COPD causation and workplace exposures: an assessment of agreement among expert clinical raters.

BACKGROUND: Although occupational exposure is a known risk factor for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), it is difficult to identify specific occupational contributors to COPD at the individual level to guide COPD prevention or for compensation. The aim of this study was to gain an understanding of how different expert clinicians attribute likely causation in COPD. METHODS: Ten COPD experts and nine occupational lung disease experts assigned occupational contribution ratings to fifteen hypothetical cases of COPD with varying combinations of occupational and smoking exposures. Participants rated the cause of COPD as the percentage contribution to the overall attribution of disease for smoking, occupational exposures and other causes. RESULTS: Increasing pack-years of tobacco smoking was associated with significantly decreased proportional occupational causation ratings. Increasing weighted occupational exposure was associated with increased occupational causation ratings by 0.28% per unit change. Expert background also contributed significantly to the proportion of occupational causation rated, with COPD experts rating on average a 9.4% greater proportion of occupational causation per case. CONCLUSION: Our findings support the notion that respiratory physicians are able to assign attribution to different sources of causation in COPD, taking into account both smoking and occupational histories. The recommendations on whether to continue to work in the same job also differ, the COPD experts being more likely to recommend change of work rather than change of work practice.

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.

Occupational asthma: an assessment of diagnostic agreement between physicians.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the levels of agreement between expert respiratory physicians when making a diagnosis of occupational asthma. METHODS: 19 cases of possible occupational asthma were identified as part of a larger national observational cohort. A case summary for each case was then circulated to 12 physicians, asking for a percentage likelihood, from the supplied information, that this case represented occupational asthma. The resulting probabilities were then compared between physicians using Spearman's rank correlation and Cohen's kappa coefficients. RESULTS: Agreement between the 12 physicians for all 19 cases was generally good as assessed by Spearman's rank correlation. For all 66 physician-physician interactions, 45 were found to correlate significantly at the 5% level. The agreement assessed by kappa analysis was more variable, with a median kappa value of 0.26, (range -0.2 to +0.76), although 7 of the physicians agreed significantly (p<0.05) with >or=5 of their colleagues. Only in one case did the responses for probability of occupational asthma all exceed the "on balance" 50% threshold, although 12 of the 19 cases had an interquartile range of probabilities not including 50%, implying "on balance" agreement. The median probability values for each physician (all assessing the identical 19 cases) varied from 20% to 70%. Factors associated with a high probability rating were the presence of a positive serial peak expiratory flow Occupation Asthma SYStem (OASYS)-2 chart, and both the presence of bronchial hyper-reactivity and significant change in reactivity between periods of work and rest. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the importance of the diagnosis of occupational asthma and reasonable physician agreement, certain variations in diagnostic assessment were seen between UK expert centres when assessing paper cases of possible occupational asthma. Although this may in part reflect the absence of a normal clinical consultation, a more unified national approach to these patients is required.