Clinical and laboratory predictors of imported malaria in an outpatient setting: an aid to medical decision making in returning travellers with fever

Si le tableau clinique évoque une malaria et que le résultat des examens parasitologiques n?est pas disponible ou est négatif, le praticien n?a pas d?information basée sur l?évidence pour savoir s?il doit donner ou non un traitement présomptif. Afin d?identifier les facteurs cliniques et paracliniques prédictifs d?une parasitémie à Plasmodium, nous avons mené une étude prospective chez les voyageurs ou migrants en provenance d?une zone tropicale ou subtropicale et qui consultaient pour de la fièvre. Le questionnaire comprenait 49 items explorant les données démographiques, les caractéristiques du voyage, les éléments de l?anamnèse et de l?examen clinique ainsi que les résultats de laboratoire. 336 sujets avec données complètes ont été recrutés (97 patients atteints de malaria et 239 contrôles avec fièvre et examen parasitologique négatif). L?analyse de régression multivariée a permis d?identifier les facteurs prédictifs de maiaria suivants : prophylaxie inadéquate, sudations, absence de douleur abdominale, température )38"C, mauvais état général, splénomégalie, compte leucocytaire (1 O x 1 03/L, plaquettes ~ 1 5 0 x l 03/L, taux d?hémoglobine <12 g/dL et éosinophiles (5%. La présence d?une splénomégalie avait le coefficient de probabilité positif pour un diagnostic de malaria le plus élevé (1 3.6) ; venait ensuite la présence d?une thrombopénie (1 1 .O). Dans le contexte de la consultation ambulatoire de la Policlinique Médicale Universitaire (prévalence de malaria de 29%), la probabilité post- test d?avoir un examen parasitologique positif était de 85% pour la splénomégalie et de 82% pour la thrombopénie. Même si le seuil thérapeutique n?est pas absolument défini, il semble raisonnable d?envisager un traitement présomptif lorsque la probabilité post- test est >80%. Si le médecin est réticent à administrer un traitement sans documentation parasitologique, il devrait au moins se retenir d?entreprendre d?autres investigations coûteuses, et plutôt répéter l?examen parasitologique après 12-24 heures.

A web-based tool to aid the identification of chemicals potentially posing a health risk through percutaneous exposure

Occupational hygiene practitioners typically assess the risk posed by occupational exposure by comparing exposure measurements to regulatory occupational exposure limits (OELs). In most jurisdictions, OELs are only available for exposure by the inhalation pathway. Skin notations are used to indicate substances for which dermal exposure may lead to health effects. However, these notations are either present or absent and provide no indication of acceptable levels of exposure. Furthermore, the methodology and framework for assigning skin notation differ widely across jurisdictions resulting in inconsistencies in the substances that carry notations. The UPERCUT tool was developed in response to these limitations. It helps occupational health stakeholders to assess the hazard associated with dermal exposure to chemicals. UPERCUT integrates dermal quantitative structure-activity relationships (QSARs) and toxicological data to provide users with a skin hazard index called the dermal hazard ratio (DHR) for the substance and scenario of interest. The DHR is the ratio between the estimated 'received' dose and the 'acceptable' dose. The 'received' dose is estimated using physico-chemical data and information on the exposure scenario provided by the user (body parts exposure and exposure duration), and the 'acceptable' dose is estimated using inhalation OELs and toxicological data. The uncertainty surrounding the DHR is estimated with Monte Carlo simulation. Additional information on the selected substances includes intrinsic skin permeation potential of the substance and the existence of skin notations. UPERCUT is the only available tool that estimates the absorbed dose and compares this to an acceptable dose. In the absence of dermal OELs it provides a systematic and simple approach for screening dermal exposure scenarios for 1686 substances.

Fingermark age determinations: legal considerations, review of the literature and practical propositions

The question of the age of fingermarks is often raised in investigations and trials when suspects admit that they have left their fingermarks at a crime scene but allege that the contact occurred at a different time than the crime and for legal reasons. In the first part of this review article, examples from American appellate court cases will be used to demonstrate that there is a lack of consensus among American courts regarding the admissibility and weight of testimony from expert witnesses who provide opinions about the age of fingermarks. Of course, these issues are not only encountered in America but have also been reported elsewhere, for example in Europe. The disparity in the way fingermark dating cases were managed in these examples is probably due to the fact that no methodology has been validated and accepted by the forensic science community so far. The second part of this review article summarizes the studies reported on fingermark dating in the literature and highlights the fact that most proposed methodologies still suffer from limitations preventing their use in practice. Nevertheless, several approaches based on the evolution of aging parameters detected in fingermark residue over time appear to show promise for the fingermark dating field. Based on these approaches, the definition of a formal methodological framework for fingermark dating cases is proposed in order to produce relevant temporal information. This framework identifies which type of information could and should be obtained about fingermark aging and what developments are still required to scientifically address dating issues.