Isocyanate exposure and occupational asthma: a case-referent study

S K Meredith; J Bugler; R L Clark

doi:10.1136/oem.57.12.830

Responses

Paper

Isocyanate exposure and occupational asthma: a case-referent study

Compose a Response to This Article

Compose Response

Title *

Author Information

Contributors
First Name and Middle Initial * First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'. Last Name * Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'. Email Address * Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com Occupation * Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'. Affiliation * Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.

Statement of Competing Interests

Competing interests? *

Yes

Please describe the competing interests

PLEASE NOTE:

A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter, Correspondence or as other content. Find out more about rapid responses.
We intend to post all responses which are approved by the Editor, within 14 days (BMJ Journals) or 24 hours (The BMJ), however timeframes cannot be guaranteed. Responses must comply with our requirements and should contribute substantially to the topic, but it is at our absolute discretion whether we publish a response, and we reserve the right to edit or remove responses before and after publication and also republish some or all in other BMJ publications, including third party local editions in other countries and languages
Our requirements are stated in our rapid response terms and conditions and must be read. These include ensuring that: i) you do not include any illustrative content including tables and graphs, ii) you do not include any information that includes specifics about any patients,iii) you do not include any original data, unless it has already been published in a peer reviewed journal and you have included a reference, iv) your response is lawful, not defamatory, original and accurate, v) you declare any competing interests, vi) you understand that your name and other personal details set out in our rapid response terms and conditions will be published with any responses we publish and vii) you understand that once a response is published, we may continue to publish your response and/or edit or remove it in the future.
By submitting this rapid response you are agreeing to our terms and conditions for rapid responses and understand that your personal data will be processed in accordance with those terms and our privacy notice.

I agree to and have read the terms and conditions for rapid responses and BMJ Privacy Notice *

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

Re: Methodological problems in a case referent study based on a register of occupational asthma
Sarah Meredith
Published on: 27 April 2016
Methodological problems in a case referent study based on a register of occupational asthma
Bengt Jarvholm
Published on: 27 April 2016

Published on: 27 April 2016
Re: Methodological problems in a case referent study based on a register of occupational asthma
- Sarah Meredith, Clinical Epidemiologist
Editor-
We are grateful to Dr Jarvolm for his comments on our paper. The specified aim of our study was to quantify the relationship between the level of occupational isocyanate exposure and risk of developing asthma. The usual approach to this problem is a cohort study in an exposed work force, possibly with a nested case referent analysis. A register based case referent study of the type described by Dr Jarvol...
Show More

Editor-
We are grateful to Dr Jarvolm for his comments on our paper. The specified aim of our study was to quantify the relationship between the level of occupational isocyanate exposure and risk of developing asthma. The usual approach to this problem is a cohort study in an exposed work force, possibly with a nested case referent analysis. A register based case referent study of the type described by Dr Jarvolm would be unsuitable for this purpose because the source population would be ill defined, selection of a appropriate referents difficult, and reliable assessment of their exposure almost impossible. We used the SWORD reporting scheme, not as a register, but as a convenient means of identifying workplaces from which clusters of asthma cases attributed to isocyanates have been reported, and in which isocyanate exposure had been assessed by an occupational hygienist; we then investigated those sites. In fact, a small number of additional cases were identified during the course of the investigation and were included in the analysis. In company A, where the majority of our cases worked, all employees were subject to close respiratory supervision throughout their employment, including pre-employment assessment; in company B, the occurrence of the cluster of cases was recognised by the occupational health department and the workers in the relevant areas investigated. We are therefore reasonably confident that no cases were missed.
We were careful to select referents from workers who were exposed to isocyanates and were under the same level of surveillance as the cases to avoid some of the biases outlined by Dr Jarvolm. We agree that the close matching of cases and referents probably reduced the sensitivity of the study, but we felt that it was more important to do that than to risk selection bias as described in his second hypothetical scenario. As we also acknowledged in the article, we cannot exclude the theoretical possibility that the cases of asthma were not caused by isocyanates, but by other chemicals present in the plants. Confounding is a risk in any observational study, although not necessarily a source of bias, but the other agent would have to be closely correlated with the isocyanate exposure to account for our findings.
The cases had work related asthma as diagnosed by an occupational physician. Nearly all had a history of symptoms associated with work that improved on days away from work and had had serial respiratory function tests that supported the diagnosis. Challenge tests are rarely used in the UK; very few centres undertake them, and without proper facilities are considered dangerous. However, as explained in the article, in company A persons with respiratory symptoms were removed from exposure to isocyanates until they had recovered and then gradually returned to their previous work under very close supervision with serial respiratory function testing, which in practice was a form of challenge test.
The purpose of undertaking a case referent study was not to establish that it is possible to develop isocyanate asthma at low exposures, but to examine the exposure response relationship. We do not conclude from our data that there is a threshold below which isocyanate exposure is safe. The level of 1.25 ppb was arbitrarily chosen because it was the median time weighted average exposure in the referent group in company A. Despite the fact that all estimated eight hour TWA exposures were within the maximum exposure limits, those subjects whose estimated eight hour TWA was greater than 1.25 ppb appeared to be at increased risk of occupational asthma. However, the data were also compatible with a linear exposure response relationship in which the odds of asthma increased by 1.08 for every 0.1ppb. A much larger study would be needed to test these two possible exposure-response relationships fully.
Sarah Meredith
Julian Bugler
Robert Clark
Show Less

Conflict of Interest:
None declared.
- Back to top
Published on: 27 April 2016
Methodological problems in a case referent study based on a register of occupational asthma
- Bengt Jarvholm
Editor-
Meredith et al,[1] performed a case referent study to investigate asthma caused by isocyanates. They claimed that the results indicated that isocyanate asthma occurs at low 8h average exposure (around 1.5 ppb); for exposures above 1.125 ppb there was about a three fold increased risk, however this was of limited statistical significance (OR=3.2, 95% CI 0.96- 10.6; p=0.06). They also concluded that their s...
Show More

Editor-
Meredith et al,[1] performed a case referent study to investigate asthma caused by isocyanates. They claimed that the results indicated that isocyanate asthma occurs at low 8h average exposure (around 1.5 ppb); for exposures above 1.125 ppb there was about a three fold increased risk, however this was of limited statistical significance (OR=3.2, 95% CI 0.96- 10.6; p=0.06). They also concluded that their study, in contrast with other studies, showed a higher risk of isocyanate asthma in smokers and persons with atopy.
The study design is original as cases were recruited from a register of occupational asthma cases. A case reference study based on a register of cases with both the disease and the exposure of interest is new. I think the design requires some discussion as it may introduce severe bias.
A typical case-referent study selects cases with a certain disease- for example, asthma from a hospital register or in a population survey.[2] The referents should be selected in to give an unbiased estimate of exposure frequency in the study base.[3] The study base of a register, including occupational asthma cases, is the population that in the case of having asthma would be reported to the register. Therefore, the authors of this study matched the referents to the cases by reporting doctor and factory/production area. Then they measured/estimated the exposure level for both cases and referents and found that the average 8h exposure was higher among cases. This design has certain weaknesses illustrated by the following hypothetical situations:
1. Assume that the exposure in the production area is homogenous. Then both cases and referents would have the same exposure and the conclusion would be that the risk was independent of exposure level.
2. Assume that the reporting doctor only knows a proportion of incident cases, a reasonable assumption. If seeing the doctor is dependent on exposure level, a bias is obvious.
3. Assume that there was no increased risk at all in the workplaces at the current exposure but that there was exposure to irritants, which varied within the production area. Then cases with asthma would probably be more likely to report problems with their asthma to the occupational health physician. There would also be an association with all substances whose concentration was correlated to the irritant.
4. Assume that there was no causal association between the exposure and the occurrence of asthma at the current levels. As asthma is common among persons with atopy, the study would certainly indicate that atopy was a risk factor in combination with the exposure.
Some of these biases could be avoided if there was some specific test that with certainty established the causal association between asthma and the exposure among the cases. Asthma caused by isocyanates can with some certainty be established by provocation, but the study by Meredith included no routine provocation test.
If it is presumed that all the reported cases really are caused by isocyanates, a rather improbable assumption according to the case definition, the conclusion by the authors that isocyanate asthma occurs also at very low exposures without any threshold could be made without doing any case-referent analysis. They could just simply measure the exposure of the cases and conclude that the lowest measured exposure obviously caused isocyanate asthma. It is obviously impossible to determine any other threshold.
Is there a proper design of a case-referent study based on cases identified through a register where the association between exposure and outcome is already established? If the disease is caused by short term high exposure a case-crossover design seems possible.[3] However, that design requires a very accurate determination of when the disease started, which rarely is possible for asthma. Another possibility is to estimate the study base from which the cases are recruited-for example, in the study by Meredith et al[1] the number of person years in the different production areas where the cases were detected should have been estimated. This requires that all or most incident cases from that area is known or there should at least not be any differential reporting of cases between the areas.
Thus, the design of this study is interesting but includes many possibly bias of which a just a few were discussed in the paper. The conclusions that the risk of isocyanate asthma is increased at levels around 125 ppb, and is more common among persons with atopy and smokers are questionable.
Bengt Jarvholm, Department of Public Health and Clinical Medicine Umea University SE-901 85 Umea Sweden
1. Meredith SK, Bugler J, Clark RL. Isocyanate exposure and occupational asthma: a case referent study. Occup Environ Med 2000;57:830- 836.
2. Toren K, Jarvholm H, Hrisman J, et al. Adult onset asthma and occupational exposures. Scand J Work Environ Health 1999;25:430-5
3. Rothman KJ, Greenland S. Modern Epidemiology. (2nd ed) Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven, 1998.
Show Less

Conflict of Interest:
None declared.
- Back to top

Main menu

Plain text

PLEASE NOTE:

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

Log in using your username and password

Main menu

Log in using your username and password

You are here

Plain text

PLEASE NOTE:

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

Read the full text or download the PDF:

Log in using your username and password