A proposed framework for the systematic review and integrated assessment (SYRINA) of endocrine disrupting chemicals

WHO/ILO work-related burden of disease and injury: Protocol for systematic reviews of occupational exposure to solar ultraviolet radiation and of the effect of occupational exposure to solar ultraviolet radiation on melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancer

BACKGROUND

The World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) are developing a joint methodology for estimating the national and global work-related burden of disease and injury (WHO/ILO joint methodology), with contributions from a large network of experts. In this paper, we present the protocol for two systematic reviews of parameters for estimating the number of deaths and disability-adjusted life years from melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancer (or keratinocyte carcinoma) from occupational exposure to solar ultraviolet radiation, to inform the development of the WHO/ILO joint methodology.

OBJECTIVES

We aim to systematically review studies on occupational exposure to solar ultraviolet radiation (Systematic Review 1) and systematically review and meta-analyse estimates of the effect of occupational exposure to solar ultraviolet radiation on melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancer (Systematic Review 2), applying the Navigation Guide systematic review methodology as an organizing framework and conducting both systematic reviews in tandem and in a harmonized way.

DATA SOURCES

Separately for Systematic Reviews 1 and 2, we will search electronic academic databases for potentially relevant records from published and unpublished studies, including Ovid Medline, PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science. We will also search electronic grey literature databases, Internet search engines and organizational websites; hand-search reference list of previous systematic reviews and included study records and consult additional experts.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY AND CRITERIA

We will include working-age (≥15 years) workers in the formal and informal economy in any WHO and/or ILO Member State, but exclude children (<15 years) and unpaid domestic workers. For Systematic Review 1, we will include quantitative studies on the prevalence of relevant levels of occupational exposure to solar ultraviolet radiation (i.e. <0.33 SED/d and ≥0.33 SED/d) and of the total working time spent outdoors, stratified by country, sex, age and industrial sector or occupation, in the years 1960 to 2018. For Systematic Review 2, we will include randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, case-control studies and other non-randomized intervention studies with an estimate of the effect of any occupational exposure to solar ultraviolet radiation (i.e., ≥0.33 SED/d) on the prevalence of, incidence of or mortality due to melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancer, compared with the theoretical minimum risk exposure level (i.e. <0.33 SED/d).

STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS

At least two review authors will independently screen titles and abstracts against the eligibility criteria at a first stage and full texts of potentially eligible records at a second stage, followed by extraction of data from qualifying studies. At least two review authors will assess the risk of bias and the quality of evidence, using the most suited tools currently available. For Systematic Review 2, if feasible, we will combine relative risks using meta-analysis. We will report results using the guidelines for accurate and transparent health estimates reporting (GATHER) for Systematic Review 1 and the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines (PRISMA) for Systematic Review 2.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42018094817.

WHO/ILO work-related burden of disease and injury: Protocol for systematic reviews of exposure to occupational ergonomic risk factors and of the effect of exposure to occupational ergonomic risk factors on osteoarthritis of hip or knee and selected other musculoskeletal diseases

BACKGROUND

The World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) are developing a joint methodology for estimating the national and global work-related burden of disease and injury (WHO/ILO joint methodology), with contributions from a large network of experts. In this paper, we present the protocol for two systematic reviews of parameters for estimating the number of disability-adjusted life years from osteoarthritis of hip or knee, and selected other musculoskeletal diseases respectively, attributable to exposure to occupational ergonomic risk factors to inform the development of the WHO/ILO joint methodology.

OBJECTIVES

We aim to systematically review studies on exposure to occupational ergonomic risk factors (Systematic Review 1) and systematically review and meta-analyze estimates of the effect of exposure to occupational ergonomic risk factors on osteoarthritis of the hip or knee, and selected other musculoskeletal diseases respectively (Systematic Review 2), applying the Navigation Guide systematic review methodology as an organizing framework, conducting both systematic reviews in tandem and in a harmonized way.

DATA SOURCES

Separately for Systematic Reviews 1 and 2, we will search electronic academic databases for potentially relevant records from published and unpublished studies, including Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science and CISDOC. We will also search electronic grey literature databases, Internet search engines and organizational websites; hand-search reference lists of previous systematic reviews and included study records; and consult additional experts.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY AND CRITERIA

We will include working-age (≥15 years) workers in the formal and informal economy in any WHO and/or ILO Member State, but exclude children (<15 years) and unpaid domestic workers. The included occupational ergonomic risk factors will be any exposure to one or more of: force exertion; demanding posture; repetitiveness; hand-arm vibration; lifting; kneeling and/or squatting; and climbing. Included outcomes will be (i) osteoarthritis and (ii) other musculoskeletal diseases (i.e., one or more of: rotator cuff syndrome; bicipital tendinitis; calcific tendinitis; shoulder impingement; bursitis shoulder; epicondylitis medialis; epicondylitis lateralis; bursitis elbow; bursitis hip; chondromalacia patellae; meniscus disorders; and/or bursitis knee). For Systematic Review 1, we will include quantitative prevalence studies of any exposure to occupational ergonomic risk factors stratified by country, gender, age and industrial sector or occupation. For Systematic Review 2, we will include randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, case-control-studies and other non-randomized intervention studies with an estimate of the relative effect of any exposure with occupational ergonomic risk factors on the prevalence or incidence of osteoarthritis and/or selected musculoskeletal diseases, compared with the theoretical minimum risk exposure level (i.e., no exposure).

STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS

At least two review authors will independently screen titles and abstracts against the eligibility criteria at a first stage and full texts of potentially eligible records at a second stage, followed by extraction of data from qualifying studies. At least two review authors will assess risk of bias and the quality of evidence, using the most suited tools currently available. For Systematic Review 2, if feasible, we will combine relative risks using meta-analysis. We will report results using the guidelines for accurate and transparent health estimates reporting (GATHER) for Systematic Review 1 and the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines (PRISMA) for Systematic Review 2. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018102631.

WHO/ILO work-related burden of disease and injury: Protocol for systematic reviews of exposure to occupational noise and of the effect of exposure to occupational noise on cardiovascular disease

BACKGROUND

The World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) are developing a joint methodology for estimating the national and global work-related burden of disease and injury (WHO/ILO joint methodology), with contributions from a large network of experts. In this paper, we present the protocol for two systematic reviews of parameters for estimating the number of deaths and disability-adjusted life years from cardiovascular disease attributable to exposure to occupational noise, to inform the development of the WHO/ILO joint methodology.

OBJECTIVES

We aim to systematically review studies on exposure to occupational noise (Systematic Review 1) and systematically review and meta-analyse estimates of the effect of occupational noise on cardiovascular diseases (Systematic Review 2), applying the Navigation Guide systematic review methodology as an organizing framework, conducting both systematic reviews in tandem and in a harmonized way.

DATA SOURCES

Separately for Systematic Reviews 1 and 2, we will search electronic academic databases for potentially relevant records from published and unpublished studies, including Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science and CISDOC. We will also search electronic grey literature databases, Internet search engines and organizational websites; hand search reference list of previous systematic reviews and included study records; and consult additional experts.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY AND CRITERIA

We will include working-age (≥15 years) workers in the formal and informal economy in any WHO and/or ILO Member State, but exclude children (<15 years) and unpaid domestic workers. The eligible risk factor will be occupational noise. Eligible outcomes will be hypertensive heart disease, ischaemic heart disease, stroke, cardiomyopathy, myocarditis, endocarditis and other circulatory diseases. For Systematic Review 1, we will include quantitative prevalence studies of exposure to occupational noise (i.e., low: <85 dB(A) and high: ≥85 dB(A)) stratified by country, sex, age and industrial sector or occupation. For Systematic Review 2, we will include randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, case-control studies and other non-randomized intervention studies with an estimate of the relative effect of high exposure to occupational noise on the prevalence of, incidence of or mortality due to cardiovascular disease, compared with the theoretical minimum risk exposure level (i.e., low exposure).

STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS

At least two review authors will independently screen titles and abstracts against the eligibility criteria at a first stage and full texts of potentially eligible records at a second stage, followed by extraction of data from qualifying studies. At least two review authors will assess risk of bias and the quality of evidence, using the most suited tools currently available. For Systematic Review 2, if feasible, we will combine relative risks using meta-analysis. We will report results using the guidelines for accurate and transparent health estimates reporting (GATHER) for Systematic Review 1 and the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines (PRISMA) for Systematic Review 2. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018092272.

WHO/ILO work-related burden of disease and injury: Protocol for systematic reviews of occupational exposure to solar ultraviolet radiation and of the effect of occupational exposure to solar ultraviolet radiation on cataract

BACKGROUND

The World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) are developing a joint methodology for estimating the national and global work-related burden of disease and injury (WHO/ILO joint methodology), with contributions from a large network of experts. Here, we present the protocol for two systematic reviews of parameters for estimating the number of disability-adjusted life years of cataracts from occupational exposure to solar ultraviolet radiation, to inform the development of the WHO/ILO joint methodology.

OBJECTIVES

We aim to systematically review studies on occupational exposure to solar ultraviolet radiation (Systematic Review 1) and systematically review and meta-analyse estimates of the effect of occupational exposure to solar ultraviolet radiation on the development of cataract (Systematic Review 2), applying the Navigation Guide systematic review methodology as an organizing framework and conducting both systematic reviews in tandem and in a harmonized way.

DATA SOURCES

Separately for Systematic Reviews 1 and 2, we will search electronic academic databases for potentially relevant records from published and unpublished studies, including Ovid Medline, PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Sciences. We will also search electronic grey literature databases, Internet search engines and organizational websites; hand search reference list of previous systematic reviews and included study records; and consult additional experts.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY AND CRITERIA

We will include working-age (≥15 years) workers in WHO and/or ILO Member States, but exclude children (<15 years) and unpaid domestic workers. For Systematic Review 1, we will include quantitative studies on the prevalence of relevant levels of occupational exposure to solar ultraviolet radiation and of the total working time spent outdoors from 1960 to 2018, stratified by sex, age, country and industrial sector or occupation. For Systematic Review 2, we will include randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, case-control studies and other non-randomized intervention studies with an estimate of the effect of any occupational exposure to solar ultraviolet radiation (i.e. ≥30 Jm^-2/day of occupational solar UV exposure at the surface of the eye) on the prevalence or incidence of cataract, compared with the theoretical minimum risk exposure level (i.e. <30 Jm^-2/day of occupational solar UV exposure at the surface of the eye).

STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS

At least two review authors will independently screen titles and abstracts against the eligibility criteria at a first stage and full texts of potentially eligible records at a second stage, followed by extraction of data from qualifying studies. At least two review authors will assess risk of bias and the quality of evidence, using the most suited tools currently available. For Systematic Review 2, if feasible, we will combine relative risks using meta-analysis. We will report results using the guidelines for accurate and transparent health estimates reporting (GATHER) for Systematic Review 1 and the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines (PRISMA) for Systematic Review 2. PROSPERO registration: CRD42018098897.

Overview of known plastic packaging-associated chemicals and their hazards

Global plastics production has reached 380 million metric tons in 2015, with around 40% used for packaging. Plastic packaging is diverse and made of multiple polymers and numerous additives, along with other components, such as adhesives or coatings. Further, packaging can contain residues from substances used during manufacturing, such as solvents, along with non-intentionally added substances (NIAS), such as impurities, oligomers, or degradation products. To characterize risks from chemicals potentially released during manufacturing, use, disposal, and/or recycling of packaging, comprehensive information on all chemicals involved is needed. Here, we present a database of Chemicals associated with Plastic Packaging (CPPdb), which includes chemicals used during manufacturing and/or present in final packaging articles. The CPPdb lists 906 chemicals likely associated with plastic packaging and 3377 substances that are possibly associated. Of the 906 chemicals likely associated with plastic packaging, 63 rank highest for human health hazards and 68 for environmental hazards according to the harmonized hazard classifications assigned by the European Chemicals Agency within the Classification, Labeling and Packaging (CLP) regulation implementing the United Nations' Globally Harmonized System (GHS). Further, 7 of the 906 substances are classified in the European Union as persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic (PBT), or very persistent, very bioaccumulative (vPvB), and 15 as endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDC). Thirty-four of the 906 chemicals are also recognized as EDC or potential EDC in the recent EDC report by the United Nations Environment Programme. The identified hazardous chemicals are used in plastics as monomers, intermediates, solvents, surfactants, plasticizers, stabilizers, biocides, flame retardants, accelerators, and colorants, among other functions. Our work was challenged by a lack of transparency and incompleteness of publicly available information on both the use and toxicity of numerous substances. The most hazardous chemicals identified here should be assessed in detail as potential candidates for substitution.

High-throughput screening and environmental risk assessment: State of the science and emerging applications

In 2007 the United States National Research Council (NRC) published a vision for toxicity testing in the 21st century that emphasized the use of in vitro high-throughput screening (HTS) methods and predictive models as an alternative to in vivo animal testing. In the present study we examine the state of the science of HTS and the progress that has been made in implementing and expanding on the NRC vision, as well as challenges to implementation that remain. Overall, significant progress has been made with regard to the availability of HTS data, aggregation of chemical property and toxicity information into online databases, and the development of various models and frameworks to support extrapolation of HTS data. However, HTS data and associated predictive models have not yet been widely applied in risk assessment. Major barriers include the disconnect between the endpoints measured in HTS assays and the assessment endpoints considered in risk assessments as well as the rapid pace at which new tools and models are evolving in contrast with the slow pace at which regulatory structures change. Nonetheless, there are opportunities for environmental scientists and policymakers alike to take an impactful role in the ongoing development and implementation of the NRC vision. Six specific areas for scientific coordination and/or policy engagement are identified. Environ Toxicol Chem 2019;38:12-26. Published 2018 Wiley Periodicals Inc. on behalf of SETAC. This article is a US government work and, as such, is in the public domain in the United States of America.

The risk of bias in observational studies of exposures (ROBINS-E) tool: concerns arising from application to observational studies of exposures

BACKGROUND

Systematic reviews, which assess the risk of bias in included studies, are increasingly used to develop environmental hazard assessments and public health guidelines. These research areas typically rely on evidence from human observational studies of exposures, yet there are currently no universally accepted standards for assessing risk of bias in such studies. The risk of bias in non-randomised studies of exposures (ROBINS-E) tool has been developed by building upon tools for risk of bias assessment of randomised trials, diagnostic test accuracy studies and observational studies of interventions. This paper reports our experience with the application of the ROBINS-E tool.

METHODS

We applied ROBINS-E to 74 exposure studies (60 cohort studies, 14 case-control studies) in 3 areas: environmental risk, dietary exposure and drug harm. All investigators provided written feedback, and we documented verbal discussion of the tool. We inductively and iteratively classified the feedback into 7 themes based on commonalities and differences until all the feedback was accounted for in the themes. We present a description of each theme.

RESULTS

We identified practical concerns with the premise that ROBINS-E is a structured comparison of the observational study being rated to the 'ideal' randomised controlled trial. ROBINS-E assesses 7 domains of bias, but relevant questions related to some critical sources of bias, such as exposure and funding source, are not assessed. ROBINS-E fails to discriminate between studies with a single risk of bias or multiple risks of bias. ROBINS-E is severely limited at determining whether confounders will bias study outcomes. The construct of co-exposures was difficult to distinguish from confounders. Applying ROBINS-E was time-consuming and confusing.

CONCLUSIONS

Our experience suggests that the ROBINS-E tool does not meet the need for an international standard for evaluating human observational studies for questions of harm relevant to public and environmental health. We propose that a simpler tool, based on empirical evidence of bias, would provide accurate measures of risk of bias and is more likely to meet the needs of the environmental and public health community.

Concerns related to ED-mediated effects of Bisphenol A and their regulatory consideration

The extensive database on BPA provides strong evidence of its adverse effects on reproductive, neurobehavioural, metabolic functions and mammary gland. Disruption of estrogenic pathway is central in the mediation of these effects although other modes of action may be involved. BPA has a weak affinity for ERα/β but interaction with extranuclearly located pathways activated by estrogens such as ERRγ and GPER reveals how BPA can act at low doses. The effects are observed later in life after developmental exposure and are associated with pathologies of major societal concern in terms of severity, incidence, impact on quality of life, burden on public health system. The complexity of the dose response raise uncertainties on the possibility to establish safe levels and the scope of ED-mediated effects of BPA may be wider. These concerns fulfill the requirements for ED identification under REACH regulation.

WHO/ILO work-related burden of disease and injury: Protocol for systematic reviews of exposure to long working hours and of the effect of exposure to long working hours on alcohol consumption and alcohol use disorders

BACKGROUND

The World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) are developing a joint methodology for estimating the national and global work-related burden of disease and injury (WHO/ILO joint methodology), with contributions from a large network of experts. In this paper, we present the protocol for two systematic reviews of parameters for estimating the number of deaths and disability-adjusted life years from alcohol consumption and alcohol use disorder attributable to exposure to long working hours, to inform the development of the WHO/ILO joint methodology.

OBJECTIVES

We aim to systematically review studies on exposure to long working hours (Systematic Review 1) and systematically review and meta-analyse estimates of the effect of exposure to long working hours on alcohol consumption and alcohol use disorder (Systematic Review 2), applying the Navigation Guide systematic review methodology as an organizing framework.

DATA SOURCES

Separately for Systematic Reviews 1 and 2, we will search electronic academic databases for potentially relevant records from published and unpublished studies, including MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, CISDOC and PsychINFO. We will also search electronic grey literature databases, Internet search engines and organizational websites; hand-search reference list of previous systematic reviews and included study records; and consult additional experts.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY AND CRITERIA

We will include working-age (≥15 years) workers in the formal and informal economy in any WHO and/or ILO Member State but exclude children (<15 years) and unpaid domestic workers. For Systematic Review 1, we will include quantitative prevalence studies of relevant levels of exposure to long working hours (i.e., 35-40, 41-48, 49-54 and ≥55 h/week) stratified by country, sex, age and industrial sector or occupation. For Systematic Review 2, we will include randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, case-control studies and other non-randomized intervention studies with an estimate of the relative effect of a relevant level of exposure to long working hours on total amount of alcohol consumed and on the incidence of, prevalence of or mortality from alcohol use disorders, compared with the theoretical minimum risk exposure level (i.e., worked 35-40 h/week).

STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS

At least two review authors will independently screen titles and abstracts at a first stage and full texts of potentially eligible records at a second stage, followed by extraction of data from qualifying studies. At least two review authors will assess risk of bias and quality of evidence, using the most suited tools currently available. For Systematic Review 2, if feasible, we will combine relative risks using meta-analysis. We will report results using the guidelines for accurate and transparent health estimates reporting (GATHER) for Systematic Review 1 and the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines (PRISMA) for Systematic Review 2. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018084077.

Current EU research activities on combined exposure to multiple chemicals

Humans and wildlife are exposed to an intractably large number of different combinations of chemicals via food, water, air, consumer products, and other media and sources. This raises concerns about their impact on public and environmental health. The risk assessment of chemicals for regulatory purposes mainly relies on the assessment of individual chemicals. If exposure to multiple chemicals is considered in a legislative framework, it is usually limited to chemicals falling within this framework and co-exposure to chemicals that are covered by a different regulatory framework is often neglected. Methodologies and guidance for assessing risks from combined exposure to multiple chemicals have been developed for different regulatory sectors, however, a harmonised, consistent approach for performing mixture risk assessments and management across different regulatory sectors is lacking. At the time of this publication, several EU research projects are running, funded by the current European Research and Innovation Programme Horizon 2020 or the Seventh Framework Programme. They aim at addressing knowledge gaps and developing methodologies to better assess chemical mixtures, by generating and making available internal and external exposure data, developing models for exposure assessment, developing tools for in silico and in vitro effect assessment to be applied in a tiered framework and for grouping of chemicals, as well as developing joint epidemiological-toxicological approaches for mixture risk assessment and for prioritising mixtures of concern. The projects EDC-MixRisk, EuroMix, EUToxRisk, HBM4EU and SOLUTIONS have started an exchange between the consortia, European Commission Services and EU Agencies, in order to identify where new methodologies have become available and where remaining gaps need to be further addressed. This paper maps how the different projects contribute to the data needs and assessment methodologies and identifies remaining challenges to be further addressed for the assessment of chemical mixtures.

Software Tools to Facilitate Systematic Review Used for Cancer Hazard Identification

Objective and systematic methods to search, review, and synthesize published studies are a fundamental aspect of carcinogen hazard classification. Systematic review is a historical strength of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Monographs Program and the United States National Toxicology Program (NTP) Office of the Report on Carcinogens (RoC). Both organizations are tasked with evaluating peer-reviewed, published evidence to determine whether specific substances, exposure scenarios, or mixtures pose a cancer hazard to humans. This evidence synthesis is based on objective, transparent, published methods that call for extracting and interpreting data in a systematic manner from multiple domains, including a) human exposure, b) epidemiological evidence, c) evidence from experimental animals, and d) mechanistic evidence. The process involves multiple collaborators and requires an extensive literature search, review, and synthesis of the evidence. Several online tools have been implemented to facilitate these collaborative systematic review processes. Specifically, Health Assessment Workplace Collaborative (HAWC) and Table Builder are custom solutions designed to record and share the results of the systematic literature search, data extraction, and analyses. In addition, a content management system for web-based project management and document submission has been adopted to enable access to submitted drafts simultaneously by multiple co-authors and to facilitate their peer review and revision. These advancements in cancer hazard classification have applicability in multiple systematic review efforts. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP4224.

WHO/ILO work-related burden of disease and injury: Protocol for systematic reviews of exposure to long working hours and of the effect of exposure to long working hours on stroke

BACKGROUND

The World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) are developing a joint methodology for estimating the national and global work-related burden of disease and injury (WHO/ILO joint methodology), with contributions from a large network of experts. In this paper, we present the protocol for two systematic reviews of parameters for estimating the number of deaths and disability-adjusted life years from stroke attributable to exposure to long working hours, to inform the development of the WHO/ILO joint methodology.

OBJECTIVES

We aim to systematically review studies on occupational exposure to long working hours (called Systematic Review 1 in the protocol) and systematically review and meta-analyse estimates of the effect of long working hours on stroke (called Systematic Review 2), applying the Navigation Guide systematic review methodology as an organizing framework, conducting both systematic reviews in tandem and in a harmonized way.

DATA SOURCES

Separately for Systematic Reviews 1 and 2, we will search electronic academic databases for potentially relevant records from published and unpublished studies, including Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, CISDOC and PsychINFO. We will also search electronic grey literature databases, Internet search engines and organizational websites; hand-search reference list of previous systematic reviews and included study records; and consult additional experts.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY AND CRITERIA

We will include working-age (≥15 years) workers in the formal and informal economy in any WHO and/or ILO Member State, but exclude children (<15 years) and unpaid domestic workers. For Systematic Review 1, we will include quantitative prevalence studies of relevant levels of occupational exposure to long working hours (i.e. 35-40, 41-48, 49-54 and ≥55 h/week) stratified by country, sex, age and industrial sector or occupation, in the years 2005-2018. For Systematic Review 2, we will include randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, case-control studies and other non-randomized intervention studies with an estimate of the relative effect of a relevant level of long working hours on the incidence of or mortality due to stroke, compared with the theoretical minimum risk exposure level (i.e. 35-40 h/week).

STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS

At least two review authors will independently screen titles and abstracts against the eligibility criteria at a first stage and full texts of potentially eligible records at a second stage, followed by extraction of data from qualifying studies. At least two review authors will assess risk of bias and the quality of evidence, using the most suited tools currently available. For Systematic Review 2, if feasible, we will combine relative risks using meta-analysis. We will report results using the guidelines for accurate and transparent health estimates reporting (GATHER) for Systematic Review 1 and the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines (PRISMA) for Systematic Review 2. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42017060124.

WHO/ILO work-related burden of disease and injury: Protocol for systematic reviews of occupational exposure to dusts and/or fibres and of the effect of occupational exposure to dusts and/or fibres on pneumoconiosis

BACKGROUND

The World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) are developing a joint methodology for estimating the national and global work-related burden of disease and injury (WHO/ILO joint methodology), with contributions from a large network of experts. In this paper, we present the protocol for two systematic reviews of parameters for estimating the number of deaths and disability-adjusted life years attributable to pneumoconiosis from occupational exposure to dusts and/or fibres, to inform the development of the WHO/ILO joint methodology.

OBJECTIVES

We aim to systematically review studies on occupational exposure to dusts and/or fibres (Systematic Review 1) and systematically review and meta-analyse estimates of the effect of occupational exposure to dusts and/or fibres on pneumoconiosis (Systematic Review 2), applying the Navigation Guide systematic review methodology as an organizing framework.

DATA SOURCES

Separately for Systematic Reviews 1 and 2, we will search electronic academic databases for potentially relevant records from published and unpublished studies, including Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science and CISDOC. We will also search electronic grey literature databases, Internet search engines and organizational websites; hand-search reference list of previous systematic reviews and included study records; and consult additional experts.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY AND CRITERIA

We will include working-age (≥15 years) study participants in the formal and informal economy in any WHO and/or ILO Member State but exclude children (<15 years) and unpaid domestic workers. Eligible risk factors will be dusts and/or fibres from: (i) asbestos; (ii) silica; and/or (iii) coal (defined as pure coal dust and/or dust from coal mining). Included outcomes will be (i) asbestosis; (ii) silicosis; (iii) coal worker pneumoconiosis; and (iv) unspecified pneumoconiosis. For Systematic Review 1, we will include quantitative prevalence studies of occupational exposure to dusts and/or fibres (i.e. no versus any exposure) stratified by country, sex, age and industrial sector or occupation. For Systematic Review 2, we will include randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, case-control studies and other non-randomized intervention studies with an estimate of any occupational exposure to dusts and/or fibres on the prevalence of, incidence of or mortality due to pneumoconiosis, compared with the theoretical minimum risk exposure level of no exposure.

STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS

At least two review authors will independently screen titles and abstracts against the eligibility criteria at a first stage and full texts of potentially eligible records at a second stage, followed by extraction of data from qualifying studies. At least two review authors will assess risk of bias and the quality of evidence, using the most suited tools currently available. For Systematic Review 2, if feasible, we will combine relative risks using meta-analysis. We will report results using the guidelines for accurate and transparent health estimates reporting (GATHER) for Systematic Review 1 and the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines (PRISMA) for Systematic Review 2.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42018084131.

WHO/ILO work-related burden of disease and injury: Protocol for systematic reviews of exposure to long working hours and of the effect of exposure to long working hours on ischaemic heart disease

BACKGROUND

The World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) are developing a joint methodology for estimating the national and global work-related burden of disease and injury (WHO/ILO joint methodology), with contributions from a large network of experts. In this paper, we present the protocol for two systematic reviews of parameters for estimating the number of deaths and disability-adjusted life years of ischaemic heart disease from exposure to long working hours, to inform the development of the WHO/ILO joint methodology.

OBJECTIVES

We aim to systematically review studies on occupational exposure to long working hours (Systematic Review 1) and systematically review and meta-analyse estimates of the effect of long working hours on ischaemic heart disease (Systematic Review 2), applying the Navigation Guide systematic review methodology as an organizing framework. The selection of both, the exposure and the health outcome is justified by substantial scientific evidence on adverse effects of long working hours on ischaemic heart disease risk.

DATA SOURCES

Separately for Systematic Reviews 1 and 2, we will search electronic academic databases for potentially relevant records from published and unpublished studies, Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, CISDOC and PsychINFO. We will also search electronic grey literature databases, Internet search engines and organizational websites; hand-search reference list of previous systematic reviews and included study records; and consult additional experts.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY AND CRITERIA

We will include working-age (≥15 years) workers in the formal and informal economy in any WHO and/or ILO Member State, but exclude children (<15 years) and unpaid domestic workers. For Systematic Review 1, we will include quantitative prevalence studies of relevant levels of exposure to long working hours (i.e. 35-40, 41-48, 49-54 and ≥55 h/week) stratified by country, sex, age and industrial sector or occupation. For Systematic Review 2, we will include randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, case-control studies and other non-randomized intervention studies with an estimate of the relative effect of relevant level(s) of long working hours on the prevalence of, incidence of or mortality from ischaemic heart disease, compared with the theoretical minimum risk exposure level (i.e. 35-40 h/week).

STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS

At least two review authors will independently screen titles and abstracts against the eligibility criteria at a first stage and full texts of potentially eligible records at a second stage, followed by extraction of data from qualifying studies. At least two review authors will assess risk of bias and the quality of evidence, using the most suited tools currently available. For Systematic Review 2, if feasible, we will combine relative risks using meta-analysis. We will report results using the guidelines for accurate and transparent health estimates reporting (GATHER) for Systematic Review 1 and the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines (PRISMA) for Systematic Review 2. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42017084243.

Investigation of estrogen activity in the raw and treated waters of riverbank infiltration using a yeast estrogen screen and chemical analysis

Exposure to various endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) can lead to adverse effects on reproductive physiology and behavior in both animals and humans. An adequate strategy for the prevention of environmental contamination and eliminating the effects of them must be established. Chemicals with estrogenic activity were selected, and the effectiveness of their removal during the purification processes in two drinking water treatment plants (DWTPs) using riverbank infiltrated water was determined. Thirty-five water samples in two sampling campaigns throughout different seasons were collected and screened with a yeast estrogen test; furthermore, bisphenol A (BPA), 17ß-estradiol (E2) and ethinyl-estradiol (EE2) content were measured using high-performance liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (HPLC-MS). Our results confirm that estrogenic compounds are present in sewage effluents and raw surface river water of DWTPs. Very low estrogen activity and pg/L concentrations of BPA and E2 were detected during drinking water processing and occasionally in drinking water. Based on this study, applied riverbank filtration and water treatment procedures do not seem to be suitable for the total removal of estrogenic chemicals. Local contamination could play an important role in increasing the BPA content of the drinking water at the consumer endpoint.

World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines on use of medically important antimicrobials in food-producing animals

Background

Antimicrobial use in food-producing animals selects for antimicrobial resistance that can be transmitted to humans via food or other transmission routes. The World Health Organization (WHO) in 2005 ranked the medical importance of antimicrobials used in humans. In late 2017, to preserve the effectiveness of medically important antimicrobials for humans, WHO released guidelines on use of antimicrobials in food-producing animals that incorporated the latest WHO rankings.

Methods

WHO commissioned systematic reviews and literature reviews, and convened a Guideline Development Group (GDG) of external experts free of unacceptable conflicts-of-interest. The GDG assessed the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, and formulated recommendations using a structured evidence-to-decision approach that considered the balance of benefits and harms, feasibility, resource implications, and impact on equity. The resulting guidelines were peer-reviewed by an independent External Review Group and approved by the WHO Guidelines Review Committee.

Results

These guidelines recommend reductions in the overall use of medically important antimicrobials in food-producing animals, including complete restriction of use of antimicrobials for growth promotion and for disease prevention (i.e., in healthy animals considered at risk of infection). These guidelines also recommend that antimicrobials identified as critically important for humans not be used in food-producing animals for treatment or disease control unless susceptibility testing demonstrates the drug to be the only treatment option.

Conclusions

To preserve the effectiveness of medically important antimicrobials, veterinarians, farmers, regulatory agencies, and all other stakeholders are urged to adopt these recommendations and work towards implementation of these guidelines.

The unsteady state and inertia of chemical regulation under the US Toxic Substances Control Act

After 40 years, the 1976 US Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) was revised under the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act. Its original goals of protecting the public from hazardous chemicals were hindered by complex and cumbersome administrative burdens, data limitations, vulnerabilities in risk assessments, and recurring corporate lawsuits. As a result, countless chemicals were entered into commercial use without toxicological information. Few chemicals of the many identified as potential public health threats were regulated or banned. This paper explores the factors that have worked against a comprehensive and rational policy for regulating toxic chemicals and discusses whether the TSCA revisions offer greater public protection against existing and new chemicals.

Calculation of the disease burden associated with environmental chemical exposures: application of toxicological information in health economic estimation

Calculation of costs and the Burden of Disease (BoD) is useful in developing resource allocation and prioritization strategies in public and environmental health. While useful, the Disability-Adjusted Life Year (DALY) metric disregards subclinical dysfunctions, adheres to stringent causal criteria, and is hampered by gaps in environmental exposure data, especially from industrializing countries. For these reasons, a recently calculated environmental BoD of 5.18% of the total DALYs is likely underestimated. We combined and extended cost calculations for exposures to environmental chemicals, including neurotoxicants, air pollution, and endocrine disrupting chemicals, where sufficient data were available to determine dose-dependent adverse effects. Environmental exposure information allowed cost estimates for the U.S. and the EU, for OECD countries, though less comprehensive for industrializing countries. As a complement to these health economic estimations, we used attributable risk valuations from expert elicitations to as a third approach to assessing the environmental BoD. For comparison of the different estimates, we used country-specific monetary values of each DALY. The main limitation of DALY calculations is that they are available for few environmental chemicals and primarily based on mortality and impact and duration of clinical morbidity, while less serious conditions are mostly disregarded. Our economic estimates based on available exposure information and dose-response data on environmental risk factors need to be seen in conjunction with other assessments of the total cost for these environmental risk factors, as our estimate overlaps only slightly with the previously estimated environmental DALY costs and crude calculations relying on attributable risks for environmental risk factors. The three approaches complement one another and suggest that environmental chemical exposures contribute costs that may exceed 10% of the global domestic product and that current DALY calculations substantially underestimate the economic costs associated with preventable environmental risk factors. By including toxicological and epidemiological information and data on exposure distributions, more representative results can be obtained from utilizing health economic analyses of the adverse effects associated with environmental chemicals.

Scientific Opinion of the PPR Panel on the follow-up of the findings of the External Scientific Report 'Literature review of epidemiological studies linking exposure to pesticides and health effects'

In 2013, EFSA published a comprehensive systematic review of epidemiological studies published from 2006 to 2012 investigating the association between pesticide exposure and many health outcomes. Despite the considerable amount of epidemiological information available, the quality of much of this evidence was rather low and many limitations likely affect the results so firm conclusions cannot be drawn. Studies that do not meet the 'recognised standards' mentioned in the Regulation (EU) No 1107/2009 are thus not suited for risk assessment. In this Scientific Opinion, the EFSA Panel on Plant Protection Products and their residues (PPR Panel) was requested to assess the methodological limitations of pesticide epidemiology studies and found that poor exposure characterisation primarily defined the major limitation. Frequent use of case-control studies as opposed to prospective studies was considered another limitation. Inadequate definition or deficiencies in health outcomes need to be avoided and reporting of findings could be improved in some cases. The PPR Panel proposed recommendations on how to improve the quality and reliability of pesticide epidemiology studies to overcome these limitations and to facilitate an appropriate use for risk assessment. The Panel recommended the conduct of systematic reviews and meta-analysis, where appropriate, of pesticide observational studies as useful methodology to understand the potential hazards of pesticides, exposure scenarios and methods for assessing exposure, exposure-response characterisation and risk characterisation. Finally, the PPR Panel proposed a methodological approach to integrate and weight multiple lines of evidence, including epidemiological data, for pesticide risk assessment. Biological plausibility can contribute to establishing causation.

Human cost burden of exposure to endocrine disrupting chemicals. A critical review

Recently published papers have alleged that exposures to endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) are causing substantial disease burdens in the EU and US and are consequently costing society hundreds of billions of dollars annually. To date, these cost estimates have not undergone adequate scientific scrutiny, but nevertheless are being used aggressively in advocacy campaigns in an attempt to fundamentally change how chemicals are tested, evaluated and regulated. Consequently, we critically evaluated the underlying methodology and assumptions employed by the chief architects of the disease burden cost estimates. Since the vast majority of their assigned disease burden costs are driven by the assumption that "loss of IQ" and "increased prevalence of intellectual disability" are caused by exposures to organophosphate pesticides (OPPs) and brominated flame retardants (PBDEs), we have taken special care in describing and evaluating the underlying toxicology and epidemiology evidence that was relied upon. Unfortunately, our review uncovered substantial flaws in the approach taken and the conclusions that were drawn. Indeed, the authors of these papers assumed causal relationships between putative exposures to EDCs and selected diseases, i.e., "loss of IQ" and "increased prevalence of intellectual disability", despite not having established them via a thorough evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of the underlying animal toxicology and human epidemiology evidence. Consequently, the assigned disease burden costs are highly speculative and should not be considered in the weight of evidence approach underlying any serious policy discussions serving to protect the public and regulate chemicals considered as EDCs.

Review of reviews on exposures to synthetic organic chemicals and children's neurodevelopment: Methodological and interpretation challenges

Environmental epidemiology data are becoming increasingly important in public health decision making, which commonly incorporates a systematic review of multiple studies. This review addresses two fundamental questions: What is the quality of available reviews on associations between exposure to synthetic organic chemicals and neurodevelopmental outcomes? What is the value (e.g., quality and consistency) of the underlying literature? Published reviews on associations between synthetic organic environmental chemical exposures and neurodevelopmental outcomes in children were systematically evaluated. Seventy-four relevant reviews were identified, and these were evaluated with respect to four methodological characteristics: (1) systematic inclusion/exclusion criteria and reproducible methods for search and retrieval of studies; (2) structured evaluation of underlying data quality; (3) systematic assessment of consistency across specific exposure-outcome associations; and (4) evaluation of reporting/publication bias. None of the 74 reviews fully met the criteria for all four methodological characteristics. Only four reviews met two criteria, and six reviews fulfilled only one criterion. Perhaps more importantly, the higher quality reviews were not able to meet all of the criteria owing to the shortcomings of underlying studies, which lacked comparability in terms of specific research question of interest, overall design, exposure assessment, outcome ascertainment, and analytic methods. Thus, even the most thoughtful and rigorous review may be of limited value if the underlying literature includes investigations that address different hypotheses and are beset by methodological inconsistencies and limitations. Issues identified in this review of reviews illustrate considerable challenges that are facing assessments of epidemiological evidence.

ZEBRAFISH AS AN IN VIVO MODEL FOR SUSTAINABLE CHEMICAL DESIGN

Heightened public awareness about the many thousands of chemicals in use and present as persistent contaminants in the environment has increased the demand for safer chemicals and more rigorous toxicity testing. There is a growing recognition that the use of traditional test models and empirical approaches is impractical for screening for toxicity the many thousands of chemicals in the environment and the hundreds of new chemistries introduced each year. These realities coupled with the green chemistry movement have prompted efforts to implement more predictive-based approaches to evaluate chemical toxicity early in product development. While used for many years in environmental toxicology and biomedicine, zebrafish use has accelerated more recently in genetic toxicology, high throughput screening (HTS), and behavioral testing. This review describes major advances in these testing methods that have positioned the zebrafish as a highly applicable model in chemical safety evaluations and sustainable chemistry efforts. Many toxic responses have been shown to be shared among fish and mammals owing to their generally well-conserved development, cellular networks, and organ systems. These shared responses have been observed for chemicals that impair endocrine functioning, development, and reproduction, as well as those that elicit cardiotoxicity and carcinogenicity, among other diseases. HTS technologies with zebrafish enable screening large chemical libraries for bioactivity that provide opportunities for testing early in product development. A compelling attribute of the zebrafish centers on being able to characterize toxicity mechanisms across multiple levels of biological organization from the genome to receptor interactions and cellular processes leading to phenotypic changes such as developmental malformations. Finally, there is a growing recognition of the links between human and wildlife health and the need for approaches that allow for assessment of real world multi-chemical exposures. The zebrafish is poised to be an important model in bridging these two conventionally separate areas of toxicology and characterizing the biological effects of chemical mixtures that could augment its role in sustainable chemistry.