Occupational risks for infection with influenza A and B: a national case-control study covering 1 July 2006-31 December 2019.

OBJECTIVES: We investigated whether crowded workplaces, sharing surfaces and exposure to infections were factors associated with a positive test for influenza virus. METHODS: We studied 11 300 cases with a positive test for influenza A and 3671 cases of influenza B from Swedish registry of communicable diseases. Six controls for each case were selected from the population registry, with each control being assigned the index date of their corresponding case. We linked job histories to job-exposure matrices (JEMs), to assess different transmission dimensions of influenza and risks for different occupations compared with occupations that the JEM classifies as low exposed. We used adjusted conditional logistic analyses to estimate the ORs for influenza with 95% CI. RESULTS: The highest odds were for influenza were: regular contact with infected patients (OR 1.64, 95% CI 1.54 to 1.73); never maintained social distance (OR 1.51, 95% CI 1.43 to 1.59); frequently sharing materials/surfaces with the general public (OR 1.41, 95% CI 1.34 to 1.48); close physical proximity (OR 1.54, 95% CI 1.45 to 1.62) and high exposure to diseases or infections (OR 1.54, 95% CI 1.44 to 1.64). There were small differences between influenza A and influenza B. The five occupations with the highest odds as compared with low exposed occupations were: primary care physicians, protective service workers, elementary workers, medical and laboratory technicians, and taxi drivers. CONCLUSIONS: Contact with infected patients, low social distance and sharing surfaces are dimensions that increase risk for influenza A and B. Further safety measures are needed to diminish viral transmission in these contexts.

Global Trends in Occupational Lung Disease.

Lung diseases caused by workplace exposure are too often mis- or underdiagnosed due in part to nonexistent or inadequate health surveillance programs for workers. Many of these diseases are indistinguishable from those that occur in the general population and are not recognized as being caused at least in part by occupational exposures. More than 10% of all lung diseases are estimated to result from workplace exposures. This study reviews recent estimates of the burden of the most important occupational lung diseases using data published by United Nations specialized agencies as well as the Global Burden of Disease studies. We focus on occupational chronic respiratory disease of which chronic obstructive lung disease and asthma are the most significant. Among occupational cancers, lung cancer is the most common, and is associated with more than 10 important workplace carcinogens. Classic occupational interstitial lung diseases such as asbestosis, silicosis, and coal workers' pneumoconiosis still comprise a substantial burden of disease in modern industrial societies, while other occupational causes of pulmonary fibrosis and granulomatous inflammation are frequently misclassified as idiopathic. Occupational respiratory infections gained prominence during the severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic, eclipsing influenza and tuberculosis and other less common workplace infectious agents. The most significant risks are workplace exposures to particulate matter, gases, and fumes as well as occupational carcinogens and asthmagens. We present data on the burden of disease measured by deaths attributable to occupational respiratory disease as well as disability-adjusted years of life lost. Where available, prevalence and incidence data are also presented. These diseases are unique in that they are theoretically 100% preventable if appropriate exposure controls and workplace medical surveillance are implemented. This remains a continuing challenge globally and requires steadfast commitment on the part of government, industry, organized labor, and the medical profession.

Experiences of healthcare workers following occupational exposure to COVID-19 at the early stages of the pandemic: A phenomenological qualitative study.

AIM: To explore the experiences of healthcare workers (HCWs) following occupational exposure to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) during the early stage of the pandemic. DESIGN: A Husserl descriptive phenomenological study design was employed. METHODS: Convenient and snowball sampling was used. In-depth semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted from February to March 2020 with the frontline HCWs who were exposed to COVID-19 during work. Data analysis was conducted following the 7-step analysis method developed by Colaizzi. RESULTS: Fifteen HCWs participated in the study. Four themes were identified, including (1) traumatic experiences since the occupational exposure; (2) getting through the hard time; (3) struggling to return to work; (4) reflections on occupational exposures. CONCLUSION: The HCWs had traumatic and painful experiences after the occupational exposure. But they returned to work with strong resilience, professional obligation and social support. Training and supervision, and adequate supply of personal protective equipment are suggested to prevent professional exposure. Social and organizational support should be provided for the exposed HCWs.

Changes in Infection Prevention Practices and Occurrence of Skin Symptoms among Healthcare Workers, Cleaners and Day-care Workers in Norway during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in increased attention on infection prevention measures. This study aims to assess whether changes in hand hygiene procedures, use of personal protective equipment and moisturizers during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic were associated with changes in the occurrence of skin symptoms among healthcare workers, cleaners, and day-care workers. A total of 602 participants (40%) responded to an electronic questionnaire, including questions on previous and current occupational exposure and skin problems. Increased frequency of hand washing, use of hand disinfectants, use of disposable gloves and moisturizers were all associated with an increased symptom score on the hands, wrists, forearms. Participants who increased their use of masks or respirators had a higher risk of facial skin symptoms, compared with those with non-increased occupational exposure. In conclusion, a change of behaviour among healthcare workers, cleaners and day-care workers during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, with an increase in occupational exposures and use of moisturizers, was associated with higher occurrence of facial skin symptoms and symptoms on the hands, wrists and forearms.

[Occupational diseases in Poland in 2020]. / Choroby zawodowe w Polsce w 2020 roku.

BACKGROUND: The aim of the study is to analyze the epidemiological situation regarding the occurrence of occupational diseases in Poland in 2020 and to define possible directions for recommendations regarding preventive actions. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The cases of occupational diseases identified in accordance with the Polish judicial system and reported to the Central Register of Occupational Diseases in 2020 were analyzed. The analysis took into account disease entities, causal factors, gender, age of patients, exposure period, NACE section and territorial differentiation. Data are presented in absolute numbers and incidence rates per 100 000 employed and 100 000 employed persons. RESULTS: In 2020, 1850 cases of occupational diseases were diagnosed in Poland (11.5 cases per 100 000 employees). The disease entities with the highest incidence were infectious or parasitic diseases, pneumoconiosis, chronic diseases of the voice organ, diseases of the peripheral nervous system, diseases of the locomotor system and hearing loss. Over 90% of the statements concerned people >45 years of age. Most of the identified occupational diseases arose after at least 10 years of work in exposure to a harmful factor, and 73.9% of cases concerned people with over 20 years of work experience in exposure. CONCLUSIONS: The epidemiological situation in the field of occupational diseases in our country indicates a disturbing phenomenon, which is the persistence of a high level of pneumoconiosis of hard coal miners. The reflection of the effects of the pandemic in the COVID-19 incidence statistics as an occupational disease in 2020 is small. It is expected that the number of these cases will increase sharply in the coming years. Med Pr. 2022;73(5):427-33.

Asbestos Exposure and Severity of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to analyse the relationship between occupational exposure to asbestos and the severity of SARS-CoV-2 infection. METHODS: We evaluated patients who survived admission in our centre for COVID-19 pneumonia. Demographic, analytical, and clinical variables were collected during admission. After discharge, a previously validated occupational exposure to asbestos questionnaire was administered. Spirometry, CO diffusion test, the 6-min walk test, and high-resolution chest CT were performed. Patients who required respiratory support (oxygen, CPAP, or NIV) were considered severe. RESULTS: In total, 293 patients (mean age 54 + 13 years) were included. Occupational exposure to asbestos was detected in 67 (24%). Patients with occupational exposure to asbestos had a higher frequency of COVID-19 pneumonia requiring respiratory support (n = 52, 77.6%) than their unexposed peers (n = 139, 61.5%) (p = 0.015). Asbestos exposure was associated with COVID-19 severity in the univariate but not in the multivariate analysis. No differences were found regarding follow-up variables including spirometry and the DLCO diffusion, the 6-min walk test, and CT alterations. CONCLUSIONS: In hospitalised patients with COVID-19 pneumonia, those with occupational exposure to asbestos more frequently needed respiratory support. However, an independent association between asbestos exposure and COVID-19 severity could not be confirmed.

Decontamination and Reuse of N95 Filtering Facepiece Respirators: Where Do We Stand?

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic created an extraordinary demand for N95 and similarly rated filtering facepiece respirators (FFR) that remains unmet due to limited stock, production constraints, and logistics. Interest in decontamination and reuse of FFR, a product class designed for single use in health care settings, has undergone a parallel surge due to shortages. A worthwhile decontamination method must provide effective inactivation of the targeted pathogen(s), and preserve particle filtration, mask fit, and safety for a subsequent user. This discussion reviews the background of the current shortage, classification, structure, and functional aspects of FFR, and potentially effective decontamination methods along with reference websites for those seeking updated information and guidance. The most promising techniques utilize heat, hydrogen peroxide, microwave-generated steam, or ultraviolet light. Many require special or repurposed equipment and a detailed operational roadmap specific to each setting. While limited, research is growing. There is significant variation between models with regard to the ability to withstand decontamination yet remain protective. The number of times an individual respirator can be reused is often limited by its ability to maintain a tight fit after multiple uses rather than by the decontamination method itself. There is no single solution for all settings; each individual or institution must choose according to their need, capability, and available resources. As the current pandemic is expected to continue for months to years, and the possibility of future airborne biologic threats persists, the need for plentiful, effective respiratory protection is stimulating research and innovation.

Is abestos exposure a risk factor for small airways obstruction?

SUMMARY: To the editor, during these pandemic years, COVID-19 is taking away focus from other respiratory diseases such as pneumoconiosis, which should not be overlooked. We would like to emphasize the possible role of small airways in subjects with asbestos exposure. In a very interesting study, Yang et al (1) investigated the relation between increased small airway obstruction and asbestos exposure in patients with asbestosis. The authors evaluated lung function in a cohort of 281 patients with newly diagnosed asbestosis during an eight-year period, evidencing that patients with asbestosis have small airway obstructive defects that are significantly associated with asbestos exposure (1). These results are very consistent and in line with our previous study, in which we showed that a population of 655 long-term residents in an environmental asbestos (tremolite)-exposed area had a higher prevalence of smallairways disease compared to a group of 653 individuals living in areas not tremolite-exposed (2). Odds Ratio for small-airways obstruction was 3.46, irrespective of smoking status (2). To date, our knowledge on the role of small airways in pulmonary diseases is still matter of debate. Although small airways have a minor contribution to airway resistance in healthy subjects, it has been shown that small airways are the major site of airflow limitation in diseases such as asthma and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (3). Taken these data together, we warmly encourage clinicians and researchers to always consider small airways parameters when performing lung function on asbestosexposed subjects. Moreover, long-term investigations are warranted to explore the decline in airflow over time in patients with either occupational or environmental asbestos exposure and with asbestosis.

Occupational characteristics associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection in the UK Biobank during August-November 2020: a cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Occupational exposures may play a key role in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection risk. We used a job-exposure matrix linked to the UK Biobank to measure occupational characteristics and estimate associations with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test. METHODS: People reporting job titles at their baseline interview in England who were < 65 years of age in 2020 were included. Healthcare workers were excluded because of differential access to testing. Jobs were linked to the US Occupational Information Network (O*NET) job exposure matrix. O*NET-based scores were examined for occupational physical proximity, exposure to diseases/infection, working outdoors exposed to weather, and working outdoors under cover (score range = 1-5). Jobs were classified as remote work using two algorithms. SARS-CoV-2 test results were evaluated between August 5th-November 10th, 2020, when the UK was released from lockdown. Cox regression was used to calculate adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs), accounting for age, sex, race, education, neighborhood deprivation, assessment center, household size, and income. RESULTS: We included 115,451 people with job titles, of whom 1746 tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. A one-point increase in physical proximity score was associated with 1.14 times higher risk of SARS-CoV-2 (95%CI = 1.05-1.24). A one-point increase in the exposure to diseases/infections score was associated with 1.09 times higher risk of SARS-CoV-2 (95%CI = 1.02-1.16). People reporting jobs that could not be done remotely had higher risk of SARS-CoV-2 regardless of the classification algorithm used (aHRs = 1.17 and 1.20). Outdoors work showed an association with SARS-CoV-2 (exposed to weather aHR = 1.06, 95%CI = 1.01-1.11; under cover aHR = 1.08, 95%CI = 1.00-1.17), but these associations were not significant after accounting for whether work could be done remotely. CONCLUSION: People in occupations that were not amenable to remote work, required closer physical proximity, and required more general exposure to diseases/infection had higher risk of a positive SARS-CoV-2 test. These findings provide additional evidence that coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is an occupational disease, even outside of the healthcare setting, and indicate that strategies for mitigating transmission in in-person work settings will remain important.

Reported Exposures Among In-Person Workers With Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Infection in 6 States, September 2020-June 2021.

BACKGROUND: Surveillance systems lack detailed occupational exposure information from workers with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health partnered with 6 states to collect information from adults diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection who worked in person (outside the home) in non-healthcare settings during the 2 weeks prior to illness onset. METHODS: The survey captured demographic, medical, and occupational characteristics and work- and non-work-related risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Reported close contact with a person known or suspected to have SARS-CoV-2 infection was categorized by setting as exposure at work, exposure outside of work only, or no known exposure/did not know. Frequencies and percentages of exposure types are compared by respondent characteristics and risk factors. RESULTS: Of 1111 respondents, 19.4% reported exposure at work, 23.4% reported exposure outside of work only, and 57.2% reported no known exposure/did not know. Workers in protective service occupations (48.8%) and public administration industries (35.6%) reported exposure at work most often. More than one third (33.7%) of respondents who experienced close contact with ≥10 coworkers per day and 28.8% of respondents who experienced close contact with ≥10 customers/clients per day reported exposures at work. CONCLUSIONS: Exposure to occupational SARS-CoV-2 was common among respondents. Examining differences in exposures among different worker groups can help identify populations with the greatest need for prevention interventions. The benefits of recording employment characteristics as standard demographic information will remain relevant as new and reemerging public health issues occur.

Health hazards related to using masks and/or personal protective equipment among physicians working in public hospitals in Dhaka: A cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Wearing masks or personal protective equipment (PPE) has become an integral part of the occupational life of physicians due to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Most physicians have been developing various health hazards related to the use of different protective gears. This study aimed to determine the burden and spectrum of various health hazards associated with using masks or PPE and their associated risk factors. METHODS: This cross-sectional survey was conducted in Dhaka Medical College from March 01-May 30, 2021, among physicians from different public hospitals in Dhaka, Bangladesh. We analyzed the responses of 506 physicians who completed case record forms through Google forms or hard copies. FINDINGS: The mean (SD) age of the respondents was 35.4 [7.7], and 69.4% were men. Approximately 40% were using full PPE, and 55% were using N-95 masks. A total of 489 (96.6%) patients experienced at least one health hazard. The reported severe health hazards were syncope, severe dyspnea, severe chest pain, and anaphylaxis. Headache, dizziness, mood irritation, chest pain, excessive sweating, panic attack, and permanent facial disfigurement were the minor health hazards reported. Extended periods of work in the COVID-19-unit, reuse of masks, diabetes, obesity, and mental stress were risk factors for dyspnea. The risk factors for headaches were female sex, diabetes, and previous primary headaches. Furthermore, female sex and reusing masks for an extended period (> 6 h) were risk factors for facial disfigurement. The risk factors for excessive sweating were female sex and additional evening office practice for an extended period. CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare workers experienced several occupational hazards after using masks and PPE. Therefore, an appropriate policy is required to reduce such risks.

COVID-19 Infections in Health Care Personnel by Source of Exposure and Correlation With Community Incidence.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to describe the rate of household, community, occupational, and travel-related COVID-19 infections among health care personnel (HCP). METHODS: In a retrospective cohort study of 3694 HCP with COVID-19 infections from July 5 to December 19, 2020, we analyzed infection source data and rates, compared with local and state infection rates, and performed a correlation analysis. RESULTS: Household (27.1%) and community (15.6%) exposures were the most common sources of infection. Occupational exposures accounted for 3.55% of HCP infections. Unattributable infections (no known exposure source) accounted for 53.1% and correlated with community rather than occupational exposure ( R = 0.99 vs 0.78, P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 infections in this large HCP cohort correlated closely with infection rates in the community. The low incidence of occupational infections supports the effectiveness of institutional infection prevention and control measures.

Risk Factors for COVID-19 in a Retired FDNY WTC-Exposed Cohort.

We evaluated the incidence and risk factors for COVID-19 in a prospectively followed cohort of Fire Department of the City of New York (FDNY) World Trade Center (WTC)-exposed workers, thus reducing the potential for selection bias, a limitation in published studies of hospitalized individuals. Participants were retired FDNY WTC-exposed rescue/recovery workers with ≥1 medical visit between 1 March 2020 and 1 August 2021. The cumulative incidence was calculated using self-reported COVID-19 diagnoses. Cox regression was performed to evaluate the association of WTC-exposure and COVID-19, adjusting for history of comorbidities, age, race, work assignment (emergency medical service providers vs. firefighter), and sex. The cumulative incidence of COVID-19 was 130 per 1000. The adjusted models showed the risk of infection was greater in those with highest WTC exposure versus less exposure (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.14 (95% CI 1.00-1.31)). Older age was associated with a lower risk of infection HR = 0.97 (95% CI 0.96-0.98). WTC-associated diseases (obstructive airways disease and interstitial lung disease) were not COVID-19 risk factors. This study is the first to show an association between WTC exposure and the risk of COVID-19. While participants are retired from FDNY work, the youngest individuals may still be in the workforce, explaining why younger age was a significant risk for COVID-19.

Workers' Perception Heat Stress: Results from a Pilot Study Conducted in Italy during the COVID-19 Pandemic in 2020.

Many workers are exposed to the effects of heat and often to extreme temperatures. Heat stress has been further aggravated during the COVID-19 pandemic by the use of personal protective equipment to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, workers' risk perception of heat stress is often low, with negative effects on their health and productivity. The study aims to identify workers' needs and gaps in knowledge, suggesting the adaptation of measures that best comply with the needs of both workers and employers. A cross-sectional online questionnaire survey was conducted in Italy in the hottest months of 2020 (June-October) through different multimedia channels. The data collected were analyzed using descriptive statistics; analytical tests and analysis of variance were used to evaluate differences between groups of workers. In total, 345 questionnaires were collected and analyzed. The whole sample of respondents declared that heat is an important contributor to productivity loss and 83% of workers did not receive heat warnings from their employer. In this context, the internet is considered as the main source of information about heat-related illness in the workplace. Results highlight the need to increase workers' perception of heat stress in the workplace to safeguard their health and productivity. About two-thirds of the sample stated that working in the sun without access to shaded areas, working indoors without adequate ventilation, and nearby fire, steam, and hot surfaces, represent the main injuries' risk factors.

Occupational Lung Health: A global problem requiring local awareness.

See related article See related article See related article See related article See related article See related article See related article.

Personal Protective Equipment for COVID-19 and Beyond: Occupational and Environmental Exposure Considerations in Primary Care.

In this reflection piece, the authors describe a hypertension follow-up visit and draw attention to an often overlooked aspect of a patient's health: their occupational and environmental history. For years, physicians and clinicians have understood and treated disease secondary to conspicuously harmful environmental exposures; the impacts of everyday exposures on patient health are less understood and appreciated. This article specifically addresses the critical question of how primary care physicians and clinicians can think about, and address, occupational and environmental health hazards in their assessment and treatment of chronic disease in patients. We present 3 strategies that primary care physicians and clinicians can adopt to better account for environmental and occupational risks: good history taking, advising or advocacy, and education.

Circadian Disruption and Occupational Toxicants Exposure Affecting the Immunity of Shift Workers During SARS CoV-2 Pandemic.

In several regions of the world, the recent Coronavirus Disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic outbreak increased morbidity and mortality. The pandemic situation disrupted many workers' previously established lifestyles. The main aim of the present review was to describe the circadian disruption and occupational toxicant exposure affecting the immunity of shift workers during the SARS CoV-2 pandemic. We retrieved pertinent published literature from the Google Scholar, PubMed, and Scopus databases. In the present review, we discuss the circadian rhythm involving the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis at the molecular level, its disruption, occupational toxicant exposure causing immunomodulatory effects, and the role of immunity during the SARS CoV-2 pandemic. The severity of the progression of the viral infection depends on multiple factors affecting immunity. Hence, shift workers may need to be aware of those factors such as circadian rhythm disruption as well as occupational toxicant exposure. The timing of shift workers' energy intake is also important concerning the shift of the workers. The information in the present review may be important for all workers who are at risk during the pandemic. In the absence of any published literature related to association of circadian rhythm disruption with occupational toxicant exposure, the present review may have greater importance.

A Strategy for Field Evaluations of Exposures and Respiratory Health of Workers at Small- to Medium-Sized Coffee Facilities.

Coffee production is a global industry with roasteries throughout the world. Workers in this industry are exposed to complex mixtures of gases, dusts, and vapors including carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, coffee dust, allergens, alpha-diketones, and other volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Adverse respiratory health outcomes such as respiratory symptoms, reduced pulmonary function, asthma, and obliterative bronchiolitis can occur among exposed workers. In response to health hazard evaluations requests received from 17 small- to medium-sized coffee facilities across the United States, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health conducted investigations during 2016-2017 to understand the burden of respiratory abnormalities, exposure characteristics, relationships between exposures and respiratory effects, and opportunities for exposure mitigation. Full-shift, task-based, and instantaneous personal and area air samples for diacetyl, 2,3-pentanedione and other VOCs were collected, and engineering controls were evaluated. Medical evaluations included questionnaire, spirometry, impulse oscillometry, and fractional exhaled nitric oxide. Exposure and health assessments were conducted using standardized tools and approaches, which enabled pooling data for aggregate analysis. The pooled data provided a larger population to better address the requestors' concern of the effect of exposure to alpha-diketones on the respiratory heath of coffee workers. This paper describes the rationale for the exposure and health assessment strategy, the approach used to achieve the study objectives, and its advantages and limitations.