An ecologic study of CVD mortality from 1950 to 2000 in Chile highlights the importance of average versus peak exposures over time (Yuan et al., 2007). In AZD6244 order this study, the most affected areas
had average arsenic levels of 90 μg/L prior to 1958, 879 μg/L from 1958 to 1970, 110 μg/L from 1971 to 1985, 40 μg/L from 1986 to 2000, and eventually <10 μg/L. Mortality risks were elevated for all circulatory diseases, hypertensive disease, and ischemic heart disease, but not for cerebrovascular disease. Rate ratios for acute myocardial infarction mortality in 1989–2000 for men born during 1958–1970 (3.23, 95% CI: 2.79–3.75) were higher than for men born in 1950–1957 (2.56, 95% CI: 1.26–5.18). Thus, average or cumulative exposure prior to assessment would not adequately reflect risk when part of the period involves very high exposure, along with possible life stage sensitivity. Studies involving populations with more constant, long-term exposure (e.g., Chen et al., 2011) are therefore preferable for evaluating health-protective doses for CVD. CDK inhibitor drugs Although the average exposure duration was estimated to be 25% of lifetime in Chen et al. (2011), the latency for heart
disease is considerably shorter than for cancer (Chen et al., 2011 and Yuan et al., 2007). Studies of populations with lifetime exposure from Taiwan (although limited by broad exposure ranges, Table 1) provide generally supportive evidence of the POD from Chen et al. (2011). A recent systematic review on arsenic exposure and CVD (Moon et al., 2012) examined the results from 31 population-based studies (22 high arsenic exposure studies predominantly from Taiwan and Bangladesh, and 9 cross-sectional or ecologic studies in low to moderate arsenic exposure areas including the United States). Methodological and clinical heterogeneity among studies were reported by the authors (variability in sample Etofibrate sizes and in the referent groups (external versus internal) for comparison, differential CVD risk profiles between populations and exposure groups,
the use of aggregated exposure data or ascertainment at the individual level, and differences in the criteria used for the various cardiovascular outcomes). Meta-analysis of the low to moderate arsenic exposure studies resulted in pooled RRs that were statistically nonsignificant and significantly heterogeneous (CVD RR = 1.06; CHD RR = 1.06; stroke RR = 1.07; peripheral arterial disease (PAD) RR = 1.13; all p-heterogeneity <0.001). In contrast, the pooled RRs among the high arsenic exposure studies were statistically significant for CVD (1.32, 95% CI: 1.05–1.67), CHD (1.89, 95% CI: 1.33–2.69), and PAD (2.17, 95% CI: 1.47–3.20), but not for stroke (1.08, 95% CI: 0.98–1.19), in the overall assessment with noted limitations and statistical evidence of heterogeneity among studies ( Moon et al., 2012).