Cecchi, R

Marabotti, C

Piaggi, P

Pingitore, A

Scarsi, P

Venturini, E

International Journal of Occupational Medicine and Environmental Health

English

Claudio Marabotti

Paolo Piaggi

Paolo Scarsi

Elio Venturini

Romina Cecchi

Alessandro Pingitore

Crossref

Authors’ response (August 21, 2017) to the letter to the Editor concerning the paper “Mortality for chronic-degenerative diseases in Tuscany: Ecological study comparing neighboring areas with substantial difference in environmental pollution”

Marabotti, Claudio

Piaggi, Paolo

Scarsi, Paolo

Venturini, Elio

Cecchi, Romina

Pingitore, Alessandro

Biblioteka Nauki - repozytorium artykuÅÃ³w

Marabotti C

Piaggi P

Scarsi P

Venturini E

Cecchi R

Pingitore A

Archivio della Ricerca - Università di Pisa

547L E T T E R  T O  T H E  E D I T O RInternational Journal of Occupational Medicine and Environmental Health 2018;31(4):547 – 549https://doi.org/10.13075/ijomeh.1896.01255AUTHORS’ RESPONSE (AUGUST 21, 2017)TO THE LETTER TO THE EDITOR  CONCERNING THE PAPER “MORTALITY  FOR CHRONIC-DEGENERATIVE DISEASES  IN TUSCANY: ECOLOGICAL STUDY COMPARING NEIGHBORING AREAS WITH SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCES IN ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION”Dear Editor,Judging by their first comment, Colleagues from the Cancer Research and Prevention Institute (Istituto per lo Studio e la Prevenzione Oncologica – ISPO) are likely to misinterpret the design of our study “Mortality for chronic-degenerative diseases in Tuscany: Ecological study comparing neighboring areas with substantial differ-ences in environmental pollution” [1,2]. One of our aim actually was “to investigate the potential links between the possible excess in mortality rates and environmental release and detection of pollutants.” This clearly means to discuss the theoretical pathways possibly linking envi-ronmental pollution and mortality. We made no attempt to document a cause-effect relationship between those factors (a link that could not be investigated by an eco-logical study). This is also clearly stated in the Conclusion where we wrote “it is not possible to establish a causal link between environmental pollution and increased mortality. Alternative causes could therefore contribute to (or even totally explain) the reported differences in mortality for cardiovascular and neurodegenerative diseases.”The Table 1 actually shows standardized mortality rates (SMR); the wrong value of SMR for cerebrovascular dis-eases was the result of a mere clerical error. We have at-tached the Table 1 as corrigendum.As stated in the Material and Methods, data was obtained by the Regional Mortality Registry (Registro di Mortalità Regionale – RMR), as elaborated by the ISPO. Reference population was the European standard population elabo-rated by Eurostat in 1976, that was used in the above-men-tioned RMR available at the moment of our analysis. We are aware of a later release of the RMR, using an updated Eu-ropean standard population (2013), giving a relatively lower weight to mortality in the elderly and a higher weight to early mortality. This update was released only after completion of the study. We are comforted to observe that, in the Table at-tached to the letter, the same mortality excesses are observed when the updated European reference population is used.With regard to the questions about the International Sta-tistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, its 10th revision (ICD 10) defining the coding for ischemic heart diseases, our intention was to separate Nofer Institute of Occupational Medicine, Łódź, PolandL E T T E R  T O  T H E  E D I T O R       C. MARABOTTI ET AL.IJOMEH 2018;31(4)548all localizations (even if pleural forms were largely pre-vailing). As our study group includes clinical cardiologists, we are absolutely aware that mortality for ischemic heart diseases is heavily affected by differences in performance of acute illnesses care and, even more, by differences in behavioral risk factors (smoke, dietary habits, physical in-activity). In the paper, we clearly reco gnize that second level studies, aiming to clarify the possible influence of these potentially confounding factors, are mandatory.As far as the question about statistical methods is concerned, we would like to underline that evaluating the overlap be-tween the upper and lower bounds of 2 confidence intervals (95% CIs) of 2 rates does not always tell whether the 2 rates mortality due to myocardial infarction (MI) from the one due to the other ischemic heart diseases. This is an usual procedure when dealing with ischemic heart diseases, since acute MI prognosis is strictly tied to the existence and effec-tiveness of a territorial emergency services (MI network). The inherent unevenness of these networks makes MI mor-tality hardly comparable among diverse areas.Coding for Alzheimer and other degenerative diseases of nervous system was kept separated by other forms of dementia (F01–F03) (as reported in the updated RMR elaborated by the ISPO available at the time of analysis); mortality rates for all these neurological degenerative dis-eases were evaluated. Coding for mesothelioma included Table 1. Standardized mortality rates (SMR) in Tuscany, Bassa Val di Cecina, Rosignano and Cecina, Italy, in 2001–2010  for the diseases showing significant excess in comparison to the reference populationRespondents  and areaStandardized mortality rate(95% CI)mesothelioma(C45)ischemic heart diseases(I20–I25)other forms of ischemic heart diseases(I20, I22–I25)cerebrovascular diseases(I60–I69)Alzheimer and other degenerative diseases of nervous system(G30–G31)TotalTuscany (reference) 1.21 (1.12–1.30) 55.34 (54.81–55.87) 30.96 (30.59–31.33) 53.32 (52.84–53.8) 7.97 (7.79–8.15)Bassa Val di Cecina 2.51 (1.66–3.36) 65.72 (62.03–69.41) 40.13 (37.4–42.86) 57.16 (53.85–60.47) 9.66 (8.37–10.95)Rosignano 3.69 (2.11–5.27) 62.40 (56.84–67.96) 36.47 (32.46–40.48) 60.22 (54.9–65.54) 12.36* (10.1–14.62)Cecina 1.93 (0.59–3.27) 72.95 (66.22–79.68) 45.31 (40.36–50.26) 55.13 (49.63–60.63) 7.57 (5.55–9.59)MalesTuscany (reference) 2.11 (1.93–2.29) 79.04 (78.03–80.05) 43.31 (42.59–44.03) 59.26 (58.42–60.10) 7.41 (7.12–7.7)Bassa Val di Cecina 4.64 (2.9–6.38) 88.33 (81.49–95.17) 52.46 (47.38–57.54) 63.80 (58.16–69.44) 8.38 (6.43–10.33)Rosignano 6.87 (3.59–10.15) 83.24 (72.94–93.54) 46.97 (39.56–54.38) 66.67 (57.71–75.63) 10.55 (7.2–13.9)Cecina 3.64 (0.87–6.41) 99.01 (86.24–111.8) 58.59 (49.16–68.02) 61.14 (51.58–70.7) 6.32 (3.26–9.38)FemalesTuscany (reference) 0.49 (0.41–0.57) 37.77 (37.24–38.3) 22.42 (22.04–22.8) 48.59 (48.01–49.17) 8.20 (7.97–8.43)Bassa Val di Cecina 0.63 (0.21–1.05) 48.43 (44.59–52.27) 31.51 (28.56–34.46) 51.54 (47.59–55.49) 10.56 (8.81–12.31)Rosignano 0.94 (0.18–1.7) 46.09 (40.4–51.78) 28.83 (24.5–33.16) 54.60 (48.21–60.99) 13.65 (10.56–16.74)Cecina 0.52 (0–1.27) 54.38 (47.39–61.37) 36.8 (31.37–42.23) 50.66 (43.99–57.33) 8.21 (5.55–10.87)ICD-10 – International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th revision; CI – confidence interval.* p < 0.05 as compared to Cecina.Significant excess in mortality rates as compared to Tuscany (reference) are bolded.Underlined are corrections made by authors in response to the letter to the editor.AUTHORS’ RESPONSE TO THE LETTER TO THE EDITOR CONCERNING PUBLISHED PAPER      L E T T E R  T O  T H E  E D I T O RIJOMEH 2018;31(4) 549REFERENCES1. Chellini E, Martini A, Giovannetti L, Barchielli A. Letter to the editor (July 28, 2017) concerning the paper “Mortal-ity for chronic-degenerative diseases in Tuscany: Ecological study comparing neighboring areas with substantial differ-ence in environmental pollution.” Int J Occup Med Environ Health. 2018;31(4):543–6, https://doi.org/10.13075/ijomeh. 1896.01246.2. Marabotti C, Piaggi P, Scarsi P, Venturini E, Cecchi R, Pin-gitore A. Mortality for chronic-degenerative diseases in Tus-cany: Ecological study comparing neighboring areas with substantial differences in environmental pollution. Int J Oc-cup Med Environ Health. 2017;30(4):641–53, https://doi.org/10.13075/ijomeh.1896.00972.Claudio Marabotti1,2, Paolo Piaggi3,4, Paolo Scarsi5,Elio Venturini1, Romina Cecchi1, and Alessandro Pingitore21 Bassa Val di Cecina Hospital, Cecina (LI), ItalyCardiovascular and Coronary Care Unit2 National Research Council (CNR), Pisa, ItalyInstitute of Clinical Physiology3 National Institutes of Health, Phoenix, Arizona, USAPhoenix Epidemiology and Clinical Research Branch,National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases4 University of Pisa, Pisa, ItalyDepartment of Endocrinology and Metabolism5 National Research Council (CNR), Pisa, ItalyInstitute of Geosciences and Earth ResourcesCorresponding author: Claudio MarabottiBassa Val di Cecina Hospital, Cardiovascular and Coronary Care Unit via Montanara 1, 57023 Cecina (LI), Italy(e-mail: c.marabotti@alice.it)are statistically different in terms of a p < 0.05. In order to for-mally calculate a p-value for this difference between rates, we used the Chi2 test to quantify the extent to which the difference of mortality rates between areas was statistically significant at an α level of 0.05. We then assessed the 95% CI of each mor-tality rate to report the degree of confidence of these values considering the actual sample size of each area.The problem of the possible non-occupational exposure to asbestos is not only a matter of epidemiology but also (and maybe rather) a matter of environmental detec-tion of asbestos contamination. No reliable data on this topic is available for the area of the study. Data provided in 2007 by the Regional Agency for Environment (Agen-zia Regionale per la Protezione Ambientale della Tos-cana – ARPAT) is limited to the report of the presence of asbestos in public buildings and industrial plants, bearing no indication of the amount of asbestos in each site. No information is provided about the presence of asbestos outside these sites. Without such data, the origin of the cases of mesothelioma arising in non-occupational ex-posed subjects cannot be studied thoroughly.We would like to conclude our reply by thanking the Col-leagues for their comments and clarification queries. Re-sults of our paper were already strongly grounded by the inner coherence of observing the presence, in the studied area, of both environmental pollution and mortality ex-cesses due to diseases pathophysiologically linked to the detected pollutants. The contribution of the Colleagues from the ISPO, providing both a careful methodological scrutiny and new data about standardized mortality ratios calculated with updated standard European population, undoubtedly reinforces our results.Key words:Heavy metals, Particulate matters, Environmental pollution, Mesothelioma, Ischemic heart disease, Neurologic degenerative diseasesThis work is available in Open Access model and licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Poland License – http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/pl/deed.en.

Authors' response (August 21, 2017) to the letter to the Editor concerning the paper "Mortality for chronic-degenerative diseases in Tuscany: Ecological study comparing neighboring areas with substantial difference in environmental pollution"

Directory of Open Access Journals

Authors' response (August 21, 2017) to the letter to the Editor concerning the paper "Mortality for chronic-degenerative diseases in Tuscany: Ecological study comparing neighboring areas with substantial difference in environmental pollution"

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Crossref

Biblioteka Nauki - repozytorium artykuÅÃ³w

Archivio della Ricerca - Università di Pisa

Directory of Open Access Journals

Authors' response (August 21, 2017) to the letter to the Editor concerning the paper "Mortality for chronic-degenerative diseases in Tuscany: Ecological study comparing neighboring areas with substantial difference in environmental pollution"

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Crossref

Biblioteka Nauki - repozytorium artykuÅÃ³w

Archivio della Ricerca - Università di Pisa

Directory of Open Access Journals

Biblioteka Nauki - repozytorium artykuÅÃ³w