| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Van den Brink, P. J., et al.
(författare)
-
Toward sustainable environmental quality: Priority research questions for Europe
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. - : Wiley. - 0730-7268 .- 1552-8618. ; 37:9, s. 2281-2295
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals have been established to end poverty, protect the planet, and ensure prosperity for all. Delivery of the Sustainable Development Goals will require a healthy and productive environment. An understanding of the impacts of chemicals which can negatively impact environmental health is therefore essential to the delivery of the Sustainable Development Goals. However, current research on and regulation of chemicals in the environment tend to take a simplistic view and do not account for the complexity of the real world, which inhibits the way we manage chemicals. There is therefore an urgent need for a step change in the way we study and communicate the impacts and control of chemicals in the natural environment. To do this requires the major research questions to be identified so that resources are focused on questions that really matter. We present the findings of a horizon-scanning exercise to identify research priorities of the European environmental science community around chemicals in the environment. Using the key questions approach, we identified 22 questions of priority. These questions covered overarching questions about which chemicals we should be most concerned about and where, impacts of global megatrends, protection goals, and sustainability of chemicals; the development and parameterization of assessment and management frameworks; and mechanisms to maximize the impact of the research. The research questions identified provide a first-step in the path forward for the research, regulatory, and business communities to better assess and manage chemicals in the natural environment. Environ Toxicol Chem 2018;37:2281-2295. (c) 2018 The Authors. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of SETAC.
|
|
| 4. |
- Castillo, N. A., et al.
(författare)
-
Understanding pharmaceutical exposure and the potential for effects in marine biota : A survey of bonefish (Albula vulpes) across the Caribbean Basin
- 2024
-
Ingår i: Chemosphere. - : Elsevier. - 0045-6535 .- 1879-1298. ; 349
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Most research on pharmaceutical presence in the environment to date has focused on smaller scale assessments of freshwater and riverine systems, relying mainly on assays of water samples, while studies in marine ecosystems and of exposed biota are sparse. This study investigated the pharmaceutical burden in bonefish (Albula vulpes), an important recreational and artisanal fishery, to quantify pharmaceutical exposure throughout the Caribbean Basin. We sampled 74 bonefish from five regions, and analyzed them for 102 pharmaceuticals. We assessed the influence of sampling region on the number of pharmaceuticals, pharmaceutical assemblage, and risk of pharmacological effects. To evaluate the risk of pharmacological effects at the scale of the individual, we proposed a metric based on the human therapeutic plasma concentration (HTPC), comparing measured concentrations to a threshold of 1/3 the HTPC for each pharmaceutical. Every bonefish had at least one pharmaceutical, with an average of 4.9 and a maximum of 16 pharmaceuticals in one individual. At least one pharmaceutical was detected in exceedance of the 1/3 HTPC threshold in 39% of bonefish, with an average of 0.6 and a maximum of 11 pharmaceuticals exceeding in a Key West individual. The number of pharmaceuticals (49 detected in total) differed across regions, but the risk of pharmacological effects did not (23 pharmaceuticals exceeded the 1/3 HTPC threshold). The most common pharmaceuticals were venlafaxine (43 bonefish), atenolol (36), naloxone (27), codeine (27), and trimethoprim (24). Findings suggest that pharmaceutical detections and concentration may be independent, emphasizing the need to monitor risk to biota regardless of exposure diversity, and to focus on risk quantified at the individual level. This study supports the widespread presence of pharmaceuticals in marine systems and shows the utility of applying the HTPC to assess the potential for pharmacological effects, and thus quantify impact of exposure at large spatial scales.
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
- Hetland, M. L., et al.
(författare)
-
Active conventional treatment and three different biological treatments in early rheumatoid arthritis: phase IV investigator initiated, randomised, observer blinded clinical trial
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Bmj-British Medical Journal. - : BMJ. - 1756-1833. ; 371
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- OBJECTIVE To evaluate and compare benefits and harms of three biological treatments with different modes of action versus active conventional treatment in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis. DESIGN Investigator initiated, randomised, open label, blinded assessor, multiarm, phase IV study. SETTING Twenty nine rheumatology departments in Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland, the Netherlands, and Iceland between 2012 and 2018. PARTICIPANTS Patients aged 18 years and older with treatment naive rheumatoid arthritis, symptom duration less than 24 months, moderate to severe disease activity, and rheumatoid factor or anti-citrullinated protein antibody positivity, or increased C reactive protein. INTERVENTIONS Randomised 1:1:1:1, stratified by country, sex, and anti-citrullinated protein antibody status. All participants started methotrexate combined with (a) active conventional treatment (either prednisolone tapered to 5 mg/day, or sulfasalazine combined with hydroxychloroquine and intraarticular corticosteroids), (b) certolizumab pegol, (c) abatacept, or (d) tocilizumab. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The primary outcome was adjusted clinical disease activity index remission (CDAI <= 2.8) at 24 weeks with active conventional treatment as the reference. Key secondary outcomes and analyses included CDAI remission at 12 weeks and over time, other remission criteria, a non-inferiority analysis, and harms. RESULTS 812 patients underwent randomisation. The mean age was 54.3 years (standard deviation 14.7) and 68.8% were women. Baseline disease activity score of 28 joints was 5.0 (standard deviation 1.1). Adjusted 24 week CDAI remission rates were 42.7% (95% confidence interval 36.1% to 49.3%) for active conventional treatment, 46.5% (39.9% to 53.1%) for certolizumab pegol, 52.0% (45.5% to 58.6%) for abatacept, and 42.1% (35.3% to 48.8%) for tocilizumab. Corresponding absolute differences were 3.9% (95% confidence interval -5.5% to 13.2%) for certolizumab pegol, 9.4% (0.1% to 18.7%) for abatacept, and -0.6% (-10.1% to 8.9%) for tocilizumab. Key secondary outcomes showed no major differences among the four treatments. Differences in CDAI remission rates for active conventional treatment versus certolizumab pegol and tocilizumab, but not abatacept, remained within the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 15% (per protocol population). The total number of serious adverse events was 13 (percentage of patients who experienced at least one event 5.6%) for active conventional treatment, 20 (8.4%) for certolizumab pegol, 10 (4.9%) for abatacept, and 10 (4.9%) for tocilizumab. Eleven patients treated with abatacept stopped treatment early compared with 20-23 patients in the other arms. CONCLUSIONS All four treatments achieved high remission rates. Higher CDAI remission rate was observed for abatacept versus active conventional treatment, but not for certolizumab pegol or tocilizumab versus active conventional treatment. Other remission rates were similar across treatments. Non-inferiority analysis indicated that active conventional treatment was non-inferior to certolizumab pegol and tocilizumab, but not to abatacept. The results highlight the efficacy and safety of active conventional treatment based on methotrexate combined with corticosteroids, with nominally better results for abatacept, in treatment naive early rheumatoid arthritis.
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
