RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Melanoma is mainly caused by sunlight radiation, but other environmental risk factors are not well known. We investigated the association between cutaneous melanoma and occupational exposure to arsenic, mercury and UV radiation. METHODS: A hospital-based case-control study was conducted in the inpatient wards of IDI-San Carlo Rome, Italy, including 304 incident cases of cutaneous melanoma and 305 frequency-matched controls. Detailed sociodemographic, clinical and host-related factors were collected, and all participants were physically examined using dermoscopy and following standard protocol for recording pigmented lesions. Four experts assessed exposure to arsenic, mercury and UV radiation based on occupational history. A multidimensional variable was created for each risk factor, by combining intensity and probability of exposure. Multivariable logistic regression models were run to calculate odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of the association between exposure to these agents and melanoma. RESULTS: A total of 5.4% of the cases vs 2.4% of the controls were exposed to arsenic (OR = 3.12; 95% CI = 1.10-8.86 for high probability and high exposure to arsenic) after controlling for sex, age, smoking status, number of nevi, phototype and history of sunburns in childhood/adolescence. Occupational exposure to mercury and UV radiation was not associated with the risk of melanoma. CONCLUSIONS: Subjects exposed to arsenic at the workplace may be at increased risk of developing cutaneous melanoma in comparison to subjects not exposed to this agent. Further studies should be designed to investigate occupational exposure to arsenic and mercury and melanoma and confirm the findings are warranted.
Asunto(s)
Arsénico , Melanoma , Mercurio , Exposición Profesional , Neoplasias Cutáneas , Humanos , Neoplasias Cutáneas/etiología , Melanoma/etiología , Estudios de Casos y Controles , Factores de Riesgo , Italia , Melanoma Cutáneo MalignoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Health care workers (HCWs) were on the frontline of the current pandemic. We aimed at identifying determinants of SARS-CoV-2 infection and the effectiveness of personal protection equipment (PPE) worn by HCWs before vaccination. METHODS: We abstracted data on SARS-CoV-2 infection based on positive PCR results and sociodemographic characteristics of 38,793 HCWs from public hospitals and public health authorities from 10 European centers. We fitted cohort-specific multivariate logistic regression models to identify determinants of infection and combined the results using random-effects meta-analyses. RESULTS: The overall prevalence of infection before vaccination among HCWs was 9.58%. Infection was associated with the presence of selected symptoms; no association was found between sociodemographic factors and increased risk of infection. The use of PPE and particularly FFP2/FFP3 masks had a different protective effect during the first and second waves of the COVID pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: The study provides evidence that mask use was the most effective PPE in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection among HCWs.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Humanos , SARS-CoV-2 , Vacunación , Personal de Salud , PandemiasRESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Characterizing immunological response following COVID-19 vaccination is an important public health issue. The objectives of the present analysis were to investigate the proportion, level and the determinants of humoral response from 21 days to three months after the first dose in vaccinated healthcare workers (HCWs). METHODS: We abstracted data on level of anti-SARS-CoV-2 Spike antibodies (IgG) and sociodemographic characteristics of 17,257 HCWs from public hospitals and public health authorities from three centers in Northern Italy who underwent COVID-19 vaccination (average 70.6 days after first dose). We fitted center-specific multivariate regression models and combined them using random-effects meta-analyses. RESULTS: A humoral response was elicited in 99.3% of vaccinated HCW. Female sex, young age, and previous COVID-19 infection were predictors of post-vaccination antibody level, and a positive association was also detected with pre-vaccination serology level and with time between pre- and post-vaccination testing, while a decline of antibody level was suggested with time since vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: These results stress the importance of analyzing retrospective data collected via occupational health surveillance of HCWs during the COVID-19 epidemic and following vaccination. They need to be confirmed in larger series based on prospectively collected data.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , ARN Viral , Anticuerpos Antivirales , COVID-19/epidemiología , COVID-19/prevención & control , Vacunas contra la COVID-19 , Femenino , Personal de Salud , Humanos , Estudios Retrospectivos , SARS-CoV-2 , Vacunación/métodosRESUMEN
Limited information is available on carcinogenicity of asbestos on non-respiratory organs. We aimed at conducted an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies on occupational exposure to asbestos and risk of kidney cancer. We searched through three databases, PubMed, Embase and Scopus for article published after 2000, and after eliminating duplicates and non-relevant studies, we identified 13 studies. We combined their results with those of 31 non-overlapping studies included in a previous review up to 2000. We conducted a meta-analysis based on random-effects models. The pooled relative risk of kidney cancer for asbestos exposure was 0.94 (95% confidence interval, 0.84-1.04), with no differences according to type of asbestos fiber, geographic region, period of exposure, or estimated quality of the study. Our results showed a lack of association between occupational asbestos exposure and risk of kidney cancer.
Asunto(s)
Amianto/efectos adversos , Neoplasias Renales/etiología , Exposición Profesional/efectos adversos , Carcinógenos , Humanos , Neoplasias Renales/epidemiología , Medición de Riesgo , Factores de RiesgoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Healthcare workers (HCW) are at increased risk of being infected with SARS-CoV-2; while PCR test remains gold standard for diagnosis of COVID19 infection, antigen based rapid detection tests have been recently approved by OMS. METHODS: We pooled data on occupational surveillance of 6397 asymptomatic HCW and other employees who were tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection at the University Hospital in Bologna using rapid antigen test between November 16, 2020 and January 29, 2021. FINDINGS: A total of 17,993 rapid tests were performed, of which 704 for contact with an infected person and 17,289 for voluntary screening. Among 17,732 tests with valid results, 87 tested positive (0.49%) and 17 weakly positive (0.10%). The sensitivity of the antigenic test was 88.6% (81.1-96.1), the specificity was 93.4% (89-97.8), the positive predictive value, given a prevalence of infection of 42.1%, was 90.7% (84.8-96.6).
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Prueba de COVID-19 , Personal de Salud , Humanos , Sensibilidad y EspecificidadRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The Covid-19 pandemic in Italy has been characterized by three waves of infection during 2020. Vaccination of healthcare workers started in January 2021, earlier than that of other population groups. The main aim of this study is to compare the spread of the pandemic between HCW and the general population focusing on potential effects of the vaccination. METHODS: The study consisted of a retrospective analysis of results of RT-PCR tests performed between 6 March 2020 and 4 April 2021 among HCWs from Bologna, Italy, and those of the general population of Emilia Romagna region. We calculated the crude proportion of positive RT-PCR tests over total tests and the crude prevalence of positive test in population; then, we conducted joinpoint analyses using the Joinpoint Regression Program of the National Cancer Institute. RESULTS: The results of the joinpoint analysis show that both φ and ψ ratio indicators have a similar pattern, with a sharp increase during the early phase of the pandemic, and a strong decrease at the end of the first wave around week 15. In both indicators there are no significant changes in the trend after week 25. Pandemic spread among HCWs appeared earlier than in the general population, but it otherwise appeared to have comparable features. A decline in infection was apparent among HCWs after vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: Surveillance of HCWs would inform on the epidemic in the general population. The apparent effectiveness of the anti-SarsCoV2 vaccine will likely occur in the general population.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Pandemias , Personal de Salud , Humanos , Pandemias/prevención & control , Grupos de Población , Estudios Retrospectivos , SARS-CoV-2 , VacunaciónRESUMEN
The study examined whether the Diagnostic Classification of Mental Health and Developmental Disorders of Infancy and Early Childhood, Revised Edition (DC: 0-3R; ZERO TO THREE, 2005) Parent-Infant Relationship Global Assessment Scale (PIR-GAS) is applicable to six European countries and contributes to the identification of caregiver-infant/toddler dyads with abusive relationship patterns. The sample consisted of 115 dyads with children's ages ranging from 1 to 47 months. Sixty-four dyads were recruited from community settings without known violence problems, and 51 dyads were recruited from clinical settings and already had been identified with violence problems or as being at risk for violence problems. To classify the dyads on the PIR-GAS categories, caregiver-child interactions were video-recorded and coded with observational scales appropriate for child age. To test whether the PIR-GAS allows for reliable identification of dyads with abusive relationship patterns, PIR-GAS ratings were compared with scores on the the International Society for the Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect's (ISPCAN) Child Abuse Screening Tool-Parental Version (ICAST-P; D.K. Runyan et al., ), a questionnaire measuring abusive parental disciplinary practices. It was found that PIR-GAS ratings differentiated between the general and the clinical sample, and the dyads with abusive patterns of relationship were identified by both the PIR-GAS and the ICAST-P. Interrater reliability for the PIR-GAS ranged from moderate to excellent. The value of a broader use of tools such as the DC: 0-3R to promote early identification of families at risk for infant and toddler abuse and neglect is discussed.
Asunto(s)
Cuidadores , Maltrato a los Niños/diagnóstico , Relaciones Padres-Hijo , Adolescente , Adulto , Maltrato a los Niños/clasificación , Preescolar , Europa (Continente) , Femenino , Humanos , Renta , Lactante , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Proyectos Piloto , Reproducibilidad de los Resultados , Encuestas y Cuestionarios , Adulto JovenRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Ionizing radiation and mesothelioma have been examined among personnel employed in nuclear power plant and patients treated by external beam radiation therapy (EBRT). The association is still controversial; the purpose of this review is to summarize the scientific evidence published in the literature regarding the relationship between ionizing radiation and incidence of mesothelioma and, if possible, estimating strongness of the association by meta-analysis of extracted data. METHODS: Articles included in the systematic review were retrieved by searching among the three main scientific databases: PubMed, Scopus, and Embase. The literature search was conducted in June 2021. A meta-analysis of random effects was conducted, stratified by exposure (EBRT, occupational exposure). The heterogeneity of the summary relative risks (RRs) was assessed using I2 statistics. Publication bias was evaluated graphically through the funnel plot. FINDINGS: The exposure to ionizing radiation could be a risk factor for mesothelioma: both for exposure to high doses for short periods (EBRT) (RR of 3.34 [95% confidence interval, CI 1.24-8.99]) and for exposure to low doses for a prolonged duration (exposure working) (RR of 3.57 [95% CI 2.16-5.89]). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the low number of mesotheliomas in the general population, the steadily increased risk among individuals exposed to radiation is still worth considering.
Asunto(s)
Mesotelioma Maligno , Mesotelioma , Exposición Profesional , Humanos , Mesotelioma/epidemiología , Mesotelioma/etiología , Exposición Profesional/efectos adversos , Radiación Ionizante , Factores de RiesgoRESUMEN
Background: Since the beginning of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, cancer patients affected by COVID-19 have been reported to experience poor prognosis; however, a detailed quantification of the effect of cancer on outcome of unvaccinated COVID-19 patients has not been performed. Methods: To carry out a systematic review of the studies comparing the outcome of unvaccinated COVID-19 patients with and without cancer, a search string was devised which was used to identify relevant publications in PubMed up to December 31, 2020. We selected three outcomes: mortality, access to ICU, and COVID-19 severity or hospitalization. We considered results for all cancers combined as well as for specific cancers. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses of the results, overall and after stratification by region. We also performed sensitivity analyses according to quality score and assessed publication bias. Results: For all cancer combined, the pooled odds ratio (OR) for mortality was 2.32 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.82-2.94, I2 for heterogeneity 90.1%, 24 studies), that for ICU admission was 2.39 (95% CI 1.90-3.02, I2 0.0%, 5 studies), that for disease severity or hospitalization was 2.08 (95% CI 1.60-2.72, I2 92.1%, 15 studies). The pooled mortality OR for hematologic neoplasms was 2.14 (95% CI 1.87-2.44, I2 20.8%, 8 studies). Data were insufficient to perform a meta-analysis for other cancers. In the mortality meta-analysis for all cancers, the pooled OR was higher for studies conducted in Asia than studies conducted in Europe or North America. There was no evidence of publication bias. Conclusions: Our meta-analysis indicates a twofold increased risk of adverse outcomes (mortality, ICU admission, and severity of COVID-19) in unvaccinated COVID-19 patients with cancer compared to COVID-19 patients without cancer. These results should be compared with studies conducted in vaccinated patients; nonetheless, they argue for special effort to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with cancer. Funding: No external funding was obtained.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Neoplasias , COVID-19/epidemiología , Hospitalización , Humanos , Neoplasias/complicaciones , Neoplasias/epidemiología , Neoplasias/terapia , Pandemias , SARS-CoV-2RESUMEN
Background: The duration of immune response to COVID-19 vaccination is of major interest. Our aim was to analyze the determinants of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG titer at 6 months after 2-dose vaccination in an international cohort of vaccinated healthcare workers (HCWs). Methods: We analyzed data on levels of anti-SARS-CoV-2 Spike antibodies and sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of 6,327 vaccinated HCWs from 8 centers from Germany, Italy, Romania and Slovakia. Time between 1st dose and serology ranged 150-210 days. Serological levels were log-transformed to account for the skewness of the distribution and normalized by dividing them by center-specific standard errors, obtaining standardized values. We fitted center-specific multivariate regression models to estimate the cohort-specific relative risks (RR) of an increase of 1 standard deviation of log antibody level and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI), and finally combined them in random-effects meta-analyses. Results: A 6-month serological response was detected in 99.6% of HCWs. Female sex (RR 1.10, 95%CI 1.00-1.21), past infection (RR 2.26, 95%CI 1.73-2.95) and two vaccine doses (RR 1.50, 95%CI 1.22-1.84) predicted higher IgG titer, contrary to interval since last dose (RR for 10-day increase 0.94, 95%CI 0.91-0.97) and age (RR for 10-year increase 0.87, 95%CI 0.83-0.92). M-RNA-based vaccines (p<0.001) and heterologous vaccination (RR 2.46, 95%CI 1.87-3.24, one cohort) were associated with increased antibody levels. Conclusions: Female gender, young age, past infection, two vaccine doses, and m-RNA and heterologous vaccination predicted higher antibody level at 6 months. These results corroborate previous findings and offer valuable data for comparison with trends observed with longer follow-ups.