Qualitative Environmental Health Research: An Analysis of the Literature, 1991-2008

BACKGROUND. Recent articles have advocated for the use of qualitative methods in environmental health research. Qualitative research uses nonnumeric data to understand people's opinions, motives, understanding, and beliefs about events or phenomena. OBJECTIVE. In this analysis of the literature, I report the use of qualitative methods and data in the study of the relationship between environmental exposures and human health. DATA SOURCES. A primary search on ISI Web of Knowledge/Web of Science for peer-reviewed journal articles dated from 1991 through 2008 included the following three terms: qualitative, environ*, and health. Inclusion and exclusion criteria are described. DATA EXTRACTION. Searches resulted in 3,155 records. Data were extracted and findings of articles analyzed to determine where and by whom qualitative environmental health research is conducted and published, the types of methods and analyses used in qualitative studies of environmental health, and the types of information qualitative data contribute to environmental health. DATA SYNTHESIS. Ninety-one articles met inclusion criteria. These articles were published in 58 different journals, with a maximum of eight for a single journal. The results highlight a diversity of disciplines and techniques among researchers who used qualitative methods to study environmental health, with most studies relying on one-on-one interviews. Details of the analyses were absent from a large number of studies. Nearly all of the studies identified increased scientific understanding of lay perceptions of environmental health exposures. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. Qualitative data are published in traditionally quantitative environmental health studies to a limited extent. However, this analysis demonstrates the potential of qualitative data to improve understanding of complex exposure pathways, including the influence of social factors on environmental health, and health outcomes.National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (R25 ES012084, P42ES007381

Haploinsufficiency of the NOTCH1 Receptor as a Cause of Adams-Oliver Syndrome With Variable Cardiac Anomalies.

BACKGROUND: Adams-Oliver syndrome (AOS) is a rare disorder characterized by congenital limb defects and scalp cutis aplasia. In a proportion of cases, notable cardiac involvement is also apparent. Despite recent advances in the understanding of the genetic basis of AOS, for the majority of affected subjects, the underlying molecular defect remains unresolved. This study aimed to identify novel genetic determinants of AOS. METHODS AND RESULTS: Whole-exome sequencing was performed for 12 probands, each with a clinical diagnosis of AOS. Analyses led to the identification of novel heterozygous truncating NOTCH1 mutations (c.1649dupA and c.6049_6050delTC) in 2 kindreds in which AOS was segregating as an autosomal dominant trait. Screening a cohort of 52 unrelated AOS subjects, we detected 8 additional unique NOTCH1 mutations, including 3 de novo amino acid substitutions, all within the ligand-binding domain. Congenital heart anomalies were noted in 47% (8/17) of NOTCH1-positive probands and affected family members. In leukocyte-derived RNA from subjects harboring NOTCH1 extracellular domain mutations, we observed significant reduction of NOTCH1 expression, suggesting instability and degradation of mutant mRNA transcripts by the cellular machinery. Transient transfection of mutagenized NOTCH1 missense constructs also revealed significant reduction in gene expression. Mutant NOTCH1 expression was associated with downregulation of the Notch target genes HEY1 and HES1, indicating that NOTCH1-related AOS arises through dysregulation of the Notch signaling pathway. CONCLUSIONS: These findings highlight a key role for NOTCH1 across a range of developmental anomalies that include cardiac defects and implicate NOTCH1 haploinsufficiency as a likely molecular mechanism for this group of disorders

DOCK6 Mutations Are Responsible for a Distinct Autosomal-Recessive Variant of Adams-Oliver Syndrome Associated with Brain and Eye Anomalies

Author contacted for file

Integrating Omic Technologies into Aquatic Ecological Risk Assessment and Environmental Monitoring: Hurdles, Achievements, and Future Outlook

Background: In this commentary we present the findings from an international consortium on fish toxicogenomics sponsored by the U.K. Natural Environment Research Council (Fish Toxicogenomics—Moving into Regulation and Monitoring, held 21–23 April 2008 at the Pacific Environmental Science Centre, Vancouver, BC, Canada). Objectives: The consortium from government agencies, academia, and industry addressed three topics: progress in ecotoxicogenomics, regulatory perspectives on roadblocks for practical implementation of toxicogenomics into risk assessment, and dealing with variability in data sets. Discussion: Participants noted that examples of successful application of omic technologies have been identified, but critical studies are needed to relate molecular changes to ecological adverse outcome. Participants made recommendations for the management of technical and biological variation. They also stressed the need for enhanced interdisciplinary training and communication as well as considerable investment into the generation and curation of appropriate reference omic data. Conclusions: The participants concluded that, although there are hurdles to pass on the road to regulatory acceptance, omics technologies are already useful for elucidating modes of action of toxicants and can contribute to the risk assessment process as part of a weight-of-evidence approach

Correlates of protection against symptomatic and asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection

The global supply of COVID-19 vaccines remains limited. An understanding of the immune response that is predictive of protection could facilitate rapid licensure of new vaccines. Data from a randomized efficacy trial of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine in the United Kingdom was analyzed to determine the antibody levels associated with protection against SARS-CoV-2. Binding and neutralizing antibodies at 28 days after the second dose were measured in infected and noninfected vaccine recipients. Higher levels of all immune markers were correlated with a reduced risk of symptomatic infection. A vaccine efficacy of 80% against symptomatic infection with majority Alpha (B.1.1.7) variant of SARS-CoV-2 was achieved with 264 (95% CI: 108, 806) binding antibody units (BAU)/ml: and 506 (95% CI: 135, not computed (beyond data range) (NC)) BAU/ml for anti-spike and anti-RBD antibodies, and 26 (95% CI: NC, NC) international unit (IU)/ml and 247 (95% CI: 101, NC) normalized neutralization titers (NF50) for pseudovirus and live-virus neutralization, respectively. Immune markers were not correlated with asymptomatic infections at the 5% significance level. These data can be used to bridge to new populations using validated assays, and allow extrapolation of efficacy estimates to new COVID-19 vaccines

Meningococcal Factor H Binding Proteins in Epidemic Strains from Africa: Implications for Vaccine Development

Epidemics of meningococcal meningitis are common in sub-Saharan Africa. Most are caused by encapsulated serogroup A strains, which rarely cause disease in industrialized countries. A serogroup A polysaccharide protein conjugate vaccine recently was introduced in some countries in sub-Saharan Africa. The antibodies induced, however, may allow replacement of serogroup A strains with serogroup W-135 or X strains, which also cause epidemics in this region. Protein antigens, such as factor H binding protein (fHbp), are promising for prevention of meningococcal serogroup B disease. These proteins also are present in strains with other capsular serogroups. Here we report investigation of the potential of fHbp vaccines for prevention of disease caused by serogroup A, W-135 and X strains from Africa. Four fHbp amino acid sequence variants accounted for 81% of the 106 African isolates studied. While there was little cross-protective activity by antibodies elicited in mice by recombinant fHbp vaccines from each of the four sequence variants, a prototype native outer membrane vesicle (NOMV) vaccine from a mutant with over-expressed fHbp elicited antibodies with broad protective activity. A NOMV vaccine has the potential to supplement coverage by the group A conjugate vaccine and help prevent emergence of disease caused by non-serogroup A strains

Correlates of protection against symptomatic and asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection

The global supply of COVID-19 vaccines remains limited. An understanding of the immune response that is predictive of protection could facilitate rapid licensure of new vaccines. Data from a randomized efficacy trial of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine in the United Kingdom was analyzed to determine the antibody levels associated with protection against SARS-CoV-2. Binding and neutralizing antibodies at 28 days after the second dose were measured in infected and noninfected vaccine recipients. Higher levels of all immune markers were correlated with a reduced risk of symptomatic infection. A vaccine efficacy of 80% against symptomatic infection with majority Alpha (B.1.1.7) variant of SARS-CoV-2 was achieved with 264 (95% CI: 108, 806) binding antibody units (BAU)/ml: and 506 (95% CI: 135, not computed (beyond data range) (NC)) BAU/ml for anti-spike and anti-RBD antibodies, and 26 (95% CI: NC, NC) international unit (IU)/ml and 247 (95% CI: 101, NC) normalized neutralization titers (NF50) for pseudovirus and live-virus neutralization, respectively. Immune markers were not correlated with asymptomatic infections at the 5% significance level. These data can be used to bridge to new populations using validated assays, and allow extrapolation of efficacy estimates to new COVID-19 vaccines

Reactogenicity and immunogenicity after a late second dose or a third dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 in the UK: a substudy of two randomised controlled trials (COV001 and COV002)

Background COVID-19 vaccine supply shortages are causing concerns about compromised immunity in some countries as the interval between the first and second dose becomes longer. Conversely, countries with no supply constraints are considering administering a third dose. We assessed the persistence of immunogenicity after a single dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222), immunity after an extended interval (44–45 weeks) between the first and second dose, and response to a third dose as a booster given 28–38 weeks after the second dose. Methods In this substudy, volunteers aged 18–55 years who were enrolled in the phase 1/2 (COV001) controlled trial in the UK and had received either a single dose or two doses of 5 × 1010 viral particles were invited back for vaccination. Here we report the reactogenicity and immunogenicity of a delayed second dose (44–45 weeks after first dose) or a third dose of the vaccine (28–38 weeks after second dose). Data from volunteers aged 18–55 years who were enrolled in either the phase 1/2 (COV001) or phase 2/3 (COV002), single-blinded, randomised controlled trials of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and who had previously received a single dose or two doses of 5 × 1010 viral particles are used for comparison purposes. COV001 is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, and ISRCTN, 15281137, and COV002 is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04400838, and ISRCTN, 15281137, and both are continuing but not recruiting. Findings Between March 11 and 21, 2021, 90 participants were enrolled in the third-dose boost substudy, of whom 80 (89%) were assessable for reactogenicity, 75 (83%) were assessable for evaluation of antibodies, and 15 (17%) were assessable for T-cells responses. The two-dose cohort comprised 321 participants who had reactogenicity data (with prime-boost interval of 8–12 weeks: 267 [83%] of 321; 15–25 weeks: 24 [7%]; or 44–45 weeks: 30 [9%]) and 261 who had immunogenicity data (interval of 8–12 weeks: 115 [44%] of 261; 15–25 weeks: 116 [44%]; and 44–45 weeks: 30 [11%]). 480 participants from the single-dose cohort were assessable for immunogenicity up to 44–45 weeks after vaccination. Antibody titres after a single dose measured approximately 320 days after vaccination remained higher than the titres measured at baseline (geometric mean titre of 66·00 ELISA units [EUs; 95% CI 47·83–91·08] vs 1·75 EUs [1·60–1·93]). 32 participants received a late second dose of vaccine 44–45 weeks after the first dose, of whom 30 were included in immunogenicity and reactogenicity analyses. Antibody titres were higher 28 days after vaccination in those with a longer interval between first and second dose than for those with a short interval (median total IgG titre: 923 EUs [IQR 525–1764] with an 8–12 week interval; 1860 EUs [917–4934] with a 15–25 week interval; and 3738 EUs [1824–6625] with a 44–45 week interval). Among participants who received a third dose of vaccine, antibody titres (measured in 73 [81%] participants for whom samples were available) were significantly higher 28 days after a third dose (median total IgG titre: 3746 EUs [IQR 2047–6420]) than 28 days after a second dose (median 1792 EUs [IQR 899–4634]; Wilcoxon signed rank test p=0·0043). T-cell responses were also boosted after a third dose (median response increased from 200 spot forming units [SFUs] per million peripheral blood mononuclear cells [PBMCs; IQR 127–389] immediately before the third dose to 399 SFUs per milion PBMCs [314–662] by day 28 after the third dose; Wilcoxon signed rank test p=0·012). Reactogenicity after a late second dose or a third dose was lower than reactogenicity after a first dose. Interpretation An extended interval before the second dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 leads to increased antibody titres. A third dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 induces antibodies to a level that correlates with high efficacy after second dose and boosts T-cell responses. Funding UK Research and Innovation, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, National Institute for Health Research, Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences Innovation Fund for Medical Science, Thames Valley and South Midlands NIHR Clinical Research Network, AstraZeneca, and Wellcome