Search

Context: In fiscal year 2019, the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) received an appropriation from Congress specifically to update guidelines for investigating community cancer concerns. This resulted in the DHHS directing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to fulfill this responsibility., Program: The CDC and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) provide guidance to state, tribal, local, and territorial (STLT) health departments and play important roles in supporting STLT programs in addressing community cancer concerns., Implementation: The updated guidelines offer enhancements addressing limitations and challenges regarding the process for investigating cancer clusters as expressed by STLT programs responsible for responding to inquiries and by communities impacted by unusual patterns of cancer. Additionally, the updated guidelines offer new tools and approaches associated with scientific advancements. Issues associated with improving communications and community engagement were a priority. Details in the updated guidelines provide suggestions for building and maintaining trust; provide resources via additional tools, templates, and methodology to facilitate sharing of information; provide suggestions for identifying agency and community points of contacts; and provide suggestions for establishing a community advisory committee., Conclusion: Enhancements to the previous guidelines were included to address advancements in statistical approaches and methods for understanding exposure pathways and also to respond to limitations described in the previous guidelines. Furthermore, these enhancements ensure communities have a voice in the process and offer methods to enhance transparency throughout the investigative process. Ultimately, the 2022 Guidelines are designed to ensure that community engagement, community input, and communication remains paramount to the process of assessing unusual patterns of cancer and environmental concerns., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Chemical contamination and pollution are an ongoing threat to human health and the environment. The concern over the consequences of chemical exposures at the global level continues to grow. Because resources are constrained, there is a need to prioritize interventions focused on the greatest health impact. Data, especially related to chemical exposures, are rarely available for most substances of concern, and alternate methods to evaluate their impact are needed., Structured Expert Judgment (sej) Process: A Structured Expert Judgment (Research Outreach, 2021) process was performed to provide plausible estimates of health impacts for 16 commonly found pollutants: asbestos, arsenic, benzene, chromium, cadmium, dioxins, fluoride, highly hazardous pesticides (HHPs), lead, mercury, polycyclic-aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), Per- and Polyfluorinated Substances (PFAs), phthalates, endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs), and brominated flame retardants (BRFs). This process, undertaken by sector experts, weighed individual estimations of the probable global health scale health impacts of each pollutant using objective estimates of the expert opinions' statistical accuracy and informativeness., Main Findings: The foremost substances, in terms of mean projected annual total deaths, were lead, asbestos, arsenic, and HHPs. Lead surpasses the others by a large margin, with an estimated median value of 1.7 million deaths annually. The three other substances averaged between 136,000 and 274,000 deaths per year. Of the 12 other chemicals evaluated, none reached an estimated annual death count exceeding 100,000. These findings underscore the importance of prioritizing available resources on reducing and remediating the impacts of these key pollutants., Range of Health Impacts: Based on the evidence available, experts concluded some of the more notorious chemical pollutants, such as PCBs and dioxin, do not result in high levels of human health impact from a global scale perspective. However, the chemical toxicity of some compounds released in recent decades, such as Endocrine Disrupters and PFAs, cannot be ignored, even if current impacts are limited. Moreover, the impact of some chemicals may be disproportionately large in some geographic areas. Continued research and monitoring are essential; and a preventative approach is needed for chemicals., Future Directions: These results, and potential similar analyses of other chemicals, are provided as inputs to ongoing discussions about priority setting for global chemicals and pollution management. Furthermore, we suggest that this SEJ process be repeated periodically as new information becomes available., Competing Interests: The nonprofit Pure Earth (David Hanrahan, Kate Porterfield, and Richard Fuller) has received funding historically from Open Philanthropy, GiveWell, Clarios Foundation, Trafigura Foundation, and Takeda Foundation. The other authors declare no competing interests. No funding was allocated for this project., (Copyright: © 2024 Marti et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

We evaluated the cross-context validity and equivalence of the US- and Canada-originated Retail Food Environment Index (RFEI) and modified RFEI (mRFEI) against a retail food environment dataset from the indigenous-majority city of Quetzaltenango (Xela), Guatemala. The RFEI/mRFEI failed to identify 77% of retailers and misclassified the healthiness of 42% of the remaining retailers in Xela, inaccurately labeling the city a food swamp. The RFEI/mRFEI are not currently suitable for mapping retail food environments in places like Quetzaltenango. Alternative functional and temporal classifications of retail food environments may provide measures with greater contextual fit, highlighting important cultural considerations for the study of place and dietary health., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Rationale: Indoor particulate matter is associated with worse chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) outcomes. It remains unknown whether reductions of indoor pollutants improve respiratory morbidity. Objectives: To determine whether placement of active portable high-efficiency particulate air cleaners can improve respiratory morbidity in former smokers. Methods: Eligible former smokers with moderate-to-severe COPD received active or sham portable high-efficiency particulate absolute air cleaners and were followed for 6 months in this blinded randomized controlled trial. The primary outcome was 6-month change in St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ). Secondary outcomes were exacerbation risk, respiratory symptoms, rescue medication use, and 6-minute-walk distance (6MWD). Intention-to-treat analysis included all subjects, and per-protocol analysis included adherent participants (greater than 80% use of air cleaner). Measurements and Main Results: A total of 116 participants were randomized, of which 84.5% completed the study. There was no statistically significant difference in total SGRQ score, but the active filter group had greater reduction in SGRQ symptom subscale (β, -7.7 [95% confidence interval (CI), -15.0 to -0.37]) and respiratory symptoms (Breathlessness, Cough, and Sputum Scale, β, -0.8 [95% CI, -1.5 to -0.1]); and lower rate of moderate exacerbations (incidence rate ratio, 0.32 [95% CI, 0.12-0.91]) and rescue medication use (incidence rate ratio, 0.54 [95% CI, 0.33-0.86]) compared with sham group (all P  < 0.05). In per-protocol analysis, there was a statistically significant difference in primary outcome between the active filter versus sham group (SGRQ, β -4.76 [95% CI, -9.2 to -0.34]) and in moderate exacerbation risk, Breathlessness, Cough, and Sputum Scale, and 6MWD. Participants spending more time indoors were more likely to have treatment benefit. Conclusions: This is the first environmental intervention study conducted among former smokers with COPD showing potential health benefits of portable high-efficiency particulate absolute air cleaners, particularly among those with greater adherence and spending a greater time indoors.