Asbestos-related disease among sheet metal workers 1986-2004: radiographic changes over time

An analysis of permanent work disability among construction sheet metal workers

BACKGROUND

Causes of permanent work disability in the sheet metal industry are not well characterized.

METHODS

Pension records were used to compare causes of disability among sheet metal workers and the U.S. working population. Subgroup analysis examined the major causes of sheet metal worker disability.

RESULTS

Musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs), circulatory disease, and injuries were leading causes of sheet metal worker disability (47.2%, 13.7%, 10.9% of awards, respectively). Award distribution differed from the U.S. working population (P < 0.0001); MSDs and injuries accounted for higher proportions of sheet metal worker awards, particularly at spine, shoulder, and knee.

CONCLUSIONS

Higher proportions of awards caused by MSD or injury among sheet metal workers may reflect higher rates of work-related injuries and MSDs, a high likelihood of disability with construction work given the same impairment, or higher prevalence of other conditions in the general population. Prevention requires task-specific ergonomic innovations and proven participatory interventions.

Exercise training to improve exercise capacity and quality of life in people with non-malignant dust-related respiratory diseases

BACKGROUND

Non-malignant dust-related respiratory diseases, such as asbestosis and silicosis, are similar to other chronic respiratory diseases and may be characterised by breathlessness, reduced exercise capacity and reduced health-related quality of life. Some non-malignant dust-related respiratory diseases are a global health issue and very few treatment options, including pharmacological, are available. Therefore, examining the role of exercise training is particularly important to determine whether exercise training is an effective treatment option in non-malignant dust-related respiratory diseases.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of exercise training for people with non-malignant dust-related respiratory diseases compared with control, placebo or another non-exercise intervention on exercise capacity, health-related quality of life and levels of physical activity.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PEDro and AMED (all searched from inception until February 2015), national and international clinical trial registries, reference lists of relevant papers and we contacted experts in the field for identification of suitable studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared exercise training of at least four weeks duration with no exercise training, placebo or another non-exercise intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility and risk of bias, and extracted data. We employed the GRADE approach to assess the overall quality of evidence for each outcome and to interpret findings. We synthesized study results using a random-effects model based on the assessment of heterogeneity. We conducted subgroup analyses on participants with dust-related interstitial lung diseases (ILDs) and participants with asbestos related pleural disease (ARPD).

MAIN RESULTS

Two RCTs including a combined total of 40 participants (35 from one study and five from a second study) met the inclusion criteria. Twenty-one participants were randomised to the exercise training group and 19 participants were randomised to the control group. The included studies evaluated the effects of exercise training compared to a control group of no exercise training in people with dust-related ILDs and ARPD. The exercise training programme in both studies was in an outpatient setting for an eight-week period. The risk of bias was low in both studies. There were no reported adverse events of exercise training. Following exercise training, six-minute walk distance (6MWD) increased with a mean difference (MD) of 53.81 metres (m) (95% CI 34.36 to 73.26 m). Improvements were also seen in the domains of health-related quality of life: Chronic Respiratory Disease Questionnaire (CRQ) Dyspnoea domain (MD 2.58, 95% CI 0.72 to 4.44); CRQ Fatigue domain (MD 1.00, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.89); CRQ Emotional Function domain (MD 2.61, 95% CI 0.74 to 4.49); and CRQ Mastery domain (MD 1.51, 95% CI 0.29 to 2.72). Improvements in exercise capacity and health-related quality of life were also evident six months following the intervention period: 6MWD (MD 52.68 m, 95% CI 27.43 to 77.93 m); CRQ Dyspnoea domain (MD 3.03, 95% CI 1.41 to 4.66); CRQ Emotional Function domain (MD 5.57, 95% CI 2.34 to 8.81); and CRQ Mastery domain (MD 2.66, 95% CI 1.08 to 4.23). Exercise training did not result in improvements in the Modified Medical Research Council (MMRC) dyspnoea scale immediately following exercise training or six months following exercise training. The improvements following exercise training were similar in a subgroup of participants with dust-related ILDs and in a subgroup of participants with ARPD compared to the control group, with no statistically significant differences in treatment effects between the subgroups.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence examining exercise training in people with non-malignant dust-related respiratory diseases is of very low quality. This is due to imprecision in the results from the small number of trials and the small number of participants, the indirectness of evidence due to a paucity of information on disease severity and the data from one study being from a subgroup of participants, and inconsistency from high heterogeneity in some results. Therefore, although the review findings indicate that an exercise training programme is effective in improving exercise capacity and health-related quality of life in the short-term and at six months follow-up, we remain unsure of these findings due to the very low quality evidence. Larger, high quality trials are needed to determine the strength of these findings.

Asbestos, asbestosis, smoking, and lung cancer. New findings from the North American insulator cohort

RATIONALE

Asbestos, smoking, and asbestosis increase lung cancer risk in incompletely elucidated ways. Smoking cessation among asbestos-exposed cohorts has been little studied.

OBJECTIVES

To measure the contributions of asbestos exposure, asbestosis, smoking, and their interactions to lung cancer risk in an asbestos-exposed cohort and to describe their reduction in lung cancer risk when they stop smoking.

METHODS

We examined lung cancer mortality obtained through the National Death Index for 1981 to 2008 for 2,377 male North American insulators for whom chest X-ray, spirometric, occupational, and smoking data were collected in 1981 to 1983 and for 54,243 non-asbestos-exposed blue collar male workers from Cancer Prevention Study II for whom occupational and smoking data were collected in 1982.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Lung cancer caused 339 (19%) insulator deaths. Lung cancer mortality was increased by asbestos exposure alone among nonsmokers (rate ratio = 3.6 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.7-7.6]), by asbestosis among nonsmokers (rate ratio = 7.40 [95% CI, 4.0-13.7]), and by smoking without asbestos exposure (rate ratio = 10.3 [95% CI, 8.8-12.2]). The joint effect of smoking and asbestos alone was additive (rate ratio = 14.4 [95% CI, 10.7-19.4]) and with asbestosis, supra-additive (rate ratio = 36.8 [95% CI, 30.1-45.0]). Insulator lung cancer mortality halved within 10 years of smoking cessation and converged with that of never-smokers 30 years after smoking cessation.

CONCLUSIONS

Asbestos increases lung cancer mortality among nonsmokers. Asbestosis further increases the lung cancer risk and, considered jointly with smoking, has a supra-additive effect. Insulators benefit greatly by quitting smoking.