Work conditions and occupational morbidity in Latvia

Copyright: Copyright 2012 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.The aim of study was to analyse work conditions and occupational morbidity in Latvia during a 15-year period for recommendations to employment policy programmes. The study included the analysis of the database of occupational risk factor measurements in more than 7000 enterprises and companies performed in period 1995-2010 by the Laboratory of Hygiene and Occupational Diseases of the Institute of Occupational Safety and Environmental Health of Riga Stradins University. The analysis of registered occupational diseases according to the data from the Latvian State Registry of Occupational diseases run by the Centre of Occupational and Radiation Medicine of Pauls Stradins Clinical University Hospital for the same period was performed. Occupational diseases in Latvia are diagnosed and coded in accordance with the International Classification of Diseases. Results of measurements showed that for one third of measured occupational risk factors values exceeded recommended limits. The traditional work risk factors (chemical, physical, biological etc.) have been partly replaced by new risks (ergonomic and psychosocial factors). The results of the study indicated that the following enterprises form a major risk group of non-compliance with legislation regarding occupational health and safety: small enterprises; enterprises of private and non-governmental sectors; enterprises of different industries (construction, metal processing and wood processing). The number of firstly diagnosed occupational diseases and patients has gradually increased. The total number of firstly diagnosed and registered occupational patients per 100,000 employees was 11.2 in 1995 and 140.5 in 2009. The structure of occupational diseases shows musculoskeletal diseases (46.1%) as the leading group of diseases followed by diseases of the nervous system and organs of sense (29.3%), traumatic disorders and intoxications (11.7%).publishersversionPeer reviewe

Recognition of COVID-19 with occupational origin: a comparison between European countries

Objectives This study aims to present an overview of the formal recognition of COVID-19 as occupational disease (OD) or injury (OI) across Europe. Methods A COVID-19 questionnaire was designed by a task group within COST-funded OMEGA-NET and sent to occupational health experts of 37 countries in WHO European region, with a last update in April 2022. Results The questionnaire was filled out by experts from 35 countries. There are large differences between national systems regarding the recognition of OD and OI: 40% of countries have a list system, 57% a mixed system and one country an open system. In most countries, COVID-19 can be recognised as an OD (57%). In four countries, COVID-19 can be recognised as OI (11%) and in seven countries as either OD or OI (20%). In two countries, there is no recognition possible to date. Thirty-two countries (91%) recognise COVID-19 as OD/OI among healthcare workers. Working in certain jobs is considered proof of occupational exposure in 25 countries, contact with a colleague with confirmed infection in 19 countries, and contact with clients with confirmed infection in 21 countries. In most countries (57%), a positive PCR test is considered proof of disease. The three most common compensation benefits for COVID-19 as OI/OD are disability pension, treatment and rehabilitation. Long COVID is included in 26 countries. Conclusions COVID-19 can be recognised as OD or OI in 94% of the European countries completing this survey, across different social security and embedded occupational health systems.This publication is based on work from COST Action CA16216 (OMEGA-NET), supported by COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology)

Erratum to: Scaling up strategies of the chronic respiratory disease programme of the European Innovation Partnership on Active and Healthy Ageing (Action Plan B3: Area 5).

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1186/s13601-016-0116-9.]

Erratum to: Scaling up strategies of the chronic respiratory disease programme of the European Innovation Partnership on Active and Healthy Ageing (Action Plan B3: Area 5).

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1186/s13601-016-0116-9.]

Stress assessment in captive greylag geese (<em>Anser anser</em>)

Chronic stress—or, more appropriately, “allostatic overload”—may be physiologically harmful and can cause death in the most severe cases. Animals in captivity are thought to be particularly vulnerable to allostatic overload due to artificial housing and group makeup. Here we attempted to determine if captive greylag geese (Anser anser), housed lifelong in captivity, showed elevated levels of immunoreactive corticosterone metabolites (CORT) and ectoparasites in dropping samples as well as some hematological parameters (hematocrit, packed cell volume, total white blood cell count [TWBC], and heterophil:lymphocyte ratio [H:L]). All of these have been measured as indicators of chronic stress. Furthermore, we correlated the various stress parameters within individuals. Captive geese showed elevated values of CORT and ectoparasites relative to a wild population sampled in the vicinity of the area where the captive flock is held. The elevated levels, however, were by no means at a pathological level and fall well into the range of other published values in wild greylag geese. We found no correlations between any of the variables measured from droppings with any of the ones collected from blood. Among the blood parameters, only the H:L negatively correlated with TWBC. We examine the problem of inferring allostatic overload when measuring only 1 stress parameter, as there is no consistency between various measurements taken. We discuss the different aspects of each of the parameters measured and the extensive individual variation in response to stress as well as the timing at which different systems respond to a stressor and what is actually measured at the time of data collection. We conclude that measuring only 1 stress parameter often is insufficient to evaluate the well-being of both wild and captively housed animals and that collecting behavioral data on stress might be a suitable addition

Is diet partly responsible for differences in COVID-19 death rates between and within countries?

Correction: Volume: 10 Issue: 1 Article Number: 44 DOI: 10.1186/s13601-020-00351-w Published: OCT 26 2020Reported COVID-19 deaths in Germany are relatively low as compared to many European countries. Among the several explanations proposed, an early and large testing of the population was put forward. Most current debates on COVID-19 focus on the differences among countries, but little attention has been given to regional differences and diet. The low-death rate European countries (e.g. Austria, Baltic States, Czech Republic, Finland, Norway, Poland, Slovakia) have used different quarantine and/or confinement times and methods and none have performed as many early tests as Germany. Among other factors that may be significant are the dietary habits. It seems that some foods largely used in these countries may reduce angiotensin-converting enzyme activity or are anti-oxidants. Among the many possible areas of research, it might be important to understand diet and angiotensin-converting enzyme-2 (ACE2) levels in populations with different COVID-19 death rates since dietary interventions may be of great benefit.Peer reviewe

ERS/ECDC Statement: European Union standards for tuberculosis care, 2017 update

European Respiratory Society TF-2016-1

Nrf2-interacting nutrients and COVID-19 : time for research to develop adaptation strategies

There are large between- and within-country variations in COVID-19 death rates. Some very low death rate settings such as Eastern Asia, Central Europe, the Balkans and Africa have a common feature of eating large quantities of fermented foods whose intake is associated with the activation of the Nrf2 (Nuclear factor (erythroid-derived 2)-like 2) anti-oxidant transcription factor. There are many Nrf2-interacting nutrients (berberine, curcumin, epigallocatechin gallate, genistein, quercetin, resveratrol, sulforaphane) that all act similarly to reduce insulin resistance, endothelial damage, lung injury and cytokine storm. They also act on the same mechanisms (mTOR: Mammalian target of rapamycin, PPAR gamma:Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor, NF kappa B: Nuclear factor kappa B, ERK: Extracellular signal-regulated kinases and eIF2 alpha:Elongation initiation factor 2 alpha). They may as a result be important in mitigating the severity of COVID-19, acting through the endoplasmic reticulum stress or ACE-Angiotensin-II-AT(1)R axis (AT(1)R) pathway. Many Nrf2-interacting nutrients are also interacting with TRPA1 and/or TRPV1. Interestingly, geographical areas with very low COVID-19 mortality are those with the lowest prevalence of obesity (Sub-Saharan Africa and Asia). It is tempting to propose that Nrf2-interacting foods and nutrients can re-balance insulin resistance and have a significant effect on COVID-19 severity. It is therefore possible that the intake of these foods may restore an optimal natural balance for the Nrf2 pathway and may be of interest in the mitigation of COVID-19 severity.Peer reviewe