Identifying pesticide use patterns among flower growers to assess occupational exposure to mixtures

Objectives Exposure assessment to a single pesticide does not capture the complexity of the occupational exposure. Recently, pesticide use patterns analysis has emerged as an alternative to study these exposures. The aim of this study is to identify the pesticide use pattern among flower growers in Mexico participating in the study on the endocrine and reproductive effects associated with pesticide exposure. Methods A cross-sectional study was carried out to gather retrospective information on pesticide use applying a questionnaire to the person in charge of the participating flower growing farms. Information about seasonal frequency of pesticide use (rainy and dry) for the years 2004 and 2005 was obtained. Principal components analysis was performed. Results Complete information was obtained for 88 farms and 23 pesticides were included in the analysis. Six principal components were selected, which explained more than 70% of the data variability. The identified pesticide use patterns during both years were: 1. fungicides benomyl, carbendazim, thiophanate and metalaxyl (both seasons), including triadimephon during the rainy season, chlorotalonyl and insecticide permethrin during the dry season; 2. insecticides oxamyl, biphenthrin and fungicide iprodione (both seasons), including insecticide methomyl during the dry season; 3. fungicide mancozeb and herbicide glyphosate (only during the rainy season); 4. insecticides metamidophos and parathion (both seasons); 5. insecticides omethoate and methomyl (only rainy season); and 6. insecticides abamectin and carbofuran (only dry season). Some pesticides do not show a clear pattern of seasonal use during the studied years. Conclusions The principal component analysis is useful to summarise a large set of exposure variables into smaller groups of exposure patterns, identifying the mixtures of pesticides in the occupational environment that may have an interactive effect on a particular health effect.

Outcome after relapse of acute lymphoblastic leukemia in adult patients included in four consecutive risk-adapted trials by the PETHEMA Study Group

BACKGROUND About one half of adults with acute lymphoblastic leukemia are not cured of the disease and ultimately die. The objective of this study was to explore the factors influencing the outcome of adult patients with relapsed acute lymphoblastic leukemia. DESIGN AND METHODS. We analyzed the characteristics, the outcome and the prognostic factors for survival after first relapse in a series of 263 adult patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (excluding those with mature B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia) prospectively enrolled in four consecutive risk-adapted PETHEMA trials. RESULTS. The median overall survival after relapse was 4.5 months (95% CI, 4-5 months) with a 5-year overall survival of 10% (95% CI, 8%-12%); 45% of patients receiving intensive second-line treatment achieved a second complete remission and 22% (95% CI, 14%-30%) of them remained disease free at 5 years. Factors predicting a good outcome after rescue therapy were age less than 30 years (2-year overall survival of 21% versus 10% for those over 30 years old; P<0.022) and a first remission lasting more than 2 years (2-year overall survival of 36% versus 17% among those with a shorter first remission; P<0.001). Patients under 30 years old whose first complete remission lasted longer than 2 years had a 5-year overall survival of 38% (95% CI, 23%-53%) and a 5-year disease-free survival of 53% (95% CI, 34%-72%). CONCLUSIONS The prognosis of adult patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia who relapse is poor. Those aged less than 30 years with a first complete remission lasting longer than 2 years have reasonable possibilities of becoming long-term survivors while patients over this age or those who relapse early cannot be successfully rescued using the therapies currently available.

Liver safety assessment: required data elements and best practices for data collection and standardization in clinical trials.

A workshop was convened to discuss best practices for the assessment of drug-induced liver injury (DILI) in clinical trials. In a breakout session, workshop attendees discussed necessary data elements and standards for the accurate measurement of DILI risk associated with new therapeutic agents in clinical trials. There was agreement that in order to achieve this goal the systematic acquisition of protocol-specified clinical measures and lab specimens from all study subjects is crucial. In addition, standard DILI terms that address the diverse clinical and pathologic signatures of DILI were considered essential. There was a strong consensus that clinical and lab analyses necessary for the evaluation of cases of acute liver injury should be consistent with the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidance on pre-marketing risk assessment of DILI in clinical trials issued in 2009. A recommendation that liver injury case review and management be guided by clinicians with hepatologic expertise was made. Of note, there was agreement that emerging DILI signals should prompt the systematic collection of candidate pharmacogenomic, proteomic and/or metabonomic biomarkers from all study subjects. The use of emerging standardized clinical terminology, CRFs and graphic tools for data review to enable harmonization across clinical trials was strongly encouraged. Many of the recommendations made in the breakout session are in alignment with those made in the other parallel sessions on methodology to assess clinical liver safety data, causality assessment for suspected DILI, and liver safety assessment in special populations (hepatitis B, C, and oncology trials). Nonetheless, a few outstanding issues remain for future consideration.