Chemical pneumonitis and subsequent reactive airways dysfunction syndrome after a single exposure to a household product: a case report

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Introduction</p> <p>Household products are usually safe to use. Adverse events arising from their use are mostly reported in patients with pre-existing atopy or pulmonary problems and usually only after a prolonged exposure to such products. We report the case of a patient with no prior problems who developed significant side effects from a single exposure to a domestic product.</p> <p>Case presentation</p> <p>A 43-year-old Caucasian American man, previously in good health, used a domestic aerosol product called 'Stand N' Seal "Spray-On" Grout Sealer' in an enclosed room in his house. The product contained n-butyl acetate (<5%), propane (10%), isobutane (<5%), C8-C9 petroleum hydrocarbon solvent (80%), a fluoropolymer resin and a solvent. Within a few hours of exposure to the sealant, he developed rapidly progressive shortness of breath and a severe non-productive cough. By the time he reached the emergency room he was severely hypoxic. A diagnosis of chemical pneumonitis was made based on the clinical scenario and the diffuse infiltrates on the computer tomography scan. With supportive therapy, his condition improved and he was discharged from the hospital. However, he continued to have symptoms of intermittent cough and shortness of breath in response to strong odours, fumes, cold air and exertion even after his chest radiograph had normalized. Three months later, bronchial hyper-responsiveness was documented by a methacholine inhalation test and a diagnosis of reactive airways dysfunction syndrome was made. The patient was started on high-dose inhaled steroids and his symptoms improved. The mechanism of toxicity and determination of the exact agent responsible is still under investigation.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>A household product may still prove unsafe to use even after it has gone through vigorous testing and approval processes. Even healthy individuals are susceptible to adverse outcomes after a brief exposure. Extra precautions should be taken when using any chemical product at home.</p

A prospective, multicentre clinical trial comparing cisplatin plus gemcitabine with cisplatin plus etoposide in patients with locally advanced and metastatic non-small cell lung cancer

WOS: 000235842800008PubMed ID: 16135168Cisplatin-gemcitabine (PG) and cisplatin-etoposide (PE) combinations are active regimens for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The present study aimed to compare PG with PE in the treatment of patients with stage IIIB and IV NSCLC. We conducted a prospective, multicentre trial. A total of 166 patients were enrolled into the study and received either gemcitabine (1000 mg/m(2)) on days 1, 8 and 15 plus cisplatin (80 mg/m(2)) on day 2 every 4 weeks, or etoposide (100 mg/m(2)) on days 1, 2 and 3 plus cisplatin (80 mg/m(2)) on day 1 every 3 weeks. The overall response rate was superior in the PG group (54.8%vs 39.0%, P = 0.045). There was no significant difference in survival between the two groups, with respective median and 1-year survival of 38 weeks and 33.3% for the PG group, and 34 weeks and 23.2% for the PE group. There was also no statistical difference for time to progression between the two groups. Neutropenia and thrombocytopenia were seen more frequently in the PG group (grade 3 neutropenia, 33.3%vs 15.9%, P = 0.012; grade 3 thrombocytopenia, 27.4%vs 3.7%, P < 0.001 and grade 4 thrombocytopenia, 10.7%vs 1.2%, P = 0.018). PG is an active chemotherapy regimen and has a better response rate than PE in advanced NSCLC, although there was no difference in time to progression and overall survival. A higher incidence of haematological toxicity was seen with PG than with PE