Search

Background: The global coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic began in early 2020, caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). In mid-2020 the CIAO (Modelling the Pathogenesis of COVID-19 Using the Adverse Outcome Pathway Framework) project was established, bringing together over 75 interdisciplinary scientists worldwide to collaboratively investigate the underlying biological mechanisms of COVID-19 and consolidate the data using the Adverse Outcome Pathway (AOP) Framework. Neurological symptoms such as anosmia and encephalitis have been frequently reported to be associated with infection with SARS-CoV-2., Objective: Within CIAO, a working group was formed to conduct a systematic scoping review of COVID-19 and its related neurological symptoms to determine which key events and modulating factors are most commonly reported and to identify knowledge gaps., Design: LitCOVID was used to retrieve 86,075 papers of which 10,244 contained relevant keywords. After title and abstract screening, 2,328 remained and their full texts were reviewed based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. 991 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were retrieved to conduct knowledge synthesis., Results: The majority of publications reported human observational studies. Early key events were less likely to be reported compared to middle and late key events/adverse outcomes. The majority of modulating factors described related to age or sex. Less recognised COVID-19 associated AO or neurological effects of COVID-19 were also identified including multiple sclerosis/demyelination, neurodegeneration/cognitive effects and peripheral neuronal effects., Conclusion: There were many methodological and reporting issues noted in the reviewed studies. In particular, publication abstracts would benefit from clearer reporting of the methods and endpoints used and the key findings, to ensure relevant papers are included when systematic reviews are conducted. The information extracted from the scoping review may be useful in understanding the mechanisms of neurological effects of COVID-19 and to further develop or support existing AOPs linking COVID-19 and its neurological key events and adverse outcomes. Further evaluation of the less recognised COVID-19 effects is needed., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests:Ishita Virmani reports financial support was provided by a. RECETOX, Faculty of Science, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Adverse Outcome Pathways (AOPs) are a research synthesis tool, used primarily by toxicologists for numerous applications including: hypothesis generation, data integration, biomarker determination, and identification of gaps in current knowledge. The AOP model provides a means for evaluating critical interactions between stressors and biological systems which result in adversity, meaning there is significant potential value in using this model in clinical research. However, AOPs have so far not been applied in this context, which may be attributable to the fact that the method is not yet streamlined with established practices in evidence-based medicine, such as systematic review. Here, we present one approach to developing a clinically focused AOP for intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy; aiming to enhance understanding of the mechanistic link between this common, gestational liver disease and its association with preterm birth. Mechanistic aspects of the disease pathogenesis, and use of AOPs to broaden inclusion and improve integration of in vitro and in vivo data in clinical research are discussed. We also demonstrate for the first time how central components of systematic review can be integrated into the development of an AOP., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (© 2022 The Authors.)

Within the field of health risk assessment, it is essential that evaluations of reliability or validity of toxicity data are conducted with structure and transparency. To this end, different tools for evaluating toxicity studies have been developed by different groups and organizations, for different specific purposes. The Science in Risk Assessment and Policy (SciRAP) tool was developed for use in the regulatory health risk assessment of chemicals and to promote structured and transparent evaluation of study reliability within European regulatory frameworks. As such, the SciRAP tool is not specifically tailored for use in a systematic review context. However, in light of the current movement towards applying systematic review in the field of environmental health and chemical assessments and European chemicals regulation, we were interested in exploring how SciRAP could be applied in such a context. To achieve this, the scope of the SciRAP tool was first compared to two tools developed based on systematic review principles at the US Environmental Protection Agency's IRIS program and the National Toxicology Program's Office of Health Assessment and Translation (OHAT). Next, the SciRAP and IRIS tools were both applied in a case study to evaluate the same nine in vivo animal studies and the resulting evaluations were compared. The SciRAP tool was found to address the majority of the elements included for study evaluation in the OHAT and IRIS tools. In the case study, no major differences were found in the conclusions drawn when using SciRAP or IRIS tools. However, future developments to bring the SciRAP tool more in line with systematic review principles were identified and are discussed. Overall, this work illustrates the advantages of applying structured and pre-defined methods for study evaluation and provides a unique case study comparing the impact of using different tools for evaluating animal toxicity studies., (Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

In the section of "Developmental Neurotoxicity: An Update" of the Pediatric Anesthesia Neurodevelopmental Assessment (PANDA) symposium 2018 the speakers presented the current literature in translational and clinical research. Dr. Brambrink spoke about translational research in anesthetic neurotoxicity, beginning with discovery in the rodent model, then focusing on evidence from nonhuman primates. Dr. Waspe applied the methodology of Adverse Outcome Pathways from the field of toxicology to developmental neurotoxicity of anesthetics. Dr. O'Leary presented relevant clinical studies that were published in 2017 divided by a focus on academic performance, clinical outcomes or diagnoses, or neuropsychological testing.