| 1. |
- Canova, Cristina, et al.
(författare)
-
Coeliac disease and asthma association in children : the role of antibiotic consumption
- 2015
-
Ingår i: European Respiratory Journal. - : European Respiratory Society. - 0903-1936 .- 1399-3003. ; 46:1, s. 115-122
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The relationship between coeliac disease and asthma has been scarcely investigated. Infant antibiotic exposure has been linked to both diseases. We evaluated the association between childhood coeliac disease and asthma and the role of antibiotics in the first year of life. We followed a cohort of children born in 1995-2011 in the Friuli-Venezia Giulia region (Italy). Prescriptions for antibiotics in the first year of life and subsequent treated asthma were retrieved from drug prescription records; coeliac disease incident cases were identified from pathology reports, hospital discharges and exemption from prescription charges for clinical tests.We estimated incidence rate ratios (IRRs) using multivariate Poisson regression models. Among the 143 144 children, we identified 717 coeliac children and 34 969 asthmatics. Children with asthma were at increased risk of coeliac disease (IRR 1.46, 95% CI 1.25-1.67). Restricting the analysis to asthma that occurred before the diagnosis of coeliac disease, the excess risk disappeared, except for coeliac disease diagnosed after 5 years of age (IRR 1.37, 95% CI 1.09-1.71). Antibiotics were not a confounding factor in these associations. Childhood treated asthma and coeliac disease are significantly associated. This association is not confounded by antibiotic exposure in the first year of life and may be explained by other shared risk factors.
|
|
| 2. |
- Lang Kuhs, Krystle A, et al.
(författare)
-
Human Papillomavirus 16 E6 Antibodies in Individuals without Diagnosed Cancer : A Pooled Analysis
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention. - : American Association for Cancer Research. - 1055-9965 .- 1538-7755. ; 24:4, s. 683-689
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: The increasing incidence of oropharyngeal cancer in many developed countries has been attributed to human papillomavirus type 16 (HPV16) infections. Recently, HPV16 E6 serology has been identified as a promising early marker for oropharyngeal cancer. Therefore, characterization of HPV16 E6 seropositivity among individuals without cancer is warranted.METHODS: A total of 4,666 controls were pooled from several studies of cancer and HPV seropositivity, all tested within the same laboratory. HPV16 E6 seropositive controls were classified as having (i) moderate [mean fluorescent intensity (MFI) ≥ 484 and <1,000] or (ii) high seroreactivity (MFI ≥ 1,000). Associations of moderate and high HPV16 E6 seroreactivity with (i) demographic risk factors; and seropositivity for (ii) other HPV16 proteins (E1, E2, E4, E7, and L1), and (iii) E6 proteins from non-HPV16 types (HPV6, 11, 18, 31, 33, 45, and 52) were evaluated.RESULTS: Thirty-two (0.7%) HPV16 E6 seropositive controls were identified; 17 (0.4%) with moderate and 15 (0.3%) with high seroreactivity. High HPV16 E6 seroreactivity was associated with former smoking [odds ratio (OR), 5.5; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.2-51.8], and seropositivity against HPV16 L1 (OR, 4.8; 95% CI, 1.3-15.4); E2 (OR, 7.7; 95% CI, 1.4-29.1); multiple HPV16 proteins (OR, 25.3; 95% CI, 2.6-119.6 for three HPV16 proteins beside E6) and HPV33 E6 (OR, 17.7; 95% CI, 1.9-81.8). No associations were observed with moderate HPV16 E6 seroreactivity.CONCLUSIONS: High HPV16 E6 seroreactivity is rare among individuals without diagnosed cancer and was not explained by demographic factors.IMPACT: Some HPV16 E6 seropositive individuals without diagnosed HPV-driven cancer, especially those with seropositivity against other HPV16 proteins, may harbor a biologically relevant HPV16 infection.
|
|
| 3. |
- Pearce, Neil E, et al.
(författare)
-
IARC Monographs : 40 Years of Evaluating Carcinogenic Hazards to Humans
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Journal of Environmental Health Perspectives. - : Environmental Health Perspectives. - 0091-6765 .- 1552-9924. ; 123:6, s. 507-514
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Recently the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Programme for the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans has been criticized for several of its evaluations, and also the approach used to perform these evaluations. Some critics have claimed that IARC Working Groups' failures to recognize study weaknesses and biases of Working Group members have led to inappropriate classification of a number of agents as carcinogenic to humans.OBJECTIVES: The authors of this paper are scientists from various disciplines relevant to the identification and hazard evaluation of human carcinogens. We have examined here criticisms of the IARC classification process to determine the validity of these concerns. We review the history of IARC evaluations and describe how the IARC evaluations are performed.DISCUSSION: We conclude that these recent criticisms are unconvincing. The procedures employed by IARC to assemble Working Groups of scientists from the various discipline and the techniques followed to review the literature and perform hazard assessment of various agents provide a balanced evaluation and an appropriate indication of the weight of the evidence. Some disagreement by individual scientists to some evaluations is not evidence of process failure. The review process has been modified over time and will undoubtedly be altered in the future to improve the process. Any process can in theory be improved, and we would support continued review and improvement of the IARC processes. This does not mean, however, that the current procedures are flawed.CONCLUSIONS: The IARC Monographs have made, and continue to make, major contributions to the scientific underpinning for societal actions to improve the public's health.
|
|
