendrick
- National Center for Toxicological Research, Food and Drug Administration, Jefferson, Arkansas, USA
| | | | - Chirag Jagdish Patel
- Department of Biomedical Informatics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| | - Edward J. Perkins
- U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, Mississippi, USA
| | - Gerald Poje
- Grant Consulting Group, Washington, District of Columbia, USA
| | | | - Ivan Rusyn
- Department of Veterinary Integrative Biosciences, College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, USA
| | - Paul A. Schulte
- Education and Information Division, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
| | - Anton Simeonov
- National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, NIH, DHHS, Bethesda, Maryland, USA
| | - Martyn T. Smith
- Division of Environmental Health Sciences, School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, California, USA
| | - Kristina A. Thayer
- National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, and
- National Toxicology Program, National Institutes of Health (NIH), Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA
| | | | - Reuben Thomas
- Gladstone Institutes, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA
| | - Raymond R. Tice
- National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, and
- National Toxicology Program, National Institutes of Health (NIH), Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA
| | - John J. Vandenberg
- National Center for Environmental Assessment, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Washington, District of Columbia, USA
| | - Daniel L. Villeneuve
- National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, U.S. EPA, Duluth, Minnesota, USA
| | - Scott Wesselkamper
- National Center for Environmental Assessment, U.S. EPA, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
| | - Maurice Whelan
- Systems Toxicology Unit, European Commission Joint Research Centre, Ispra, Italy
| | - Christine Whittaker
- Education and Information Division, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
| | - Ronald White
- Center for Effective Government, Washington, District of Columbia, USA
| | - Menghang Xia
- National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, NIH, DHHS, Bethesda, Maryland, USA
| | - Carole Yauk
- Environmental Health Science and Research Bureau, Health Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Lauren Zeise
- Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, California EPA, Oakland, California, USA
| | - Jay Zhao
- National Center for Environmental Assessment, U.S. EPA, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
| | - Robert S. DeWoskin
- National Center for Environmental Assessment, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Washington, District of Columbia, USA
| |
Collapse
|
36
|
Auerbach S, Filer D, Reif D, Walker V, Holloway AC, Schlezinger J, Srinivasan S, Svoboda D, Judson R, Bucher JR, Thayer KA. Prioritizing Environmental Chemicals for Obesity and Diabetes Outcomes Research: A Screening Approach Using ToxCast™ High-Throughput Data. Environ Health Perspect 2016; 124:1141-54. [PMID: 26978842 PMCID: PMC4977057 DOI: 10.1289/ehp.1510456] [Citation(s) in RCA: 47] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/09/2015] [Revised: 10/09/2015] [Accepted: 02/08/2016] [Indexed: 05/23/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Diabetes and obesity are major threats to public health in the United States and abroad. Understanding the role that chemicals in our environment play in the development of these conditions is an emerging issue in environmental health, although identifying and prioritizing chemicals for testing beyond those already implicated in the literature is challenging. This review is intended to help researchers generate hypotheses about chemicals that may contribute to diabetes and to obesity-related health outcomes by summarizing relevant findings from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ToxCast™ high-throughput screening (HTS) program. OBJECTIVES Our aim was to develop new hypotheses around environmental chemicals of potential interest for diabetes- or obesity-related outcomes using high-throughput screening data. METHODS We identified ToxCast™ assay targets relevant to several biological processes related to diabetes and obesity (insulin sensitivity in peripheral tissue, pancreatic islet and β cell function, adipocyte differentiation, and feeding behavior) and presented chemical screening data against those assay targets to identify chemicals of potential interest. DISCUSSION The results of this screening-level analysis suggest that the spectrum of environmental chemicals to consider in research related to diabetes and obesity is much broader than indicated by research papers and reviews published in the peer-reviewed literature. Testing hypotheses based on ToxCast™ data will also help assess the predictive utility of this HTS platform. CONCLUSIONS More research is required to put these screening-level analyses into context, but the information presented in this review should facilitate the development of new hypotheses. CITATION Auerbach S, Filer D, Reif D, Walker V, Holloway AC, Schlezinger J, Srinivasan S, Svoboda D, Judson R, Bucher JR, Thayer KA. 2016. Prioritizing environmental chemicals for obesity and diabetes outcomes research: a screening approach using ToxCast™ high-throughput data. Environ Health Perspect 124:1141-1154; http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1510456.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Scott Auerbach
- Division of the National Toxicology Program, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA
| | - Dayne Filer
- National Center for Computational Toxicology, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA
| | - David Reif
- Bioinformatics Research Center, Department of Biological Sciences, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina, USA
| | - Vickie Walker
- Division of the National Toxicology Program, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA
| | - Alison C. Holloway
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Jennifer Schlezinger
- Department of Environmental Health, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| | - Supriya Srinivasan
- Department of Chemical Physiology, The Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, California, USA
| | - Daniel Svoboda
- SciOme, LLC, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA
| | - Richard Judson
- National Center for Computational Toxicology, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA
| | - John R. Bucher
- Division of the National Toxicology Program, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA
| | - Kristina A. Thayer
- Division of the National Toxicology Program, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA
| |
Collapse
|
37
|
Vandenberg LN, Ågerstrand M, Beronius A, Beausoleil C, Bergman Å, Bero LA, Bornehag CG, Boyer CS, Cooper GS, Cotgreave I, Gee D, Grandjean P, Guyton KZ, Hass U, Heindel JJ, Jobling S, Kidd KA, Kortenkamp A, Macleod MR, Martin OV, Norinder U, Scheringer M, Thayer KA, Toppari J, Whaley P, Woodruff TJ, Rudén C. A proposed framework for the systematic review and integrated assessment (SYRINA) of endocrine disrupting chemicals. Environ Health 2016; 15:74. [PMID: 27412149 PMCID: PMC4944316 DOI: 10.1186/s12940-016-0156-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 74] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/04/2016] [Accepted: 06/17/2016] [Indexed: 05/07/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The issue of endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) is receiving wide attention from both the scientific and regulatory communities. Recent analyses of the EDC literature have been criticized for failing to use transparent and objective approaches to draw conclusions about the strength of evidence linking EDC exposures to adverse health or environmental outcomes. Systematic review methodologies are ideal for addressing this issue as they provide transparent and consistent approaches to study selection and evaluation. Objective methods are needed for integrating the multiple streams of evidence (epidemiology, wildlife, laboratory animal, in vitro, and in silico data) that are relevant in assessing EDCs. METHODS We have developed a framework for the systematic review and integrated assessment (SYRINA) of EDC studies. The framework was designed for use with the International Program on Chemical Safety (IPCS) and World Health Organization (WHO) definition of an EDC, which requires appraisal of evidence regarding 1) association between exposure and an adverse effect, 2) association between exposure and endocrine disrupting activity, and 3) a plausible link between the adverse effect and the endocrine disrupting activity. RESULTS Building from existing methodologies for evaluating and synthesizing evidence, the SYRINA framework includes seven steps: 1) Formulate the problem; 2) Develop the review protocol; 3) Identify relevant evidence; 4) Evaluate evidence from individual studies; 5) Summarize and evaluate each stream of evidence; 6) Integrate evidence across all streams; 7) Draw conclusions, make recommendations, and evaluate uncertainties. The proposed method is tailored to the IPCS/WHO definition of an EDC but offers flexibility for use in the context of other definitions of EDCs. CONCLUSIONS When using the SYRINA framework, the overall objective is to provide the evidence base needed to support decision making, including any action to avoid/minimise potential adverse effects of exposures. This framework allows for the evaluation and synthesis of evidence from multiple evidence streams. Finally, a decision regarding regulatory action is not only dependent on the strength of evidence, but also the consequences of action/inaction, e.g. limited or weak evidence may be sufficient to justify action if consequences are serious or irreversible.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Laura N. Vandenberg
- />Department of Environmental Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts Amherst School of Public Health & Health Sciences, Amherst, MA USA
| | - Marlene Ågerstrand
- />Department of Environmental Science and Analytical Chemistry, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Anna Beronius
- />Institute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Claire Beausoleil
- />ANSES (French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health Safety), Maisons Alfort, France
| | - Åke Bergman
- />Department of Environmental Science and Analytical Chemistry, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden
- />Swedish Toxicology Sciences Research Center, Södertälje, Sweden
| | - Lisa A. Bero
- />Charles Perkins Centre, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
| | - Carl-Gustaf Bornehag
- />Department of health sciences, Karlstad University, Karlstad, Sweden
- />Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, USA
| | - C. Scott Boyer
- />Swedish Toxicology Sciences Research Center, Södertälje, Sweden
| | | | - Ian Cotgreave
- />Swedish Toxicology Sciences Research Center (Swetox), Karolinska Institutet, Södertälje, Sweden
| | - David Gee
- />Institute of Environment, Health and Societies, Brunel University London, Uxbridge, UK
| | - Philippe Grandjean
- />Department of Environmental Medicine, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
| | | | - Ulla Hass
- />National Food Institute, Technical University of Denmark, Søborg, Denmark
| | - Jerrold J. Heindel
- />National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Division of Extramural Research and Training, Research Triangle Park, NC USA
| | - Susan Jobling
- />Institute of Environment, Health and Societies, Brunel University London, Uxbridge, UK
| | - Karen A. Kidd
- />Biology Department and Canadian Rivers Institute, University of New Brunswick, Saint John, New Brunswick Canada
| | - Andreas Kortenkamp
- />Institute of Environment, Health and Societies, Brunel University London, Uxbridge, UK
| | - Malcolm R. Macleod
- />Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Scotland, UK
| | - Olwenn V. Martin
- />Institute of Environment, Health and Societies, Brunel University London, Uxbridge, UK
| | - Ulf Norinder
- />Swedish Toxicology Sciences Research Center, Södertälje, Sweden
| | - Martin Scheringer
- />Institute for Chemical and Bioengineering, ETH Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland
| | - Kristina A. Thayer
- />Department of Health and Human Services, Division of the National Toxicology Program, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Research Triangle Park, NC USA
| | - Jorma Toppari
- />University of Turku, Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland
| | - Paul Whaley
- />Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK
| | - Tracey J. Woodruff
- />School of Medicine, Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment, University of California, San Francisco, Oakland, CA USA
| | - Christina Rudén
- />Department of Environmental Science and Analytical Chemistry, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden
| |
Collapse
|
38
|
Thayer KA, Schünemann HJ. Using GRADE to respond to health questions with different levels of urgency. Environ Int 2016; 92-93:585-589. [PMID: 27126781 DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2016.03.027] [Citation(s) in RCA: 27] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/15/2016] [Revised: 03/21/2016] [Accepted: 03/21/2016] [Indexed: 06/05/2023]
Abstract
Increasing interest exists in applying the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to environmental health evidence. While ideally applied to evidence synthesized in systematic reviews and corresponding summary tables, such as evidence profiles, GRADE's correct application requires that "the evidence that was assessed and the methods that were used to identify and appraise that evidence should be clearly described." In this article, we suggest that GRADE could be applied to evidence assembled from narrative reviews, modelled (indirect) evidence, or evidence assembled as part of a rapid response, if the underlying judgments about the certainty in this evidence are based on the relevant GRADE domains and provided transparently. Health questions that require assessing the certainty in a body of evidence to provide trustworthy answers may range from hours, to days or weeks, to a few months to scenarios that allow assessing evidence without short-term time pressures. Time frames of emergent, urgent or rapid evidence assessments will often require relying on existing summaries or rapidly compiling the available evidence and making assessments. Even without available full systematic reviews, expressing the certainty in the evidence can provide useful guidance for users of the evidence and those who evaluate certainty in effects. The ratings also help clarifying disagreement between organizations tackling similar questions about the evidence. Using the structured GRADE domains, narrative or other summaries of the evidence can be presented transparently.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kristina A Thayer
- Division of the National Toxicology Program, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, P.O. Box 12233, Mail Drop K2-02, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA.
| | - Holger J Schünemann
- Department of Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics, Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Health Sciences Centre, Room 2C14, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON L8S 4K1, Canada.
| |
Collapse
|
39
|
Morgan RL, Thayer KA, Bero L, Bruce N, Falck-Ytter Y, Ghersi D, Guyatt G, Hooijmans C, Langendam M, Mandrioli D, Mustafa RA, Rehfuess EA, Rooney AA, Shea B, Silbergeld EK, Sutton P, Wolfe MS, Woodruff TJ, Verbeek JH, Holloway AC, Santesso N, Schünemann HJ. GRADE: Assessing the quality of evidence in environmental and occupational health. Environ Int 2016; 92-93:611-6. [PMID: 26827182 PMCID: PMC4902742 DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2016.01.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/30/2015] [Revised: 11/24/2015] [Accepted: 01/10/2016] [Indexed: 05/19/2023]
Abstract
There is high demand in environmental health for adoption of a structured process that evaluates and integrates evidence while making decisions and recommendations transparent. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework holds promise to address this demand. For over a decade, GRADE has been applied successfully to areas of clinical medicine, public health, and health policy, but experience with GRADE in environmental and occupational health is just beginning. Environmental and occupational health questions focus on understanding whether an exposure is a potential health hazard or risk, assessing the exposure to understand the extent and magnitude of risk, and exploring interventions to mitigate exposure or risk. Although GRADE offers many advantages, including its flexibility and methodological rigor, there are features of the different sources of evidence used in environmental and occupational health that will require further consideration to assess the need for method refinement. An issue that requires particular attention is the evaluation and integration of evidence from human, animal, in vitro, and in silico (computer modeling) studies when determining whether an environmental factor represents a potential health hazard or risk. Assessment of the hazard of exposures can produce analyses for use in the GRADE evidence-to-decision (EtD) framework to inform risk-management decisions about removing harmful exposures or mitigating risks. The EtD framework allows for grading the strength of the recommendations based on judgments of the certainty in the evidence (also known as quality of the evidence), as well as other factors that inform recommendations such as social values and preferences, resource implications, and benefits. GRADE represents an untapped opportunity for environmental and occupational health to make evidence-based recommendations in a systematic and transparent manner. The objectives of this article are to provide an overview of GRADE, discuss GRADE's applicability to environmental health, and identify priority areas for method assessment and development.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rebecca L Morgan
- Department of Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics, McMaster University, Health Sciences Centre, Room 2C14, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON L8S 4K1, Canada.
| | - Kristina A Thayer
- Division of the National Toxicology Program, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, P.O. Box 12233, Mail Drop K2-02, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA.
| | - Lisa Bero
- Charles Perkins Centre, The University of Sydney, D17, The Hub, 6th floor, New South Wales, 2006, Australia.
| | - Nigel Bruce
- Department of Public Health and Policy, University of Liverpool, L69 3GB, United Kingdom.
| | - Yngve Falck-Ytter
- Division of Gastroenterology, Case Western Reserve University and Louis Stokes VA Medical Center, 10701 East Blvd., Cleveland, OH 44106, USA.
| | - Davina Ghersi
- Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, New South Wales 2006, Australia; National Health and Medical Research Council, 16 Marcus Clarke Street, Canberra City, ACT 2601, Australia.
| | - Gordon Guyatt
- Department of Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics, McMaster University, Health Sciences Centre, Room 2C14, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON L8S 4K1, Canada.
| | - Carlijn Hooijmans
- Departments of SYRCLE and Anesthesiology, Radboud University Medical Centre, Geert Grooteplein-Noord 29, Route 231, 6525 GA Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
| | - Miranda Langendam
- Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Room J1B-211, P.O. Box 22660, 1100 DD Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
| | - Daniele Mandrioli
- Cesare Maltoni Cancer Research Center, Ramazzini Institute, Via Saliceto 3, Bentivoglio, Bologna, P.O. Box 40133, Italy.
| | - Reem A Mustafa
- Department of Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics, McMaster University, Health Sciences Centre, Room 2C14, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON L8S 4K1, Canada; Departments of Medicine/Nephrology and Biomedical & Health Informatics, University of Missouri-Kansas City, School of Medicine, M4-303, 2411 Holmes St., Kansas City, Missouri 64108-2792, USA.
| | - Eva A Rehfuess
- Institute for Medical Informatics, Biometry and Epidemiology, University of Munich, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377 Munich, Germany.
| | - Andrew A Rooney
- Division of the National Toxicology Program, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, P.O. Box 12233, Mail Drop K2-02, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA.
| | - Beverley Shea
- Bruyere Research Institute and Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
| | - Ellen K Silbergeld
- Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 615 N. Wolfe Street, E6644, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA.
| | - Patrice Sutton
- Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment, University of California-San Francisco, 550 16th Street, San Francisco, CA 94143, USA.
| | - Mary S Wolfe
- Division of the National Toxicology Program, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, P.O. Box 12233, Mail Drop K2-02, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA.
| | - Tracey J Woodruff
- Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment, University of California-San Francisco, 550 16th Street, San Francisco, CA 94143, USA.
| | - Jos H Verbeek
- Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, Cochrane Work, PO Box 310, 70101 Kuopio, Finland.
| | - Alison C Holloway
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, McMaster University, Health Sciences Centre, Room 3N52A, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON L8S 4K1, Canada.
| | - Nancy Santesso
- Department of Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics, McMaster University, Health Sciences Centre, Room 2C14, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON L8S 4K1, Canada.
| | - Holger J Schünemann
- Department of Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics, McMaster University, Health Sciences Centre, Room 2C14, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON L8S 4K1, Canada; Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Health Sciences Centre, Room 2C14, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON L8S 4K1, Canada.
| |
Collapse
|
40
|
Rooney AA, Cooper GS, Jahnke GD, Lam J, Morgan RL, Boyles AL, Ratcliffe JM, Kraft AD, Schünemann HJ, Schwingl P, Walker TD, Thayer KA, Lunn RM. How credible are the study results? Evaluating and applying internal validity tools to literature-based assessments of environmental health hazards. Environ Int 2016; 92-93:617-29. [PMID: 26857180 PMCID: PMC4902751 DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2016.01.005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 39] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/20/2015] [Revised: 12/02/2015] [Accepted: 01/10/2016] [Indexed: 05/20/2023]
Abstract
Environmental health hazard assessments are routinely relied upon for public health decision-making. The evidence base used in these assessments is typically developed from a collection of diverse sources of information of varying quality. It is critical that literature-based evaluations consider the credibility of individual studies used to reach conclusions through consistent, transparent and accepted methods. Systematic review procedures address study credibility by assessing internal validity or "risk of bias" - the assessment of whether the design and conduct of a study compromised the credibility of the link between exposure/intervention and outcome. This paper describes the commonalities and differences in risk-of-bias methods developed or used by five groups that conduct or provide methodological input for performing environmental health hazard assessments: the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group, the Navigation Guide, the National Toxicology Program's (NTP) Office of Health Assessment and Translation (OHAT) and Office of the Report on Carcinogens (ORoC), and the Integrated Risk Information System of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA-IRIS). Each of these groups have been developing and applying rigorous assessment methods for integrating across a heterogeneous collection of human and animal studies to inform conclusions on potential environmental health hazards. There is substantial consistency across the groups in the consideration of risk-of-bias issues or "domains" for assessing observational human studies. There is a similar overlap in terms of domains addressed for animal studies; however, the groups differ in the relative emphasis placed on different aspects of risk of bias. Future directions for the continued harmonization and improvement of these methods are also discussed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andrew A Rooney
- Office of Health Assessment and Translation, Division of the National Toxicology Program, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), National Institutes of Health (NIH), Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
| | - Glinda S Cooper
- National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Gloria D Jahnke
- Office of the Report on Carcinogens, Division of the National Toxicology Program, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), National Institutes of Health (NIH), Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
| | - Juleen Lam
- University of California San Francisco, Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment, San Francisco, CA, USA
| | - Rebecca L Morgan
- McMaster University, Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Abee L Boyles
- Office of Health Assessment and Translation, Division of the National Toxicology Program, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), National Institutes of Health (NIH), Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
| | | | - Andrew D Kraft
- National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Holger J Schünemann
- McMaster University, Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | | | - Teneille D Walker
- National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Kristina A Thayer
- Office of Health Assessment and Translation, Division of the National Toxicology Program, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), National Institutes of Health (NIH), Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
| | - Ruth M Lunn
- Office of the Report on Carcinogens, Division of the National Toxicology Program, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), National Institutes of Health (NIH), Research Triangle Park, NC, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
41
|
Thayer KA, Taylor KW, Garantziotis S, Schurman SH, Kissling GE, Hunt D, Herbert B, Church R, Jankowich R, Churchwell MI, Scheri RC, Birnbaum LS, Bucher JR. Bisphenol A, Bisphenol S, and 4-Hydroxyphenyl 4-Isoprooxyphenylsulfone (BPSIP) in Urine and Blood of Cashiers. Environ Health Perspect 2016; 124:437-44. [PMID: 26309242 PMCID: PMC4824622 DOI: 10.1289/ehp.1409427] [Citation(s) in RCA: 148] [Impact Index Per Article: 18.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/03/2014] [Accepted: 08/20/2015] [Indexed: 05/18/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Bisphenol A (BPA) is a high-production-volume chemical associated with a wide range of health outcomes in animal and human studies. BPA is used as a developer in thermal paper products, including cash register receipt paper; however, little is known about exposure of cashiers to BPA and alternative compounds in receipt paper. OBJECTIVE We determined whether handling receipt paper results in measurable absorption of BPA or the BPA alternatives bisphenol S (BPS) and 4-hydroxyphenyl 4-isoprooxyphenylsulfone (BPSIP). METHODS Cashiers (n = 77) and non-cashiers (n = 25) were recruited from the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill region of North Carolina during 2011-2013. Receipts were analyzed for the presence of BPA or alternatives considered for use in thermal paper. In cashiers, total urine and serum BPA, BPS, and BPSIP levels in post-shift samples (collected ≤ 2 hr after completing a shift) were compared with pre-shift samples. Levels of these compounds in urine from cashiers were compared to levels in urine from non-cashiers. RESULTS Each receipt contained 1-2% by weight of the paper of BPA, BPS, or BPSIP. The post-shift geometric mean total urinary BPS concentration was significantly higher than the pre-shift mean in 33 cashiers who handled receipts containing BPS. The mean urine BPA concentrations in 31 cashiers who handled BPA receipts were as likely to decrease as to increase after a shift, but the mean post-shift concentrations were significantly higher than those in non-cashiers. BPSIP was detected more frequently in the urine of cashiers handling BPSIP receipts than in the urine of non-cashiers. Only a few cashiers had detectable levels of total BPA or BPS in serum, whereas BPSIP tended to be detected more frequently. CONCLUSIONS Thermal receipt paper is a potential source of occupational exposure to BPA, BPS, and BPSIP. CITATION Thayer KA, Taylor KW, Garantziotis S, Schurman SH, Kissling GE, Hunt D, Herbert B, Church R, Jankowich R, Churchwell MI, Scheri RC, Birnbaum LS, Bucher JR. 2016. Bisphenol A, bisphenol S, and 4-hydroxyphenyl 4-isoprooxyphenylsulfone (BPSIP) in urine and blood of cashiers. Environ Health Perspect 124:437-444; http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1409427.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kristina A. Thayer
- Division of the National Toxicology Program,
- Address correspondence to K.A. Thayer, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), P.O. Box 12233, MD K2-04, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 USA. Telephone: (919) 541-5021. E-mail:
| | | | | | | | - Grace E. Kissling
- Biostatistics Branch, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health (NIH), Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA
| | | | | | | | | | - Mona I. Churchwell
- Division of Biochemical Toxicology, National Center for Toxicological Research, U.S. Food & Drug Administration, Jefferson, Arkansas, USA
| | - Richard C. Scheri
- Division of Biochemical Toxicology, National Center for Toxicological Research, U.S. Food & Drug Administration, Jefferson, Arkansas, USA
| | - Linda S. Birnbaum
- National Cancer Institute, NIH, DHHS, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA
| | | |
Collapse
|
42
|
|
43
|
Thayer KA, Doerge DR, Hunt D, Schurman SH, Twaddle NC, Churchwell MI, Garantziotis S, Kissling GE, Easterling MR, Bucher JR, Birnbaum LS. Pharmacokinetics of bisphenol A in humans following a single oral administration. Environ Int 2015. [PMID: 26115537 DOI: 10.1016/j.epvipt.2015.06.008] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/12/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Human exposures to bisphenol A (BPA) are widespread. The current study addresses uncertainties regarding human pharmacokinetics of BPA. OBJECTIVE To reduce uncertainties about the metabolism and excretion of BPA in humans following oral administration. METHODS We exposed six men and eight women to 100 μg/kg bw of deuterated BPA (d6-BPA) by oral administration and conducted blood and urine analysis over a three day period. The use of d6-BPA allowed administered d6-BPA to be distinguished from background native (unlabeled) BPA. We calculated the rate of oral absorption, serum elimination, half-life, area under the curve (AUC), urinary excretion, and metabolism to glucuronide and sulfate conjugates. RESULTS Mean serum total (unconjugated and conjugated) d6-BPA Cmax of 1711 nM (390 ng/ml) was observed at Tmax of 1.1 ± 0.50h. Unconjugated d6-BPA appeared in serum within 5-20 min of dosing with a mean Cmax of 6.5 nM (1.5 ng/ml) observed at Tmax of 1.3 ± 0.52 h. Detectable blood levels of unconjugated or total d6-BPA were observed at 48 h in some subjects at concentrations near the LOD (0.001-0.002 ng/ml). The half-times for terminal elimination of total d6-BPA and unconjugated d6-BPA were 6.4 ± 2.0 h and 6.2 ± 2.6h, respectively. Recovery of total administered d6-BPA in urine was 84-109%. Most subjects (10 of 14) excreted >90% as metabolites within 24h. CONCLUSIONS Using more sensitive methods, our study expands the findings of other human oral pharmacokinetic studies. Conjugation reactions are rapid and nearly complete with unconjugated BPA comprising less than 1% of the total d6-BPA in blood at all times. Elimination of conjugates into urine largely occurs within 24h.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kristina A Thayer
- Division of the National Toxicology Program, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, P.O. Box 12233, Mail Drop K2-02, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA.
| | - Daniel R Doerge
- Division of Biochemical Toxicology, National Center for Toxicological Research, U.S. Food & Drug Administration, NCTR-53C RM204L HFT-110, 3900 NCTR Road, Jefferson, AR 72079, USA.
| | - Dawn Hunt
- Clinical Research Unit, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, P.O. Box 12233, Mail Drop CU-01, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA.
| | - Shepherd H Schurman
- Clinical Research Unit, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, P.O. Box 12233, Mail Drop CU-01, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA.
| | - Nathan C Twaddle
- Division of Biochemical Toxicology, National Center for Toxicological Research, U.S. Food & Drug Administration, NCTR-53C RM204L HFT-110, 3900 NCTR Road, Jefferson, AR 72079, USA.
| | - Mona I Churchwell
- Division of Biochemical Toxicology, National Center for Toxicological Research, U.S. Food & Drug Administration, NCTR-53C RM204L HFT-110, 3900 NCTR Road, Jefferson, AR 72079, USA.
| | - Stavros Garantziotis
- Clinical Research Unit, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, P.O. Box 12233, Mail Drop CU-01, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA.
| | - Grace E Kissling
- Biostatistics Branch, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, P.O. Box 12233, Mail Drop A3-03, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA.
| | | | - John R Bucher
- Division of the National Toxicology Program, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, P.O. Box 12233, Mail Drop K2-02, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA.
| | - Linda S Birnbaum
- National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, P.O. Box 12233, Mail Drop B2-01, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
44
|
Thayer KA, Doerge DR, Hunt D, Schurman SH, Twaddle NC, Churchwell MI, Garantziotis S, Kissling GE, Easterling MR, Bucher JR, Birnbaum LS. Pharmacokinetics of bisphenol A in humans following a single oral administration. Environ Int 2015; 83:107-15. [PMID: 26115537 PMCID: PMC4545316 DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2015.06.008] [Citation(s) in RCA: 214] [Impact Index Per Article: 23.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/20/2015] [Revised: 06/03/2015] [Accepted: 06/14/2015] [Indexed: 05/17/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Human exposures to bisphenol A (BPA) are widespread. The current study addresses uncertainties regarding human pharmacokinetics of BPA. OBJECTIVE To reduce uncertainties about the metabolism and excretion of BPA in humans following oral administration. METHODS We exposed six men and eight women to 100 μg/kg bw of deuterated BPA (d6-BPA) by oral administration and conducted blood and urine analysis over a three day period. The use of d6-BPA allowed administered d6-BPA to be distinguished from background native (unlabeled) BPA. We calculated the rate of oral absorption, serum elimination, half-life, area under the curve (AUC), urinary excretion, and metabolism to glucuronide and sulfate conjugates. RESULTS Mean serum total (unconjugated and conjugated) d6-BPA Cmax of 1711 nM (390 ng/ml) was observed at Tmax of 1.1 ± 0.50h. Unconjugated d6-BPA appeared in serum within 5-20 min of dosing with a mean Cmax of 6.5 nM (1.5 ng/ml) observed at Tmax of 1.3 ± 0.52 h. Detectable blood levels of unconjugated or total d6-BPA were observed at 48 h in some subjects at concentrations near the LOD (0.001-0.002 ng/ml). The half-times for terminal elimination of total d6-BPA and unconjugated d6-BPA were 6.4 ± 2.0 h and 6.2 ± 2.6h, respectively. Recovery of total administered d6-BPA in urine was 84-109%. Most subjects (10 of 14) excreted >90% as metabolites within 24h. CONCLUSIONS Using more sensitive methods, our study expands the findings of other human oral pharmacokinetic studies. Conjugation reactions are rapid and nearly complete with unconjugated BPA comprising less than 1% of the total d6-BPA in blood at all times. Elimination of conjugates into urine largely occurs within 24h.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kristina A Thayer
- Division of the National Toxicology Program, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, P.O. Box 12233, Mail Drop K2-02, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA.
| | - Daniel R Doerge
- Division of Biochemical Toxicology, National Center for Toxicological Research, U.S. Food & Drug Administration, NCTR-53C RM204L HFT-110, 3900 NCTR Road, Jefferson, AR 72079, USA.
| | - Dawn Hunt
- Clinical Research Unit, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, P.O. Box 12233, Mail Drop CU-01, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA.
| | - Shepherd H Schurman
- Clinical Research Unit, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, P.O. Box 12233, Mail Drop CU-01, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA.
| | - Nathan C Twaddle
- Division of Biochemical Toxicology, National Center for Toxicological Research, U.S. Food & Drug Administration, NCTR-53C RM204L HFT-110, 3900 NCTR Road, Jefferson, AR 72079, USA.
| | - Mona I Churchwell
- Division of Biochemical Toxicology, National Center for Toxicological Research, U.S. Food & Drug Administration, NCTR-53C RM204L HFT-110, 3900 NCTR Road, Jefferson, AR 72079, USA.
| | - Stavros Garantziotis
- Clinical Research Unit, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, P.O. Box 12233, Mail Drop CU-01, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA.
| | - Grace E Kissling
- Biostatistics Branch, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, P.O. Box 12233, Mail Drop A3-03, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA.
| | | | - John R Bucher
- Division of the National Toxicology Program, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, P.O. Box 12233, Mail Drop K2-02, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA.
| | - Linda S Birnbaum
- National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, P.O. Box 12233, Mail Drop B2-01, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
45
|
Rooney AA, Boyles AL, Wolfe MS, Bucher JR, Thayer KA. Systematic review and evidence integration for literature-based environmental health science assessments. Environ Health Perspect 2014; 122:711-8. [PMID: 24755067 PMCID: PMC4080517 DOI: 10.1289/ehp.1307972] [Citation(s) in RCA: 276] [Impact Index Per Article: 27.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/06/2013] [Accepted: 04/18/2014] [Indexed: 05/03/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Systematic-review methodologies provide objectivity and transparency to the process of collecting and synthesizing scientific evidence in reaching conclusions on specific research questions. There is increasing interest in applying these procedures to address environmental health questions. OBJECTIVES The goal was to develop a systematic-review framework to address environmental health questions by extending approaches developed for clinical medicine to handle the breadth of data relevant to environmental health sciences (e.g., human, animal, and mechanistic studies). METHODS The Office of Health Assessment and Translation (OHAT) adapted guidance from authorities on systematic-review and sought advice during development of the OHAT Approach through consultation with technical experts in systematic review and human health assessments, as well as scientific advisory groups and the public. The method was refined by considering expert and public comments and through application to case studies. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Here we present a seven-step framework for systematic review and evidence integration for reaching hazard identification conclusions: 1) problem formulation and protocol development, 2) search for and select studies for inclusion, 3) extract data from studies, 4) assess the quality or risk of bias of individual studies, 5) rate the confidence in the body of evidence, 6) translate the confidence ratings into levels of evidence, and 7) integrate the information from different evidence streams (human, animal, and "other relevant data" including mechanistic or in vitro studies) to develop hazard identification conclusions. CONCLUSION The principles of systematic review can be successfully applied to environmental health questions to provide greater objectivity and transparency to the process of developing conclusions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andrew A Rooney
- Office of Health Assessment and Translation, Division of the National Toxicology Program, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA
| | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
46
|
Thayer KA, Wolfe MS, Rooney AA, Boyles AL, Bucher JR, Birnbaum LS. Intersection of systematic review methodology with the NIH reproducibility initiative. Environ Health Perspect 2014; 122:A176-7. [PMID: 24984224 PMCID: PMC4080520 DOI: 10.1289/ehp.1408671] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/17/2023]
|
47
|
Murray HE, Thayer KA. Implementing systematic review in toxicological profiles: ATSDR and NIEHS/NTP collaboration. J Environ Health 2014; 76:34-5. [PMID: 24749224 PMCID: PMC5685487] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/03/2023]
|
48
|
Taylor KW, Hoffman K, Thayer KA, Daniels JL. Polyfluoroalkyl chemicals and menopause among women 20-65 years of age (NHANES). Environ Health Perspect 2014; 122:145-50. [PMID: 24280566 PMCID: PMC3915261 DOI: 10.1289/ehp.1306707] [Citation(s) in RCA: 77] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/25/2013] [Accepted: 11/26/2013] [Indexed: 05/19/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Polyfluoroalkyl chemicals (PFCs) such as perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoate (PFOA) have been associated with early menopause. However, previous cross-sectional studies have lacked adequate data to investigate possible reverse causality (i.e., higher serum concentrations due to decreased excretion after menopause). OBJECTIVES We investigated the association between PFOS, PFOA, perfluorononanoate (PFNA), and perfluorohexane sulfonate (PFHxS) and age at natural menopause among women 20-65 years of age in NHANES (National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey). METHODS We used proportional hazard models to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) for the onset of natural menopause as a function of age and serum PFC levels, and to investigate reverse causation by estimating associations between PFC levels and the rate of hysterectomy. We also used multivariable linear regression to determine whether time since menopause predicted serum PFC levels. RESULTS After adjusting for age at survey, race/ethnicity, education, ever smoking, and parity, women with higher levels of PFCs had earlier menopause than did women with the lowest PFC levels. We observed a monotonic association with PFHxS: The HR was 1.42 (95% CI: 1.08, 1.87) for serum concentrations in tertile 2 versus tertile 1, and 1.70 (95% CI: 1.36, 2.12) for tertile 3 versus tertile 1. We also found evidence of reverse causation: PFCs were positively associated with rate of hysterectomy, and time since natural menopause was positively associated with serum PFCs. CONCLUSIONS Our findings suggest a positive association between PFCs and menopause; however, at least part of the association may be due to reverse causation. Regardless of underlying cause, women appear to have higher PFC concentrations after menopause.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kyla W Taylor
- Office of Health Assessment and Translation, Division of the National Toxicology Program, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
49
|
Abstract
The burden of diabetes is increasing globally. Identifying novel preventable risk factors is an urgent need. In 2011, the U.S. National Toxicological Program (NTP) conducted a workshop to evaluate the epidemiologic and experimental evidence on the relationship of environmental chemicals with obesity, diabetes, and metabolic syndrome. Although the evidence was insufficient to establish causality, the NTP workshop review identified an overall positive association between some environmental chemicals and diabetes. In the present systematic review, our objective was to summarize the epidemiological research published since the NTP workshop. We identified a total of 29 articles (7 on arsenic, 3 on cadmium, 2 on mercury, 11 on persistent organic pollutants, 3 on phthalates, and 4 on bisphenol A), including 7 prospective studies. Considering consistency, temporality, strength, dose-response relationship, and biological plausibility (confounding), we concluded that the evidence is suggestive but not sufficient for a relationship between arsenic and persistent organic pollutants and is insufficient for mercury, phthalates, and bisphenol A. For cadmium, the epidemiologic evidence does not seem to suggest an association with diabetes. Important research questions include the need for additional prospective studies and the evaluation of the dose-response relationship, the role of joint exposures, and effect modification with other comorbidities and genetic variants.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Chin-Chi Kuo
- Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA,
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
50
|
Taylor KW, Novak RF, Anderson HA, Birnbaum LS, Blystone C, Devito M, Jacobs D, Köhrle J, Lee DH, Rylander L, Rignell-Hydbom A, Tornero-Velez R, Turyk ME, Boyles AL, Thayer KA, Lind L. Evaluation of the association between persistent organic pollutants (POPs) and diabetes in epidemiological studies: a national toxicology program workshop review. Environ Health Perspect 2013; 121:774-83. [PMID: 23651634 PMCID: PMC3701910 DOI: 10.1289/ehp.1205502] [Citation(s) in RCA: 235] [Impact Index Per Article: 21.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/21/2012] [Accepted: 05/01/2013] [Indexed: 05/08/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Diabetes is a major threat to public health in the United States and worldwide. Understanding the role of environmental chemicals in the development or progression of diabetes is an emerging issue in environmental health. OBJECTIVE We assessed the epidemiologic literature for evidence of associations between persistent organic pollutants (POPs) and type 2 diabetes. METHODS Using a PubMed search and reference lists from relevant studies or review articles, we identified 72 epidemiological studies that investigated associations of persistent organic pollutants (POPs) with diabetes. We evaluated these studies for consistency, strengths and weaknesses of study design (including power and statistical methods), clinical diagnosis, exposure assessment, study population characteristics, and identification of data gaps and areas for future research. CONCLUSIONS Heterogeneity of the studies precluded conducting a meta-analysis, but the overall evidence is sufficient for a positive association of some organochlorine POPs with type 2 diabetes. Collectively, these data are not sufficient to establish causality. Initial data mining revealed that the strongest positive correlation of diabetes with POPs occurred with organochlorine compounds, such as trans-nonachlor, dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene (DDE), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and dioxins and dioxin-like chemicals. There is less indication of an association between other nonorganochlorine POPs, such as perfluoroalkyl acids and brominated compounds, and type 2 diabetes. Experimental data are needed to confirm the causality of these POPs, which will shed new light on the pathogenesis of diabetes. This new information should be considered by governmental bodies involved in the regulation of environmental contaminants.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kyla W Taylor
- Office of Health Assessment and Translation, Division of the National Toxicology Program, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709 , USA.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|