Selenium for preventing cancer

BACKGROUND This review is an update of the first Cochrane publication on selenium for preventing cancer (Dennert 2011).Selenium is a metalloid with both nutritional and toxicological properties. Higher selenium exposure and selenium supplements have been suggested to protect against several types of cancers. OBJECTIVES Two research questions were addressed in this review: What is the evidence for:1. an aetiological relation between selenium exposure and cancer risk in humans? and2. the efficacy of selenium supplementation for cancer prevention in humans? SEARCH METHODS We conducted electronic searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, 2013, Issue 1), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1966 to February 2013 week 1), EMBASE (1980 to 2013 week 6), CancerLit (February 2004) and CCMed (February 2011). As MEDLINE now includes the journals indexed in CancerLit, no further searches were conducted in this database after 2004. SELECTION CRITERIA We included prospective observational studies (cohort studies including sub-cohort controlled studies and nested case-control studies) and randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with healthy adult participants (18 years of age and older). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS For observational studies, we conducted random effects meta-analyses when five or more studies were retrieved for a specific outcome. For RCTs, we performed random effects meta-analyses when two or more studies were available. The risk of bias in observational studies was assessed using forms adapted from the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale for cohort and case-control studies; the criteria specified in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions were used to evaluate the risk of bias in RCTs. MAIN RESULTS We included 55 prospective observational studies (including more than 1,100,000 participants) and eight RCTs (with a total of 44,743 participants). For the observational studies, we found lower cancer incidence (summary odds ratio (OR) 0.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 0.91, N = 8) and cancer mortality (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.93, N = 6) associated with higher selenium exposure. Gender-specific subgroup analysis provided no clear evidence of different effects in men and women (P value 0.47), although cancer incidence was lower in men (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.05, N = 6) than in women (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.77, N = 2). The most pronounced decreases in risk of site-specific cancers were seen for stomach, bladder and prostate cancers. However, these findings have limitations due to study design, quality and heterogeneity that complicate interpretation of the summary statistics. Some studies suggested that genetic factors may modify the relation between selenium and cancer risk-a hypothesis that deserves further investigation.In RCTs, we found no clear evidence that selenium supplementation reduced the risk of any cancer (risk ratio (RR) 0.90, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.17, two studies, N = 4765) or cancer-related mortality (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.32, two studies, N = 18,698), and this finding was confirmed when the analysis was restricted to studies with low risk of bias. The effect on prostate cancer was imprecise (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.14, four studies, N = 19,110), and when the analysis was limited to trials with low risk of bias, the interventions showed no effect (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.14, three studies, N = 18,183). The risk of non-melanoma skin cancer was increased (RR 1.44, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.17, three studies, N = 1900). Results of two trials-the Nutritional Prevention of Cancer Trial (NPCT) and the Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Trial (SELECT)-also raised concerns about possible increased risk of type 2 diabetes, alopecia and dermatitis due to selenium supplements. An early hypothesis generated by NPCT that individuals with the lowest blood selenium levels at baseline could reduce their risk of cancer, particularly of prostate cancer, by increasing selenium intake has not been confirmed by subsequent trials. As the RCT participants were overwhelmingly male (94%), gender differences could not be systematically assessed. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Although an inverse association between selenium exposure and the risk of some types of cancer was found in some observational studies, this cannot be taken as evidence of a causal relation, and these results should be interpreted with caution. These studies have many limitations, including issues with assessment of exposure to selenium and to its various chemical forms, heterogeneity, confounding and other biases. Conflicting results including inverse, null and direct associations have been reported for some cancer types.RCTs assessing the effects of selenium supplementation on cancer risk have yielded inconsistent results, although the most recent studies, characterised by a low risk of bias, found no beneficial effect on cancer risk, more specifically on risk of prostate cancer, as well as little evidence of any influence of baseline selenium status. Rather, some trials suggest harmful effects of selenium exposure. To date, no convincing evidence suggests that selenium supplements can prevent cancer in humans.

Npro of classical swine fever virus contributes to pathogenicity in pigs by preventing type I interferon induction at local replication sites

Classical swine fever (CSF) caused by CSF virus (CSFV) is a highly contagious disease of pigs. The viral protein Npro of CSFV interferes with alpha- and beta-interferon (IFN-α/β) induction by promoting the degradation of interferon regulatory factor 3 (IRF3). During the establishment of the live attenuated CSF vaccine strain GPE-, Npro acquired a mutation that abolished its capacity to bind and degrade IRF3, rendering it unable to prevent IFN-α/β induction. In a previous study, we showed that the GPE- vaccine virus became pathogenic after forced serial passages in pigs, which was attributed to the amino acid substitutions T830A in the viral proteins E2 and V2475A and A2563V in NS4B. Interestingly, during the re-adaptation of the GPE- vaccine virus in pigs, the IRF3-degrading function of Npro was not recovered. Therefore, we examined whether restoring the ability of Npro to block IFN-α/β induction of both the avirulent and moderately virulent GPE--derived virus would enhance pathogenicity in pigs. Viruses carrying the N136D substitution in Npro regained the ability to degrade IRF3 and suppress IFN-α/β induction in vitro. In pigs, functional Npro significantly reduced the local IFN-α mRNA expression in lymphoid organs while it increased quantities of IFN-α/β in the circulation, and enhanced pathogenicity of the moderately virulent virus. In conclusion, the present study demonstrates that functional Npro influences the innate immune response at local sites of virus replication in pigs and contributes to pathogenicity of CSFV in synergy with viral replication.

A double-blind randomised study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of bindarit in preventing coronary stent restenosis.

AIMS Bindarit (BND) is a selective inhibitor of monocyte chemotactic protein-1 (MCP-1/CCL2), which plays an important role in generating intimal hyperplasia. Our aim was to explore the efficacy and safety of bindarit in preventing restenosis following percutaneous coronary intervention. METHODS AND RESULTS A phase II, double-blind, multicentre randomised trial included 148 patients randomised into three arms (BND 600 mg, n=48; BND 1,200 mg, n=49; PLB, n=51). Bindarit was given following PCI and continued for 180 days. Monthly clinical follow-up and six-month coronary angiography were conducted. The primary endpoint was in-segment late loss; the main secondary endpoints were in-stent late loss and major adverse cardiovascular events. Efficacy analysis was carried out on two populations, ITT and PP. There were no significant differences in the baseline characteristics among the three treatment groups. In-segment and in-stent late loss at six months in BND 600, BND 1,200 and PLB were: (ITT 0.54 vs. 0.52 vs. 0.72; p=0.21), (PP 0.46 vs. 0.53 vs. 0.72; p=0.12) and (ITT 0.74 vs. 0.74 vs. 1.05; p=0.01), (PP 0.66 vs. 0.73 vs. 1.06; p=0.003), respectively. The MACE rates at nine months among treatment groups were 20.8% vs. 28.6% vs. 25.5% (p=0.54), respectively. CONCLUSIONS This was a negative study with the primary endpoint not being met. However, significant reduction in the in-stent late loss suggests that bindarit probably exerts a favourable action on the vessel wall following angioplasty. Bindarit was well tolerated with a compliance rate of over 90%. A larger study utilising a loading dose and targeting a specific patient cohort may demonstrate more significant results.