Dataset Information

Characteristics and Prevalence of Domestic and Occupational Inhalational Exposures Across Interstitial Lung Diseases.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Inhalational exposures are increasingly recognized as contributing factors in interstitial lung disease (ILD). However, the characteristics of both exposures and exposed patients are not well understood. We hypothesized that domestic and occupational inhalational exposures would be common and associated with differences in demographics, clinical characteristics, and transplant-free survival in patients with all forms of ILD.

Research question

What is the prevalence of inhalational exposures across all ILD diagnoses, and are these exposures associated with differences in demographics, clinical characteristics, and transplant-free survival?

Study design and methods

Patients from a tertiary ILD clinic underwent an interview designed to capture inhalational exposures including occupational, home, hobbies, and tobacco. Demographic and survival data were collected from the electronic medical record. Survival analysis was performed using Cox regression to compare exposed vs unexposed patients and adjusted for gender-age-physiology score and smoking.

Results

One hundred and fifty-six patients seen between May and October 2018 were analyzed. Patients had a wide variety of multidisciplinary diagnoses, with a minority of patients with hypersensitivity pneumonitis (14%). One hundred and one patients (65%) had potentially relevant inhalational exposures. More men than women had a history of any exposure (82% vs 51%; P < .001), occupational exposure (66% vs 14%, P < .001), and multiple exposures (56% vs 26%, P < .001), respectively. White race was associated with bird and hobby exposure. Patients with any exposure had worse transplant-free survival (unadjusted hazard ratio, 2.58; 95% CI, 1.13-5.92; P = .025), but this was not statistically significant after adjustment (hazard ratio, 1.82; 95% CI, 0.77-4.27; P = .17).

Interpretation

A standardized interview revealed most patients across all types of ILD had potentially relevant inhalational exposures. Exposures were markedly different based on demographics and were associated with worse transplant-free survival, but this survival difference was not significant after multivariable adjustment. Identification and avoidance of exposures represent actionable targets in ILD management.

SUBMITTER: Lee CT

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8295904 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Objectives: To carry out an integrated and stratified meta-analysis on occupational exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMFs), metals and pesticides and its effects on amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and Parkinson's and Alzheimer's disease, and investigate the possibility of publication bias. Methods: In the current study, we updated our recently published meta-analyses on occupational exposures in relation to ALS, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease. Based on 66 original publications of good scientific epidemiological standard, according to the Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) guidelines, we analysed subgroups by carrying out stratified meta-analyses on publication year, statistical precision of the relative risk (RR) estimates, inspection of the funnel plots and test of bias. Results: Based on 19 studies the weighted RR for occupational exposure to EMFs was 1.26 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07?1.50) for ALS, 1.33 (95% CI 1.07?1.64) for Alzheimer's disease and 1.02 (95% CI 0.83?1.26) for Parkinson's disease. Thirty-one studies concerned occupational exposure to pesticides and the weighted RR was 1.35 (95% CI 1.02?1.79) for ALS, 1.50 (95% CI 0.98?2.29) for Alzheimer's disease and 1.66 (95% CI 1.42?1.94) for Parkinson's disease. Finally, 14 studies concerned occupational exposure to metals and only exposure to lead (five studies) involved an elevated risk for ALS or Parkinson's disease and the weighted RR was 1.57 (95% CI 1.11?2.20). The weighted RR for all the non-lead exposures was 0.97 (95% CI 0.88?1.06). Conclusions: Exposure to pesticides increased the risk of getting the mentioned neurodegenerative diseases by at least 50%. Exposure to lead was only studied for ALS and Parkinson's disease and involved 50% increased risk. Occupational exposure to EMFs seemed to involve some 10% increase in risk for ALS and Alzheimer's disease only.