The occupational exposures of sewage workers are complex and variable, and include a great variety of biological and chemical agents. Previous research has focused mostly on infections and various symptoms among sewage workers, e.g. abdominal and respiratory symptoms. At several sewage plants in Sweden, concern arose about occupational cancer, specifically cancer of the stomach, the kidney, and the lung. The aim of this study was to study the cancer incidence among municipal sewage workers, some exposures that might be connected with cancer risk, and self reported abdominal and respiratory symptoms. In a cohort of municipal sewage workers there was no increase in the overall incidence of cancer when compared with the general population. However, there was a slight increase in the incidence of prostate cancer, but not in the sites of original concern among the workers. Infection by the gastric carcinogen Helicobacter pylori (determined from the presence of IgG antibodies in serum against H pylori) was no more prevalent in sewage workers than in comparable referents. Neither were sewage workers more exposed to genotoxic agents than comparable referents, as measured by the alkaline single cell gel electrophoresis (SCG) assay performed on peripheral lymphocytes. There was no increase in the three-month prevalence of abdominal symptoms when compared with other municipal workers. Specifically, there was no difference in prevalence of the common disorders dyspepsia and irritable bowel syndrome. Sewage workers reported adult bronchial asthma significantly more than the referents.

Introduction: L’asthme relié au travail (ART) est induit ou aggravé par le milieu du travail. L’asthme professionnel (AP) et l’asthme exacerbé au travail (AET) sont difficiles à distinguer en pratique clinique puisque dans les deux conditions les travailleurs se plaignent d’une détérioration de leur asthme au travail. De plus, les médecins sont souvent confrontés à des patients ayant des symptômes respiratoires reliés au travail (SRT) sans être asthmatiques. Ces patients sont souvent exclus des études qui visent à mieux caractériser l’ART. Objectifs : 1. Comparer la variabilité quotidienne des débits expiratoires de pointe (DEP) durant les périodes au et hors travail chez des sujets atteints d’AP et d’AET. 2. Évaluer la prévalence des patients ayant des SRT parmi les sujets référés pour possibilité d’ART, et comparer leurs caractéristiques et leur environnement professionnel avec ceux ayant l’ART. Résultats : L’exposition professionnelle induit une variabilité accrue des DEP chez les sujets avec AP et AET mais celle-ci est plus prononcée dans l’AP. Les sujets ayant des SRT sans être asthmatiques représentent une grande proportion des sujets référés pour possibilité d’ART. Conclusions : L’ART devrait être considéré chez tous les individus qui présentent un asthme de novo, ou une aggravation de leur asthme. La similitude des symptômes entre les sujets ayant des SRT et l’ART rend nécessaire d’effectuer une évaluation extensive. Cette évaluation devrait se faire selon une approche par étapes dans laquelle des tests objectifs améliorent la certitude du diagnostic et aident à différencier entre l’AP et l’AET. / Background: Work related asthma (WRA) refers to asthma that is induced or exacerbated by the workplace. Occupational asthma (OA) and work-exacerbated asthma (WEA) are difficult to distinguish in clinical practice since in both conditions workers complain of deterioration of their asthma while at work. In addition, physicians are often faced with subjects with work related respiratory symptoms (WRS) without being asthmatics. These subjects are often excluded from studies whose aim is to better characterize WRA. Objectives: 1. To compare the diurnal variability of peak expiratory flow (PEF) during periods at and away from work between subjects with OA and WEA. 2. To assess the prevalence of subjects with work related respiratory symptoms but without asthma among subjects referred for possible WRA, and to compare their characteristics and work environment to subjects with WRA. Results: Work exposures induce a significant PEF variability in both OA and WEA. However, the magnitude of variability is higher in OA than in WEA during work exposures. Subjects with WRS without asthma represent a large proportion of the subjects referred for possible WRA. Conclusions: WRA should be considered in all individuals who present with new-onset or worsening asthma. The similarity of the symptoms between subjects with WRA and WRS emphasizes the need to perform an extensive investigation. This investigation should be based on a stepwise approach in which multiple objective testing improves the certainty of diagnosis and help to differentiate between OA and WEA.

INTRODUÇÃO: A adesão à vacinação contra influenza é historicamente baixa entre profissionais da área da saúde (PAS) (2 a 36%). A ocorrência de sintomas respiratórios após vacinação é freqüentemente interpretada como falha vacinal. No Hospital das Clínicas da FMUSP, um estudo preliminar mostrou que as principais razões para não adesão são a percepção da ineficácia da vacina e o medo de reações adversas. OBJETIVOS: Identificar a incidência de eventos adversos pós-vacinação e identificar os vírus respiratórios (VR) responsáveis por eventuais episódios de infecção de via aérea superior (IVAS) que ocorram entre indivíduos vacinados. MÉTODOS: Foi seguida uma coorte de 398 PAS vacinados objetivando verificar a ocorrência de eventos adversos até 48 h após a vacinação. Durante 4 meses, 337 PAS foram seguidos 2 vezes por semana para avaliar a ocorrência de sintomas respiratórios. Lavados nasais foram coletados na presença de sintomas para pesquisa de VR. A técnica de imunofluorescência direta foi usada para diagnosticar vírus sincicial respiratório, influenza A e B, adenovírus e parainfluenza. PCR foi utilizada para detectar picornavírus e coronavírus e PCR em tempo real para diagnosticar metapneumovírus. Para assegurar melhor sensibilidade, influenza A e B foi também detectado pela PCR em tempo real e adenovírus pela PCR. RESULTADOS: Eventos adversos foram relatados por 30% dos PAS, predominando cefaléia (15,1%), mialgia (14,3%) e mal estar (13,6%). Nenhum evento adverso grave foi observado. Cento e vinte e um PAS (35,9%) desenvolveram sintoma respiratório durante o seguimento e lavado nasal foi colhido em 93 dos 192 episódios apresentados. Vírus influenza A foi detectado em 5 dos 93 episódios (5,3%) e outros vírus respiratórios em 26 (27,9%). No restante dos 61 episódios (65,6%) nenhum vírus foi encontrado. A densidade de incidência de infecção pelo vírus influenza foi de 4,3 episódios por 100 pacientes-mês enquanto que a densidade de infecção por outros vírus respiratórios foi de 10,8 episódios por pacientes-mês. CONCLUSÃO: Vacina da influenza é segura. O medo de eventos adversos grave parece injustificado, bem como, a percepção da ineficácia da vacina. O presente estudo evidencia que IVAS após vacinação é predominantemente causada por outros vírus respiratórios (28%) e não pelo vírus influenza (5%) / INTRODUCTION: Compliance with influenza vaccination has been historically poor among health care workers (HCW), ranging from 2 to 36% world around. The occurrence of respiratory symptoms following influenza vaccination is frequently taken as vaccine failure which reinforces vaccine disbelief. A preliminary study conducted at Hospital das Clínicas, University of São Paulo School of Medical Sciences, showed that the main reasons for non-compliance with influenza vaccination were the perception of vaccine inefficacy and fear of adverse events. OBJECTIVES: To determine the incidence of adverse events after seasonal influenza vaccination and identify other respiratory viruses causing upper respiratory infections in vaccinated HCWs. METHODS: A cohort of 398 vaccinated HCWs was prospectively surveyed for the occurrence of any adverse event in the first 48h after vaccination. A subset of the original cohort (337 HCWs) was followed up during four months, twice a week, for the detection of respiratory symptoms. Nasal washes were taken if respiratory symptoms occurred. Direct immunofluorescent assay (DFA) was performed for the detection of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), influenza (INF) A and B, parainfluenza (PIV) 1, 2 and 3, and adenovirus (ADV). PCR was performed for the detection of human rhinoviruses (HRV), ADV and coronaviruses (hCoV); and real time PCR for the detection of human metapneumovirus (hMPV). To assure greatest sensitivity of influenza diagnosis, real time PCR was added to the diagnostic tools of influenza viruses. RESULTS: Adverse events were reported by 30% of the HCWs, being headache and myalgia reported by 50% and 47% of the participants, respectively. No severe adverse event was observed. One hundred and twenty-one HCWs (35.9%) developed 192 episodes of respiratory symptoms during follow-up and nasal washes were taken in 93 of them. Influenza A virus was detected in five of the 93 episodes (5.3%) and other respiratory viruses in 26 (27.9%). In the remaining 61 episodes (65.6%) no respiratory virus was identified. The incidence density of influenza was 4.3 episodes per 100 HCW-month, while the incidence density of other respiratory viruses was 10.8 episodes per HCW-month. CONCLUSIONS: Influenza vaccine is safe. The fear of adverse events as well as the perception of vaccine inefficacy seems to be unjustified in this population. The present study showed that the occurrence of upper respiratory infection during the four months following seasonal influenza vaccination of HCWs is generally caused by other respiratory viruses (28%) and not by influenza viruses (5%)

Introduction: L’asthme relié au travail (ART) est induit ou aggravé par le milieu du travail. L’asthme professionnel (AP) et l’asthme exacerbé au travail (AET) sont difficiles à distinguer en pratique clinique puisque dans les deux conditions les travailleurs se plaignent d’une détérioration de leur asthme au travail. De plus, les médecins sont souvent confrontés à des patients ayant des symptômes respiratoires reliés au travail (SRT) sans être asthmatiques. Ces patients sont souvent exclus des études qui visent à mieux caractériser l’ART. Objectifs : 1. Comparer la variabilité quotidienne des débits expiratoires de pointe (DEP) durant les périodes au et hors travail chez des sujets atteints d’AP et d’AET. 2. Évaluer la prévalence des patients ayant des SRT parmi les sujets référés pour possibilité d’ART, et comparer leurs caractéristiques et leur environnement professionnel avec ceux ayant l’ART. Résultats : L’exposition professionnelle induit une variabilité accrue des DEP chez les sujets avec AP et AET mais celle-ci est plus prononcée dans l’AP. Les sujets ayant des SRT sans être asthmatiques représentent une grande proportion des sujets référés pour possibilité d’ART. Conclusions : L’ART devrait être considéré chez tous les individus qui présentent un asthme de novo, ou une aggravation de leur asthme. La similitude des symptômes entre les sujets ayant des SRT et l’ART rend nécessaire d’effectuer une évaluation extensive. Cette évaluation devrait se faire selon une approche par étapes dans laquelle des tests objectifs améliorent la certitude du diagnostic et aident à différencier entre l’AP et l’AET. / Background: Work related asthma (WRA) refers to asthma that is induced or exacerbated by the workplace. Occupational asthma (OA) and work-exacerbated asthma (WEA) are difficult to distinguish in clinical practice since in both conditions workers complain of deterioration of their asthma while at work. In addition, physicians are often faced with subjects with work related respiratory symptoms (WRS) without being asthmatics. These subjects are often excluded from studies whose aim is to better characterize WRA. Objectives: 1. To compare the diurnal variability of peak expiratory flow (PEF) during periods at and away from work between subjects with OA and WEA. 2. To assess the prevalence of subjects with work related respiratory symptoms but without asthma among subjects referred for possible WRA, and to compare their characteristics and work environment to subjects with WRA. Results: Work exposures induce a significant PEF variability in both OA and WEA. However, the magnitude of variability is higher in OA than in WEA during work exposures. Subjects with WRS without asthma represent a large proportion of the subjects referred for possible WRA. Conclusions: WRA should be considered in all individuals who present with new-onset or worsening asthma. The similarity of the symptoms between subjects with WRA and WRS emphasizes the need to perform an extensive investigation. This investigation should be based on a stepwise approach in which multiple objective testing improves the certainty of diagnosis and help to differentiate between OA and WEA.

INTRODUÇÃO: A adesão à vacinação contra influenza é historicamente baixa entre profissionais da área da saúde (PAS) (2 a 36%). A ocorrência de sintomas respiratórios após vacinação é freqüentemente interpretada como falha vacinal. No Hospital das Clínicas da FMUSP, um estudo preliminar mostrou que as principais razões para não adesão são a percepção da ineficácia da vacina e o medo de reações adversas. OBJETIVOS: Identificar a incidência de eventos adversos pós-vacinação e identificar os vírus respiratórios (VR) responsáveis por eventuais episódios de infecção de via aérea superior (IVAS) que ocorram entre indivíduos vacinados. MÉTODOS: Foi seguida uma coorte de 398 PAS vacinados objetivando verificar a ocorrência de eventos adversos até 48 h após a vacinação. Durante 4 meses, 337 PAS foram seguidos 2 vezes por semana para avaliar a ocorrência de sintomas respiratórios. Lavados nasais foram coletados na presença de sintomas para pesquisa de VR. A técnica de imunofluorescência direta foi usada para diagnosticar vírus sincicial respiratório, influenza A e B, adenovírus e parainfluenza. PCR foi utilizada para detectar picornavírus e coronavírus e PCR em tempo real para diagnosticar metapneumovírus. Para assegurar melhor sensibilidade, influenza A e B foi também detectado pela PCR em tempo real e adenovírus pela PCR. RESULTADOS: Eventos adversos foram relatados por 30% dos PAS, predominando cefaléia (15,1%), mialgia (14,3%) e mal estar (13,6%). Nenhum evento adverso grave foi observado. Cento e vinte e um PAS (35,9%) desenvolveram sintoma respiratório durante o seguimento e lavado nasal foi colhido em 93 dos 192 episódios apresentados. Vírus influenza A foi detectado em 5 dos 93 episódios (5,3%) e outros vírus respiratórios em 26 (27,9%). No restante dos 61 episódios (65,6%) nenhum vírus foi encontrado. A densidade de incidência de infecção pelo vírus influenza foi de 4,3 episódios por 100 pacientes-mês enquanto que a densidade de infecção por outros vírus respiratórios foi de 10,8 episódios por pacientes-mês. CONCLUSÃO: Vacina da influenza é segura. O medo de eventos adversos grave parece injustificado, bem como, a percepção da ineficácia da vacina. O presente estudo evidencia que IVAS após vacinação é predominantemente causada por outros vírus respiratórios (28%) e não pelo vírus influenza (5%) / INTRODUCTION: Compliance with influenza vaccination has been historically poor among health care workers (HCW), ranging from 2 to 36% world around. The occurrence of respiratory symptoms following influenza vaccination is frequently taken as vaccine failure which reinforces vaccine disbelief. A preliminary study conducted at Hospital das Clínicas, University of São Paulo School of Medical Sciences, showed that the main reasons for non-compliance with influenza vaccination were the perception of vaccine inefficacy and fear of adverse events. OBJECTIVES: To determine the incidence of adverse events after seasonal influenza vaccination and identify other respiratory viruses causing upper respiratory infections in vaccinated HCWs. METHODS: A cohort of 398 vaccinated HCWs was prospectively surveyed for the occurrence of any adverse event in the first 48h after vaccination. A subset of the original cohort (337 HCWs) was followed up during four months, twice a week, for the detection of respiratory symptoms. Nasal washes were taken if respiratory symptoms occurred. Direct immunofluorescent assay (DFA) was performed for the detection of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), influenza (INF) A and B, parainfluenza (PIV) 1, 2 and 3, and adenovirus (ADV). PCR was performed for the detection of human rhinoviruses (HRV), ADV and coronaviruses (hCoV); and real time PCR for the detection of human metapneumovirus (hMPV). To assure greatest sensitivity of influenza diagnosis, real time PCR was added to the diagnostic tools of influenza viruses. RESULTS: Adverse events were reported by 30% of the HCWs, being headache and myalgia reported by 50% and 47% of the participants, respectively. No severe adverse event was observed. One hundred and twenty-one HCWs (35.9%) developed 192 episodes of respiratory symptoms during follow-up and nasal washes were taken in 93 of them. Influenza A virus was detected in five of the 93 episodes (5.3%) and other respiratory viruses in 26 (27.9%). In the remaining 61 episodes (65.6%) no respiratory virus was identified. The incidence density of influenza was 4.3 episodes per 100 HCW-month, while the incidence density of other respiratory viruses was 10.8 episodes per HCW-month. CONCLUSIONS: Influenza vaccine is safe. The fear of adverse events as well as the perception of vaccine inefficacy seems to be unjustified in this population. The present study showed that the occurrence of upper respiratory infection during the four months following seasonal influenza vaccination of HCWs is generally caused by other respiratory viruses (28%) and not by influenza viruses (5%)

No description available.