Trends in work-related respiratory diseases attributed to nickel, chromium and cobalt in the UK: descriptive findings from The Health and Occupation Research (THOR) network 1996-2019.

BACKGROUND: Occupational exposure to metals can be associated with respiratory diseases which can adversely affect the individual's health, finances and employment. Despite this, little is known about the incidence of these respiratory conditions over prolonged periods of time. AIMS: This study aimed to investigate the trends in the incidence of work-related respiratory diseases attributed to nickel, chromium and cobalt in the UK. METHODS: Cases of occupational respiratory diseases caused by nickel, chromium or cobalt reported to Surveillance of Work-related and Occupational Respiratory Disease (SWORD), the UK-based surveillance scheme between 1996 and 2019 (inclusive), were extracted and grouped into six 4-year time periods. Cases were characterised by causative metal exposure, occupational and industrial sector. Incidence rates diseases (adjusted for physician participation and response rate) were calculated using ONS employment data. RESULTS: Of cases reported to SWORD during the study period, 1% (173 actual cases) of respiratory problems were attributed to nickel, chromium or cobalt. Diagnoses of asthma compromised the largest proportion of diagnoses (74.4%), followed by lung cancer (8.9%) and pneumoconiosis (6.7%). Cases had a mean age of 47 years (SD 13); 93% were men. The annual incidence fell from 1.6 per million employed in the first 4-year period, to 0.2 in the most recent period. CONCLUSIONS: Over 24 years, a decline in the incidence of metal-related occupational respiratory diseases was observed in the UK. This could be attributed to improvements in working conditions which resulted in reduced metal exposure but could also be due to closure of industries that might have generated case returns.

Utility of the capabilities, opportunities, motivations model for understanding changes in behavior.

BACKGROUND: Wearing face coverings to prevent airborne viral transmission has at times been legally mandated, followed by periods when rules were relaxed. The present study tracks changes in face covering and the impacts on people's perceptions of their capabilities, opportunities and motivations. METHODS: Three-wave survey. At wave 1 (25 January-6 February 2022), 10 622 UK adults reported: (a) sociodemographic characteristics; (b) face covering in work, public transport and indoor leisure settings and (c) capabilities, opportunities and motivations. Measures were repeated 1-18 March 2022 and 20 May-6 June 2022. Data were analyzed descriptively, within-participants analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) and multiple linear regression. RESULTS: Face covering decreased over time as rules around the wearing of face coverings relaxed. Perceptions of capabilities, opportunities and motivations to wear face coverings were consistently associated with the actual wearing of face coverings, with marked decreases in motivations over time. CONCLUSIONS: Decreases in motivations seem to explain best the reasons for declining levels of face covering. Further work is required to develop interventions to change people's motivations and promote the wearing of face coverings, should they be required in the future.

how these findings canPublic transport: lessons learned by the sector through the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic had a significant impact on the operations and functionality of the public transport sector in the UK. This paper reflects on the experience of this sector through the pandemic period, and considers recommendations for any future mitigations required for either new COVID-19 waves or a different public health emergency. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were carried out with public transport experts, organisational leaders, workers and passengers in two phases: Phase 1 from January to May 2021, and Phase 2 from December 2021 to February 2022. Interviews were analysed thematically. RESULTS: Using the 'What? So What? Now What?' reflective model, ideas are drawn out to describe (a) what changes occurred, (b) what effects these changes had on service provision as well as perceptions of risk and mitigation and (c) what lessons have been learned and how these findings can feed into pandemic preparedness for the future. Respondent reflections focussed on the importance of communication, leadership, and maintaining compliance. CONCLUSIONS: The wealth of experience gained through the COVID-19 pandemic in the public transport sector is extremely valuable. Through reflection on this experience, specific recommendations are made relating to these factors, covering: maintaining links across industry, access to information and data, understanding of mitigation effectiveness, improving messaging, challenges of behavioural mitigations, and clear lines of accountability. The recommendations made on the basis of this reflective process will help to improve public health strategy within the public transport sector.

Theory-based Trial to Promote Uptake and Sustained Use of Face Coverings During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Transmission of airborne viruses can be mitigated by wearing face coverings but evidence suggests that face covering declines with the removal of relevant legislation, partly due to low automatic motivation. PURPOSE: Test whether an intervention based on implementation intentions could support people's automatic motivation and promote face covering during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Randomized controlled design. At baseline (May 20 to June 6, 2022), 7,835 UK adults reported how much time they spent wearing face coverings in work, public transport, and indoor leisure settings as well as their capabilities, opportunities, and motivations. 3,871 participants were randomized to form implementation intentions; 3,964 control participants completed questionnaires only. Measures were repeated 6 months postbaseline (November 1 to November 14, 2022). Data were analyzed using mixed measures ANOVAs and Bayes Factors to examine whether the observed data supported the experimental hypothesis. RESULTS: The proportion of time spend wearing face coverings declined substantially across the 6-month study period, from 15.28% to 9.87% in work settings, 38.31% to 24.55% on public transport, and 9.58% to 7.85% in leisure settings. Bayes Factors indicated moderate relative evidence of no effect of implementation intentions on behavior in work and leisure settings, and inconclusive evidence of a positive effect on public transport. CONCLUSIONS: In the context of declining COVID-19 rates and removal of legal mandates, implementation intentions were not effective in sustaining face covering. Further research is required to ensure that evidence-based interventions are prepared and deployed in the event of future pandemics.

The spread of viruses through the air can be reduced by people wearing face coverings. The evidence suggests that face covering reduces with the removal of relevant legislation, partly due to habits not being formed. The aim of the present study was to test whether an intervention designed to help people to form new habits could support people's face covering during the COVID-19 pandemic. We asked 7,835 UK adults how much time they spent wearing face coverings in work, public transport, and indoor leisure settings. We chose 3,871 participants at random to form new habits; 3,964 participants completed questionnaires only. Measures were repeated 6 months later. The proportion of time spend wearing face coverings declined sharply across the 6-month study period, from 15.28% to 9.87% in work settings, 38.31% to 24.55% on public transport, and 9.58% to 7.85% in leisure settings. Our analyses showed a small positive effect of forming new habits on wearing face coverings in public transport settings. In the context of declining COVID-19 rates and the removal of legal mandates, our intervention was not effective in sustaining face covering. Further research is required to ensure that evidence-based interventions are prepared and deployed in the event of future pandemics.

Irritant asthma and work: cases from the UK SWORD reporting scheme from 1999 to 2018.

BACKGROUND: Acute irritant asthma is a preventable health consequence of a workplace exposure and has a number of adverse outcomes. While cases and case series are reported, little is known about the causes and incidence of this condition over prolonged periods of time. AIMS: We aimed to estimate the reported incidence of irritant asthma referred to a national reporting scheme, and how this has changed over time. METHODS: Cases of irritant asthma reported to SWORD, the UK-based Surveillance of Work-related Occupational Respiratory Diseases scheme, were grouped into four 5-year time periods from 1999 onwards. Likely causative exposures, job, work sector and incidence rates were analysed over time. RESULTS: 307 actual cases equated to 1066 estimated cases; actual cases had a mean age of 46 years (SD 17.8); 70.7% were male. The annual incidence fell from 1.98 per million employed in the first 5-year period, to 0.56 in the most recent. Eleven occupational codes were associated with six or more attributed cases, and between them accounted for 38% of all cases. Thirteen exposure categories were associated with five or more cases. These were formaldehyde (n=5), cutting oils and coolants (n=6), isocyanates (n=6), pesticides and herbicides (n=6), welding fumes (n=7), paints (n=7), solder and colophony (n=7), solvents (n=9), fuel oil, diesel and ill-defined fumes (n=10), chlorine and hypochlorites (n=15), acids (n=23), smoke (n=25) and cleaning products and sterilising agents (n=39). CONCLUSIONS: While the incidence of irritant asthma may have fallen, cases are persistently attributed to well-described causes. A persistence of cases attributed to cleaning agents was seen.

Areas of enduring COVID-19 prevalence: drivers of prevalence and mitigating strategies.

BACKGROUND: UK local authorities that experienced sustained high levels of COVID-19 between 1st March 2020 and 28th February 2021 were described by the UK Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies as areas of enduring prevalence. This research was carried out in order to examine the views of local authority Directors of Public Health, who played a crucial role in the local response to COVID-19, on reasons for sustained high levels of prevalence in some areas, alongside an investigation of the mitigation strategies that they implemented during the course of the pandemic. METHODS: Interviews were conducted with Directors of Public Health in 19 local authority areas across England, between July and November 2021. This included nine areas identified as areas of enduring prevalence and ten 'comparison' areas. RESULTS: The outcomes of this study suggests that the geographical differences in prevalence rates are strongly influenced by health inequalities. Structural factors including deprivation, employment, and housing, due to their disproportionate impact on specific groups, converged with demographic factors, including ethnicity and age, and vaccination rates, and were identified as the main drivers of enduring prevalence. There are key differences in these drivers both within and, to a lesser extent, between local authorities. Other than these structural barriers, no major differences in facilitators or barriers to COVID-19 mitigation were identified between areas of varying prevalence. The main features of successful mitigation strategies were a locally tailored approach and partnership working involving local authority departments working with local health, community, voluntary and business organisations. CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first to add the voices of Directors of Public Health, who played a crucial role in the local COVID-19 response. Areas of enduring prevalence existed during the pandemic which were caused by a complex mix of structural factors related to inequalities. Participants advised that more research is needed on the effectiveness of mitigation strategies and other measures to reduce the impact of structural inequalities, to better understand the factors that drive prevalence. This would include an assessment of how these factors combine to predict transmission and how this varies between different areas.

Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease and Work: The Continuing Narrative.

It has long been recognized that harmful inhaled workplace exposures can contribute to the development of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This article, intended for the clinician, summarizes some of this evidence and some areas of controversy. Current estimates based on pooled epidemiological analyses of population-based studies identify that approximately 14% of the burden of COPD (and 13% of the burden of chronic bronchitis) is attributable to such exposures. In addition to these approaches, various studies implicate specific exposures as contributing. Certain of these relating to cadmium, coal, and respirable crystalline silica are discussed in more detail. Despite this amassed evidence to date supporting associations between COPD and workplace exposures, there have been surprisingly few studies that have attempted to assess the attribution by experts of an occupational cause in cases of COPD. One study, using hypothetical cases of COPD, noted that while expert physicians were willing to make such an occupational link, this was only likely in cases with light smoking histories and a priori defined heavy occupational exposures. Relatively recent data relating to computed tomography (CT) scan appearances may give the clinician a further guide. Several studies from populations have now linked potentially harmful occupational exposures specifically with the presence of emphysema on CT scanning. It will be of interest to see if this finding, along with other clinical attributes of cases such as smoking and family histories, exclusion of asthma, genetic data, and the nature of workplace exposures, will increase the future diagnosis by clinicians of occupational COPD. In the interim, while better diagnostic approaches are developed, we suggest that consideration of an occupational cause is an important part of the clinical investigation of cases of COPD. Finally, we suggest that evidence-based workplace preventive strategies for occupational COPD should be informed by knowledge of which exposures are most important to reduce, and whether and when intervention to reduce exposure at an individual worker level is warranted.

Experiences, Perceptions of Risk, and Lasting Impacts of COVID-19 for Employees in the Public Transport Sector.

BACKGROUND: Age-standardized mortality rates for taxi drivers, chauffeurs, bus and coach drivers show that public transport workers were at high risk at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. Nevertheless, the public transport sector was required to continue services throughout the pandemic. OBJECTIVES: This paper aims to develop a better understanding of the experiences of organizational leaders and workers within the UK public transport sector (bus, rail, and tram). Specifically, it aims to explore the perceived balance of risk and mitigation of SARS-CoV-2 transmission, report on their perceptions of safety in public transport during the pandemic and in the future, and consider how these perceptions and changes impact on long-term worker health and wellbeing. METHODS: This study formed part of a larger stakeholder engagement with the public transport sector. Organizational leaders and workers were recruited (n = 18) and semi-structured interviews carried out between January and May 2021. Data were analysed thematically. RESULTS: Overarching and subthemes were identified. Themes relating to perceptions and impacts of risk of COVID-19 for employees included: acceptability of risk for workers, perceptions of risk mitigation effectiveness, changes to working practices and their impact on morale and wellbeing, issues with compliance to mitigations such as social distancing and face coverings in passenger and co-worker groups alongside a lack of power to challenge behaviour effectively, and the roles of leadership and messaging. Themes related to long-lasting impacts of COVID-19 on working practices and effects on health and wellbeing included: continuing mitigations, impact of increasing passenger numbers, impact of vaccination programme, and impact of changes to business structure. CONCLUSIONS: Most public transport employees reported feeling safe, related to the extent to which their role was public-facing. However, data were collected during a time of very low passenger numbers. Current mitigation measures were thought effective in reducing the risk of viral transmission, although measures may have a detrimental effect on worker morale and wellbeing. Issues relating to non-compliance with guidance and 'in-group' behaviour were identified. Impacts on wider business sustainability and individual wellbeing of staff should be considered when developing responses to any future pandemics. Recommendations are made for prioritizing employee engagement with colleagues, and the importance of strong leadership and clear messaging in promoting adherence to behavioural mitigations.

Identifying targets for interventions to support public use of face coverings.

OBJECTIVES: Interventions to promote the wearing of face coverings if required in the future can only be developed if we know why people do or do not wear them. Study aims were, therefore, to assess public adherence to wearing face coverings to reduce transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and to gauge why people were or were not wearing face coverings in work, public transport, and indoor leisure settings. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. METHODS: 10,622 adults (25 January-6 February 2022) who were representative of the UK population were asked about their (a) wearing of face coverings in work, public transport, and leisure settings; (b) sociodemographic characteristics; and (c) perceptions of capabilities, opportunities, and motivations ("COM-B"). Data were analysed descriptively, using within-participants ANOVA and multiple linear regression. RESULTS: Participants reported mostly wearing face coverings in public transport settings (>80%), but substantially less in work (<50%) and leisure (<30%) contexts. Perceptions of capabilities, opportunities, and motivations to wear face coverings were consistently associated with the actual wearing of face coverings across the three settings, but there were marked deficits in automatic motivation and social opportunity. People living in England, describing themselves as White, and men were least likely to wear face coverings. CONCLUSIONS: Interventions targeted at men, people living in England, and those describing themselves as White that focus on increasing capabilities, providing greater opportunities and boosting motivations are suggested to promote the wearing of face coverings, with particular focus on addressing automatic motivation and social opportunity.

Occupational inhalational accidents: analysis of cases from the UK SWORD reporting scheme from 1999 to 2018.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the reported UK incidence of occupational inhalation accidents, and to consider changes of incidence and potential causes over time. METHODS: Cases of occupational inhalation accident reported to Surveillance of Work Related Occupational Respiratory Diseases (SWORD) over 20 years were grouped into four 5-year time periods. Cases were characterised by causative exposure, occupation and industrial sector. Incidence rates were calculated using Office of National Statistics employment data. RESULTS: The 172 actual cases reported to SWORD equated to an estimated 502 cases after adjusting for reporting frequency. Their mean age was 41.3 years (SD 12.3); 77% were male. The annual incidence fell from 1.7 per million employed in the first 5-year period, to 0.5 in the most recent. The most common occupations, responsible for 35% of all cases, were in descending order (number, % of total cases): Labourers in process and plant operations (8, 4.7), welding trades (8, 4.7), fire service officers (8, 4.7), heavy goods vehicle drivers (7, 4.1), metal working production and maintenance fitters (7, 4.1), civil service administrative officers and assistants (7, 4.1), food, drink and tobacco process operatives (6, 3.5), and three summated categories of elementary and service occupations including cleaners and domestics (10, 5.8).Three of 40 exposure categories were common to all time periods; acids (19.6% of all cases 1999-2004, 2.3% 2005-2009, 6.3% 2010-2013, 6.3% 2014-2018), chlorine/hypochlorites (7.2%, 7.0%, 2.5%, 6.3%, respectively) and solvents (14.4%, 11.6%, 12.5%, 6.3%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of inhalation accidents appears to have fallen, although certain exposures appear to be persistently linked to cases.

Transmission and control of SARS-CoV-2 on ground public transport: A rapid review of the literature up to May 2021.

Background: During a pandemic, public transport is strategically important for keeping the country going and getting people where they need to be. The essential nature of public transport puts into focus the risk of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in this sector; rapid and diverse work has been done to attempt to understand how transmission happens in this context and what factors influence risk. Objectives: This review aimed to provide a narrative overview of the literature assessing transmission, or potential for transmission, of SARS-CoV-2 on ground-based public transport, as well as studies assessing the effectiveness of control measures on public transport during the early part of the pandemic (up to May 2021). Methods: An electronic search was conducted using Web of Science, Ovid, the Cochrane Library, ProQuest, Pubmed, and the WHO global COVID database. Searches were run between December 2020 and May 2021. Results: The search strategy identified 734 papers, of which 28 papers met the inclusion criteria for the review; 10 papers assessed transmission of SARS-CoV-2, 11 assessed control measures, and seven assessed levels of contamination. Eleven papers were based on modelling approaches; 17 studies were original studies reporting empirical COVID-19 data. Conclusions: The literature is heterogeneous, and there are challenges for measurement of transmission in this setting. There is evidence for transmission in certain cases, and mixed evidence for the presence of viral RNA in transport settings; there is also evidence for some reduction of risk through mitigation. However, the routes of transmission and key factors contributing to transmission of SARS-CoV-2 on public transport were not clear during the early stage of the pandemic. Gaps in understanding are discussed and six key questions for future research have been posed. Further exploration of transmission factors and effectiveness of mitigation strategies is required in order to support decision making.

Asthma in pesticide users: an update from the Great Britain Prospective Investigation of Pesticide Applicators' Health (PIPAH) cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: To define the prevalence and incidence of asthma in a large working population of pesticide workers and to assess which exposures are potentially of relevance to causing or aggravating this condition. METHODS: A baseline cross-sectional study at recruitment (2013-2017, n=5817), with follow-up in 2018 (n=2578), was carried out in predominantly Great Britain based pesticide workers. At baseline, participants completed a health and work questionnaire which included questions on demographic, lifestyle, socioeconomic and work-related factors, pesticide use and doctor diagnosed health conditions. In January 2018, a follow-up questionnaire focused on respiratory ill health, with questions covering self-reported respiratory symptoms and doctor diagnosed respiratory conditions. The associations of various exposures with asthma were estimated using logistic regression adjusting for age as a continuous variable, and for sex where possible. An estimate of hours worked with pesticides in the previous year was calculated for each participant. RESULTS: At baseline, 608 (10.4%) had doctor diagnosed asthma. In 2018 the figure was 297 (11.5% of the follow-up population); the incidence of new asthma cases between surveys was 1.7 cases per 1000 participants per year. At follow-up, 18.1% reported wheeze in the last 12 months, 73.2% of those with self-reported asthma noted it to be persistent and using a more specific definition of asthma (doctor diagnosed asthma with at least one asthma-related symptom in the last year); 6.8% (95% CI 5.9% to 7.9%) fulfilled this definition. At follow-up, 127 participants felt that their asthma was caused or made worse by their work, with 77 (63.6%) nominating organic dust, 13 (10.7%) unspecified dust, 12 (9.9%) chemicals, 9 (7.4%) mixed exposures, 7 (5.8%) physical agents and 3 (2.5%) fumes or other irritants. There was little or no association between high pesticide exposure and doctor diagnosed asthma or self-reported recent wheeze, although there was an elevated risk for work-related wheeze (OR for high exposure=2.67; 95% CI 1.16 to 6.18). High pesticide exposure (high vs low exposure category OR 2.68, 95% CI 1.28 to 5.60) was also associated with work-related chest tightness. Exposure to organic dusts was associated (significantly, p=0.026) with persistent asthma when adjusted for the effects of age and smoking. CONCLUSIONS: This large study of pesticide workers has identified expected levels of doctor diagnosed asthma, and high levels of self-reported respiratory symptoms. Pesticide exposure was associated with an increased risk of self-reported work-related wheeze, but not with asthma or wheeze in general. Further work is needed to identify more clearly which exposures within a complex mixed exposure profile are likely causative in order to best focus interventions to reduce work-related asthma and related conditions.

Lifetime occupational exposures and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease risk in the UK Biobank cohort.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Occupational exposures are important, preventable causes of COPD. We previously found an increased risk of COPD among six occupations by analysing lifetime job histories and lung function data in the population-based UK Biobank cohort. We aimed to build on these findings and elucidate the underlying potential causal agents to focus preventive strategies. METHODS: We applied the ALOHA+job exposure matrix (JEM) based on the International Standard Classification of Occupations V.1988 codes, where exposure to 12 selected agents was rated as 0 (no exposure), 1 (low) or 2 (high). COPD was spirometrically defined as FEV1/FVC less than the lower limit of normal. We calculated semiquantitative cumulative exposure estimates for each agent by multiplying the duration of exposure and squared intensity. Prevalence ratio (PR) and 95% CI for COPD were estimated using robust Poisson regression adjusted for centre, sex, age, smoking and coexposure to JEM agents. Only associations confirmed among never-smokers and never-asthmatics were considered reliable. RESULTS: Out of 116 375 participants with complete job histories, 94 514 had acceptable/repeatable spirometry and smoking data and were included in the analysis. Pesticide exposure showed increased risk of COPD for ever exposure (PR=1.13, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.28) and high cumulative exposure (PR=1.32, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.56), with positive exposure-response trends (p trend=0.004), which were confirmed among never-smokers (p trend=0.005) and never-asthmatics (p trend=0.001). CONCLUSION: In a large population-based study, occupational exposure to pesticides was associated with risk of COPD. Focused preventive strategies for workers exposed to pesticides can prevent the associated COPD burden.

Occupational exposure to inhaled pollutants and risk of airflow obstruction: a large UK population-based UK Biobank cohort.

BACKGROUND: Although around 10% to 15% of COPD burden can be attributed to workplace exposures, little is known about the role of different airborne occupational pollutants (AOP). The main aim of the study was to assess the effect size of the relationship between various AOP, their level and duration of exposure with airflow obstruction (AFO). METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis was conducted in 228 614 participants from the UK Biobank study who were assigned occupational exposure using a job exposure matrix blinded to health outcome. Adjusted prevalence ratios (PRs) and 95% CI for the risk of AFO for ever and years of exposure to AOPs were estimated using robust Poisson model. Sensitivity analyses were conducted for never-smokers, non-asthmatic and bi-pollutant model. RESULTS: Of 228 614 participants, 77 027 (33.7%) were exposed to at least one AOP form. 35.5% of the AFO cases were exposed to vapours, gases, dusts or fumes (VGDF) and 28.3% to dusts. High exposure to vapours increased the risk of occupational AFO by 26%. Exposure to dusts (adjusted PR=1.05; 95% CI 1.01 to 1.08), biological dusts (1.05; 1.01 to 1.10) and VGDF (1.04; 1.01 to 1.07) showed a significantly increased risk of AFO, however, statistically not significant following multiple testing. There was no significant increase in risk of AFO by duration (years) of exposure in current job. The results were null when restricted to never-smokers and when a bi-pollutant model was used. However, when data was analysed based on the level of exposure (low, medium and high) compared with no exposure, directionally there was increase in risk for those with high exposure to vapours, gases, fumes, mists and VGDF but statistically significant only for vapours. CONCLUSION: High exposure (in current job) to airborne occupational pollutants was suggestive of higher risk of AFO. Future studies should investigate the relationship between lifetime occupational exposures and COPD.

The occupations at increased risk of COPD: analysis of lifetime job-histories in the population-based UK Biobank Cohort.

Occupational exposures are important, preventable causes of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Identification of COPD high-risk jobs is key to focus preventive strategies, but a definitive job-list is unavailable.We addressed this issue by evaluating the association of lifetime job-histories and lung function data in the population-based UK Biobank cohort, whose unprecedented sample size allowed analyses restricted to never-smokers to rule out the most important confounder, tobacco smoking. COPD was spirometrically defined as forced expiratory volume in 1 s/forced vital capacity ratio below the lower limit of normal. Lifetime job-histories were collected via OSCAR (Occupations Self-Coding Automatic Recording), a new validated online tool that automatically codes jobs into the UK Standard Occupational Classification v.2000. Prevalence ratios for COPD by employment duration in each job compared to lifetime office workers were estimated using robust Poisson regression adjusted for age, sex, centre and smoking. Only associations confirmed among never-smokers and never-asthmatics were considered reliable.From the 116 375 participants with complete job-histories, 94 551 had acceptable/repeatable spirometry data and smoking information and were included in the analysis. Six occupations showed an increased COPD risk among never-smokers and never-asthmatics; most of these also with positive exposure-response trends. Interesting new findings included sculptors, gardeners and warehouse workers.COPD patients, especially never-smokers, should be asked about their job-history for better disease management. Focussed preventive strategies in COPD high-risk jobs are warranted.

The Occupational Burden of Nonmalignant Respiratory Diseases. An Official American Thoracic Society and European Respiratory Society Statement.

Rationale: Workplace inhalational hazards remain common worldwide, even though they are ameliorable. Previous American Thoracic Society documents have assessed the contribution of workplace exposures to asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease on a population level, but not to other chronic respiratory diseases. The goal of this document is to report an in-depth literature review and data synthesis of the occupational contribution to the burden of the major nonmalignant respiratory diseases, including airway diseases; interstitial fibrosis; hypersensitivity pneumonitis; other noninfectious granulomatous lung diseases, including sarcoidosis; and selected respiratory infections. Methods: Relevant literature was identified for each respiratory condition. The occupational population attributable fraction (PAF) was estimated for those conditions for which there were sufficient population-based studies to allow pooled estimates. For the other conditions, the occupational burden of disease was estimated on the basis of attribution in case series, incidence rate ratios, or attributable fraction within an exposed group. Results: Workplace exposures contribute substantially to the burden of multiple chronic respiratory diseases, including asthma (PAF, 16%); chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (PAF, 14%); chronic bronchitis (PAF, 13%); idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (PAF, 26%); hypersensitivity pneumonitis (occupational burden, 19%); other granulomatous diseases, including sarcoidosis (occupational burden, 30%); pulmonary alveolar proteinosis (occupational burden, 29%); tuberculosis (occupational burden, 2.3% in silica-exposed workers and 1% in healthcare workers); and community-acquired pneumonia in working-age adults (PAF, 10%). Conclusions: Workplace exposures contribute to the burden of disease across a range of nonmalignant lung conditions in adults (in addition to the 100% burden for the classic occupational pneumoconioses). This burden has important clinical, research, and policy implications. There is a pressing need to improve clinical recognition and public health awareness of the contribution of occupational factors across a range of nonmalignant respiratory diseases.

Emerging trends in the UK incidence of occupational asthma: should we be worried?

While 15% of adult-onset asthma is estimated to have an occupational cause, there has been evidence of a downward trend in occupational asthma incidence in several European countries since the start of this millennium. However, recent data from The Health and Occupation Reporting network in the UK have suggested a possible reversal of this downward trend since 2014. We present these data and discuss possible explanations for this observed change in incidence trend. A high index of suspicion of occupational causation in new-onset asthma cases continues to be important, whether or not the recently observed increase in occupational asthma incidence in the UK is real or artefactual.