View clinical trials related to Exposure.
Filter by:The goal of this research is to test interventions to reduce firefighter cardiovascular, cognitive, and overall disease risks, including but not limited to risks associated with Per- and Polyfluorinated Substances (PFAS) exposure. Approximately 1,500 - 2,000 firefighters will be enrolled in the Fire Fighter Cancer Cohort Study (FFCCS). Among these individuals, those that express interest will then be screened for eligibility for the Firefighter Collaborative Research Project (FCRP) using information they provided for the Fire Fighter Cancer Cohort Study. Firefighters enrolled in the study will provide an initial blood sample and urine sample. The blood sample will be analyzed to determine the participant's PFAS levels. Based upon serum PFAS levels and responses from the screening survey, eligible participants will be randomly assigned into one of the following interventions: 1. Blood Donation, or Plasma Donation or Blood/Plasma Control Group; 2. Zone 2 Training or Zone 2 Control; 3. Intermittent Fasting or Intermittent Fasting Control. Individuals participating in the blood donation, plasma donation or blood/plasma control group would donate blood every 12 weeks, plasma every 6 weeks, or not donate blood or plasma. Participants in this intervention arm would continue this for a 12-month period. Individuals in the zone 2 training, zone 2 training control, intermittent fasting or intermittent fasting control group would participate in their intervention or control for a 4-month period. After 4 to 12 months participating in an intervention or control group, participants will be asked to provide a final urine sample and blood draw to determine if and to what degree their PFAS levels or other cardiovascular disease and other health risks have changed.
This project proposes to systematically develop and evaluate the feasibility and preliminary effectiveness of a digitally delivered, graded exposure treatment for youth with chronic musculoskeletal pain, utilizing a sequential replicated and randomized single-case experimental design (SCED). SCED provides the opportunity to rigorously evaluate treatment effectiveness at the individual level. Development of iGET Living will be based on a series of short iterations, with alpha testing (Aim 1) on a small sample of adolescents with chronic pain (N = 15) and their parents (N = 15). For Aim 1, participants will participate in three, two hour focus groups (one per week over the course of three weeks), resulting in 6 total hours of participation per participant for Aim 1. Aim 2 will involve a sample (N = 20 youth, N = 20 parents) of naïve end-users. Participants will be enrolled in a baseline period ranging from 7-25 days (done to support SCED methodology) after which they will be enrolled in the online intervention program, lasting 6-weeks. Patients will be contacted 3-months post-discharge from treatment (week 22 of enrollment) and will complete self-report outcome measures at this time.
Although the vaccination is the preferred method of influenza prevention, there are some occasions on which a postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) is required. Two neuraminidase inhibitors (NAIs) may be used in chemoprophylaxis in children: oral oseltamivir, and inhaled zanamivir. Both, oseltamivir and zanamivir, are effective in treatment and in prophylaxis of influenza, and the efficacy is calculated to reach 70-90%. Oseltamivir is used more frequently, since zanamivir is licensed in older children (5 years of age and above), and children under the age of 5 years are at higher risk of influenza complications. Oseltamivir use correlated in children with higher risk of vomiting, with no increased risk of other adverse events, including those observed in adult patients (nausea, renal events, and psychiatric effects). The PEP may be indicated by individual patient's characteristics (e.g. patients in high-risk group) or epidemiological reasons, i.e. prevention of institutional outbreaks.The one research that analyzed efficacy of 3-days PEP versus 7 or 10-days and showed overall efficacy of shorter oseltamivir prophylaxis to be high and comparable to that of longer regimens. The study included several pediatric patients and made the investigators perform such an analysis in pediatric population. In this randomized controlled trial, the investigators aimed to compare efficacy, safety, and costs of 3 versus 7-days prophylaxis with oral oseltamivir in children hospitalized. The hypothesis is that 3-days duration of PEP is not less effective than 7-days PEP, and patients might gain from lower number of adverse reactions related to drug administration.