Workplace interventions for treatment of occupational asthma

Background: The impact of workplace interventions on the outcome of occupational asthma is not well understood. Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness of workplace interventions on occupational asthma. Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE (PubMed); EMBASE(Ovid); NIOSHTIC-2; and CISILO (CCOHS) up to July 31, 2019. Selection criteria: We included all eligible randomized controlled trials, controlled before and after studies and interrupted time-series of workplace interventions for occupational asthma. Data collection and analysis: Two authors independently assessed study eligibility and risk of bias, and extracted data. Main results: We included 26 non-randomized controlled before and after studies with 1,695 participants that reported on three comparisons: complete removal from exposure and reduced exposure compared to continued exposure, and complete removal from exposure compared to reduced exposure. Reduction of exposure was achieved by limiting use of the agent, improving ventilation, or using protective equipment in the same job; by changing to another job with intermittent exposure; or by implementing education programs. For continued exposure, 56 per 1000 workers reported absence of symptoms at follow-up, the decrease in forced expiratory volume in one second as a percentage of a reference value (FEV1 %) was 5.4% during follow-up, and the standardized change in non-specific bronchial hyperreactivity (NSBH) was -0.18. In 18 studies, authors compared removal from exposure to continued exposure. Removal may increase the likelihood of reporting absence of asthma symptoms, with risk ratio (RR) 4.80 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.67 to 13.86), and it may improve asthma symptoms, with RR 2.47 (95% CI 1.26 to 4.84), compared to continued exposure. Change in FEV1 % may be better with removal from exposure, with a mean difference (MD) of 4.23 % (95% CI 1.14 to 7.31) compared to continued exposure. NSBH may improve with removal from exposure, with standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.43 (95% CI 0.03 to 0.82). In seven studies, authors compared reduction of exposure to continued exposure. Reduction of exposure may increase the likelihood of reporting absence of symptoms, with RR 2.65 (95% CI 1.24 to 5.68). There may be no considerable difference in FEV1 % between reduction and continued exposure, with MD 2.76 % (95% CI -1.53 to 7.04). No studies reported or enabled calculation of change in NSBH. In ten studies, authors compared removal from exposure to reduction of exposure. Following removal from exposure there may be no increase in the likelihood of reporting absence of symptoms, with RR 6.05 (95% CI 0.86 to 42.34), and improvement in symptoms, with RR 1.11 (95% CI 0.84 to 1.47), as well as no considerable change in FEV1 %, with MD 2.58 % (95% CI −3.02 to 8.17). However, with all three outcomes, there may be improved results for removal from exposure in the subset of patients exposed to low molecular weight agents. No studies reported or enabled calculation of change in NSBH. In two studies, authors reported that the risk of unemployment after removal from exposure may increase compared with reduction of exposure, with RR 14.28 (95% CI 2.06 to 99.16). Four studies reported a decrease in income of 20% to 50% after removal from exposure. The quality of the evidence is very low for all outcomes. Authors' conclusions: Both removal from exposure and reduction of exposure may improve asthma symptoms compared with continued exposure. Removal from exposure, but not reduction of exposure, may improve lung function compared to continued exposure. When we compared removal from exposure directly to reduction of exposure, the former may improve symptoms and lung function more among patients exposed to low molecular weight agents. Removal from exposure may also increase the risk of unemployment. Care providers should balance the potential clinical benefits of removal from exposure or reduction of exposure with potential detrimental effects of unemployment. Additional high-quality studies are needed to evaluate the effectiveness of workplace interventions for occupational asthma

Workplace interventions for treatment of occupational asthma

BackgroundThe impact of workplace interventions on the outcome of occupational asthma is not well understood.ObjectivesTo evaluate the effectiveness of workplace interventions on occupational asthma.Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE (PubMed); EMBASE(Ovid); NIOSHTIC-2; and CISILO (CCOHS) up to July 31, 2019.Selection criteriaWe included all eligible randomized controlled trials, controlled before and after studies and interrupted time-series of workplace interventions for occupational asthma.Data collection and analysisTwo authors independently assessed study eligibility and risk of bias, and extracted data.Main resultsWe included 26 non-randomized controlled before and after studies with 1,695 participants that reported on three comparisons: complete removal from exposure and reduced exposure compared to continued exposure, and complete removal from exposure compared to reduced exposure. Reduction of exposure was achieved by limiting use of the agent, improving ventilation, or using protective equipment in the same job; by changing to another job with intermittent exposure; or by implementing education programs. For continued exposure, 56 per 1000 workers reported absence of symptoms at follow-up, the decrease in forced expiratory volume in one second as a percentage of a reference value (FEV1 %) was 5.4% during follow-up, and the standardized change in non-specific bronchial hyperreactivity (NSBH) was -0.18.In 18 studies, authors compared removal from exposure to continued exposure. Removal may increase the likelihood of reporting absence of asthma symptoms, with risk ratio (RR) 4.80 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.67 to 13.86), and it may improve asthma symptoms, with RR 2.47 (95% CI 1.26 to 4.84), compared to continued exposure. Change in FEV1 % may be better with removal from exposure, with a mean difference (MD) of 4.23 % (95% CI 1.14 to 7.31) compared to continued exposure. NSBH may improve with removal from exposure, with standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.43 (95% CI 0.03 to 0.82).In seven studies, authors compared reduction of exposure to continued exposure. Reduction of exposure may increase the likelihood of reporting absence of symptoms, with RR 2.65 (95% CI 1.24 to 5.68). There may be no considerable difference in FEV1 % between reduction and continued exposure, with MD 2.76 % (95% CI -1.53 to 7.04) . No studies reported or enabled calculation of change in NSBH.In two studies, authors reported that the risk of unemployment after removal from exposure may increase compared with reduction of exposure, with RR 14.28 (95% CI 2.06 to 99.16). Four studies reported a decrease in income of 20% to 50% after removal from exposure.The quality of the evidence is very low for all outcomes.Authors' conclusions Both removal from exposure and reduction of exposure may improve asthma symptoms compared with continued exposure. Removal from exposure, but not reduction of exposure, may improve lung function compared to continued exposure. When we compared removal from exposure directly to reduction of exposure, the former may improve symptoms and lung function more among patients exposed to low molecular weight agents. Removal from exposure may also increase the risk of unemployment. Care providers should balance the potential clinical benefits of removal from exposure or reduction of exposure with potential detrimental effects of unemployment. Additional high-quality studies are needed to evaluate the effectiveness of workplace interventions for occupational asthma

Workplace interventions for treatment of occupational asthma

The impact of workplace interventions on the outcome of occupational asthma is not well-understood. To evaluate the effectiveness of workplace interventions on the outcome of occupational asthma. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE; EMBASE; NIOSHTIC-2; CISDOC and HSELINE up to February 2011. Randomised controlled trials, controlled before and after studies and interrupted time series of workplace interventions for occupational asthma. Two authors independently assessed study eligibility and trial quality, and extracted data. We included 21 controlled before and after studies with 1447 participants that reported on 29 comparisons.In 15 studies, removal from exposure was compared with continued exposure. Removal increased the likelihood of reporting absence of symptoms (risk ratio (RR) 21.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) 7.20 to 63.77), improved forced expiratory volume (FEV1 %) (mean difference (MD) 5.52 percentage points, 95% CI 2.99 to 8.06) and decreased non-specific bronchial hyper-reactivity (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.67, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.21).In six studies, reduction of exposure was compared with continued exposure. Reduction increased the likelihood of reporting absence of symptoms (RR 5.35, 95% CI 1.40 to 20.48) but did not affect FEV1 % (MD 1.18 percentage points, 95% CI -2.96 to 5.32).In eight studies, removal from exposure was compared with reduction of exposure. Removal increased the likelihood of reporting absence of symptoms (RR 39.16, 95% CI 7.21 to 212.83) but did not affect FEV1 % (MD 1.16 percentage points, 95% CI -7.51 to 9.84).Two studies reported that the risk of unemployment after removal from exposure was increased compared with reduction of exposure (RR 14.3, 95% CI 2.06 to 99.16). Three studies reported loss of income of about 25% after removal from exposure.Overall the quality of the evidence was very low. There is very low-quality evidence that removal from exposure improves asthma symptoms and lung function compared with continued exposure.Reducing exposure also improves symptoms, but seems not as effective as complete removal.However, removal from exposure is associated with an increased risk of unemployment, whereas reduction of exposure is not. The clinical benefit of removal from exposure or exposure reduction should be balanced against the increased risk of unemployment. We need better studies to identify which interventions intended to reduce exposure give most benefi

Trends in incidence of occupational asthma, contact dermatitis, noise-induced hearing loss, carpal tunnel syndrome and upper limb musculoskeletal disorders in European countries from 2000 to 2012

The European Union (EU) strategy for health and safety at work underlines the need to reduce the incidence of occupational diseases (OD), but European statistics to evaluate this common goal are scarce. We aim to estimate and compare changes in incidence over time for occupational asthma, contact dermatitis, noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL), carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) and upper limb musculoskeletal disorders across 10 European countries.status: publishe

Trends in incidence of occupational asthma, contact dermatitis, noise-induced hearing loss, carpal tunnel syndrome and upper limb musculoskeletal disorders in European countries from 2000 to 2012.

The European Union (EU) strategy for health and safety at work underlines the need to reduce the incidence of occupational diseases (OD), but European statistics to evaluate this common goal are scarce. We aim to estimate and compare changes in incidence over time for occupational asthma, contact dermatitis, noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL), carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) and upper limb musculoskeletal disorders across 10 European countries. OD surveillance systems that potentially reflected nationally representative trends in incidence within Belgium, the Czech Republic, Finland, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Switzerland and the UK provided data. Case counts were analysed using a negative binomial regression model with year as the main covariate. Many systems collected data from networks of 'centres', requiring the use of a multilevel negative binomial model. Some models made allowance for changes in compensation or reporting rules. Reports of contact dermatitis and asthma, conditions with shorter time between exposure to causal substances and OD, were consistently declining with only a few exceptions. For OD with physical causal exposures there was more variation between countries. Reported NIHL was increasing in Belgium, Spain, Switzerland and the Netherlands and decreasing elsewhere. Trends in CTS and upper limb musculoskeletal disorders varied widely within and between countries. This is the first direct comparison of trends in OD within Europe and is consistent with a positive impact of European initiatives addressing exposures relevant to asthma and contact dermatitis. Taking a more flexible approach allowed comparisons of surveillance data between and within countries without harmonisation of data collection method