Search

The article discusses a recent study on mortality attributable to COVID-19 in Italy and the need for further analysis. The study used a reliable methodology to estimate excess deaths due to the pandemic. However, there are still questions about the specific effects of COVID-19 compared to other factors, such as delayed or missing access to treatment for other illnesses. Analyzing the time course of excess deaths could reveal such effects. There are also open questions about how COVID-19 deaths are classified and reported, which could lead to over or under-diagnosing cases. The article notes that occupational physicians have played an important role in preventing the spread of COVID-19 among workers. A recent study found that personal protective equipment (PPE), particularly masks, effectively reduced the risk of infection among healthcare workers. However, it is still unclear whether Occupational Medicine should incorporate infectious diseases as a major concern or return to its historically agnostic attitude toward communicable diseases. More data on mortality from specific diseases will be needed for further analysis and understanding of the pandemic's effects on mortality rates in Italy.

Objectives: The epidemiologic Health Impact Assessment (eHIA) process is receiving growing attention in Italy. In the context of such an approach, the present paper has three objectives: to review the computational aspects of eHIA for stressing strengths and weaknesses of methods and formulas; to discuss which rate at baseline could be used for the estimation of attributable cases; how to use the results of eHIA to make decisions regarding the realization of industrial projects., Methods and Results: Using a linear formulation of the relationship between exposure and disease occurrence: a) formulas have been derived to compute attributable cases (AC) using both Relative Risk (RR) and Excess Risk (ER) approaches; b) a discussion is made of the use as baseline rate of the rate that is caused by all the risk factors for a particular disease and a suggestion is made to use the rate that is caused simply by the risk factors that are under evaluation; c) under assumptions and approximations that must be validated in any specific situation, formulas are derived to compute Incremental Lifetime Cumulative Risk (ILCR), an indicator that can be used to compare the results coming from the eHIA approach with the levels of action used by USEPA and others (10-6, 10-5, 10-4). -Conclusion: In this paper, the methodology and the formulas commonly used in eHIA have been enlarged to consider the case in which the baseline rate is equal to zero, suggesting to use Excess Risk (ER) estimates instead of Relative Risk (RR) estimates. Using different baseline rates produces very different estimates of AC, and work needs to be done on this topic. Lastly, due to assumptions, approximations, and uncertainty of eHIA computations, prudence and caution should be exercised in using eHIA results in decision making, particularly if hard decisions have to be made.

The Position Paper (PP) on asbestos of the Italian Society of Occupational Medicine (SIML) aims at providing a tool to the occupational physician to address current diagnostic criteria and results of epidemiological studies, and their consequences in terms of preventive and evaluation actions for insurance, compensation and litigation. The PP was based on an extensive review of the scientific literature and was compiled by a Working Group comprising researchers who have contributed to the international literature on asbestos-related diseases, as well as occupational physicians with extensive experience in the evaluation of risks and the medical surveillance of workers currently and formerly exposed to asbestos. The PP was drafted and reviewed between 2017 and 2018; its final version was prepared according to the guidelines of AGREE Reporting Checklist. All the members of the Working Group subscribed to the document, which was eventually approved by SIML's Executive Committee. The first section addresses industrial hygiene issues, such as methods for environmental monitoring, advantages and limitations of different microscopy techniques, the potential role of microfibers and approaches for retrospective assessment of exposure, in particular in epidemiological studies. The second section reviews the biological effects of asbestos with particular attention to the diagnostic aspects of asbestosis, pleural changes, mesothelioma and lung cancer. In the following section the criteria of causal attribution are discussed, together with different hypotheses on the form of the risk functions, with a comparison of the opinions prevalent in the literature. In particular, the models of the risk function for mesothelioma were examined, in the light of the hypothesis of an acceleration or anticipation of the events in relation to the dose. The last section discusses topics of immediate relevance for the occupational physician, such as health surveillance of former exposed and of workers currently exposed in remediation activities.

Introduction: In a previous paper on acceleration of failure time we highlighted the difficulties of the application to the case of mesothelioma of the methodology proposed by Berry. In this contribution we elaborate further on the concept of anticipation/acceleration, taking into account the content of the III Italian Consensus Document., Methods: We analyzed the ways in which the concept of anticipation/acceleration has been proposed and interpreted in the III Consensus Document., Results: We show that the concept of anticipation of the III Consensus Document has to do with incidence (frequency) in a population (and not with acceleration of the pathological process in an individual case), and is a measure which is alternative to other measures of frequency effects. In addition, we show that the same epidemiological result is compatible with causal models where no cases, all the cases, or some of the cases are anticipated., Discussion: This paper suggests that the concept of anticipation measurable through epidemiologic data has to do exclusively with the anticipation of a frequency indicator (more occurrencies and anticipated occurrencies are indistinguishable and alternative concepts) but not with the acceleration of the biological process in individual cases. In causal terms, without a biological support it is not possible to infer from the epidemiologic results if a causal model is in action with no, all, or some of cases anticipated.