Dataset Information

Associations between occupational and environmental exposures and organ involvement in sarcoidosis: a retrospective case-case analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Sarcoidosis most commonly affects lungs and intrathoracic lymph nodes, but any other organ can be involved. In epidemiological studies, many occupational and environmental exposures have been linked to sarcoidosis but their relationship with the disease phenotype has barely been studied.

Objective

To investigate how occupational and environmental exposures prior to diagnosis relate to organ involvement in patients with sarcoidosis METHODS: We retrospectively studied patients seen at a sarcoidosis clinic between 2017 and 2020. Patients were included if they had a clinical presentation consistent with sarcoidosis and histologically confirmed epithelioid granulomas or had Löfgren syndrome. In a case-case analysis using multivariable logistic regression we calculated odds ratios (OR) of prespecified exposure categories (based on expert ascertainment) for cases with a given organ involvement versus cases without this organ involvement.

Results

We included 238 sarcoidosis patients. Sarcoidosis limited to pulmonary involvement was associated with exposure to inorganic dust prior to diagnosis (OR 2.11; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.11-4.17). Patients with liver involvement had higher odds of contact with livestock (OR 3.68; 95% CI 0.91-12.7) or having jobs with close human contact (OR 4.33; 95% CI 1.57-11.3) than patients without liver involvement. Similar associations were found for splenic involvement (livestock: OR 4.94, 95% CI 1.46-16.1; close human contact: OR 3.78; 95% CI 1.47-9.46). Cardiac sarcoidosis was associated with exposure to reactive chemicals (OR 5.08; 95% CI 1.28-19.2) or livestock (OR 9.86; 95% CI 1.95-49.0). Active smokers had more ocular sarcoidosis (OR 3.26; 95% CI 1.33-7.79).

Conclusions

Our study indicates that, in sarcoidosis patients, different exposures might be related to different organ involvements-hereby providing support for the hypothesis that sarcoidosis has more than one cause, each of which may promote a different disease phenotype.

SUBMITTER: Ronsmans S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8351152 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:While the expert-based occupational exposure assessment approach has been considered the reference method for retrospective population-based studies, its implementation in large study samples has become prohibitive. To facilitate its application and improve upon it we developed, in the context of a Montreal population-based study of prostate cancer (PROtEuS), a hybrid approach combining job-exposure profiles (JEPs) summarizing expert evaluations from previous studies and expert review. We aim to describe the hybrid expert method and its impacts on the exposures assigned in PROtEuS compared to those from a previous study coded using the traditional expert method. METHODS:Applying the hybrid approach, experts evaluated semi-quantitative levels of confidence, concentration and frequency of exposure to 313 agents for 16,065 jobs held by 4005 subjects in PROtEuS. These assessments were compared to those from a different set of jobs coded in an earlier study of lung cancer, conducted on the same study base, for 90 blue-collar occupations and 203 agents. Endpoints evaluated included differences in the number of exposures and in the distribution of ratings across jobs, and the within-occupation variability in exposure. RESULTS:Compared to jobs from the lung cancer study, jobs in PROtEuS had on average 0.3 more exposures. PROtEuS exposures were more often assigned definite confidence ratings, but concentration and frequency levels tended to be lower. The within-occupation variability in ratings assigned to jobs were lower in PROtEuS jobs for all metrics. This was particularly evident for concentration, although considerable variability remained with over 40% of occupation/agent cells in PROtEuS exposed at different levels. The hybrid approach reduced coding time by half, compared to the traditional expert assessment. CONCLUSIONS:The new hybrid expert approach improved on efficiency and transparency, and resulted in greater confidence in assessments, compared to the traditional expert method applied in an earlier study involving a similar set of jobs. Assigned ratings were more homogeneous with the hybrid approach, possibly reflecting clearer guidelines for coding, greater coherence between experts and/or reliance on summaries of past assessments. Nevertheless, significant within-occupation variability remained with the hybrid approach, suggesting that experts took into account job-specific factors in their assessments.