Protocol of a scoping review assessing injury rates and their determinants among healthcare workers in western countries.

INTRODUCTION: Healthcare workers (HCWs) are exposed to various risk factors and risky behaviours that may seriously affect their health and ability to work. The aim of this protocol is to detail the steps to follow in order to carry out a scoping review to assess the prevalence/incidence of injuries among HCWs. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The study will be carried out in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses-Protocols guidelines. Studies will be selected according to the following criteria: P (HCWs), E (exposure to injuries), C (different types of exposure and different categories of HCWs) and O (prevalence/incidence and determinants of injuries). A time filter has been set (literature between 2000 and 2018) to enable updated, direct comparison between the findings and the epidemiological data available at national and local 'Istituto Nazionale per l'Assicurazione contro gli Infortuni sul Lavoro' (National Institute for Insurance Against Accidents at Work) centres in Italy. No language restriction will be applied. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Formal ethical approval is not required; primary data will not be collected, as they have already been published. The results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publication(s), conference presentation(s) and the press.

[Occupational diseases: when union is not strength]. / Malattie professionali: quando l'unione non fa la forza.

OBJECTIVES: The operating model of health and safety protection in the workplace is a complex system made up of multiple integrated layers of intervention, achieved by various parties, organizations and institutions. The objective in this study was to verify the congruity and appropriateness of these specific interventions in the Genoa area, starting from a sample of reports of musculoskeletal diseases pursuant to Art. 139 TU 1124/1965 and to Art. 365 CP received in ASL3 between years 2004 and 2014. METHODS: In order to process the dossiers related to the sample, all the documentation about the companies and the workers concerned was collected and analyzed to extrapolate data relevant for evaluation of the quality of the DVR, the appropriateness and effectiveness of health surveillance and coherency of the data collected in the different computerized archives/ records containing informations for the examination of cases of occupational disease. RESULTS: The results show how much work remains to be done culturally in order to acquire adequate sensibleness on prevention, the poor quality of the DVR, the weakness of health surveillance intended solely as preventive and periodic examination and the inhomogeneities of information from territory to institutions and of data processing in the different databases used by local health authorities and INAIL. CONCLUSIONS: All this in a scenario in which the phenomenon of under-notification significantly limits the potential of information flows.

Is soluble mesothelin-related protein an upfront predictive marker of pleural mesothelioma? A prospective study on Italian workers exposed to asbestos.

OBJECTIVE: Soluble mesothelin-related peptide (SMRP) may be useful in the diagnosis and detection of early stage mesothelioma. We investigated the SMRP upfront predictive role for mesothelioma in asbestos-exposed workers. METHODS: A total of 1,715 subjects underwent a first visit and were invited for a follow-up after 1 and 2 years, with a clinical examination and blood sampling. SMRP was measured by an ELISA assay. RESULTS: Median SMRP at the first visit was 0.45 [interquartile range (IQR) i.e. 25th-75th percentile: 0.30-0.67 nmol/l]. In all, 1,676 subjects (97.8%) were followed up for a median period of 47.1 months. SMRP was measured at the first visit and at both follow-up visits in 1,536 subjects. At follow-up, 3 subjects were diagnosed with an epithelioid mesothelioma. In these cases, SMRP at the first visit ranged from 0.17 to 0.52 nmol/l. Malignant pleural mesothelioma was diagnosed 9-17 months after the last SMRP evaluation. No SMRP variation was observed during the follow-up. Other 61 miscellaneous cancers were diagnosed (median SMRP at first visit: 0.50 nmol/l, IQR: 0.34-0.71 nmol/l). CONCLUSIONS: Our results did not support the usefulness of SMRP as an early marker for the detection of the disease for a time interval of 1 year.

Individual predictors of increased serum mesothelin in asbestos-exposed workers.

The soluble mesothelin-related peptide (SMRP), a candidate marker for screening of subjects with asbestos exposure, is influenced by some individual and clinical factors. The aim of this study was to quantify the role of age, smoking, weight, presence of diseases and exposure to asbestos on serum SMRP levels in a large series of subjects exposed to asbestos, possible candidates for mesothelioma screening. One thousand seven hundred and four participants underwent clinical examination and were interviewed on medical anamnesis, occupation, smoking and weight. SMRP was measured by an ELISA assay. Overall, median SMRP was 0.4 (IQR 25-75: 0.3-0.7) nmol/l. It was higher in current smokers and in subjects with a cumulative asbestos exposure >50 ff/cc/years than in all the other subjects (p < 0.001 and p = 0.002, respectively). SMRP was positively correlated with age (ρ = 0.11, p < 0.001) and, inversely, with BMI (ρ = -0.15, p < 0.001). SMRP was lower in healthy subjects (n = 1,217: median 0.4 nmol/l) than in subjects with malignant tumors (n = 118: 0.5 nmol/l; p = 0.01), asbestos-related pleural lesions (plaques or thickenings, n = 152: 0.6 nmol/l; p < 0.001) and other benign diseases (n = 182: 0.5 nmol/l; p = 0.04). Multivariate analysis revealed significant predictors of increased SMRP: age >57 years, current smoking, a positive anamnesis for cancer and for asbestos-related pleural lesions, and BMI < 25. Some clinical and demographic variables are associated with serum SMRP levels. The degree of these associations is low, nevertheless they should be accounted for in the interpretation of SMPR as a candidate marker predictive of mesothelioma. The potential predictive value of serum SMRP in screening/surveillance programs must be validated in prospective studies.