Search

Background: An estimated 3 billion people, largely in low- and middle-income countries, rely on unclean fuels for cooking, heating, and lighting to meet household energy needs. The resulting exposure to household air pollution (HAP) is a leading cause of pneumonia, chronic lung disease, and other adverse health effects. In the last decade, randomized controlled trials of clean cooking interventions to reduce HAP have been conducted. We aim to provide guidance on how to interpret the findings of these trials and how they should inform policy makers and practitioners.Methods: We assembled a multidisciplinary working group of international researchers, public health practitioners, and policymakers with expertise in household air pollution from within academia, the American Thoracic Society, funders, nongovernmental organizations, and global organizations, including the World Bank and the World Health Organization. We performed a literature search, convened four sessions via web conference, and developed consensus conclusions and recommendations via the Delphi method.Results: The committee reached consensus on 14 conclusions and recommendations. Although some trials using cleaner-burning biomass stoves or cleaner-cooking fuels have reduced HAP exposure, the committee was divided (with 55% saying no and 45% saying yes) on whether the studied interventions improved measured health outcomes.Conclusions: HAP is associated with adverse health effects in observational studies. However, it remains unclear which household energy interventions reduce exposure, improve health, can be scaled, and are sustainable. Researchers should engage with policy makers and practitioners working to scale cleaner energy solutions to understand and address their information needs.

BACKGROUND: Concerns for arsenic exposure are not limited to toxic waste sites and massive poisoning events. Chronic exposure continues to be a major public health problem worldwide, affecting hundreds of [...]

The aim of this study was to evaluate the systemic redox state and inflammatory markers in intensive care unit (ICU) or non‐ICU severe COVID‐19 patients during the hospitalization period. Blood samples were collected at hospital admission (T1) (Controls and COVID‐19 patients), 5–7 days after admission (T2: 5–7 days after hospital admission), and at the discharge time from the hospital (T3: 0–72 h before leaving hospital or death) to analyze systemic oxidative stress markers and inflammatory variables. The reactive oxygen species (ROS) production and mitochondrial membrane potential (MMP) were analyzed in peripheral granulocytes and monocytes. THP‐1 human monocytic cell line was incubated with plasma from non‐ICU and ICU COVID‐19 patients and cell viability and apoptosis rate were analyzed. Higher total antioxidant capacity, protein oxidation, lipid peroxidation, and IL‐6 at hospital admission were identified in both non‐ICU and ICU COVID‐19 patients. ICU COVID‐19 patients presented increased C‐reactive protein, ROS levels, and protein oxidation over hospitalization period compared to non‐ICU patients, despite increased antioxidant status. Granulocytes and monocytes of non‐ICU and ICU COVID‐19 patients presented lower MMP and higher ROS production compared to the healthy controls, with the highest values found in ICU COVID‐19 group. Finally, the incubation of THP‐1 cells with plasma acquired from ICU COVID‐19 patients at T3 hospitalization period decreased cell viability and apoptosis rate. In conclusion, disturbance in redox state is a hallmark of severe COVID‐19 and is associated with cell damage and death. Significance statement: COVID‐19 induces a strong inflammatory response that disturbs immunological response resulting in multiorgan impairment and systemic damage on several tissues. This study provided information regarding the redox state in SARS‐CoV‐2 severely infected patients over hospitalization. In summary, the progression of the hospitalization increased protein oxidation and reactive oxygen species (ROS) generation in intensive care unit (ICU) COVID‐19 patients. Furthermore, we showed that peripheral leukocytes produce a higher amount of ROS during severe SARS‐CoV‐2. Finally, the alterations in plasma obtained from ICU COVID‐19 at the end of the hospitalization resulted in lower cell viability and higher apoptosis rate. These findings suggest an interesting dynamic in the biomarkers with a potential use in clinical management of the disease. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Environmental exposures are ubiquitous and play a fundamental role in the development of complex human diseases. The exposome, which is defined as the totality of environmental exposures over the life course, allows for systematic evaluation of the relationship between exposures and associated biological consequences, and represents a powerful approach for discovery in environmental health research. However, implementing the exposome concept is challenged by the ability to accurately assess multiple exposures and the ability to integrate information across the exposure--disease continuum. On 14-15 January 2015, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) held the Exposome Workshop where a group of international and U.S. scientists from different disciplines gathered to review the state of the science in research areas related to the exposome and to provide recommendations for incorporating the exposome concept into each research area. To move the field forward, the NIEHS is establishing a Children's Health Exposure Analysis Resource (CHEAR) to provide infrastructure support for access to laboratory and statistical analyses to children's health studies. It is recognized that incorporating the exposome concept into exposure and environmental health research will be a long journey and will require significant collaborative efforts from different scientific disciplines, nations, and stakeholders., Introduction It is well recognized that both genetic and environmental factors contribute to complex human diseases, and environmental contributions play a major role in disease burden (Schwartz and Collins 2007; [...]

BACKGROUND: Exposure to inorganic and organic arsenic compounds is a major public health problem that affects hundreds of millions of people worldwide. Exposure to arsenic is associated with cancer and noncancer effects in nearly every organ in the body, and evidence is mounting for health effects at lower levels of arsenic exposure than previously thought. Building from a tremendous knowledge base with > 1,000 scientific papers published annually with 'arsenic' in the title, the question becomes, what questions would best drive future research directions? OBJECTIVES: The objective is to discuss emerging issues in arsenic research and identify data gaps across disciplines. METHODS: The National Institutes of Health's National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences Superfund Research Program convened a workshop to identify emerging issues and research needs to address the multi-faceted challenges related to arsenic and environmental health. This review summarizes information captured during the workshop. DISCUSSION: More information about aggregate exposure to arsenic is needed, including the amount and forms of arsenic found in foods. New strategies for mitigating arsenic exposures and related health effects range from engineered filtering systems to phytogenetics and nutritional interventions. Furthermore, integration of omics data with mechanistic and epidemiological data is a key step toward the goal of linking biomarkers of exposure and susceptibility to disease mechanisms and outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Promising research strategies and technologies for arsenic exposure and adverse health effect mitigation are being pursued, and future research is moving toward deeper collaborations and integration of information across disciplines to address data gaps. http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1510209, INTRODUCTION Inorganic and organic arsenic compounds continue to pose environmental public health challenges for hundreds of millions of people worldwide (WHO 2008). Nearly every organ in the body can be [...]

Summary: Population‐based prevalence surveys of Covid‐19 contribute to establish the burden of infection, the role of asymptomatic and mild infections in transmission, and allow more precise decisions about reopen policies. We performed a systematic review to evaluate qualitative aspects of these studies, assessing their reliability and compiling practices that can influence the methodological quality. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, bioRxiv and medRxiv, and included cross‐sectional studies using molecular and/or serological tests to estimate the prevalence of Covid‐19 in the general population. Survey quality was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Prevalence Studies. A correspondence analysis correlated methodological parameters of each study to identify patterns related to higher, intermediate and lower risks of bias. The available data described 37 surveys from 19 countries. The majority were from Europe and America, used antibody testing, and reached highly heterogeneous sample sizes and prevalence estimates. Minority communities were disproportionately affected by Covid‐19. Important risk of bias was detected in four domains: sample size, data analysis with sufficient coverage, measurements in standard way and response rate. The correspondence analysis showed few consistent patterns for high risk of bias. Intermediate risk of bias was related to American and European studies, municipal and regional initiatives, blood samples and prevalence >1%. Low risk of bias was related to Asian studies, nationwide initiatives, reverse‐transcriptase polymerase chain reaction tests and prevalence <1%. We identified methodological standards applied worldwide in Covid‐19 prevalence surveys, which may assist researchers with the planning, execution and reporting of future population‐based surveys. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) introduces a new translational research framework that builds upon previous biomedical models to create a more comprehensive and integrated environmental health paradigm. The framework was developed as a graphical construct that illustrates the complexity of designing, implementing, and tracking translational research in environmental health. We conceptualize translational research as a series of concentric rings and nodes, defining 'translation' as movement either from one ring to another or between nodes on a ring. A 'Fundamental Questions' ring expands upon the research described in other frameworks as 'basic' to include three interrelated concepts critical to basic science research: research questions, experimental settings, and organisms. This feature enables us to capture more granularity and thus facilitates an approach for categorizing translational research and its growth over time. We anticipate that the framework will help researchers develop compelling long-term translational research stories and accelerate public health impacts by clearly mapping out opportunities for collaborations. By using this paradigm, researchers everywhere will be better positioned to design research programs, identify research partners based on cross-disciplinary research needs, identify stakeholders who are likely to use the research for environmental decision-making and intervention, and track progress toward common goals., Background and Objective Embedded in the mission of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) is the goal of encouraging the translation of research from basic biomedical and environmental [...]

To analyze the hypothesis that retest gain scores would decrease in a decelerating curve to zero-gain as the retest interval increased, male college students were administered the WAIS on two occasions with a retest at either 1 week, 2 months, or 4 months. (Author/SJL)

This study explored the clinical utility of two established linguistic measures with a developmentally delayed preschool child adopted from a Romanian orphanage.