1
|
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] [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
|
2
|
Vandenberg LN, Colborn T, Hayes TB, Heindel JJ, Jacobs DR, Lee DH, Myers JP, Shioda T, Soto AM, vom Saal FS, Welshons WV, Zoeller RT. Regulatory decisions on endocrine disrupting chemicals should be based on the principles of endocrinology. Reprod Toxicol 2013; 38:1-15. [PMID: 23411111 PMCID: PMC3902067 DOI: 10.1016/j.reprotox.2013.02.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 127] [Impact Index Per Article: 11.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/22/2012] [Revised: 01/18/2013] [Accepted: 02/01/2013] [Indexed: 02/05/2023]
Abstract
For years, scientists from various disciplines have studied the effects of endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) on the health and wellbeing of humans and wildlife. Some studies have specifically focused on the effects of low doses, i.e. those in the range that are thought to be safe for humans and/or animals. Others have focused on the existence of non-monotonic dose-response curves. These concepts challenge the way that chemical risk assessment is performed for EDCs. Continued discussions have clarified exactly what controversies and challenges remain. We address several of these issues, including why the study and regulation of EDCs should incorporate endocrine principles; what level of consensus there is for low dose effects; challenges to our understanding of non-monotonicity; and whether EDCs have been demonstrated to produce adverse effects. This discussion should result in a better understanding of these issues, and allow for additional dialog on their impact on risk assessment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Laura N Vandenberg
- Center for Regenerative & Developmental Biology, and Department of Biology, Tufts University, Medford, MA, United States.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
3
|
Duintjer Tebbens RJ, Pallansch MA, Chumakov KM, Halsey NA, Hovi T, Minor PD, Modlin JF, Patriarca PA, Sutter RW, Wright PF, Wassilak SGF, Cochi SL, Kim JH, Thompson KM. Review and assessment of poliovirus immunity and transmission: synthesis of knowledge gaps and identification of research needs. RISK ANALYSIS : AN OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF THE SOCIETY FOR RISK ANALYSIS 2013; 33:606-46. [PMID: 23550968 PMCID: PMC7890644 DOI: 10.1111/risa.12031] [Citation(s) in RCA: 69] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/22/2023]
Abstract
With the intensifying global efforts to eradicate wild polioviruses, policymakers face complex decisions related to achieving eradication and managing posteradication risks. These decisions and the expanding use of inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) trigger renewed interest in poliovirus immunity, particularly the role of mucosal immunity in the transmission of polioviruses. Sustained high population immunity to poliovirus transmission represents a key prerequisite to eradication, but poliovirus immunity and transmission remain poorly understood despite decades of studies. In April 2010, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention convened an international group of experts on poliovirus immunology and virology to review the literature relevant for modeling poliovirus transmission, develop a consensus about related uncertainties, and identify research needs. This article synthesizes the quantitative assessments and research needs identified during the process. Limitations in the evidence from oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) challenge studies and other relevant data led to differences in expert assessments, indicating the need for additional data, particularly in several priority areas for research: (1) the ability of IPV-induced immunity to prevent or reduce excretion and affect transmission, (2) the impact of waning immunity on the probability and extent of poliovirus excretion, (3) the relationship between the concentration of poliovirus excreted and infectiousness to others in different settings, and (4) the relative role of fecal-oral versus oropharyngeal transmission. This assessment of current knowledge supports the immediate conduct of additional studies to address the gaps.
Collapse
|
4
|
Lehikoinen A, Luoma E, Mäntyniemi S, Kuikka S. Optimizing the recovery efficiency of Finnish oil combating vessels in the Gulf of Finland using Bayesian Networks. ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY 2013; 47:1792-1799. [PMID: 23327520 DOI: 10.1021/es303634f] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/01/2023]
Abstract
Oil transport has greatly increased in the Gulf of Finland over the years, and risks of an oil accident occurring have risen. Thus, an effective oil combating strategy is needed. We developed a Bayesian Network (BN) to examine the recovery efficiency and optimal disposition of the Finnish oil combating vessels in the Gulf of Finland (GoF), Eastern Baltic Sea. Four alternative home harbors, five accident points, and ten oil combating vessels were included in the model to find the optimal disposition policy that would maximize the recovery efficiency. With this composition, the placement of the oil combating vessels seems not to have a significant effect on the recovery efficiency. The process seems to be strongly controlled by certain random factors independent of human action, e.g. wave height and stranding time of the oil. Therefore, the success of oil combating is rather uncertain, so it is also important to develop activities that aim for preventing accidents. We found that the model developed is suitable for this type of multidecision optimization. The methodology, results, and practices are further discussed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Annukka Lehikoinen
- Fisheries and Environmental Management Group, Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Helsinki, Kotka Maritime Research Center, Heikinkatu 7, FI-48100 Kotka, Finland.
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|