Consideraciones de seguridad en la prescripción de medicamentos antiinflamatorios no esteroideos (AINEs), a través de una revisión de revisiones sistemáticas / Safety considerations during prescription of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), through a review of systematic reviews

Los medicamentos antiinflamatorios no esteroideos (AI-NEs) se encuentran entre los medicamentos más consu-midos mundialmente. Esto hace necesario realizar unasíntesis amplia de la evidencia disponible sobre la pres-cripción segura y adecuada de AINEs en pacientes conenfermedad cardiovascular, enfermedad renal crónica,hipertensión, insuficiencia cardíaca o cirrosis hepáticay en población general. Para ello se ha realizado unarevisión de revisiones sistemáticas. El uso de AINEs seasoció a una probabilidad significativamente mayor dehepatotoxicidad y daño renal y un mayor riesgo de exa-cerbación de la insuficiencia cardíaca. Teniendo en cuen-ta el aumento del riesgo cardiovascular, hepático y renal,la prescripción de AINEs debe realizarse con cautela,considerando la duración del tratamiento y la situacióndel paciente. Por ello, se debe informar a los pacientessobre sus posibles consecuencias para la salud así comogarantizar un seguimiento adecuado de los mismos.(AU)

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) areamong the most widely used drugs worldwide. Thismakes it necessary to carry out a comprehensivesynthesis of the available evidence on the safe andadequate prescription of NSAIDs in patients with car-diovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, hyper-tension, heart failure or liver cirrhosis and in generalpopulation. For this, a review of systematic reviewswas carried out. The use of NSAIDs is associated witha significantly higher probability of hepatotoxicity andkidney damage, as well as increased risk of exacerba-tion of heart failure. Taking into account the increasedcardiovascular, liver and kidney risk, the prescription ofNSAIDs should be carried out with caution, consideringthe treatment duration and the patient’s situation. Forthis reason, patients should be informed about theirpossible health consequences as well as ensuring ade-quate monitoring of them.(AU)

Safety considerations during prescription of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), through a review of systematic reviews.

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are among the most widely used drugs worldwide. This makes it necessary to carry out a comprehensive synthesis of the available evidence on the safe and adequate prescription of NSAIDs in patients with cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, hypertension, heart failure or liver cirrhosis and in general population. For this, a review of systematic reviews was carried out. Data extraction and analysis were performed independently by two reviewers and a narrative synthesis of the results was carried out. The use of NSAIDs is associated with a significantly higher probability of hepatotoxicity and kidney damage, as well as increased risk of exacerbation of heart failure. Taking into account the increased cardiovascular, liver and kidney risk, the prescription of NSAIDs should be carried out with caution, considering the treatment duration and the patient's situation. For this reason, patients should be informed about their possible health consequences as well as ensuring adequate monitoring of them.

Serum levels of non-persistent environmental pollutants and risk of incident hypertension in a sub-cohort from the EPIC study.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of arterial hypertension (AHT), a well-known risk factor for cardiovascular disease, has considerably increased over last decades. Non-persistent environmental pollutants (npEPs) are a group of ubiquitous chemicals, widely used in consumer products such as food packaging and cosmetics, which have been identified as endocrine disrupting chemicals and obesogens. The aim of this study was to assess the potential associations of serum levels of three groups of npEPs with the risk of incident AHT. METHODS: Cohort study within a sub-cohort of Granada EPIC-Spain center (n = 670). We quantified serum concentrations of three groups of npEPs, i.e., bisphenol A (BPA), four parabens: methylparaben (MP), ethylparaben (EP), propylparaben (PP) and butylparaben (BP), and two benzophenones: benzophenone 1 (BP1), benzophenone 3 (BP3), in samples collected at recruitment. Statistical analyses were performed by means of Cox Proportional Hazard Models. RESULTS: Median follow-up time was 23 years. BPA and MP were found in >80% of the study population. Individuals within the 4th PP quartile (0.53-9.24 ng/ml) showed a statistically significant increased risk of AHT (HR = 1.40, p = 0.015). No associations were found for the rest of pollutants. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, we evidenced no associations of most npEPs with AHT risk, with the exception of an increased risk in the highest PP percentiles. Considering the limitations of using one spot serum sample for exposure characterization, further research on the potential contribution of npEPs on the development of AHT risk is warranted.

Historical exposure to non-persistent environmental pollutants and risk of type 2 diabetes in a Spanish sub-cohort from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition study.

BACKGROUND: Environmental factors are believed to account for a substantial burden of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Non-persistent environmental pollutants (npEPs) are a group of widely-used chemicals identified as endocrine/metabolic disrupting chemicals and obesogens. The aim of this study was to analyse the potential associations of serum levels of three groups of npEPs with the risk of incident T2DM. METHODS: This is a longitudinal study within a sub-sample of Granada EPIC-Spain cohort (n = 670). We quantified serum concentrations of 7 npEPs: four parabens (Methylparaben (MP) ethylparaben (EP), propylparaben (PP) and butilparaben (BP); two benzophenones: Benzophenone 1 (BP1), Benzophenone 3 (BP3); and Bisphenol A (BPA). Exposure was assessed by means of chemical analyses of serum samples collected at recruitment, and information on potential confounders was gathered by using validated questionnaires at baseline. Follow-up was performed by review of patients' clinical records. Cox Proportional Hazards Models were used for the statistical analyses. RESULTS: Median follow-up time was 23 years. There were 182 (27%) incident T2DM diagnoses in our sub-cohort. MP was the most frequently detected npEP, 88.42% samples above the limit of detection, and BP showed the lowest percentage of detection (19.21%). Those individuals within the fourth PP quartile (0.53-9.24 ng/ml) showed a statistically significant increased risk of T2DM (HR = 1.668 p = 0.012), while BP1 concentrations showed an inverse non-significant trend with the risk. CONCLUSIONS: We evidenced a potential contribution of npEP exposure on T2DM, but no clear trend was observed. However, limitations in relation to exposure estimation might influence our findings and further research is warranted to confirm our results.

Patient, tumor, and healthcare factors associated with regional variability in lung cancer survival: a Spanish high-resolution population-based study.

PURPOSE: The third most frequently diagnosed cancer in Europe in 2018 was lung cancer; it is also the leading cause of cancer death in Europe. We studied patient and tumor characteristics, and patterns of healthcare provision explaining regional variability in lung cancer survival in southern Spain. METHODS: A population-based cohort study included all 1196 incident first invasive primary lung cancer (C33-C34 according to ICD-10) cases diagnosed between 2010 and 2011 with follow-up until April 2015. Data were drawn from local population-based cancer registries and patients' hospital medical records from all public and private hospitals from two regions in southern Spain. RESULTS: There was evidence of regional differences in lung cancer late diagnosis (58% stage IV in Granada vs. 65% in Huelva, p value < 0.001). Among patients with stage I, only 67% received surgery compared with 0.6% of patients with stage IV. Patients treated with a combination of radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and surgery had a 2-year mortality risk reduction of 94% compared with patients who did not receive any treatment (excess mortality risk 0.06; 95% CI 0.02-0.16). Geographical differences in survival were observed between the two regions: 35% vs. 26% at 1-year since diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: The observed geographic differences in survival between regions are due in part to the late cancer diagnosis which determines the use of less effective therapeutic options. Results from our study justify the need for promoting lung cancer early detection strategies and the harmonization of the best practice in lung cancer management and treatment.

Night-shift work and breast and prostate cancer risk: updating the evidence from epidemiological studies.

It has been hypothesized that circadian disruption is related to higher cancer risk. Since the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified shift work involving circadian disruption as probably carcinogenic to humans (Group 2A), multiple studies have been conducted to test this hypothesis. The aim of this systematic review was to summarize the findings and evaluate the quality of existing epidemiological studies (case-control and cohort studies) on the relationship between night-shift work and breast and prostate cancer risk. Thirty-three epidemiological studies investigating the relationship between night-shift work and breast (n = 26) or prostate (n = 8) cancer risk were included (one paper included both sites). The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for the quality of non-randomized studies was used to assess the risk of bias of the publications. The studies included were heterogeneous regarding population (general population, nurses working in rotating shifts, and other) and measurement of exposure to night-shift work (ever vs. never exposure, short vs. long-term, rotating vs. permanent) and, thus, a diversity of outcomes were observed even within the same type of cancer. In summary, 62.5% works found some type of association between night-shift work and increased risk of cancer, for both breast and prostate. The risk of bias scored an average of 7.5 over 9 stars. Due to the limitations inherent in these studies, the evidence of a possible association between night-shift work and breast or prostate cancer risk remains uncertain and more studies providing greater control of exposure and confounding factors are required. Despite the lack of conclusive evidence, application of the precautionary principle seems advisable.

Night-shift work and breast and prostate cancer risk: updating the evidence from epidemiological studies / Trabajo nocturno por turnos y el riesgo de cáncer de mama y próstata: actualizando la evidencia a partir de estudios epidemiológicos

It has been hypothesized that circadian disruption is related to higher cancer risk. Since the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified shift work involving circadian disruption as probably carcinogenic to humans (Group 2A), multiple studies have been conducted to test this hypothesis. The aim of this systematic review was to summarize the findings and evaluate the quality of existing epidemiological studies (case-control and cohort studies) on the relationship between night-shift work and breast and prostate cancer risk. Thirty-three epidemiological studies investigating the relationship between night-shift work and breast (n = 26) or prostate (n = 8) cancer risk were included (one paper included both sites). The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for the quality of non-randomized studies was used to assess the risk of bias of the publications. The studies included were heterogeneous regarding population (general population, nurses working in rotating shifts, and other) and measurement of exposure to night-shift work (ever vs. never exposure, short vs. long-term, rotating vs. permanent) and, thus, a diversity of outcomes were observed even within the same type of cancer. In summary, 62.5% works found some type of association between night-shift work and increased risk of cancer, for both breast and prostate. The risk of bias scored an average of 7.5 over 9 stars. Due to the limitations inherent in these studies, the evidence of a possible association between night-shift work and breast or prostate cancer risk remains uncertain and more studies providing greater control of exposure and confounding factors are required. Despite the lack of conclusive evidence, application of the precautionary principle seems advisable

Se ha formulado la hipótesis de que la disrupción circadiana está relacionada con un mayor riesgo de cáncer. Desde que la Agencia Internacional de Investigación sobre el Cáncer clasificó la disrupción circadiana asociada al trabajo por turnos como "probablemente carcinógeno para los humanos" (Grupo 2A) se han llevado a cabo numerosos estudios para confirmar o rechazar esta hipótesis. Por esa razón, el objetivo de esta revisión sistemática fue analizar la posible asociación entre el trabajo nocturno por turnos y el riesgo de cáncer de mama o próstata. Se incluyeron treinta y tres estudios epidemiológicos sobre la relación entre el riesgo de padecer cáncer de mama (n = 26) o próstata (n = 8) y el trabajo nocturno; un estudio evaluó ambas localizaciones. El riesgo de sesgo de los artículos se evaluó mediante la escala Newcastle-Ottawa. Los estudios incluidos en esta revisión fueron heterogéneos respecto a población incluida (población general, enfermeras a turnos, y otros), medida de la exposición a trabajo nocturno (siempre vs nunca, a corto vs largo plazo, a turnos o fijo) y, por tanto, los hallazgos fueron variados incluso para el mismo tipo de cáncer. En resumen, un 62,5% de los estudios encontraron asociación entre el trabajo nocturno y el riesgo aumentado de padecer cáncer, tanto de mama como de próstata. El riesgo de sesgo medio fue de 7,5 estrellas sobre 9. Debido a las limitaciones inherentes a estos estudios, la evidencia de una posible asociación entre el trabajo nocturno y el riesgo de cáncer de mama o próstata sigue siendo incierta, por lo que se requieren más estudios epidemiológicos con mayor control de la exposición y de los factores de confusión. No obstante, parece aconsejable la aplicación del principio de precaución