New methodology for specific inhalation challenges with occupational agents

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Inhalation challenges are used for diagnosing occupational asthma (OA). The initial methodology consisted of a "realistic" exposure without monitoring nor controlling exposure. Our aim was to design an equipment, called the GenaSIC, that allows the generation of various agents regardless of the formulation and to assess the feasibility of its use in patients investigated for OA.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>GenaSIC can generate lactose, flour, malt, isocyanates, formaldehyde and N-butyl acetate with precise and fairly stable concentrations. Using N-butyl-acetate as a control agent and real time measurement, we show that normal breathing has a negligible effect on the concentration. We exposed forty-four different subjects to a control agent and/or to a suspected occupational agent. Nineteen of the subjects were only exposed to N-butyl acetate as a control agent without experiencing any significant irritant effect (no significant changes in spirometry thereafter). Eight subjects who were exposed to both N-butyl acetate and formaldehyde did not show significant reactions. Seven subjects were exposed to dry particles (flour in six instances, malt in the other) and five showed immediate asthmatic reactions which changes in FEV1 from 20% to a maximum of 28%. Finally, ten subjects were exposed to isocyanates, four of whom showed a positive reaction, including one subject with immediate maximum changes in FEV1 of 22%.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>GenaSIC offers the possibility of reliable and safe exposures to dry particles, formaldehyde and isocyanates in the investigation of OA.</p

A longitudinal study on lung disease in dental technicians: What has changed after seven years?

Objectives: The aim of this 7-year follow-up study was to determine respiratory changes in dental technicians. Material and Methods: In our region, in the year 2005, 36 dental technicians were evaluated with a cross-sectional study on respiratory occupational diseases, and in 2012 we evaluated them again. Inclusion of information on respiratory symptoms and demographic features questionnaires was applied. Pulmonary function tests (PFT) were performed. Chest X-rays (CXR) were evaluated according to the ILO-2000 classification. For the comparisons of the technicians' findings in 2005 and 2012, data analyses were performed with the Wilcoxon test in addition to descriptive statistical procedures. Results: In 2012, 19 out of the 36 technicians continued to work in the same place, so we were able to evaluate their findings. The prevalence of respiratory symptoms in dental technician was as follows: dyspnea 7 (37%), cough 6 (32%), and phlegm 5 (26%). According to ILO classifications in 2005, among the 36 technicians, 5 (13.8%) had pneumoconiosis. At the end of 7 years, there were 9 pneumoconiosis cases among the 19 remaining technicians (47%). Thus, there was a statistically significant progression on the profusion of the radiologic findings (p < 0.005). Also there was a significant worsening on spirometric findings (p < 0.05). Conclusion: In dental technicians, a determination of both radiologic and functional progressions at the end of 7 years demonstrate that the primary and secondary preventive measures are necessary for these workplaces. Workplaces must be regularly controlled for worker health and hygiene

Development of an asthma specific job exposure matrix and its application in the epidemiological study of genetics and environment in asthma (EGEA)

OBJECTIVES—To develop a method suitable for estimating exposure risks in population studies of asthma from job titles and international codes, by combining a new job exposure matrix (JEM) with the expert judgement approach. The method was applied in the French epidemiological study of the genetics and environment in asthma (EGEA).
METHODS—The JEM contains 22 exposure groups including 18 high risk groups based on known risk factors for occupational asthma, divided into high molecular weight agents, low molecular weight agents, and mixed environments. After applying the JEM to job codes, exposure estimates for each subject were re-evaluated by examining job title texts. Three high risk exposure estimates for asthma were compared: firstly, applying the JEM to original codes (from different coders in each study centre); secondly, applying the JEM to revised codes (from one experienced coder); and thirdly, after reviewing JEM exposure estimates in the light of job title texts.
RESULTS—The study comprised 173 cases with asthma and 285 controls (age 18-65). Odds ratios (ORs) for asthma for high risk jobs were 1.0 (95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.6 to 1.7), applying the JEM to original codes; 1.4 (95% CI 0.8 to 2.3), applying the JEM to revised codes; and 1.7 (95% CI 1.1 to 2.7), applying the JEM and subsequently re-evaluating exposure estimates from job title texts. Asthma ORs were 1.4 (95% CI 0.6 to 2.9) for high molecular weight agents, 2.3 (95% CI 1.2 to 4.4) for low molecular weight agents, and 2.1 (95% CI 0.9 to 5.2) for mixed environments.
CONCLUSIONS—This asthma JEM, when enhanced by expert re-evaluation of exposure estimates from job title texts, may be a useful tool in general population studies of asthma. In this study, a 1.7-fold increase in prevalence odds of high risk exposures was found among asthmatic workers compared with controls, with risk magnitude varying for different classes of exposure.


Keywords: job exposure matrix; asthma; occupational exposure; epidemiological methods; case-contro