Life ; Cessation of life

In repeated-dose 28-day oral toxicity study design, the low dose is fixed as the no observed effect level (NOEL). But, in practice the low dose usually shows significant difference in few measurable items in most of the studies. We investigated 109 of repeated-dose 28-day oral toxicity studies in rats conducted according to the Chemical Substance Control Law, Japan and examined the measurable items (functional observational battery, urinalysis, hematology, blood chemistry and absolute and relative organ weights) of the low dose group which showed a statistical significant difference (P<0.05) compared to the respective control groups. The investigation revealed that, 205/12,167 (1.6%) measurable items showed a significant difference in the low dose groups. The significant difference shown by urinalysis was high (3.3%), followed by clinical chemistry parameters, hematology, relative organ weights and absolute organ weights (1.8-1.1%). We conclude from the investigation that the low dose may be considered as NOEL, if the significant difference of measurable items of it is about 2% (maximum <5%), compared to the control. However, due consideration may be given to the clinical relevance of the items that showed a significant difference.
Animals ; Chemistry, Clinical ; Hematology ; Japan ; Jurisprudence ; No-Observed-Adverse-Effect Level ; Organ Size ; Rats ; Urinalysis

In repeated-dose 28-day oral toxicity study design, the low dose is fixed as the no observed effect level (NOEL). But, in practice the low dose usually shows significant difference in few measurable items in most of the studies. We investigated 109 of repeated-dose 28-day oral toxicity studies in rats conducted according to the Chemical Substance Control Law, Japan and examined the measurable items (functional observational battery, urinalysis, hematology, blood chemistry and absolute and relative organ weights) of the low dose group which showed a statistical significant difference (P<0.05) compared to the respective control groups. The investigation revealed that, 205/12,167 (1.6%) measurable items showed a significant difference in the low dose groups. The significant difference shown by urinalysis was high (3.3%), followed by clinical chemistry parameters, hematology, relative organ weights and absolute organ weights (1.8-1.1%). We conclude from the investigation that the low dose may be considered as NOEL, if the significant difference of measurable items of it is about 2% (maximum <5%), compared to the control. However, due consideration may be given to the clinical relevance of the items that showed a significant difference.
Animals ; Chemistry, Clinical ; Hematology ; Japan ; Jurisprudence ; No-Observed-Adverse-Effect Level ; Organ Size ; Rats ; Urinalysis

BACKGROUND: Healthcare workers (HCWs) employed personal protective equipment (PPE) during the COVID-19 pandemic, crucial to protecting themselves from infection. To highlight the efficacy of PPE in preventing environmental infection among HCWs, a systematic review was conducted in line with PRISMA guidance. METHODS: A search of the PubMed and Web of Science databases was conducted from January 2019 to April 2021 using pre-defined search terms. Articles were screened by three researchers. The approved papers were read in full and included in this review if relevance was mutually agreed upon. Data were extracted by study design and types of PPEs. RESULTS: 47 of 108 identified studies met the inclusion criteria, with seven reviews and meta-analyses, seven cohort, nine case-control, fifteen cross-sectional studies, four before and after, four case series, and one modeling studies. Wearing PPE offered COVID-19 protection in HCWs but required adequate training. Wearing surgical masks provided improved protection over cloth masks, while the benefit of powered air-purifying respirators is less clear, as are individual gowns, gloves, and/or face shields. CONCLUSIONS Wearing PPE, especially facial masks, is necessary among HCWs, while training in proper use of PPE is also important to prevent COVID-19 infection.
Humans ; COVID-19/prevention & control* ; Pandemics/prevention & control* ; Cross-Sectional Studies ; Personal Protective Equipment ; Health Personnel