How to deal with uncertainties regarding the occupational exposure to antineoplastic mixtures: additive effect should always be considered?

Risk assessment considerations - The concept that “safe levels of exposure” for humans can be identified for individual chemicals is central to the risk assessment of compounds with known toxicological profiles. Selection of agents for combination chemotherapy regimens involves minimize overlapping of mechanisms of action, antitumor activity and toxicity profile. Although the toxicological profile and mechanism of action of each individual drug is well characterized, the toxicological interactions between drugs are likely, but poorly established at occupational exposure context. The synergistic nature of interactions may help in understanding the adverse health effects observed in healthcare workers, where exposure situations are characterized by complex mixtures of chemical agents, and the levels of individual exposing agents are often not sufficiently high to explain the health complaints. However, if a substance is a genotoxic carcinogen, this would be the “lead effect”; normally, no OEL based on a NOEL would be derived and the level would be set so low that it would be unlikely that other effects would be expected. Aim of the study - Recently research project developed in Portuguese Hospitals characterize the occupational exposure to antineoplastic agents and the health effects related. The project aimed to assess exposure of the different risk groups that handle antineoplastic agents in the hospital setting, namely during preparation and administration of these drugs. Here it is presented and discussed the results in a study developed in two hospitals from Lisbon.

High body mass index is not a barrier to physical activity: Analysis of international rugby players' anthropometric data

Recent data indicate that levels of overweight and obesity are increasing at an alarming rate throughout the world. At a population level (and commonly to assess individual health risk), the prevalence of overweight and obesity is calculated using cut-offs of the Body Mass Index (BMI) derived from height and weight. Similarly, the BMI is also used to classify individuals and to provide a notional indication of potential health risk. It is likely that epidemiologic surveys that are reliant on BMI as a measure of adiposity will overestimate the number of individuals in the overweight (and slightly obese) categories. This tendency to misclassify individuals may be more pronounced in athletic populations or groups in which the proportion of more active individuals is higher. This differential is most pronounced in sports where it is advantageous to have a high BMI (but not necessarily high fatness). To illustrate this point we calculated the BMIs of international professional rugby players from the four teams involved in the semi-finals of the 2003 Rugby Union World Cup. According to the World Health Organisation (WHO) cut-offs for BMI, approximately 65% of the players were classified as overweight and approximately 25% as obese. These findings demonstrate that a high BMI is commonplace (and a potentially desirable attribute for sport performance) in professional rugby players. An unanswered question is what proportion of the wider population, classified as overweight (or obese) according to the BMI, is misclassified according to both fatness and health risk? It is evident that being overweight should not be an obstacle to a physically active lifestyle. Similarly, a reliance on BMI alone may misclassify a number of individuals who might otherwise have been automatically considered fat and/or unfit.