Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 4 de 4
Filter
1.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 72(38): 1027-1031, 2023 Sep 22.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37733629

ABSTRACT

Two siblings aged 5 and 15 years from Connecticut were hospitalized with petechial rash, oral mucositis, and severe thrombocytopenia approximately 10 days after they played with a jar of elemental mercury they found in their home. Before the mercury exposure was disclosed, the siblings were treated with platelet transfusions, intravenous immune globulin (IVIG) for possible immune thrombocytopenic purpura, and antibiotics for possible infectious causes. When their conditions did not improve after 6 days, poison control facilitated further questioning about toxic exposures including mercury, testing for mercury, and chelation with dimercaptosuccinic acid. The older sibling soon recovered, but the younger child required a prolonged hospitalization for severe thrombocytopenia, ultimately receiving repeated doses of IVIG, steroids, and romiplostim, a thrombopoietin receptor agonist. Close collaboration among multiple agencies was required to identify the extent of mercury contamination, evaluate and treat the other family members, and decontaminate the home. These cases demonstrate the importance of ongoing public health outreach to promote early detection of elemental mercury toxicity, and the need to evaluate for environmental exposures when multiple close contacts experience similar signs and symptoms.


Subject(s)
Mercury Poisoning , Mercury , Thrombocytopenia , Child , Humans , Siblings , Connecticut , Immunoglobulins, Intravenous , Mercury Poisoning/diagnosis
3.
Public Health Rep ; 126 Suppl 1: 34-40, 2011.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-21563710

ABSTRACT

Licensed child care centers are generally considered to be safe because they are required to meet state licensing regulations. As part of their licensing requirements, many states inspect child care centers and include an assessment of the health and safety of the facility to look for hazardous conditions or practices that may harm children. However, most states do not require an environmental assessment of the child care center building or land to prevent a center from being placed on, next to, or inside contaminated buildings. Having worked on several sites where child care centers were affected by environmental contaminants, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) endeavor to raise awareness of this issue. One of ATSDR's partner states, Connecticut, took a proactive, non-regulatory approach to the issue with the development its Child Day Care Screening Assessment for Environmental Risk Program.


Subject(s)
Child Day Care Centers/standards , Environmental Exposure/prevention & control , Safety/standards , Schools, Nursery/standards , Building Codes , Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. , Child, Preschool , Connecticut , Environmental Exposure/adverse effects , Humans , Infant , Licensure/standards , Risk Assessment/methods , United States
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL