Re-evaluation of blood mercury, lead and cadmium concentrations in the Inuit population of Nunavik (Québec): a cross-sectional study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Arctic populations are exposed to mercury, lead and cadmium through their traditional diet. Studies have however shown that cadmium exposure is most often attributable to tobacco smoking. The aim of this study is to examine the trends in mercury, lead and cadmium exposure between 1992 and 2004 in the Inuit population of Nunavik (Northern Québec, Canada) using the data obtained from two broad scale health surveys, and to identify sources of exposure in 2004.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>In 2004, 917 adults aged between 18 and 74 were recruited in the 14 communities of Nunavik to participate to a broad scale health survey. Blood samples were collected and analysed for metals by inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry, and dietary and life-style characteristics were documented by questionnaires. Results were compared with data obtained in 1992, where 492 people were recruited for a similar survey in the same population.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Mean blood concentration of mercury was 51.2 nmol/L, which represent a 32% decrease (p < 0.001) between 1992 and 2004. Mercury blood concentrations were mainly explained by age (partial r²= 0.20; p < 0.0001), and the most important source of exposure to mercury was marine mammal meat consumption (partial r²= 0.04; p < 0.0001). In 2004, mean blood concentration of lead was 0.19 μmol/L and showed a 55% decrease since 1992. No strong associations were observed with any dietary source, and lead concentrations were mainly explained by age (partial r²= 0.20.; p < 0.001). Blood cadmium concentrations showed a 22% decrease (p < 0.001) between 1992 and 2004. Once stratified according to tobacco use, means varied between 5.3 nmol/L in never-smokers and 40.4 nmol/L in smokers. Blood cadmium concentrations were mainly associated with tobacco smoking (partial r²= 0.56; p < 0.0001), while consumption of caribou liver and kidney remain a minor source of cadmium exposure among never-smokers.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Important decreases in mercury, lead and cadmium exposure were observed. Mercury decrease could be explained by dietary changes and the ban of lead cartridges use likely contributed to the decrease in lead exposure. Blood cadmium concentrations remain high and, underscoring the need for intensive tobacco smoking prevention campaigns in the Nunavik population.</p

Beyond the Evidence of the New Hypertension Guidelines. Blood pressure measurement – is it good enough for accurate diagnosis of hypertension? Time might be in, for a paradigm shift (I)

Despite widespread availability of a large body of evidence in the area of hypertension, the translation of that evidence into viable recommendations aimed at improving the quality of health care is very difficult, sometimes to the point of questionable acceptability and overall credibility of the guidelines advocating those recommendations. The scientific community world-wide and especially professionals interested in the topic of hypertension are witnessing currently an unprecedented debate over the issue of appropriateness of using different drugs/drug classes for the treatment of hypertension. An endless supply of recent and less recent "drug-news", some in support of, others against the current guidelines, justifying the use of selected types of drug treatment or criticising other, are coming out in the scientific literature on an almost weekly basis. The latest of such debate (at the time of writing this paper) pertains the safety profile of ARBs vs ACE inhibitors. To great extent, the factual situation has been fuelled by the new hypertension guidelines (different for USA, Europe, New Zeeland and UK) through, apparently small inconsistencies and conflicting messages, that might have generated substantial and perpetuating confusion among both prescribing physicians and their patients, regardless of their country of origin. The overwhelming message conveyed by most guidelines and opinion leaders is the widespread use of diuretics as first-line agents in all patients with blood pressure above a certain cut-off level and the increasingly aggressive approach towards diagnosis and treatment of hypertension. This, apparently well-justified, logical and easily comprehensible message is unfortunately miss-obeyed by most physicians, on both parts of the Atlantic. Amazingly, the message assumes a universal simplicity of both diagnosis and treatment of hypertension, while ignoring several hypertension-specific variables, commonly known to have high level of complexity, such as: - accuracy of recorded blood pressure and the great inter-observer variability, - diversity in the competency and training of diagnosing physician, - individual patient/disease profile with highly subjective preferences, - difficulty in reaching consensus among opinion leaders, - pharmaceutical industry's influence, and, nonetheless, - the large variability in the efficacy and safety of the antihypertensive drugs. The present 2-series article attempts to identify and review possible causes that might have, at least in part, generated the current healthcare anachronism (I); to highlight the current trend to account for the uncertainties related to the fixed blood pressure cut-off point and the possible solutions to improve accuracy of diagnosis and treatment of hypertension (II)