M-FISH evaluation of chromosome aberrations to examine for historical exposure to ionising radiation due to participation at British nuclear test sites.

Veterans of the British nuclear testing programme represent a population of ex-military personnel who had the potential to be exposed to ionising radiation through their participation at nuclear testing sites in the 1950s and 1960s. In the intervening years, members of this population have raised concerns about the status of their health and that of their descendants, as a consequence. Radiation dose estimates based on film badge measurements of external dose recorded at the time of the tests suggest any exposure to be limited for the majority of personnel, however, only ∼20% of personnel were monitored and no measurement for internalised exposure are on record. Here, to in-part address families concerns, we assay for chromosomal evidence of historical radiation exposure in a group of aged nuclear test (NT) veterans, using multiplexin situhybridisation (M-FISH), for comparison with a matched group of veterans who were not present at NT sites. In total, we analysed 9379 and 7698 metaphase cells using M-FISH (24-colour karyotyping) from 48 NT and 38 control veteran samples, representing veteran servicemen from the army, Royal Airforce and Royal Navy. We observed stable and unstable simple- and complex-type chromosome aberrations in both NT and control veterans' samples, however find no significant difference in yield of any chromosome aberration type between the two cohorts. We do observe higher average frequencies of complex chromosome aberrations in a very small subset of veterans previously identified as having a higher potential for radiation exposure, which may be indicative of internalised contamination to long-lived radionuclides from radiation fallout. By utilising recently published whole genome sequence analysis data of a sub-set of the same family groups, we examined for but found no relationship between paternal chromosome aberration burden, germline mutation frequency and self-reported concerns of adverse health in family members, suggesting that the previously reported health issues by participants in this study are unlikely to be associated with historical radiation exposure. We did observe a small number of families, representing both control and NT cohorts, showing a relationship between paternal chromosome aberrations and germline mutation sub-types which should be explored in future studies. In conclusion, we find no cytogenetic evidence of historical radiation exposure in the cohort of nuclear veterans sampled here, offering reassurance that attendance at NTs sites by the veterans sampled here, was not associated with significant levels of exposure to radiation.

No evidence of increased mutations in the germline of a group of British nuclear test veterans.

The potential germline effects of radiation exposure to military veterans present at British nuclear tests in Australia and the South Pacific is of considerable interest. We analyzed germline mutations in 60 families of UK military personnel comprising 30 control and 30 nuclear test veterans (NTV). Using whole-genome sequencing we studied the frequency and spectra of de novo mutations to investigate the transgenerational effect of veterans' (potential) exposure to radiation at nuclear bomb test sites. We find no elevation in total de novo single nucleotide variants, small insertion-deletions, structural variants or clustered mutations among the offspring of nuclear test veterans compared to those of control personnel. We did observe an elevated occurrence of single base substitution mutations within mutation signature SBS16, due to a subset of NTV offspring. The relevance of this elevation to potential exposure of veteran fathers and, future health risks, require further investigation. Overall, we find no evidence of increased mutations in the germline of a group of British nuclear test veterans. ISRCTN Registry 17461668.

British nuclear test veteran family trios for the study of genetic risk.

The risk of radiation effects in children of individuals exposed to ionising radiation remains an ongoing concern for aged veterans of the British nuclear testing programme. The genetic and cytogenetic family trio (GCFT) study is the first study to obtain blood samples from a group of British nuclear test veterans and their families for the purposes of identifying genetic alterations in offspring as a consequence of historical paternal exposure to ionising radiation. In this report, we describe the processes for recruitment and sampling, and provide a general description of the study population recruited. In total, blood samples were received from 91 (49 test and 42 control) families representing veteran servicemen from the army, Royal Air Force and Royal Navy. This translated to an overall response rate of 14% (49/353) for test veterans and 4% (42/992) for control veterans (excluding responders known to be ineligible). Due to the lack of dose information available, test veterans were allocated to a three-point exposure rank. Thirty (61%) test veterans were ranked in the lower group. Nineteen (39%) of the 49 test veterans were classified in the mid (5 veterans; 10%)/high (14 veterans; 29%) exposure ranks and included 12 veterans previously identified as belonging to the special groups or listed in health physics documents. An increased number of test veteran families (20%), compared with control families (5%), self-reported offspring with congenital abnormalities (p= 0.03). Whether this observation in this small group is reflective of the entire UK test veteran cohort or whether it is selection bias requires further work. The cohort described here represent an important and unique family trio grouping whose participation is enabling genetic studies, as part of the GCFT study, to be carried out. The outcomes of these studies will be published elsewhere. ISRCTN Registry: 17461668.

Vitamin D supplementation to prevent acute respiratory infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis of aggregate data from randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: A 2017 meta-analysis of data from 25 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of vitamin D supplementation for the prevention of acute respiratory infections (ARIs) revealed a protective effect of this intervention. We aimed to examine the link between vitamin D supplementation and prevention of ARIs in an updated meta-analysis. METHODS: For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, and the ClinicalTrials.gov registry for studies listed from database inception to May 1, 2020. Double-blind RCTs of vitamin D3, vitamin D2, or 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) supplementation for any duration, with a placebo or low-dose vitamin D control, were eligible if they had been approved by a research ethics committee, and if ARI incidence was collected prospectively and prespecified as an efficacy outcome. Studies reporting results of long-term follow-up of primary RCTs were excluded. Aggregated study-level data, stratified by baseline 25(OH)D concentration and age, were obtained from study authors. Using the proportion of participants in each trial who had one or more ARIs, we did a random-effects meta-analysis to obtain pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs to estimate the effect of vitamin D supplementation on the risk of having one or more ARIs (primary outcome) compared with placebo. Subgroup analyses were done to estimate whether the effects of vitamin D supplementation on the risk of ARI varied according to baseline 25(OH)D concentration (<25 nmol/L vs 25·0-49·9 nmol/L vs 50·0-74·9 nmol/L vs >75·0 nmol/L), vitamin D dose (daily equivalent of <400 international units [IU] vs 400-1000 IU vs 1001-2000 IU vs >2000 IU), dosing frequency (daily vs weekly vs once per month to once every 3 months), trial duration (≤12 months vs >12 months), age at enrolment (<1·00 years vs 1·00-15·99 years vs 16·00-64·99 years vs ≥65·00 years), and presence versus absence of airway disease (ie, asthma only, COPD only, or unrestricted). Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool. The study was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020190633. FINDINGS: We identified 1528 articles, of which 46 RCTs (75 541 participants) were eligible. Data for the primary outcome were obtained for 48 488 (98·1%) of 49 419 participants (aged 0-95 years) in 43 studies. A significantly lower proportion of participants in the vitamin D supplementation group had one or more ARIs (14 332 [61·3%] of 23 364 participants) than in the placebo group (14 217 [62·3%] of 22 802 participants), with an OR of 0·92 (95% CI 0·86-0·99; 37 studies; I2=35·6%, pheterogeneity=0·018). No significant effect of vitamin D supplementation on the risk of having one or more ARIs was observed for any of the subgroups defined by baseline 25(OH)D concentration. However, protective effects of supplementation were observed in trials in which vitamin D was given in a daily dosing regimen (OR 0·78 [95% CI 0·65-0·94]; 19 studies; I2=53·5%, pheterogeneity=0·003), at daily dose equivalents of 400-1000 IU (0·70 [0·55-0·89]; ten studies; I2=31·2%, pheterogeneity=0·16), for a duration of 12 months or less (0·82 [0·72-0·93]; 29 studies; I2=38·1%, pheterogeneity=0·021), and to participants aged 1·00-15·99 years at enrolment (0·71 [0·57-0·90]; 15 studies; I2=46·0%, pheterogeneity=0·027). No significant interaction between allocation to the vitamin D supplementation group versus the placebo group and dose, dose frequency, study duration, or age was observed. In addition, no significant difference in the proportion of participants who had at least one serious adverse event in the vitamin supplementation group compared with the placebo group was observed (0·97 [0·86-1·07]; 36 studies; I2=0·0%, pheterogeneity=0·99). Risk of bias within individual studies was assessed as being low for all but three trials. INTERPRETATION: Despite evidence of significant heterogeneity across trials, vitamin D supplementation was safe and overall reduced the risk of ARI compared with placebo, although the risk reduction was small. Protection was associated with administration of daily doses of 400-1000 IU for up to 12 months, and age at enrolment of 1·00-15·99 years. The relevance of these findings to COVID-19 is not known and requires further investigation. FUNDING: None.

Vitamin D supplementation to prevent acute respiratory infections: systematic review and meta-analysis of aggregate data from randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: A 2017 meta-analysis of data from 25 randomised controlled trials of vitamin D supplementation for the prevention of acute respiratory infections revealed a protective effect of the intervention. Since then, 20 new RCTs have been completed. METHODS: Systematic review and meta-analysis of data from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of vitamin D for ARI prevention using a random effects model. Pre-specified sub-group analyses were done to determine whether effects of vitamin D on risk of ARI varied according to baseline 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) concentration or dosing regimen. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Web of Science and the ClinicalTrials.gov registry from inception to 1st May 2020. Double-blind RCTs of supplementation with vitamin D or calcidiol, of any duration, were eligible if they were approved by a Research Ethics Committee and if ARI incidence was collected prospectively and pre-specified as an efficacy outcome. Aggregate data, stratified by baseline 25(OH)D concentration, were obtained from study authors. The study was registered with PROSPERO (no. CRD42020190633). FINDINGS: We identified 45 eligible RCTs (total 73,384 participants). Data were obtained for 46,331 (98.0%) of 47,262 participants in 42 studies, aged 0 to 95 years. For the primary comparison of vitamin D supplementation vs. placebo, the intervention reduced risk of ARI overall (Odds Ratio [OR] 0.91, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.99; P for heterogeneity 0.01). No statistically significant effect of vitamin D was seen for any of the sub-groups defined by baseline 25(OH)D concentration. However, protective effects were seen for trials in which vitamin D was given using a daily dosing regimen (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.93); at daily dose equivalents of 400-1000 IU (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.89); and for a duration of ≤12 months (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.93). No significant interaction was seen between allocation to vitamin D vs. placebo and dose frequency, dose size, or study duration. Vitamin D did not influence the proportion of participants experiencing at least one serious adverse event (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.09). Risk of bias within individual studies was assessed as being low for all but three trials. A funnel plot showed left-sided asymmetry (P=0.008, Egger's test). INTERPRETATION: Vitamin D supplementation was safe and reduced risk of ARI, despite evidence of significant heterogeneity across trials. Protection was associated with administration of daily doses of 400-1000 IU vitamin D for up to 12 months. The relevance of these findings to COVID-19 is not known and requires investigation. FUNDING: None.

High-dose oral vitamin D supplementation and mortality in people aged 65-84 years: the VIDAL cluster feasibility RCT of open versus double-blind individual randomisation.

BACKGROUND: Randomised controlled trials demonstrating improved longevity are needed to justify high-dose vitamin D supplementation for older populations. OBJECTIVES: To demonstrate the feasibility of a large trial (n ≈ 20,000) of high-dose vitamin D in people aged 65-84 years through general practitioner (GP) practices, and to cluster randomise participating practices between open-label and double-blind randomisation to compare effects on recruitment, compliance and contamination. DESIGN: Twenty GP practices were randomised in matched pairs between open-label and double-blind allocation. Within each practice, patients were individually randomised to vitamin D or control (i.e. no treatment or placebo). Participants were invited to attend their GP practice to provide a blood sample and complete a lifestyle questionnaire at recruitment and again at 2 years. Randomisation by telephone followed receipt of a serum corrected calcium assay confirming eligibility (< 2.65 nmol/l). Treatment compliance was reported by quarterly follow-up forms sent and returned by e-mail or post (participant choice). GP visits and infections were abstracted from GP records. Hospital attendances, cancer diagnoses and deaths were ascertained by linkage to Hospital Episode Statistics and national registration through NHS Digital. SETTING: GP practices in England. PARTICIPANTS: Recruitment opened in October 2013 and closed in January 2015. A total of 1615 registered patients aged 65-84 years were randomised: 407 to vitamin D and 421 to no treatment in open practices; 395 to vitamin D and 392 to placebo in blind practices. INTERVENTIONS: There was a 24-month treatment period: 12 monthly doses (100,000 IU of vitamin D3 or placebo as 5 ml oily solution) were posted after randomisation and at 1 year (100,000 IU per month corresponds to 3300 IU per day). Reminders were sent monthly by e-mail, text message or post. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Recruitment, compliance, contamination and change in circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] from baseline to 2 years. RESULTS: Participation rates (randomised/invited) were 15.0% in open practices and 13.4% in double-blind practices (p = 0.7). The proportion still taking study medication at 2 years was 91.2% in open practices and 89.2% in double-blind practices (p = 0.4). The proportion of control participants taking > 400 IU vitamin D per day at 2 years was 5.0% in open practices and 4.8% in double-blind practices. Mean serum 25(OH)D concentration was 51.5 nmol/l [95% confidence interval (CI) 50.2 to 52.8 nmol/l] with 82.6% of participants < 75 nmol/l at baseline. At 2 years, this increased to 109.6 nmol/l (95% CI 107.1 to 112.1 nmol/l) with 12.0% < 75 nmol/l in those allocated to vitamin D and was unaltered at 51.8 nmol/l (95% CI 49.8 to 53.8 nmol/l) in those allocated to no vitamin D (no treatment or placebo). CONCLUSIONS: A trial could recruit 20,000 participants aged 65-84 years through 200 GP practices over 2 years. Approximately 80% would be expected to adhere to allocated treatment (vitamin D or placebo) for 5 years. The trial could be conducted entirely by e-mail in participants aged < 80 years, but some participants aged 80-84 years would require postal follow-up. Recruitment and treatment compliance would be similar and contamination (self-administration of vitamin D) would be minimal, whether control participants are randomised openly to no treatment with no contact during the trial or randomised double-blind to placebo with monthly reminders. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN46328341 and EudraCT database 2011-003699-34. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 10. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

High-dose vitamin D may reduce the risk of many diseases, but without large randomised controlled trials the evidence will remain inconclusive. We therefore proposed the Vitamin D and Longevity (VIDAL) trial, with 20,000 older people randomised to either no vitamin D medication or vitamin D medication for 5 years. The VIDAL feasibility study was conducted to establish the procedures required for the main trial, including assessment of recruitment, compliance (taking study treatment as directed) and contamination (how many control participants started taking vitamin D). This was done in two sets of general practitioner (GP) practices: (1) 'open' practices, in which participants knew their treatment allocation (2 years of 100,000 IU vitamin D monthly or no treatment), and (2) 'double-blind' practices, in which participants and their GPs did not know whether they were taking vitamin D or placebo oil. We invited 11,376 men and women aged 65­84 years from 20 GP practices in England and 1615 (14%) took part. Ninety per cent of participants allocated to monthly oil took it for 2 years and few participants used vitamin supplements outside the trial, with no marked differences between open-label and double-blind arms. The best way to conduct the main trial will therefore depend on other considerations. A double-blind trial provides reliable evidence on effects where reporting could be influenced by you or your doctor knowing your treatment, which is important for many illnesses and any side effects of treatment. However, any long-term effects are likely to be considerably greater if treatment continues instead of stopping after 5 years when the main trial ends. An open trial is easier to conduct and, when it ends, those taking vitamin D can be offered a continuing supply so that the effect of lifelong treatment can be studied for major diseases and life expectancy, which are unlikely to be affected by individuals knowing whether or not they are taking vitamin D.

Past and current asbestos exposure and future mesothelioma risks in Britain: The Inhaled Particles Study (TIPS).

Background: Occupational and environmental airborne asbestos concentrations are too low and variable for lifetime exposures to be estimated reliably, and building workers and occupants may suffer higher exposure when asbestos in older buildings is disturbed or removed. Mesothelioma risks from current asbestos exposures are therefore not known. Methods: We interviewed and measured asbestos levels in lung samples from 257 patients treated for pneumothorax and 262 with resected lung cancer, recruited in England and Wales. Average lung burdens in British birth cohorts from 1940 to 1992 were estimated for asbestos-exposed workers and the general population. Results: Regression analysis of British mesothelioma death rates and average lung burdens in birth cohorts born before 1965 suggests a lifetime mesothelioma risk of approximately 0.01% per fibre/mg of amphiboles in the lung. In those born since 1965, the average lung burden is ∼1 fibre/mg among those with no occupational exposure. Conclusions: The average lifetime mesothelioma risk caused by recent environmental asbestos exposure in Britain will be about 1 in 10 000. The risk is an order of magnitude higher in a subgroup of exposed workers and probably in occupants in the most contaminated buildings. Further data are needed to discover whether asbestos still present in buildings, particularly schools, is a persistent or decreasing hazard to workers who disturb it and to the general population, and whether environmental exposure occurs predominantly in childhood or after beginning work. Similar studies are needed in other countries to estimate continuing environmental and occupational mesothelioma hazards worldwide, including the contribution from chrysotile.

Pleural mesothelioma and lung cancer risks in relation to occupational history and asbestos lung burden.

BACKGROUND: We have conducted a population-based study of pleural mesothelioma patients with occupational histories and measured asbestos lung burdens in occupationally exposed workers and in the general population. The relationship between lung burden and risk, particularly at environmental exposure levels, will enable future mesothelioma rates in people born after 1965 who never installed asbestos to be predicted from their asbestos lung burdens. METHODS: Following personal interview asbestos fibres longer than 5 µm were counted by transmission electron microscopy in lung samples obtained from 133 patients with mesothelioma and 262 patients with lung cancer. ORs for mesothelioma were converted to lifetime risks. RESULTS: Lifetime mesothelioma risk is approximately 0.02% per 1000 amphibole fibres per gram of dry lung tissue over a more than 100-fold range, from 1 to 4 in the most heavily exposed building workers to less than 1 in 500 in most of the population. The asbestos fibres counted were amosite (75%), crocidolite (18%), other amphiboles (5%) and chrysotile (2%). CONCLUSIONS: The approximate linearity of the dose-response together with lung burden measurements in younger people will provide reasonably reliable predictions of future mesothelioma rates in those born since 1965 whose risks cannot yet be seen in national rates. Burdens in those born more recently will indicate the continuing occupational and environmental hazards under current asbestos control regulations. Our results confirm the major contribution of amosite to UK mesothelioma incidence and the substantial contribution of non-occupational exposure, particularly in women.