Association of respiratory symptoms and lung function with occupation in the multinational Burden of Obstructive Lung Disease (BOLD) study

Background Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease has been associated with exposures in the workplace. We aimed to assess the association of respiratory symptoms and lung function with occupation in the Burden of Obstructive Lung Disease study. Methods We analysed cross-sectional data from 28 823 adults (≥40 years) in 34 countries. We considered 11 occupations and grouped them by likelihood of exposure to organic dusts, inorganic dusts and fumes. The association of chronic cough, chronic phlegm, wheeze, dyspnoea, forced vital capacity (FVC) and forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1)/FVC with occupation was assessed, per study site, using multivariable regression. These estimates were then meta-analysed. Sensitivity analyses explored differences between sexes and gross national income. Results Overall, working in settings with potentially high exposure to dusts or fumes was associated with respiratory symptoms but not lung function differences. The most common occupation was farming. Compared to people not working in any of the 11 considered occupations, those who were farmers for ≥20 years were more likely to have chronic cough (OR 1.52, 95% CI 1.19–1.94), wheeze (OR 1.37, 95% CI 1.16–1.63) and dyspnoea (OR 1.83, 95% CI 1.53–2.20), but not lower FVC (β=0.02 L, 95% CI −0.02–0.06 L) or lower FEV1/FVC (β=0.04%, 95% CI −0.49–0.58%). Some findings differed by sex and gross national income. Conclusion At a population level, the occupational exposures considered in this study do not appear to be major determinants of differences in lung function, although they are associated with more respiratory symptoms. Because not all work settings were included in this study, respiratory surveillance should still be encouraged among high-risk dusty and fume job workers, especially in low- and middle-income countries.publishedVersio

A pilot study of hot-wire, ultrasonic and wedge-bellows spirometer inter- and intra-variability

Objective: The aim of this pilot study was to compare spirometric values obtained with different types of spirometers, spirometers of same type, and repeated measurements with the same spirometer in a pulmonary function laboratory setting. Results: 12 healthy volunteers performed spirometry on four hot-wire (SensorMedics), two ultrasonic (Spirare) and one wedge-bellows (Vitalograph S) spirometers, according to ATS/ERS (American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society) guidelines. Spirometric values were compared using linear mixed models analysis with a random intercept for subjects and a fixed effect for type of spirometer used. Confidence intervals and p values were adjusted for multiple comparisons. Mean ± SD (L) values for hot-wire, ultrasonic and wedge-bellows spirometers for FVC (forced vital capacity) were 4.02 ± 0.66, 3.69 ± 0.61 and 3.93 ± 0.69, and for FEV1 (forced expiratory volume in one second) 3.06 ± 0.44, 2.95 ± 0.44 and 3.10 ± 0.49. Significant differences were found between hot-wire and ultrasonic and between wedge-bellows and ultrasonic spirometers for FVC and FEV1, and between hot-wire and wedge-bellows spirometers for FVC but not for FEV1. There were no significant differences between spirometers of same type, and low mean differences in repeated measurements for all spirometers included. In conclusion, the pilot study shows systematically higher values for FVC and FEV1 for hot-wire and wedge-bellows compared to ultrasonic spirometers