The efficacy and safety of rifabutin (RBT) and rifampicin (RMP) were compared in 298 patients with newly diagnosed pulmonary tuberculosis. In the initial 8-wk phase, all patients received isoniazid 400 mg/d, ethambutol 1200 mg/d, and pyrazinamide 2 g/d and were randomly allocated to receive either RMP 600 mg/d or RBT 300 mg/d. In the 16-wk continuation phase, patients received intermittent treatment (twice weekly) with isoniazid 600 mg/d, ethambutol 2400 mg/d and either RMP 600 mg/d or RBT 300 mg/d. Two hundred twenty-five (RMP = 118; RBT = 107) patients completed the 24-wk treatment period (evaluable patient population). Bacteriologic conversion rates in the RMP and RBT groups were 87.7 versus 92.0% at Week 8, 99.1 versus 99.0% at Week 12, 93.5 versus 93.8% at Week 24, and 89.8 versus 95.3% at the last valid observation. The mean time to first bacteriologic conversion was 14.1 wk in the RMP group and 14.3 wk in the RBT group. None of these differences was significant. Adverse events were reported by four patients (five events) in the RMP group and six patients (six events) in the RBT group. Those events thought to be associated with RMP were increased SGOT and leucopenia and, with RBT, increased SGOT and thrombocytopenia. Two hundred four patients entered the follow-up phase, and, of these, 95 (RMP = 49; RBT = 46) completed the scheduled 24-mo period. The overall rate of relapse was 3.8% (4/106) for the RMP group and 5.1% (5/98) for the RBT group. These differences were not significant. All relapsed patients, except for two who could not be traced, were successfully retreated. We conclude that the efficacy and tolerability of RBT is equivalent to that of RMP in the treatment of newly diagnosed uncomplicated tuberculosis, and that RBT can be effectively administered in a part-daily, part-intermittent dosage schedule.

The purpose of this study was to assess the prevalence of lung cancer in a high-risk asbestos-exposed cohort using low-dose MDCT. Of a population of 5,389 former power-plant workers, 316 were characterized as individuals at highest risk for lung cancer according to a lung-cancer risk model including age, asbestos exposure and smoking habits. Of these 316, 187 (mean age: 66.6 years) individuals were included in a prospective trial. Mean asbestos exposure time was 29.65 years and 89% were smokers. Screening was performed on a 16-slice MDCT (Siemens) with low-dose technique (10/20 mAs(eff.); 1 mm/0.5 mm increment). In addition to soft copy PACS reading analysis on a workstation with a dedicated lung analysis software (LungCARE; Siemens) was performed. One strongly suspicious mass and eight cases of histologically proven lung cancer were found plus 491 additional pulmonary nodules (average volume: 40.72 ml, average diameter 4.62 mm). Asbestos-related changes (pleural plaques, fibrosis) were visible in 80 individuals. Lung cancer screening in this high-risk cohort showed a prevalence of lung cancer of 4.28% (8/187) at baseline screening with an additional large number of indeterminate pulmonary nodules. Low-dose MDCT proved to be feasible in this highly selected population.

Fixed cut-off values for deciding between intensive clinical work-up and continued surveillance appeared inadequate for the evaluated markers. While general conclusions cannot be drawn, we can say that the results of the two patients would be consistent with a mesothelin increase between 6 and 18 months before clinical symptoms developed.

Informal e-waste recycling is associated with several health hazards. Thus far, the main focus of research in the e-waste sector has been to assess the exposure site, such as the burden of heavy metals or organic pollutants. The aim of this study was to comprehensively assess the health consequences associated with informal e-waste recycling. A questionnaire-based assessment regarding occupational information, medical history, and current symptoms and complaints was carried out with a group of n = 84 e-waste workers and compared to a control cohort of n = 94 bystanders at the e-waste recycling site Agbogbloshie. E-waste workers suffered significantly more from work-related injuries, back pain, and red itchy eyes in comparison to the control group. In addition, regular drug use was more common in e-waste workers (25% vs. 6.4%). Both groups showed a noticeable high use of pain killers (all workers 79%). The higher frequency of symptoms in the e-waste group can be explained by the specific recycling tasks, such as burning or dismantling. However, the report also indicates that adverse health effects apply frequently to the control group. Occupational safety trainings and the provision of personal protection equipment are needed for all workers.

Background The United Nations Environment Program, UNEP (2005) estimates that between 20 and 50 million tonnes of e-waste are generated annually worldwide, accounting for about 5% of all municipal solid waste. In a recent global waste stream analysis, the composition of global quantity of e-waste generated in 2014 comprised of 1.0 Mt of lamps, 3.0 Mt of Small IT, 6.3 Mt of screens and monitors, 7.0 Mt of temperature exchange equipment (cooling and freezing equipment), 11.8 Mt of large equipment, and 12.8 Mt of small equipment and the global is projected to grow to 49.8 Mt in 2018, with an annual growth rate of 4 to 5 per cent [1, 2]. Not only is this figure representing the fastest growing municipal waste stream, it also has the potential of increasing further. In spite of the unprecedented growth in the global quantities, there is only limited recycling technology for disposal and safe management especially in the developing countries where most of the wastes end up and are recycled by informal means using rudimentary methods [3, 4].