Das, Saswati

Space exploration exposes astronauts to unique conditions such as microgravity and space radiation, potentially influencing gene expression and triggering carcinogenesis. Paradoxically, these extreme environments could uncover other pro-treatment aspects of cancer biology. Despite numerous reviews addressing these aspects in isolation, a comprehensive synthesis of the effects of space stressors on cancer development is incomplete. This scoping review aims to provide a holistic perspective on the influence of spaceflight and associated stressors—including gravitation (hyper- and microgravity), radiation, and vibration—on the potential for cancer development and altered cellular mechanisms. We adhered to the PRISMA-ScR checklist for our review. A multitiered search strategy was employed in English, starting with a preliminary keyword identification in Google Scholar and PubMed. Subsequently, the main search was conducted across five databases—Cochrane, Embase, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science—until 22 February 2024. All included studies were thoroughly assessed by two independent reviewers. Of the 15,553 identified articles, 158 were deemed eligible. The majority (92%) were experimental studies, predominantly cell-based (74.17%). Breast (15.19%), thyroid (13.92%), and hematopoietic (11.40%) cancers were the most frequently examined. Spaceflight stressors could affect different biological systems variably, with microgravity impacting spatial growth and metastasis, and cosmic radiation exerting both tumor-suppressive and mutagenic effects. Our findings highlight the need for large-scale, prolonged analog studies mimicking space conditions to enhance mission safety and shed light on the nuanced effects of space stressors on cancer. Additionally, further extensive studies need to be performed in the true weightlessness of spaceflight, both animal-based and on human tissue (cell cultures and potentially whole perfusion organ models), in addition to crew pre/intra/post-flight long-duration evaluations. Furthermore, this unique research avenue may reveal cancer cell sensitivities to these stressors, opening new pathways for innovative therapeutic strategies in cancer treatment.

Abstract Recent clinical trials on slowing dementia progression have led to renewed focus on finding safer, more effective treatments. One approach to identify plausible candidates is to assess whether existing medications for other conditions may affect dementia risk. We conducted a systematic review to identify studies adopting a data‐driven approach to investigate the association between a wide range of prescribed medications and dementia risk. We included 14 studies using administrative or medical records data for more than 130 million individuals and 1 million dementia cases. Despite inconsistencies in identifying specific drugs that may modify Alzheimer's or dementia risk, some themes emerged for drug classes with biological plausibility. Antimicrobials, vaccinations, and anti‐inflammatories were associated with reduced risk, while diabetes drugs, vitamins and supplements, and antipsychotics were associated with increased risk. We found conflicting evidence for antihypertensives and antidepressants. Drug repurposing for use in dementia is an urgent priority. Our findings offer a basis for prioritizing candidates and exploring underlying mechanisms. Highlights We present a systematic review of studies reporting association between drugs prescribed for other conditions and risk of dementia including 139 million people and 1 million cases of dementia. Our work supports some previously reported associations, for example, showing decreased risk of dementia with drugs to treat inflammatory disease and increased risk with antipsychotic treatment. Antimicrobial treatment was perhaps more surprisingly associated with decreased risk, supportive of recent increased interest in this potential therapeutic avenue. Our work should help prioritize drugs for entry into adaptive platform trials in Alzheimer's disease and will serve as a useful resource for those investigating drugs or classes of drugs and risk of dementia.

Abstract Background The AACC Academy revised the reproductive testing section of the Laboratory Medicine Practice Guidelines: Evidence-Based Practice for Point-of-Care Testing (POCT) published in 2007. Methods A panel of Academy members with expertise in POCT and laboratory medicine was formed to develop guidance for the use of POCT in reproductive health, specifically ovulation, pregnancy, premature rupture of membranes (PROM), and high-risk deliveries. The committee was supplemented with clinicians having Emergency Medicine and Obstetrics/Gynecology training. Results Key recommendations include the following. First, urine luteinizing hormone (LH) tests are accurate and reliable predictors of ovulation. Studies have shown that the use of ovulation predicting kits may improve the likelihood of conception among healthy fertile women seeking pregnancy. Urinary LH point-of-care testing demonstrates a comparable performance among other ovulation monitoring methods for timing intrauterine insemination and confirming sufficient ovulation induction before oocyte retrieval during in vitro fertilization. Second, pregnancy POCT should be considered in clinical situations where rapid diagnosis of pregnancy is needed for treatment decisions, and laboratory analysis cannot meet the required turnaround time. Third, PROM testing using commercial kits alone is not recommended without clinical signs of rupture of membranes, such as leakage of amniotic fluid from the cervical opening. Finally, fetal scalp lactate is used more than fetal scalp pH for fetal acidosis due to higher success rate and low volume of sample required. Conclusions This revision of the AACC Academy POCT guidelines provides recommendations for best practice use of POCT in fertility and reproduction.