Scoping review of exposure questionnaires and surveys in interstitial lung disease.

BACKGROUND: Many interstitial lung diseases (ILDs) have clear causal relationships with environmental and occupational exposures. Exposure identification can assist with diagnosis, understanding disease pathogenesis, prognostication and prevention of disease progression and occurrence in others at risk. Despite the importance of exposure identification in ILD, there is no standardised assessment approach. Many questionnaires are in clinical and research use, yet their utility, applicability, relevance and performance characteristics are unknown. OBJECTIVES: This scoping review aimed to summarise the available evidence relating to ILD exposure assessment questionnaires, identify research gaps and inform the content for a future single evidence-based ILD questionnaire. METHODS: A scoping review based on Arksey and O'Malley's methodological framework was conducted. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Any questionnaire that elicited exposures specific to ILD was included. A modified COSMIN Risk of Bias Framework was used to assess quality. SOURCES OF EVIDENCE: Relevant articles were identified from MEDLINE and EMBASE up to 23 July 2023. RESULTS: 22 exposure questionnaires were identified, including 15 generally pertaining to ILD, along with several disease-specific questionnaires for hypersensitivity pneumonitis (n=4), chronic beryllium disease, sarcoidosis and silicosis (1 questionnaire each). For most questionnaires, quality was low, whereby the methods used to determine exposure inclusion and questionnaire validation were not reported or not performed. Collectively the questionnaires covered 158 unique exposures and at-risk occupations, most commonly birds, mould/water damage, wood dust, asbestos, farming, automotive mechanic and miners. Only five questionnaires also provided free-text fields, and 13 queried qualifiers such as temporality or respiratory protection. CONCLUSIONS: Designing a robust ILD-specific questionnaire should include an evidence-based and relevance-based approach to exposure derivation, with clinicians and patients involved in its development and tested to ensure relevance and feasibility.

Identifying causation in hypersensitivity pneumonitis: a British perspective.

Background: Establishing whether patients are exposed to a 'known cause' is a key element in both the diagnostic assessment and the subsequent management of hypersensitivity pneumonitis (HP). Objective: This study surveyed British interstitial lung disease (ILD) specialists to document current practice and opinion in relation to establishing causation in HP. Methods: British ILD consultants (pulmonologists) were invited by email to take part in a structured questionnaire survey, to provide estimates of demographic data relating to their service and to rate their level of agreement with a series of statements. A priori 'consensus agreement' was defined as at least 70% of participants replying that they 'Strongly agree' or 'Tend to agree'. Results: 54 consultants took part in the survey from 27 ILD multidisciplinary teams. Participants estimated that 20% of the patients in their ILD service have HP, and of these, a cause is identifiable in 32% of cases. For patients with confirmed HP, an estimated 40% have had a bronchoalveolar lavage for differential cell counts, and 10% a surgical biopsy. Consensus agreement was reached for 25 of 33 statements relating to causation and either the assessment of unexplained ILD or management of confirmed HP. Conclusions: This survey has demonstrated that although there is a degree of variation in the diagnostic approach for patients with suspected HP in Britain, there is consensus opinion for some key areas of practice. There are several factors in clinical practice that currently act as potential barriers to identifying the cause for British HP patients.

Epidemiology of silicosis: reports from the SWORD scheme in the UK from 1996 to 2017.

OBJECTIVE: To document the demographic risk factors of workers reported to have silicosis in the UK. METHODS: All cases of silicosis reported to the Surveillance of Work-related and Occupational Respiratory Disease (SWORD) scheme between January 1996 and December 2017 were classified into one of eight industry categories, and one of five age groups. In addition, to investigate whether there had been any temporal change, mean age and range at diagnosis was plotted for each year. From 2006, data were also available relating to the date of onset of symptoms, allowing a comparison between workers with and without respiratory symptoms. RESULTS: For the period between 1996 and 2017, there were 216 cases of silicosis reported. The mean (range) age of those reported was 61 years (23-89), with the majority (98%) being male. Across all industries, 65% of cases were diagnosed in individuals of working age (<65 for men and <60 for women). Silicosis was reported in young workers across all industry groups, with around one in six of all silicosis cases affecting workers under the age of 46 years. There was no clear trend in age of diagnosis with time. Between 2006 and 2017, 81% of 108 workers with silicosis were reported to be symptomatic. CONCLUSIONS: Silicosis remains an important health problem in the UK affecting workers of all ages across a wide range of industries traditionally associated with silica exposure.

Managing Asbestos-Containing Materials in the Built Environment: Report of a Health and Safety Executive and Government Office for Science Workshop.

The duty to manage asbestos in non-domestic premises is described in the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012. Health and Safety Executive (HSE) policy and guidance on asbestos in the built environment in Great Britain is that asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) that are in good condition and unlikely to be disturbed can be managed in place. Where ACMs are in poor condition or likely to be disturbed they should be repaired, encapsulated or, if necessary, removed. HSE and Government Office for Science hosted a stakeholder workshop to consider evidence on the management of ACMs in public buildings. Invitees attended from a range of backgrounds (including regulatory, government, academic, medical, public interest groups, and professional service providers). Participants considered the evidence, suggested nine evidence gap areas and ranked these according to preference in an anonymous vote. The top three suggested evidence gaps were: (i) the comparative risks of managing ACMs in place versus removal; (ii) improved measurement techniques at lower fibre concentrations; and (iii) building the evidence base on the effectiveness of asbestos management and safe removal. HSE will use the workshop outputs to inform its research planning. It is anticipated that a number of initiatives for shared research will be explored.

Standards of care for occupational asthma: an update.

BACKGROUND: The British Thoracic Society (BTS) Standards of Care (SoC) Committee produced a standard of care for occupational asthma (OA) in 2008, based on a systematic evidence review performed in 2004 by the British Occupational Health Research Foundation (BOHRF). METHODS: BOHRF updated the evidence base from 2004-2009 in 2010. RESULTS: This article summarises the changes in evidence and is aimed at physicians, nurses and other healthcare professionals in primary and secondary care, occupational health and public health and at employers, workers and their health, safety and other representatives. CONCLUSIONS: Various recommendations and evidence ratings have changed in the management of asthma that may have an occupational cause.