EU health information progress: the harvest of policy supporting projects and networks

Background

The European Commission supports the initiation of health information related projects and networks serving comparative population health monitoring and health system performance assessment. Many of these projects and networks have produced relevant data, standards, methods, indicators and knowledge that may be lost as these networks become inactive.

The aim of this project retrieval and review was to identify health information projects and networks and their produced output; and subsequently facilitate systematic access to this information for policy makers, researchers and interested others via a web-based repository.

Methods

The scope of this article covers 1. population health oriented topics and 2. health system/health services oriented topics. Out of scope are specific infectious diseases; individual rare diseases; and the occurrence and effects of specific medical treatments, interventions and diagnostics; cohort studies; or studies focusing on research methods.

We searched bibliographic databases and EU project databases for policy supporting projects and networks and selected those fulfilling our inclusion criteria after more in-depth inspection. We searched for their outputs. In addition, we reviewed country participation in these projects and networks.

Results

We identified 36 projects and networks, 16 of which are population health oriented, 6 are health systems and services oriented and 14 cover both. Their total volume of output is not easily retrievable, as many project websites have been discontinued. Some networks and/or their outputs have found continuance within European agencies and/or national institutions. Others are struggling or have gone lost, despite their policy relevance. Participation in the projects was not evenly distributed across Europe. Project information was made available through the Health Information Portal.

Conclusions

EU funded projects and networks have contributed greatly to the evidence-base for policy by providing comparative health information. However, more action is needed to evaluate and conserve their outputs and facilitate continued contribution to the field after project funding stops. The realization of a sustainable infrastructure for these projects and networks is urgent. The Health Information Portal can play an important role in conserving and reusing health information. Information inequalities may exist across Europe but need further investigating.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13690-021-00772-4.

Integrating technical and political views for a sustainable European Distributed Infrastructure on Population Health

Background

Non-Communicable diseases (NCD) are the main contributors to mortality and burden of disease. There is no infrastructure in Europe that could provide health information (HI) on Public Health monitoring and Health Systems Performance (HSP) for research and evidence-informed decision-making. Moreover, there was no EU and European Economic Area Member States (EU/EEA MSs) general consensus, on developing this initiative and guarantee its sustainability. The aim of this study is to analyze the integration of technical and political views made by the Joint Action on Health Information (InfAct; Information for Action) and the results obtained from those activities, in terms of advice and national and institutional support to develop an integrated and sustainable European Distributed Infrastructure on Population Health (DIPoH) for research and evidence-informed policy-making.

Methods

InfAct established two main boards, the Technical Dialogues (TDs) and the Assembly of Members (AoM), to provide a platform for discussion with EU/EEA MSs to establish a sustainable infrastructure for HI: 1) The TDs were composed by national technical experts (NTE) with the aim to discuss and provide feedback about scientific aspects, feasibility and EU-added value of the infrastructure proposed by InfAct. 2) The AoM gathered country representatives from Ministries of Health and Research at the highest political level, with the aim of providing policy-oriented advice for the future political acceptance, support, implementation, and development of InfAct’s outcomes including DIPoH.

The documentation provided for the meetings consisted in Fact-Sheets, where the main results, new methods and proposals were clearly exposed for discussion and assessment; altogether with more extended information of the DIPoH. The documentation was provided to national representatives within one more before each TD and AoM meeting.

The Agenda and methodological approaches for each TD and AoM meeting consisted in the presentations of the InfAct outcomes extending the information provided in the Fact-Sheets; followed by a non-structured interaction, exchange of information, discussion and suggestions by the MSs representatives.

The outcomes of the non-structured discussions were collected in Minutes of the TD and AoM meetings, and the final version was obtained with the consensus of all participants. Additionally, structured letters of political support were provided to the AoM representatives, for them to consider providing their MS written support for DIPoH.

Results

NTE, within the TDs, considered that DIPoH was useful for technical mutual learning and cooperation among and within countries; although they considered that the technical feasibility to uptake InfAct deliverables at the national and EU level was complex. The AoM focused on political support, resources, and expected MSs returns. The AoM representatives agreed in the interest of setting up an integrated and sustainable HI infrastructure and they considered DIPoH to be well-articulated and defined; although, some of them, expressed some barriers for providing DIPoH political support. The AoM representatives stated that the AoM is the most suitable way to inform EU MSs/ACs about future advances of DIPoH. Both boards provided valuable feedback to develop this infrastructure. Eleven countries and sixteen institutions supported the proposal, either by letters of political support or by signing the Memorandum of Understandings (MoU) and three countries, additionally, provided expression of financial commitment, for DIPoH to be added to the ESFRI 2021 roadmap.

Conclusions

TDs and AoM were key forums to develop, advise, advocate and provide support for a sustainable European research infrastructure for Population Health.

Prioritizing health information for national health reporting - a Delphi study of the Joint Action on Health Information (InfAct)

BACKGROUND

Health information (HI) strategies exist in several EU Member States, however, they mainly focus on technical issues and improving governance rather than on content-related priority setting. There is also little research available about national prioritization processes underlying HI development for policy support in the EU. The aim of this study was to broaden the knowledge base on HI prioritization strategies and to encourage expert exchange towards good practice models. A specific focus was put on HI produced for national health reporting, this being a crucial tool for policy advice.

METHODS

We conducted a literature search to identify published and grey literature on national HI prioritization. This was followed by a two-round Policy Delphi study, where we explored which processes and methods exist in EU Member States and associated countries for the prioritization of HI collection. In the first round, information about these processes was gathered in semi-structured questions; in the second round, participants were asked to rank the identified approaches for desirability and feasibility. The survey was conducted online; participants were recruited from the membership of the Joint Action on Health Information (InfAct - Information for Action).

RESULTS

119 experts were contacted, representing 40 InfAct partner institutions in 28 EU Member States and associated countries. Of these, 28 experts responded fully or partially to the first round, and six to the second round. In the first round, more than half of the respondents reported the existence of structured HI prioritization processes in their countries. To prioritize HI, a clear preference was given in the second round for a formal, horizontal process which includes different experts and stakeholders. National public health institutes were named desirable key stakeholders in this process, and also desirable and feasible coordinators for stakeholder coordination.

CONCLUSION

Health information prioritization methods and procedures reflect the heterogeneity of national public health systems in European countries. Mapping, sharing and ranking prioritization methods and procedures for "good practices" provides a meaningful basis for expert knowledge exchange on HI development. We recommend to make this process part of a future sustainable EU health information system and to use the information gathered in this project to initiate the development of a guidance "Good Practice HI Prioritization" among EU Member States and associated countries.

Overview of national health reporting in the EU and quality criteria for public health reports - results of the Joint Action InfAct

BACKGROUND

Health reporting shall provide up-to-date health-related data to inform policy-makers, researchers and the public. To this end, health reporting formats should be tailored to the needs and competencies of the target groups and provide comparable and high-quality information. Within the Joint Action on Health Information 'InfAct', we aimed at gaining an overview of health reporting practices in the EU Member States and associated countries, and developed quality criteria for the preparation of public health reports. The results are intended to facilitate making health information adequately available while reducing inequalities in health reporting across the EU.

METHODS

A web-based desk research was conducted among EU Member States and associated countries to generate an overview of different formats of national health reporting and their respective target groups. To identify possible quality criteria for public health reports, an exploratory literature review was performed and earlier projects were analysed. The final set of criteria was developed in exchange with experts from the InfAct consortium.

RESULTS

The web-based desk research showed that public health reports are the most frequently used format across countries (94%), most often addressed to scientists and researchers (51%), politicians and decision-makers (41%). However, across all reporting formats, the general public is the most frequently addressed target group. With regards to quality criteria for public health reports, the literature review has yielded few results. Therefore, two earlier projects served as main sources: the 'Evaluation of National and Regional Public Health Reports' and the guideline 'Good Practice in Health Reporting'from Germany. In collaboration with experts, quality criteria were identified and grouped into eight categories, ranging from topic selection to presentation of results, and compiled in a checklist for easy reference.

CONCLUSION

Health reporting practices in the EU are heterogeneous across Member States. The assembled quality criteria are intended to facilitate the preparation, dissemination and access to better comparable high-quality public health reports as a basis for evidence-based decision-making. A comprehensive conceptual and integrative approach that incorporates the policy perspective would be useful to investigate which dissemination strategies are the most suitable for specific requirements of the targeted groups.

Cross-national comparisons of health indicators require standardized definitions and common data sources

Background

Health indicators are used to monitor the health status and determinants of health of the population and population sub-groups, identify existing or emerging health problems which would require prevention and health promotion activities, help to target health care resources in the most adequate way as well as for evaluation of the success of public health actions both at the national and international level. The quality and validity of the health indicator depends both on available data and used indicator definition. In this study we will evaluate existing knowledge about comparability of different data sources for definition of health indicators, compare how selected health indicators presented in different international databases possibly differ, and finally, present the results from a case study from Finland on comparability of health indicators derived from different data sources at national level.

Methods

For comparisons, four health indicators were selected that were commonly available in international databases and available for the Finnish case study. These were prevalence of obesity, hypertension, diabetes, and asthma in the adult populations. Our evaluation has three parts: 1) a scoping review of the latest literature, 2) comparison of the prevalences presented in different international databases, and 3) a case study using data from Finland.

Results

Literature shows that comparability of estimated outcomes for health indicators using different data sources such as self-reported questionnaire data from surveys, measured data from surveys or data from administrative health registers, varies between indicators. Also, the case study from Finland showed that diseases which require regular health care visits such as diabetes, comparability is high while for health outcomes which can remain asymptomatic for a long time such as hypertension, comparability is lower. In different international health related databases, country specific results differ due to variations in the used data sources but also due to differences in indicator definitions.

Conclusions

Reliable comparison of the health indicators over time and between regions within a country or across the countries requires common indicator definitions, similar data sources and standardized data collection methods.

Prioritizing Health Information in Europe – What do we want and need to know?

Background

Prioritization of Health information (HI) involves the establishment of methodological standards, and the development of political momentum to reliably track health status and health determinants. This is important in order to strengthen the evidence base for public health policies and facilitate effective delivery of healthcare services. In support of the establishment of a sustainable EU-wide Health information system, this consortium explores how HI is prioritized in EU and associated countries.

Methods

The Robert Koch Institute is conducting an online Policy Delphi survey among InfAct project partners, stakeholders from EU-Member States and associated countries. The Delphi methodology allows for rankings and priority-setting among a group of experts. The Policy Delphi facilitates the analysis of the impact and acceptability of a proposed policy option. The survey targets experts in national public health institutes and agencies, ministries of health and research. Participants are invited to provide information regarding their national HI prioritization processes, and to rank prioritization strategies and criteria, according to their degree of “desirability”, “feasibility”, “importance” and “confidence”.

Results

The Delphi survey will compile and assess processes and methods used to prioritize health information at national level in the EU and associated countries. The expected outcome is a list of good-practices in health information development and prioritization within countries, which could be further integrated to a health information prioritization strategy at the European level.

Conclusions

Prioritizing health information ensures that the right data is collected, is used to support ongoing public health policy action, and to capture emerging public health issues. This overview of prioritization strategies and methods aims to promote evidence-based public health by structuring exchanges about national HI prioritization in Europe.

European Core Health Indicators - status and perspectives

BACKGROUND

The European Core Health Indicators (ECHI) are a key source of comparable health information for the European Union (EU) and its Member States (MS). The ECHI shortlist contains 88 indicators which were developed by experts from MS and international organisations. Most indicators are derived from data sources at the EU's statistical office (Eurostat), the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and are available for most MS. The remaining indicators on the shortlist are at different stages of conceptual and/or methodological development. The indicators have been reviewed in the past against scientific developments, changes in data collections and emerging policy needs, yet not as part of a systematic and sustainable procedure. There is also no regular inventory of problems met by the MS in collecting the necessary data. Work package 4 of the BRIDGE Health project aimed at updating and improving the existing ECHI-indicator knowledge and expertise and at strengthening the scientific base that supports the effective development and use of health indicators for health policy evaluation and prioritization by the EU and its MS. The aim of this paper is to present a first overview of its outcomes and to explore issues concerning the ECHI data availability, content and policy relevance, update process and accessibility to stakeholders, in light of working towards a sustainable future.

METHODS

Two surveys were conducted within the framework of the BRIDGE Health project to reassess the status of the ECHI shortlist. The first survey focused on data availability in EU MS, candidate countries and European Free Trade Association (EFTA) countries. The second survey evaluated current needs and criteria with respect to content and policy relevance of the ECHI shortlist. Exploring potential new indicator topics was part of both surveys. All evaluations were supported by an advisory network of national and international experts.

RESULTS

Of the 36 countries (EU MS, candidate and EFTA countries) contacted for the data availability mapping, 23 countries (63%) participated in the survey. Data availability from preferred data sources varied between chapters. Availability was highest for the chapter on demography and socio-economic situation, followed by the chapter on health status, where data were available for most indicators from more than 90% of the participating countries. Problems experienced by MS relating to the incorporation of ECHI into their health systems were also identified through the survey. Findings from the survey on policy relevance point at the need for strengthening the links with policy (priorities) and for exploring a possible format change of the list to accommodate actionability. It also showed support for embedding ECHI in a sustainable health information structure; this may practically be aided by a web-based single point of access to an information repository.

CONCLUSION

Policy relevance is an essential but not systematically developed criterion for the inclusion of indicators into the ECHI shortlist. Data availability is crucial for the actual implementation of indicators and has considerably increased for ECHI in the last decade. The data availability mapping provides a structured overview of the current status of data availability for implemented indicators. The ECHI shortlist can contribute to the collection of comparable policy-relevant health data in Europe, foster evidence-based public health and contribute to Member States learning from each other. Flexible and systematic incorporation of policy relevance in the ECHI shortlist review and revision process may substantiate ECHI as a core component of a future sustainable European health information infrastructure.

Looking beyond borders: integrating best practices in benefit-risk analysis into the field of food and nutrition

An integrated benefit-risk analysis aims to give guidance in decision situations where benefits do not clearly prevail over risks, and explicit weighing of benefits and risks is thus indicated. The BEPRARIBEAN project aims to advance benefit-risk analysis in the area of food and nutrition by learning from other fields. This paper constitutes the final stage of the project, in which commonalities and differences in benefit-risk analysis are identified between the Food and Nutrition field and other fields, namely Medicines, Food Microbiology, Environmental Health, Economics and Marketing-Finance, and Consumer Perception. From this, ways forward are characterized for benefit-risk analysis in Food and Nutrition. Integrated benefit-risk analysis in Food and Nutrition may advance in the following ways: Increased engagement and communication between assessors, managers, and stakeholders; more pragmatic problem-oriented framing of assessment; accepting some risk; pre- and post-market analysis; explicit communication of the assessment purpose, input and output; more human (dose-response) data and more efficient use of human data; segmenting populations based on physiology; explicit consideration of value judgments in assessment; integration of multiple benefits and risks from multiple domains; explicit recognition of the impact of consumer beliefs, opinions, views, perceptions, and attitudes on behaviour; and segmenting populations based on behaviour; the opportunities proposed here do not provide ultimate solutions; rather, they define a collection of issues to be taken account of in developing methods, tools, practices and policies, as well as refining the regulatory context, for benefit-risk analysis in Food and Nutrition and other fields. Thus, these opportunities will now need to be explored further and incorporated into benefit-risk practice and policy. If accepted, incorporation of these opportunities will also involve a paradigm shift in Food and Nutrition benefit-risk analysis towards conceiving the analysis as a process of creating shared knowledge among all stakeholders.

State of the art in benefit-risk analysis: food and nutrition

Benefit-risk assessment in food and nutrition is relatively new. It weighs the beneficial and adverse effects that a food (component) may have, in order to facilitate more informed management decisions regarding public health issues. It is rooted in the recognition that good food and nutrition can improve health and that some risk may be acceptable if benefit is expected to outweigh it. This paper presents an overview of current concepts and practices in benefit-risk analysis for food and nutrition. It aims to facilitate scientists and policy makers in performing, interpreting and evaluating benefit-risk assessments. Historically, the assessments of risks and benefits have been separate processes. Risk assessment is mainly addressed by toxicology, as demanded by regulation. It traditionally assumes that a maximum safe dose can be determined from experimental studies (usually in animals) and that applying appropriate uncertainty factors then defines the 'safe' intake for human populations. There is a minor role for other research traditions in risk assessment, such as epidemiology, which quantifies associations between determinants and health effects in humans. These effects can be both adverse and beneficial. Benefit assessment is newly developing in regulatory terms, but has been the subject of research for a long time within nutrition and epidemiology. The exact scope is yet to be defined. Reductions in risk can be termed benefits, but also states rising above 'the average health' are explored as benefits. In nutrition, current interest is in 'optimal' intake; from a population perspective, but also from a more individualised perspective. In current approaches to combine benefit and risk assessment, benefit assessment mirrors the traditional risk assessment paradigm of hazard identification, hazard characterization, exposure assessment and risk characterization. Benefit-risk comparison can be qualitative and quantitative. In a quantitative comparison, benefits and risks are expressed in a common currency, for which the input may be deterministic or (increasingly more) probabilistic. A tiered approach is advocated, as this allows for transparency, an early stop in the analysis and interim interaction with the decision-maker. A general problem in the disciplines underlying benefit-risk assessment is that good dose-response data, i.e. at relevant intake levels and suitable for the target population, are scarce. It is concluded that, provided it is clearly explained, benefit-risk assessment is a valuable approach to systematically show current knowledge and its gaps and to transparently provide the best possible science-based answer to complicated questions with a large potential impact on public health.

State of the art in benefit-risk analysis: introduction

Risk-taking is normal in everyday life if there are associated (perceived) benefits. Benefit-Risk Analysis (BRA) compares the risk of a situation to its related benefits and addresses the acceptability of the risk. Over the past years BRA in relation to food and food ingredients has gained attention. Food, and even the same food ingredient, may confer both beneficial and adverse effects. Measures directed at food safety may lead to suboptimal or insufficient levels of ingredients from a benefit perspective. In BRA, benefits and risks of food (ingredients) are assessed in one go and may conditionally be expressed into one currency. This allows the comparison of adverse and beneficial effects to be qualitative and quantitative. A BRA should help policy-makers to make more informed and balanced benefit-risk management decisions. Not allowing food benefits to occur in order to guarantee food safety is a risk management decision much the same as accepting some risk in order to achieve more benefits. BRA in food and nutrition is making progress, but difficulties remain. The field may benefit from looking across its borders to learn from other research areas. The BEPRARIBEAN project (Best Practices for Risk-Benefit Analysis: experience from out of food into food; http://en.opasnet.org/w/Bepraribean) aims to do so, by working together with Medicines, Food Microbiology, Environmental Health, Economics & Marketing-Finance and Consumer Perception. All perspectives are reviewed and subsequently integrated to identify opportunities for further development of BRA for food and food ingredients. Interesting issues that emerge are the varying degrees of risk that are deemed acceptable within the areas and the trend towards more open and participatory BRA processes. A set of 6 'state of the art' papers covering the above areas and a paper integrating the separate (re)views are published in this volume.

State of the art in benefit-risk analysis: food microbiology

Over the past years benefit-risk analysis (BRA) in relation to foods and food ingredients has gained much attention; in Europe and worldwide. BRA relating to food microbiology is however a relatively new field of research. Microbiological risk assessment is well defined but assessment of microbial benefits and the weighing of benefits and risk has not been systematically addressed. In this paper the state of the art in benefit-risk analysis in food microbiology is presented, with a brief overview of microbiological food safety practices. The quality and safety of foods is commonly best preserved by delaying the growth of spoilage bacteria and contamination by bacterial pathogens. However, microorganisms in food can be both harmful and beneficial. Many microorganisms are integral to various food production processes e.g. the production of beer, wine and various dairy products. Moreover, the use of some microorganisms in the production of fermented foods are often claimed to have beneficial effects on food nutrition and consumer health. Furthermore, food safety interventions leading to reduced public exposure to foodborne pathogens can be regarded as benefits. The BRA approach integrates an independent assessment of both risks and benefits and weighs the two using a common currency. Recently, a number of initiatives have been launched in the field of food and nutrition to address the formulation of the benefit-risk assessment approach. BRA has recently been advocated by EFSA for the public health management of food and food ingredients; as beneficial and adverse chemicals can often be found within the same foods and even the same ingredients. These recent developments in the scoping of BRA could be very relevant for food microbiological issues. BRA could become a valuable methodology to support evaluations and decision making regarding microbiological food safety and public health, supplementing other presently available policy making and administrative tools for microbiological food safety management.

Impact of substituting added sugar in carbonated soft drinks by intense sweeteners in young adults in the Netherlands: example of a benefit-risk approach

PURPOSE

Substituting added sugar in carbonated soft drinks with intense sweeteners may have potential beneficial, but also adverse health effects. This study assessed the benefits and risks associated with substituting added sugar in carbonated soft drinks with intense sweeteners in young adults in the Netherlands.

METHODS

A tiered approach was used analogous to the risk assessment paradigm, consisting of benefit and hazard identification, exposure assessment and finally benefit and risk characterization and comparison. Two extreme scenarios were compared in which all carbonated soft drinks were sweetened with either intense sweeteners or added sugar. National food consumption survey data were used, and intake of added sugar and intense sweeteners was calculated using the food composition table or analytical data for sweetener content.

RESULTS

Reduction in dental caries and body weight were identified as benefits of substituting sugar. The mean difference in total energy intake between the scenarios was 542 kJ per day in men and 357 kJ per day in women, under the assumption that no compensation takes place. In the 100% sweetener scenario, the average BMI decreased 1.7 kg/m(2) in men and 1.3 kg/m(2) in women when compared to the 100% sugar scenario. Risks are negligible, as the intake of intense sweeteners remains below the ADI in the substitution scenario.

CONCLUSIONS

Substitution of added sugar by intense sweeteners in carbonated soft drinks has beneficial effects on BMI and the reduction in dental caries, and does not seem to have adverse health effects in young adults, given the available knowledge and assumptions made.

The influence of fruit and vegetable consumption and genetic variation on NAD(P)H:quinone oxidoreductase (NQO1) phenotype in an endoscopy-based population

NAD(P)H:quinone oxidoreductase (NQO1) is an inducible detoxification enzyme relevant for colorectal cancer biochemoprevention. We evaluated the influence of recent fruit and vegetable (F&V) consumption and polymorphisms in NQO1 and transcription factor NFE2L2 on rectal NQO1 phenotype and also whether white blood cell (WBC) NQO1 activity reflects rectal activity. Among 94 sigmoidoscopy patients, we assessed F&V consumption by dietary record and determined the NQO1 c.609C > T and g.-718A > G and NFE2L2 g.-650C > A, g.-684G > A, and g.-686A > G polymorphisms. NQO1 mRNA level was measured in rectal biopsies and NQO1 activity in rectal biopsies and WBC. Consumption of F&V did not yield higher mRNA level or activity but rather appeared to have a repressive effect. Rectal activity was higher among NQO1 609CC-genotypes as compared to 609CT-genotypes (P < 0.0001; 609TT-genotypes were absent), whereas mRNA was higher among 609CT-genotypes (P < 0.001). mRNA and activity correlated among NQO1 609CC-genotypes (r = .50, P = 0.0001) but not among 609CT-genotypes (r = .14, P = 0.45). The NFE2L2-684A-allele was associated with higher mRNA levels (P = < 0.05). The other polymorphisms did not affect phenotype significantly. WBC and rectal activity did not correlate. In conclusion, genetic variation, especially the NQO1 609C > T polymorphism, is a more important predictor of rectal NQO1 phenotype than F&V consumption. WBC NQO1 activity is not a good surrogate for rectal activity.

NQO1 and NFE2L2 polymorphisms, fruit and vegetable intake and smoking and the risk of colorectal adenomas in an endoscopy-based population

Both environment and genetics contribute to the pathogenesis and prevention of colorectal neoplasia.

NAD(P)H

quinone oxidoreductase (NQO1) is a detoxification enzyme that is polymorphic and inducible. We investigated interactions between lifestyle factors and polymorphisms in NQO1 and its key regulatory transcription factor NFE2L2 in colorectal adenoma risk. The NQO1 c.609C>T and g.-718A>G and NFE2L2 g.-650C>A, g.-684G>A and g.-686A>G polymorphisms were determined among 740 Dutch adenoma cases and 698 endoscopy-based controls. Dietary intake was assessed by food frequency questionnaire, other lifestyle information by questionnaire. The NQO1 609CT genotype was associated with a higher adenoma risk (OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.00-1.62) compared with the 609CC genotype, whereas the 609TT genotype was not (OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.56-1.88). The higher risk with the NQO1 609CT-genotype was seen among smokers (OR 1.96, 95% CI 1.40-2.76), but not among nonsmokers (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.62-1.35; interaction p = 0.030). Fruit and vegetable consumption did not protect smokers from adenomas and did not interact with the NQO1 609C>T polymorphism or the NFE2L2 polymorphisms. A higher adenoma risk seen with high fruit and vegetable consumption among NQO1 -718GG genotypes was absent among -718GA genotypes (interaction p = 0.071). Gene-gene interactions were observed between the NQO1 609C>T and NFE2L2 -686A>G polymorphisms (interaction p = 0.056) and between the NQO1 -718 G>A and NFE2L2 -650C>A polymorphisms (interaction p = 0.013).

IN CONCLUSION

the NQO1 609CT genotype is associated with increased adenoma risk among smokers, which is not diminished by high fruit and vegetable consumption. The observed gene-gene interactions may point to a role for NFE2L2 polymorphisms in NQO1-related adenoma formation.

Glutathione S-transferase phenotypes in relation to genetic variation and fruit and vegetable consumption in an endoscopy-based population

High glutathione S-transferase (GST) activity may contribute to colorectal cancer prevention. Functional polymorphisms are known in the GSTM1, GSTT1, GSTA1 and GSTP1 genes. The influence of these GST polymorphisms and recent fruit and vegetable consumption on GST levels and activity has not been investigated simultaneously in a human population. Also, it is not clear if blood GST activity reflects rectal GST activity. Therefore, we determined GST polymorphisms in 94 patients scheduled for sigmoidoscopy. Rectal GST isoenzyme levels (GSTM1, GSTM2, GSTT1, GSTA and GSTP1) were measured by quantitative western blotting, and rectal and white blood cell total GST activities were measured spectrophotometrically using 1-chloro-2,4-dinitrobenzene (CDNB) as a substrate. Vegetable and fruit consumption was assessed by dietary record. As expected, the GSTM1 and GSTT1 deletion polymorphisms, and the GSTA1 g.-69C-->T polymorphism significantly affected the respective isoenzyme levels. Also, rectal GST isoenzyme levels differed between those with and without recent consumption of Alliaceae, Cucurbitaceae, Apiaceae and citrus fruit. Rectal GST activity, however, was not clearly influenced by fruit and vegetable consumption. It was most significantly determined by the GSTP1 c.313A-->G polymorphism; compared with the 313AA genotypes, the 313AG and 313GG genotypes showed 36 and 67 nmol/min/mg protein (P < 0.001) lower GST activity, respectively. The correlation between rectal and white blood cell GST activities was low (r = 0.40, P < 0.001), and the relevance of the various genetic and dietary factors appeared to differ between the two tissues. In conclusion, this study indicates that the GST enzyme system is influenced by both GST polymorphisms and consumption of fruits and vegetables. The latter appeared more important for individual rectal GST isoenzyme levels than for total GST activity, which could affect detoxification of isoenzyme-specific substrates. The study results do no support the use of white blood cell GST activity as a surrogate measure for rectal GST activity.

Protective effect of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs on colorectal adenomas is modified by a polymorphism in peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor delta

OBJECTIVE

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are associated with a decreased risk of colorectal tumors. Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in target genes of NSAID action, and their haplotypes, might modulate this protective effect.

METHODS

A case-control study including 724 cases and 682 controls was used to evaluate the effect of NSAIDs on colorectal adenoma risk in The Netherlands, a country in which NSAID use is relatively low. Cases and controls were classified according to presence or absence of endoscopy-proven, pathology-confirmed colorectal adenomas, ever in their lives. Thirteen SNPs in four genes (PPARdelta, PPARgamma, PTGS1 and PTGS2) were genotyped in 787 subjects (384 cases and 403 controls).

RESULTS

Compared to non-regular users (< 12 times/year), regular users of NSAIDs (> or = 12 times/year) had a lower risk of colorectal adenomas (odds ratio (OR): 0.75, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.56-0.99). The results were similar for aspirin only. We found an interaction between SNP c.-789C>T in PPARdelta and NSAID use (P=0.03). The protective effect of NSAIDs was strengthened for regular users with the PPARdelta CT or TT genotypes (OR: 0.35, 95%CI: 0.11-1.13), whereas a positive association was observed for non-regular users with these genotypes (OR: 2.24, 95%CI: 1.06-4.73) as compared to non-regular users with the CC genotype. Also, a statistically significant interaction between a major haplotype containing the minor allele of this SNP and NSAID use was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

This study confirms the protective effect of NSAIDs and suggests a modulating effect of a SNP in the promoter of PPARdelta.

GSTP1 and GSTA1 polymorphisms interact with cruciferous vegetable intake in colorectal adenoma risk

The possible interplay between cruciferous vegetable consumption, functional genetic variations in glutathione S-transferases (GST) M1, T1, P1, and A1, and colorectal adenomas, was investigated in a Dutch case-control study. The GSTM1 and GSTT1 deletion polymorphisms, and the single nucleotide polymorphisms in GSTP1 (A313G) and in GSTA1 (C-69T) were assessed among 746 cases who developed colorectal adenomas and 698 endoscopy-based controls without any type of colorectal polyps. High and low cruciferous vegetable consumption was defined based on a median split in the control group. High consumption was slightly positively associated with colorectal adenomas [odds ratio (OR) 1.15; 95% confidence interval, 0.92-1.44]. For GSTP1, a positive association with higher cruciferous vegetable intake was only apparent in individuals with the low-activity GSTP1 genotype (GG genotype, OR 1.94; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-3.69). This interaction was more pronounced in men, with higher age and with higher meat intake. The GSTA1 polymorphism may have a modifying role as well: the OR for higher intake compared with lower intake was 1.57 (0.93-2.65) for individuals homozygous for the low expression variant (TT genotype). This seemed to be stronger with younger age and higher red meat intake. Cruciferous vegetable consumption and the combined GSTA1 and GSTP1 genotypes showed a statistically significant interaction (P = 0.034). The GSTM1 and GSTT1 genotypes did not seem to modify the association between cruciferous vegetable intake and colorectal adenomas. In conclusion, GSTP1 and GSTA1 genotypes might modulate the association between cruciferous vegetable intake and colorectal adenomas.