Comprehensive evaluation of smoking exposures and their interactions on DNA methylation.

BACKGROUND: Smoking impacts DNA methylation, but data are lacking on smoking-related differential methylation by sex or dietary intake, recent smoking cessation (<1 year), persistence of differential methylation from in utero smoking exposure, and effects of environmental tobacco smoke (ETS). METHODS: We meta-analysed data from up to 15,014 adults across 5 cohorts with DNA methylation measured in blood using Illumina's EPIC array for current smoking (2560 exposed), quit < 1 year (500 exposed), in utero (286 exposed), and ETS exposure (676 exposed). We also evaluated the interaction of current smoking with sex or diet (fibre, folate, and vitamin C). FINDINGS: Using false discovery rate (FDR < 0.05), 65,857 CpGs were differentially methylated in relation to current smoking, 4025 with recent quitting, 594 with in utero exposure, and 6 with ETS. Most current smoking CpGs attenuated within a year of quitting. CpGs related to in utero exposure in adults were enriched for those previously observed in newborns. Differential methylation by current smoking at 4-71 CpGs may be modified by sex or dietary intake. Nearly half (35-50%) of differentially methylated CpGs on the 450 K array were associated with blood gene expression. Current smoking and in utero smoking CpGs implicated 3049 and 1067 druggable targets, including chemotherapy drugs. INTERPRETATION: Many smoking-related methylation sites were identified with Illumina's EPIC array. Most signals revert to levels observed in never smokers within a year of cessation. Many in utero smoking CpGs persist into adulthood. Smoking-related druggable targets may provide insights into cancer treatment response and shared mechanisms across smoking-related diseases. FUNDING: Intramural Research Program of the National Institutes of Health, Norwegian Ministry of Health and Care Services and the Ministry of Education and Research, Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health Directorates and the Scottish Funding Council, Medical Research Council UK and the Wellcome Trust.

Workplace interventions that aim to improve employee health and well-being in male-dominated industries: a systematic review.

The published evidence on whether workplace health and well-being interventions are as effective in male-dominated industries compared with mixed-gender environments has not been synthesised. We performed a systematic review of workplace interventions aimed at improving employee health and well-being in male-dominated industries. We searched Web of Knowledge, PubMed, Medline, Cochrane Database and Web of Science for articles describing workplace interventions in male-dominated industries that address employee health and well-being. The primary outcome was to determine the effectiveness of the intervention and the process evaluation (intervention delivery and adherence). To assess the quality of evidence, Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias Tool was used. Due to the heterogeneity of reported outcomes, meta-analysis was performed for only some outcomes and a narrative synthesis with albatross plots was presented. After full-text screening, 35 studies met the eligibility criteria. Thirty-two studies delivered the intervention face-to-face, while two were delivered via internet and one using postal mail. Intervention adherence ranged from 50% to 97%, dependent on mode of delivery and industry. 17 studies were considered low risk of bias. Albatross plots indicated some evidence of positive associations, particularly for interventions focusing on musculoskeletal disorders. There was little evidence of intervention effect on body mass index and systolic or diastolic blood pressure. Limited to moderate evidence of beneficial effects was found for workplace health and well-being interventions conducted within male-dominated industries. Such interventions in the workplace can be effective, despite a different culture in male-dominated compared with mixed industries, but are dependent on delivery, industry and outcome. CRD42019161283.

DNA methylation signature of passive smoke exposure is less pronounced than active smoking: The Understanding Society study.

INTRODUCTION: The extent of the biological impact of passive smoke exposure is unclear. We sought to investigate the association between passive smoke exposure and DNA methylation, which could serve as a biomarker of health risk. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We derived passive smoke exposure from self-reported questionnaire data among smoking and non-smoking partners of participants enrolled in the UK Household Longitudinal Study 'Understanding Society' (n=769). We performed an epigenome-wide association study (EWAS) of passive smoke exposure with DNA methylation in peripheral blood measured using the Illumina Infinium Methylation EPIC array. RESULTS: No CpG sites surpassed the epigenome-wide significance threshold of p<5.97 × 10-8 in relation to partner smoking, compared with 10 CpG sites identified in relation to own smoking. However, 10 CpG sites surpassed a less stringent threshold of p<1 × 10-5 in a model of partner smoking adjusted for own smoking (model 1), 7 CpG sites in a model of partner smoking restricted to non-smokers (model 2) and 16 CpGs in a model restricted to regular smokers (model 3). In addition, there was evidence for an interaction between own smoking status and partners' smoking status on DNA methylation levels at the majority of CpG sites identified in models 2 and 3. There was a clear lack of enrichment for previously identified smoking signals in the EWAS of passive smoke exposure compared with the EWAS of own smoking. CONCLUSION: The DNA methylation signature associated with passive smoke exposure is much less pronounced than that of own smoking, with no positive findings for 'expected' signals. It is unlikely that changes to DNA methylation serve as an important mechanism underlying the health risks of passive smoke exposure.

A systematic review protocol examining workplace interventions that aim to improve employee health and wellbeing in male-dominated industries.

BACKGROUND: The workplace environment potentially provides access to a large population who are employed, and it is an employer's responsibility to provide appropriate conditions for its employees. Whilst the aetiology of cardiovascular disease is multifactorial, it is generally acknowledged that working conditions, gender and age are involved in its development. Male-dominated industries (comprising > 70% male workers, e.g., agriculture, construction, manufacturing, mining, transport and technology) have a higher prevalence of health risk behaviours than other population subgroups. Working in a gender-dominated industry can impact an employee's health and wellbeing, particularly for the opposite sex. This systematic review examines workplace interventions that address the health and wellbeing of employees in male-dominated industries. METHODS: We will include randomised controlled trials and studies with non-randomised intervention groups. The interventions must aim to improve employee physical and/or mental health and wellbeing implemented in the workplace in male-dominated industries. There will be no limits on date. The following electronic databases will be searched for published studies: Web of Science, Embed, MedLine, PsycInfo and the Cochrane Database. The search strategy will include free-text terms and MeSH vocabulary, including 'male-dominated industries', 'workplace interventions', 'occupational stress', 'mental health', 'cardiovascular disease', 'blood pressure', 'body mass index' and 'exercise'. Two authors will independently select, review and extract data from studies that meet the inclusion criteria. The Cochrane's Risk of Bias tool will be used to assess risk of bias. We will perform structured summaries of the included studies and, if possible, conduct meta-analyses or construct an Albatross plot. DISCUSSION: There are an increasing number of interventions designed to improve employee health and wellbeing in the workplace, but no prior review that systematically evaluates their effectiveness. A systematic review is required to prioritise the future implementation of those interventions found to be most effective. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42019161283.