Observations on the in vitro bactericidal activity of sera from pre-natal and post-natal calves

J. Collins,E. J. Carroll,D. Jasper,N. Jain

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/VR.86.4.93

1970-01-24

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Global, regional and national burdens of non-melanoma skin cancer attributable to occupational exposure to solar ultraviolet radiation for 183 countries, 2000–2019: A systematic analysis from the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of the Work-related Burden of Disease and Injury

Frank Pega,Natalie C. Momen,Kai N. Streicher,Maria Leon-Roux,Subas Neupane,Mary K. Schubauer-Berigan,Joachim Schüz,Advisory Group on Occupational Burden of Disease Estimation,Marissa Baker,Tim Driscoll,Irina Guseva Canu,Hannah M. Kiiver,Jian Li,Jamaji C. Nwanaji-Enwerem,Michelle C. Turner,Susana Viegas,Paul J. Villeneuve

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2023.108226

IF: 11.8

2023-11-09

Environment International

Abstract:Background A World Health Organization (WHO) and International Labour Organization (ILO) systematic review reported sufficient evidence for higher risk of non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC) amongst people occupationally exposed to solar ultraviolet radiation (UVR). This article presents WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of global, regional, national and subnational occupational exposures to UVR for 195 countries/areas and the global, regional and national attributable burdens of NMSC for 183 countries, by sex and age group, for the years 2000, 2010 and 2019. Methods We calculated population-attributable fractions (PAFs) from estimates of the population occupationally exposed to UVR and the risk ratio for NMSC from the WHO/ILO systematic review. Occupational exposure to UVR was modelled via proxy of occupation with outdoor work, using 166 million observations from 763 cross-sectional surveys for 96 countries/areas. Attributable NMSC burden was estimated by applying the PAFs to WHO's estimates of the total NMSC burden. Measures of inequality were calculated. Results Globally in 2019, 1.6 billion workers (95 % uncertainty range [UR] 1.6–1.6) were occupationally exposed to UVR, or 28.4 % (UR 27.9–28.8) of the working-age population. The PAFs were 29.0 % (UR 24.7–35.0) for NMSC deaths and 30.4 % (UR 29.0–31.7) for disability-adjusted life years (DALYs). Attributable NMSC burdens were 18,960 deaths (UR 18,180–19,740) and 0.5 million DALYs (UR 0.4–0.5). Men and older age groups carried larger burden. Over 2000–2019, attributable deaths and DALYs almost doubled. Conclusions WHO and the ILO estimate that occupational exposure to UVR is common and causes substantial, inequitable and growing attributable burden of NMSC. Governments must protect outdoor workers from hazardous exposure to UVR and attributable NMSC burden and inequalities.

environmental sciences
Global Disease Burden and Trends of Leukemia Attributable to Occupational Risk from 1990 to 2019: an Observational Trend Study

Yuanfei Shi,Can Chen,Yamei Huang,Yi Xu,Dandan Xu,Huafei Shen,Xiujin Ye,Jie Jin,Hongyan Tong,Yue Yu,Xinyi Tang,Azhong Li,Dawei Cui,Wanzhuo Xie

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2022.1015861

IF: 5.2

2022-01-01

Frontiers in Public Health

Abstract:BackgroundLeukemia caused by occupational risk is a problem that needs more attention and remains to be solved urgently, especially for acute lymphoid leukemia (ALL), acute myeloid leukemia (AML), and chronic lymphoid leukemia (CLL). However, there is a paucity of literature on this issue. We aimed to assess the global burden and trends of leukemia attributable to occupational risk from 1990 to 2019.MethodsThis observational trend study was based on the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) 2019 database, the global deaths, and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs), which were calculated to quantify the changing trend of leukemia attributable to occupational risk, were analyzed by age, year, geographical location, and socio-demographic index (SDI), and the corresponding estimated annual percentage change (EAPC) values were calculated.ResultsGlobal age-standardized DALYs and death rates of leukemia attributable to occupational risk presented significantly decline trends with EAPC [−0.38% (95% CI: −0.58 to −0.18%) for DALYs and −0.30% (95% CI: −0.45 to −0.146%) for death]. However, it was significantly increased in people aged 65–69 years [0.42% (95% CI: 0.30–0.55%) for DALYs and 0.38% (95% CI: 0.26–0.51%) for death]. At the same time, the age-standardized DALYs and death rates of ALL, AML, and CLL were presented a significantly increased trend with EAPCs [0.78% (95% CI: 0.65–0.91%), 0.87% (95% CI: 0.81–0.93%), and 0.66% (95% CI: 0.51–0.81%) for DALYs, respectively, and 0.75% (95% CI: 0.68–0.82%), 0.96% (95% CI: 0.91–1.01%), and 0.55% (95% CI: 0.43–0.68%) for death], respectively. The ALL, AML, and CLL were shown an upward trend in almost all age groups.ConclusionWe observed a substantial reduction in leukemia due to occupational risks between 1990 and 2019. However, the people aged 65–69 years and burdens of ALL, AML, and CLL had a significantly increased trend in almost all age groups. Thus, there remains an urgent need to accelerate efforts to reduce leukemia attributable to occupational risk-related death burden in this population and specific causes.
The prevalences and levels of occupational exposure to dusts and/or fibres (silica, asbestos and coal): A systematic review and meta-analysis from the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of the Work-related Burden of Disease and Injury

Vivi Schlünssen,Daniele Mandrioli,Frank Pega,Natalie C Momen,Balázs Ádám,Weihong Chen,Robert A Cohen,Lode Godderis,Thomas Göen,Kishor Hadkhale,Watinee Kunpuek,Jianlin Lou,Stefan Mandic-Rajcevic,Federica Masci,Ben Nemery,Madalina Popa,Natthadanai Rajatanavin,Daria Sgargi,Somkiat Siriruttanapruk,Xin Sun,Repeepong Suphanchaimat,Panithee Thammawijaya,Yuka Ujita,Stevie van der Mierden,Katya Vangelova,Meng Ye,Muzimkhulu Zungu,Paul T J Scheepers

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2023.107980

Abstract:Background: The World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) are developing joint estimates of the work-related burden of disease and injury (WHO/ILO Joint Estimates), with contributions from a large number of individual experts. Evidence from human, animal and mechanistic data suggests that occupational exposure to dusts and/or fibres (silica, asbestos and coal dust) causes pneumoconiosis. In this paper, we present a systematic review and meta-analysis of the prevalences and levels of occupational exposure to silica, asbestos and coal dust. These estimates of prevalences and levels will serve as input data for estimating (if feasible) the number of deaths and disability-adjusted life years that are attributable to occupational exposure to silica, asbestos and coal dust, for the development of the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates. Objectives: We aimed to systematically review and meta-analyse estimates of the prevalences and levels of occupational exposure to silica, asbestos and coal dust among working-age (≥ 15 years) workers. Data sources: We searched electronic academic databases for potentially relevant records from published and unpublished studies, including Ovid Medline, PubMed, EMBASE, and CISDOC. We also searched electronic grey literature databases, Internet search engines and organizational websites; hand-searched reference lists of previous systematic reviews and included study records; and consulted additional experts. Study eligibility and criteria: We included working-age (≥ 15 years) workers in the formal and informal economy in any WHO and/or ILO Member State but excluded children (< 15 years) and unpaid domestic workers. We included all study types with objective dust or fibre measurements, published between 1960 and 2018, that directly or indirectly reported an estimate of the prevalence and/or level of occupational exposure to silica, asbestos and/or coal dust. Study appraisal and synthesis methods: At least two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts against the eligibility criteria at a first stage and full texts of potentially eligible records at a second stage, then data were extracted from qualifying studies. We combined prevalence estimates by industrial sector (ISIC-4 2-digit level with additional merging within Mining, Manufacturing and Construction) using random-effects meta-analysis. Two or more review authors assessed the risk of bias and all available authors assessed the quality of evidence, using the ROB-SPEO tool and QoE-SPEO approach developed specifically for the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates. Results: Eighty-eight studies (82 cross-sectional studies and 6 longitudinal studies) met the inclusion criteria, comprising > 2.4 million measurements covering 23 countries from all WHO regions (Africa, Americas, Eastern Mediterranean, South-East Asia, Europe, and Western Pacific). The target population in all 88 included studies was from major ISCO groups 3 (Technicians and Associate Professionals), 6 (Skilled Agricultural, Forestry and Fishery Workers), 7 (Craft and Related Trades Workers), 8 (Plant and Machine Operators and Assemblers), and 9 (Elementary Occupations), hereafter called manual workers. Most studies were performed in Construction, Manufacturing and Mining. For occupational exposure to silica, 65 studies (61 cross-sectional studies and 4 longitudinal studies) were included with > 2.3 million measurements collected in 22 countries in all six WHO regions. For occupational exposure to asbestos, 18 studies (17 cross-sectional studies and 1 longitudinal) were included with > 20,000 measurements collected in eight countries in five WHO regions (no data for Africa). For occupational exposure to coal dust, eight studies (all cross-sectional) were included comprising > 100,000 samples in six countries in five WHO regions (no data for Eastern Mediterranean). Occupational exposure to silica, asbestos and coal dust was assessed with personal or stationary active filter sampling; for silica and asbestos, gravimetric assessment was followed by technical analysis. Risk of bias profiles varied between the bodies of evidence looking at asbestos, silica and coal dust, as well as between industrial sectors. However, risk of bias was generally highest for the domain of selection of participants into the studies. The largest bodies of evidence for silica related to the industrial sectors of Construction (ISIC 41-43), Manufacturing (ISIC 20, 23-25, 27, 31-32) and Mining (ISIC 05, 07, 08). For Construction, the pooled prevalence estimate was 0.89 (95% CI 0.84 to 0.93, 17 studies, I2 91%, moderate quality of evidence) and the level estimate was rated as of very low quality of evidence. For Manufacturing, the pooled prevalence estimate was 0.85 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.91, 24 studies, I2 100%, moderate quality of evidence) and the pooled level estimate was rated as of very low quality of evidence. The pooled prevalence estimate for Mining was 0.75 (95% CI 0.68 to 0.82, 20 studies, I2 100%, moderate quality of evidence) and the pooled level estimate was 0.04 mg/m3 (95% CI 0.03 to 0.05, 17 studies, I2 100%, low quality of evidence). Smaller bodies of evidence were identified for Crop and animal production (ISIC 01; very low quality of evidence for both prevalence and level); Professional, scientific and technical activities (ISIC 71, 74; very low quality of evidence for both prevalence and level); and Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply (ISIC 35; very low quality of evidence for both prevalence and level). For asbestos, the pooled prevalence estimate for Construction (ISIC 41, 43, 45,) was 0.77 (95% CI 0.65 to 0.87, six studies, I2 99%, low quality of evidence) and the level estimate was rated as of very low quality of evidence. For Manufacturing (ISIC 13, 23-24, 29-30), the pooled prevalence and level estimates were rated as being of very low quality of evidence. Smaller bodies of evidence were identified for Other mining and quarrying (ISIC 08; very low quality of evidence for both prevalence and level); Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply (ISIC 35; very low quality of evidence for both prevalence and level); and Water supply, sewerage, waste management and remediation (ISIC 37; very low quality of evidence for levels). For coal dust, the pooled prevalence estimate for Mining of coal and lignite (ISIC 05), was 1.00 (95% CI 1.00 to 1.00, six studies, I2 16%, moderate quality of evidence) and the pooled level estimate was 0.77 mg/m3 (95% CI 0.68 to 0.86, three studies, I2 100%, low quality of evidence). A small body of evidence was identified for Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply (ISIC 35); with very low quality of evidence for prevalence, and the pooled level estimate being 0.60 mg/m3 (95% CI -6.95 to 8.14, one study, low quality of evidence). Conclusions: Overall, we judged the bodies of evidence for occupational exposure to silica to vary by industrial sector between very low and moderate quality of evidence for prevalence, and very low and low for level. For occupational exposure to asbestos, the bodies of evidence varied by industrial sector between very low and low quality of evidence for prevalence and were of very low quality of evidence for level. For occupational exposure to coal dust, the bodies of evidence were of very low or moderate quality of evidence for prevalence, and low for level. None of the included studies were population-based studies (i.e., covered the entire workers' population in the industrial sector), which we judged to present serious concern for indirectness, except for occupational exposure to coal dust within the industrial sector of mining of coal and lignite. Selected estimates of the prevalences and levels of occupational exposure to silica by industrial sector are considered suitable as input data for the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates, and selected estimates of the prevalences and levels of occupational exposure to asbestos and coal dust may perhaps also be suitable for estimation purposes. Protocol identifier: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2018.06.005. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018084131.
Burden of non-melanoma skin cancer attributable to occupational sun exposure in Canada

Cheryl E. Peters,J. Kim,C. Song,E. Heer,V. H. Arrandale,M. Pahwa,F. Labrèche,C. B. McLeod,H. W. Davies,C. B. Ge,P. A. Demers

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00420-019-01454-z

2019-07-03

International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health

Abstract:PurposeOutdoor workers are exposed daily to solar ultraviolet radiation, an important contributor in the development of non-melanoma skin cancer. This study aimed to quantify the health burden of non-melanoma skin cancers among outdoor workers in Canada.MethodsSolar ultraviolet radiation exposure and estimates of exposure levels were applied to employment information from Canada census data to determine the exposed population in the risk exposure period (1961–2001). Risk estimates were drawn from meta-analyses selected based on quality and relevance to the current study. Population-attributable fractions were calculated using Levin's equation and attributable cases were estimated based on incidence data reported by the Canadian Cancer Society.ResultsIn 2011, 6.31% (4556 cases) of non-melanoma skin cancer cases were estimated to be attributable to occupational exposure to solar ultraviolet radiation. The majority of these cases occurred in men in the agriculture or construction industries.ConclusionsThese estimates of the burden of non-melanoma skin cancer in Canada identify the need for further prevention efforts, particularly in agriculture and construction. Introducing workplace sun safety measures could be an important area for policy development.

public, environmental & occupational health
Criteria for Occupational Health Prevention for Solar UVR Exposed Outdoor Workers-Prevalence, Affected Parties, and Occupational Disease

Marc Wittlich

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2021.772290

2022-01-26

Abstract:Non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC) is the most common cancer in western countries. Legislative bodies and stakeholders like WHO and EU strongly promote protection against solar UVR, especially in workers. Occupational health prevention must be introduced as a strong instrument in workers protection also with regard to occupational disease issues. To date, criteria for both occupational health prevention and occupational disease are missing and the identification of risk groups has no metric basis. Here I report a criteria analysis based on the largest comprehensive data set of occupational ultraviolet radiation exposure of outdoor workers. With detailed research on occupation-specific dosimetric measurements of 45.000 measurement days in 176 occupations and sub-occupations, it is possible to map criteria for occupational health prevention specifically and to identify affected occupations. The number of employees affected can be elucidated worldwide. For the first time, a direct link to retrospective occupational disease criteria could be established. Of the 176 occupations and sub-occupations selected for this work, 153 (=87%) exceed the criterion for occupational health prevention and thus need special attention. This includes all occupations with annual exposures of more than 150 SED. Employment figures for the EU and the world yield the total number of affected workers to be 36.1 million and more than 500 million, respectively. These new criteria for occupational health prevention are valid and in good agreement with international research on limit values by WHO and ICNIRP. If applied correctly and consistently, these criteria can prevent occupational disease. It will be possible to identify occupations and sub-occupations that have an urgent need for prevention to avoid chronic skin damage leading to cancer. This research serves as a basis for policy making and clinical risk identification, as well as for daily practice of occupational physicians and employers responsible for risk assesment.
Evolving burden of lung cancer attributable to occupational carcinogens in 38 OECD countries: Global, national differences, age dynamics and implications for global health.

Mohit Lakkimsetti,Mihir Paresh Vanodia,Kushagrita Singh,Shrey Goel,Pinank Bathvar,Dhruval Pinalkumar Patel,Priyatha Vemparala,Juhi Patel,Vishrant Amin,Himanshu Bharatkumar Koyani,Dhruvkumar Gadhiya,Hardik Dineshbhai Desai

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2024.42.16_suppl.10576

IF: 45.3

2024-06-01

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract:10576 Background: Lung cancer (LC) remains a predominant cause of global mortality and disability, particularly significant in Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) nations. Understanding the evolving burden of LC attributable to occupational carcinogens (OC) is critical due to its prevalence in occupational settings. Methods: Employing a standardized approach from the Global Burden of Disease study, we estimated deaths and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) caused by lung cancer linked to OC. Our analysis spans age, gender, year, and location across the 38 OECD countries from 1990-2019. Results were presented as absolute counts and age-standardized rates (ASR) per 100,000 person-years, with projections extended to 2040 using regression frameworks. Results: Deaths from LC attributable to OC increased from 120,862 (95%UI: 91,114-148,937) in 1990 to 167,917 (127,888-208,066) in 2019, with DALYs rising from 2.4 million (1.8-3.1) to 2.9 million (2.2-3.6) over the same period. The United States recorded the highest number of deaths (41,075), followed by Japan (20,496) and the United Kingdom (15,223) in 2019. Notably, the Netherlands exhibited the highest age-standardized mortality rate (ASMR) at 12.62 cases per 100,000, with Belgium and the United Kingdom following closely. Asbestos exposure accounted for the highest number of deaths (147,263), followed by silica (15,660), arsenic (3,172), and diesel engine exhaust (2,798). Males bore a significantly higher burden than females over the last three decades, with the 75-79 age group recording the highest number of deaths (32,477) and the 70-74 age group registering the highest DALYs (613,442). Conclusions: The study underscores the escalating burden of LC attributable to occupational carcinogens across OECD countries, highlighting the imperative for robust preventive measures and targeted interventions. Urgent action is warranted to mitigate exposures to known carcinogens in occupational settings, particularly among vulnerable populations, to curb the escalating public health challenge posed by occupational lung cancer.

oncology
Estimating the burden of occupational cancer: assessing bias and uncertainty

Sally Hutchings,Lesley Rushton

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/oemed-2016-103810

IF: 4.9

2017-04-17

Occupational and Environmental Medicine

Abstract:BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: We aimed to estimate credibility intervals for the British occupational cancer burden to account for bias uncertainty, using a method adapted from Greenland's Monte Carlo sensitivity analysis.METHODS: The attributable fraction (AF) methodology used for our cancer burden estimates requires risk estimates and population proportions exposed for each agent/cancer pair. Sources of bias operating on AF estimator components include non-portability of risk estimates, inadequate models, inaccurate data including unknown cancer latency and employment turnover and compromises in using the available estimators. Each source of bias operates on a component of the AF estimator. Independent prior distributions were estimated for each bias, or graphical sensitivity analysis was used to identify plausible distribution ranges for the component variables, with AF recalculated following Monte Carlo repeated sampling from these distributions. The methods are illustrated using the example of lung cancer due to occupational exposure to respirable crystalline silica in men.RESULTS: Results are presented graphically for a hierarchy of biases contributing to an overall credibility interval for lung cancer and respirable crystalline silica exposure. An overall credibility interval of 2.0% to 16.2% was estimated for an AF of 3.9% in men. Choice of relative risk and employment turnover were shown to contribute most to overall estimate uncertainty. Bias from using an incorrect estimator makes a much lower contribution.CONCLUSIONS: The method illustrates the use of credibility intervals to indicate relative contributions of important sources of uncertainty and identifies important data gaps; results depend greatly on the priors chosen.

public, environmental & occupational health
Association of 13 Occupational Carcinogens in Patients With Cancer, Individually and Collectively, 1990-2017

Na Li,Zhen Zhai,Yi Zheng,Shuai Lin,Yujiao Deng,Grace Xiang,Jia Yao,Dong Xiang,Shuqian Wang,Pengtao Yang,Si Yang,Peng Xu,Ying Wu,Jingjing Hu,Zhijun Dai,Meng Wang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.37530

2021-01-01

JAMA Network Open

Abstract:IMPORTANCE Occupational exposure to carcinogens has been shown to pose a serious disease burden at the global, regional, and national levels. Based on epidemiologic studies and clinical observations, working environment appears to have important effects on the occurrence of human malignant tumors; however, to date, no systematic articles have been published that specifically investigated cancer burden due to occupational exposure in an individual and collective manner. OBJECTIVE To estimate the degree of exposure and evaluate the cancer burden attributable to occupational carcinogens (OCs) individually and collectively by sex, age, year, and location. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Cross-sectional study including data on 195 countries from the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study from January 1, 1990, to December 31, 2017. Data were analyzed from June 24, 2020, to July 20, 2020. EXPOSURES Thirteen OCs (ie, arsenic, asbestos, benzene, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, diesel engine exhaust, formaldehyde, nickel, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, silica, sulfuric acid, and trichloroethylene). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The degree and change patterns of exposure as well as the attributable cancer burden, including deaths and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs), by sex, age, year, and location for 13 OCs. The calculation of the population-attributable fraction was based on past exposure in the population and relative risks. RESULTS Based on the GBD 2017 study, 13 OCs attributable to 7 cancer types were included. Most summary exposure values for the 13 OCs, particularly those of diesel engine exhaust (35.6% increase; 95% uncertainty interval [UI], 32.4%-38.5%) and trichloroethylene (30.3% increase; 95% UI, 27.3%-33.5%), increased from 1990 to 2017. Only exposure to asbestos decreased by 13.8% (95% UI, -26.7% to 2.2%). In 2017, 319 000 (95% UI, 256 000-382 000) cancer deaths and 6.42 million (95% UI, 5.15 million to 7.76 million) DALYs were associated with OCs combined, accounting for 61.0% (95% UI, 59.6%-62.4%) of the total cancer deaths and 48.3% (46.3% to 50.2%) of the DALYs. Among the 13 OCs, the 3 leading risk factors for cancer burden were asbestos (71.8%), silica (15.4%), and diesel engine exhaust (5.6%). For most OCs, the attributed cancer outcome was tracheal, bronchial, and lung cancer, which accounted for 89.0% of attributable cancer deaths. China (61 644 cancer deaths), the US (42 848), and Japan (20 748) accounted for the largest number of attributable cancer deaths in 2017; for DALYs, China (1.47 million), the US (0.71 million), and India (0.37 million) were the 3 leading countries. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Results of this study suggest that although OC exposure levels have decreased, the overall cancer burden is continuously increasing.
Global, regional, and national burden of cancers attributable to occupational risks from 1990 to 2019

Shiliang Ling,Lihong Zhou,Yanfeng Wu,Xiaoling Zhang,Wulong Han,Lihua Cui,Zhiyu Luan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/joccuh/uiae040

2024-01-04

Abstract:Background: Based on data from the Global Burden of Disease study, the burden of cancer attributable to occupational risks between 1990 and 2019 was explored. Methods: The estimated burden in different regions was compared in terms of the age-standardized death rates (ASDRs), age-standardized disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) rates, and corresponding estimated annual percentage changes (EAPCs). The comparative risk assessment framework was used to estimate the risk of death and DALYs attributable to occupational risk factors. Results: Globally from 1990 to 2019, ASDRs decreased (EAPC = -0.69; 95% CI: -0.76 to -0.61), and age-standardized DALY rates decreased (EAPC = -0.99; 95% CI: -1.05 to -0.94). In terms of the global age distribution of cancer attributable to occupational risk factors, the death rate and DALY rates increased with age. In addition, from 1990 to 2019, the number of deaths, DALYs, ASDRs, and age-standardized DALY rates in men were higher than those in women, and the cancer burden grew fastest in Georgia (EAPC = 5.04), Croatia (EAPC = 4.01), and Honduras (EAPC = 3.54). Moreover, as the sociodemographic index (SDI) value of a country or region increased, its burden of cancer attributable to occupational risk factors rapidly increased. Conclusions: The global cancer burden attributable to occupational risk factors declined from 1990 to 2019, was higher in men than in women, and was concentrated in middle-aged and older adults. The baseline cancer burdens of regions or countries increased as their SDI values increased and were especially high in high-SDI regions or countries.
Global and regional burden of chronic respiratory disease in 2016 arising from non-infectious airborne occupational exposures: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016

GBD 2016 Occupational Chronic Respiratory Risk Factors Collaborators,GBD 2016 occupational chronic respiratory risk factors collaborators,Tim Driscoll,Kyle Steenland,Neil Pearce,Lesley Rushton,Sally J Hutchings,Kurt Straif,Degu Abate,Dilaram Acharya,Anurag Agrawal,Fares Alahdab,Kefyalew Addis Alene,Sofia Androudi,Mina Anjomshoa,Carl Abelardo T Antonio,Olatunde Aremu,Zerihun Ataro,Alaa Badawi,Joseph Adel Mattar Banoub,Suzanne Lyn Barker-Collo,Neeraj Bedi,Derrick A Bennett,Robert Bernstein,Mircea Beuran,Krittika Bhattacharyya,Ali Bijani,Zahid A Butt,Juan J Carrero,Carlos A Castañeda-Orjuela,Odgerel Chimed-Ochir,Lalit Dandona,Rakhi Dandona,Anh Kim Dang,Ahmad Daryani,Beruk Berhanu Desalegn,Samath Dhamminda Dharmaratne,Shirin Djalalinia,Eleonora Dubljanin,Soheil Ebrahimpour,Ziad El-Khatib,Mohammad Fareed,Andre Faro,Eduarda Fernandes,Florian Fischer,Takeshi Fukumoto,Silvano Gallus,Teklu Gebrehiwo Gebremichael,Kebede Embaye Gezae,Ayman Grada,Yuming Guo,Rahul Gupta,Arvin Haj-Mirzaian,Arya Haj-Mirzaian,Samer Hamidi,Mehedi Hasan,Milad Hasankhani,Simon I Hay,Chi Linh Hoang,Michael K Hole,H Dean Hosgood,Mihaela Hostiuc,Sorin Hostiuc,Seyed Sina Naghibi Irvani,Sheikh Mohammed Shariful Islam,Mihajlo Jakovljevic,Ravi Prakash Jha,Jost B Jonas,Amaha Kahsay,Amir Kasaeian,Norito Kawakami,Yousef Saleh Khader,Morteza Abdullatif Khafaie,Ejaz Ahmad Khan,Mohammad Hossein Khosravi,Jagdish Khubchandani,Yun Jin Kim,Ruth W Kimokoti,Adnan Kisa,Manolis Kogevinas,Soewarta Kosen,Parvaiz A Koul,Ai Koyanagi,Barthelemy Kuate Defo,G Anil Kumar,Dharmesh Kumar Lal,Arman Latifi,James Leigh,Miriam Levi,Shanshan Li,Shai Linn,Narayan Bahadur Mahotra,Marek Majdan,Reza Malekzadeh,Mohammad Ali Mansournia,Francisco Rogerlândio Martins-Melo,Benjamin Ballard Massenburg,Varshil Mehta,Addisu Melese,Mulugeta Melku,Ziad A Memish,Walter Mendoza,Tuomo J Meretoja,Tomislav Mestrovic,G K Mini,Erkin M Mirrakhimo,Babak Moazen,Naser Mohammad Gholi Mezerji,Shafiu Mohammed,Ali H Mokdad,Lorenzo Monasta,Yoshan Moodley,Mahmood Moosazadeh,Ghobad Moradi,Lidia Morawska,Shane Douglas Morrison,Seyyed Meysam Mousavi,Ghulam Mustafa,Vinay Nangia,Ionut Negoi,Ruxandra Irina Negoi,Cuong Tat Nguyen,Trang Huyen Nguyen,Molly R Nixon,Richard Ofori-Asenso,Felix Akpojene Ogbo,Andrew T Olagunju,Bolajoko Olubukunola Olusanya,Mahesh P A,Songhomitra Panda-Jonas,Eun-Kee Park,Sanghamitra Pati,Mostafa Qorbani,Anwar Rafay,Alireza Rafiei,Fakher Rahim,Vafa Rahimi-Movaghar,Fatemeh Rajati,Robert C Reiner,Satar Rezaei,Leonardo Roever,Luca Ronfani,Gholamreza Roshandel,Basema Saddik,Saeid Safiri,Mohammad Ali Sahraian,Abdallah M Samy,David C Schwebel,Sadaf G Sepanlou,Berrin Serdar,Masood Ali Shaikh,Aziz Sheikh,Mika Shigematsu,Rahman Shiri,Reza Shirkoohi,Si Si,João Pedro Silva,Dhirendra Narain Sinha,Moslem Soofi,Joan B Soriano,Chandrashekhar T Sreeramareddy,Jeffrey D Stanaway,Mark A Stokes,Mu'awiyyah Babale Sufiyan,Ipsita Sutradhar,Rafael Tabarés-Seisdedos,Ken Takahashi,Yonatal Mesfin Tefera,Mohamad-Hani Temsah,Marcos Roberto Tovani-Palone,Bach Xuan Tran,Khanh Bao Tran,Lorainne Tudor Car,Irfan Ullah,Pascual R Valdez,Job F M van Boven,Tommi Juhani Vasankari,Francesco S Violante,Giang Thu Vu,Gregory R Wagner,Yasir Waheed,Yuan-Pang Wang,Biruck Desalegn Yirsaw,Naohiro Yonemoto,Chuanhua Yu,Mohammad Zamani,Stephen S Lim

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/oemed-2019-106013

Abstract:Objectives: This paper presents detailed analysis of the global and regional burden of chronic respiratory disease arising from occupational airborne exposures, as estimated in the Global Burden of Disease 2016 study. Methods: The burden of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) due to occupational exposure to particulate matter, gases and fumes, and secondhand smoke, and the burden of asthma resulting from occupational exposure to asthmagens, was estimated using the population attributable fraction (PAF), calculated using exposure prevalence and relative risks from the literature. PAFs were applied to the number of deaths and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) for COPD and asthma. Pneumoconioses were estimated directly from cause of death data. Age-standardised rates were based only on persons aged 15 years and above. Results: The estimated PAFs (based on DALYs) were 17% (95% uncertainty interval (UI) 14%-20%) for COPD and 10% (95% UI 9%-11%) for asthma. There were estimated to be 519 000 (95% UI 441,000-609,000) deaths from chronic respiratory disease in 2016 due to occupational airborne risk factors (COPD: 460,100 [95% UI 382,000-551,000]; asthma: 37,600 [95% UI 28,400-47,900]; pneumoconioses: 21,500 [95% UI 17,900-25,400]. The equivalent overall burden estimate was 13.6 million (95% UI 11.9-15.5 million); DALYs (COPD: 10.7 [95% UI 9.0-12.5] million; asthma: 2.3 [95% UI 1.9-2.9] million; pneumoconioses: 0.58 [95% UI 0.46-0.67] million). Rates were highest in males; older persons and mainly in Oceania, Asia and sub-Saharan Africa; and decreased from 1990 to 2016. Conclusions: Workplace exposures resulting in COPD, asthma and pneumoconiosis continue to be important contributors to the burden of disease in all regions of the world. This should be reducible through improved prevention and control of relevant exposures.
Methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase polymorphisms and risk of sporadic and hereditary colorectal cancer with or without microsatellite instability.

J. Plaschke,U. Schwanebeck,S. Pistorius,H. Saeger,H. Schackert

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3835(02)00633-X

IF: 9.756

2003-03-10

Cancer Letters

Abstract:
Global trends in occupational disease reporting: a systematic review

Levina Chandra Khoe,Siti Rizny Fitriana Saldi,Marsen Isbayuputra,Muchtaruddin Mansyur,Virginia Wiseman,Augustine Asante

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.09.19.24314032

2024-09-23

Abstract:Background Preventing occupational diseases requires knowing the magnitude of the problem. However, disease reporting is often unreliable and faces many challenges, making it difficult to estimate the true burden of occupational diseases, defined as any disease that is caused by the work activity or environment. This study aimed to assess the global reporting and underreporting rate of occupational diseases, and to identify the factors affecting the underreporting of occupational diseases. Methods Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, this study searched Medline (PubMed), CINAHL, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, WHO Institutional Repository for Information Sharing (IRIS) database, Dimensions, and Google Scholar. We used search terms related to reporting and underreporting of occupational diseases or illnesses. The selected records were screened, and data extracted using the Covidence software tool. Screening and quality assessment were conducted by two independent researchers and finalized by a third researcher. Results A total of 121 studies from 29 countries were identified, all coming from high-income and upper-middle-income countries. No studies from lower-middle-income or low-income countries were found. The incidence rate of occupational disease varied widely, ranging between 1.71 to 1,387 per 100,000 employees yearly. The highest number of annual cases was reported in the agricultural sector (ranging from 33 to 6,431), followed by the health sector (146 to 5,508), and then the construction sector (264). Two studies evaluated rates of underreporting, which varied from 50% to 95%. The main factor contributing to underreporting was employee concerns about job security. Conclusions The results reveal a significant gap in the reporting of occupational diseases among high-income and low-middle-income countries. This review also identifies variations in reporting mechanisms across different countries. Our findings highlight the need to establish a national system for reporting occupational diseases that engages employers, employees, and healthcare providers.
Global, regional, and national burden of non-communicable diseases attributable to occupational asbestos exposure 1990–2019 and prediction to 2035: worsening or improving?

Xinlu Miao,Teng Yao,Chenxian Dong,Zuhai Chen,Wanting Wei,Zhengyang Shi,Tongtong Xu,Jianjiang Shao,Qiang Niu,Dongsheng Rui,Yunhua Hu,Yizhong Yan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-18099-4

IF: 4.5

2024-03-18

BMC Public Health

Abstract:Abstract Understanding the burden associated with occupational asbestos exposure on a global and regional scale is necessary to implement coordinated prevention and control strategies. By the GBD Study 2019, we conducted a comprehensive assessment of the non-communicable diseases burden attributable to occupational asbestos exposure. In 2019, 239,330 deaths and 4,189,000 disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) worldwide due to occupational asbestos exposure occurred. 1990–2019, deaths and DALYs attributed to occupational asbestos exposure increased by 65.65% and 43.66%, respectively. Age-standardized mortality rate (ASMR) and age-standardized DALYs rate (ASDR) decreased, with the most rapid declines in high Socio-Demographic Index (SDI) regions, with average annual percent change (AAPC) of − 1.05(95%CI: −1.2, −0.89) and −1.53(95%CI: −1.71, −1.36), respectively. Lung cancer, mesothelioma and ovarian cancer were the top three contributors to the increase in deaths and DALYs, accounting for more than 96%. AAPCs of ASMR and ASDR were positively associated with SDI. Global deaths from occupational asbestos exposure were predicted to increase and ASMR to decrease by 2035, mostly in males. Due consideration should be given to the susceptibility of the elderly, the lag of asbestos onset, and the regional differences, and constantly improve the prevention and control measures of occupational asbestos exposure and related diseases.

public, environmental & occupational health
Global and regional burden of cancer in 2016 arising from occupational exposure to selected carcinogens: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016

Tim Driscoll,Lesley Rushton,Kyle Steenland,Sally Hutchings,Kurt Straif,Degu Abate,Omar Abdel-Rahman,Dilaram Acharya,Mohsen Afarideh,Fares Alahdab,Ziyad Al-Aly,Mina Anjomshoa,Olatunde Aremu,Al Artaman,Zerihun Ataro,Beatriz Paulina Ayala Quintanilla,Alaa Badawi,Masoud Behzadifar,Meysam Behzadifar,Mircea Beuran,Krittika Bhattacharyya,Ali Bijani,Tone Bjørge,Zahid A Butt,Juan J Carrero,Félix Carvalho,Carlos A Castañeda-Orjuela,Ester Cerin,Pankaj Chaturvedi,Odgerel Chimed-Ochir,Raquel Crider,Christopher Stephen Crowe,Lalit Dandona,Rakhi Dandona,Anh Kim Dang,Ahmad Daryani,Beruk Berhanu Desalegn,Samath Dhamminda Dharmaratne,Shirin Djalalinia,Andem Effiong,Ziad El-Khatib,Alireza Esteghamati,Mohammad Fareed,Eduarda Fernandes,Irina Filip,Florian Fischer,Takeshi Fukumoto,Silvano Gallus,Teklu Gebrehiwo Gebremichael,Kebede Embaye Gezae,Ayman Grada,Andre Luiz Sena Guimaraes,Rahul Gupta,Nima Hafezi-Nejad,Arvin Haj-Mirzaian,Arya Haj-Mirzaian,Randah R Hamadeh,Samer Hamidi,Hadi Hassankhani,Simon I. Hay,Mohamed I Hegazy,Andualem Henok,Chi Linh Hoang,Michael K. Hole,H Dean Hosgood,Mostafa Hosseini,Mihaela Hostiuc,Sorin Hostiuc,Seyed Sina Naghibi Irvani,Mohammed Shariful Islam,Mihajlo Jakovljevic,Ravi Prakash Jha,Mikk Jürisson,Amaha Kahsay,Narges Karimi,Amir Kasaeian,Zemenu Yohannes Kassa,Yousef Saleh Khader,Morteza Abdullatif Khafaie,Ejaz Ahmad Khan,Mohammad Hossein Khosravi,Jagdish Khubchandani,Aliasghar A Kiadaliri,Yun Jin Kim,Manolis Kogevinas,David Koh,Soewarta Kosen,Ai Koyanagi,G Anil Kumar,Deepesh P Lad,Dharmesh Kumar Lal,Faris Hasan Lami,Arman Latifi,James Leigh,Shai Linn,Marek Majdan,Reza Malekzadeh,Deborah Carvalho Malta,Mohammad Ali Mansournia,Benjamin Ballard Massenburg,Addisu Melese,Mulugeta Melku,Ziad A Memish,Walter Mendoza,Getnet Mengistu,Tuomo J Meretoja,Tomislav Mestrovic,Bartosz Miazgowski,Tomasz Miazgowski,Erkin M Mirrakhimov,Babak Moazen,Shafiu Mohammed,Farnam Mohebi,Ali H Mokdad,Yoshan Moodley,Mahmood Moosazadeh,Ghobad Moradi,Lidia Morawska,Shane Douglas Morrison,Seyyed Meysam Mousavi,Ghulam Mustafa,Ionut Negoi,Ruxandra Irina Negoi,Cuong Tat Nguyen,Trang Huyen Nguyen,Dina Nur Anggraini Ningrum,Molly R Nixon,Richard Ofori-Asenso,Felix Akpojene Ogbo,Andrew T Olagunju,Bolajoko Olubukunola Olusanya,Doris D V Ortega-Altamirano,P A Mahesh,Eun-Kee Park,David M. Pereira,Swayam Prakash,Mostafa Qorbani,Amir Radfar,Anwar Rafay,Alireza Rafiei,Fakher Rahim,Vafa Rahimi-Movaghar,Fatemeh Rajati,Robert C Reiner,Andre M. N. Renzaho,Satar Rezaei,Leonardo Roever,Mohammad Saadat,Basema Saddik,Saeed Safari,Saeid Safiri,Amirhossein Sahebkar,Mohammad Ali Sahraian,Hamideh Salimzadeh,Abdallah M. Samy,Juan Sanabria,Rodrigo Sarmiento-Suárez,Brijesh Sathian,David C. Schwebel,Sadaf G. Sepanlou,Berrin Serdar,Masood Ali Shaikh,Rajesh Sharma,Jun She,Mika Shigematsu,Reza Shirkoohi,Si Si,Dhirendra Narain Sinha,Moslem Soofi,Jeffrey D Stanaway,Mark A Stokes,Rafael Tabarés-Seisdedos,Takahiro Tabuchi,Ken Takahashi,Yonatal Mesfin Tefera,Mohamad-Hani Temsah,Marcos Roberto Tovani-Palone,Bach Xuan Tran,Khanh Bao Tran,Irfan Ullah,Pascual R Valdez,Tommi Juhani Vasankari,Francesco S Violante,Vasily Vlassov,Giang Thu Vu,Yasir Waheed,Yuan-Pang Wang,Alex Yeshaneh,Biruck Desalegn Yirsaw,Engida Yisma,Naohiro Yonemoto,Mahmoud Yousefifard,Chuanhua Yu,Vesna Zadnik,Mohammad Zamani,Hamed Zandian,Sanjay Zodpey,Stephen S Lim

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/oemed-2019-106012

IF: 4.9

2020-02-13

Occupational and Environmental Medicine

Abstract:Objectives This study provides a detailed analysis of the global and regional burden of cancer due to occupational carcinogens from the Global Burden of Disease 2016 study. Methods The burden of cancer due to 14 International Agency for Research on Cancer Group 1 occupational carcinogens was estimated using the population attributable fraction, based on past population exposure prevalence and relative risks from the literature. The results were used to calculate attributable deaths and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs). Results There were an estimated 349 000 (95% Uncertainty Interval 269 000 to 427 000) deaths and 7.2 (5.8 to 8.6) million DALYs in 2016 due to exposure to the included occupational carcinogens—3.9% (3.2% to 4.6%) of all cancer deaths and 3.4% (2.7% to 4.0%) of all cancer DALYs; 79% of deaths were of males and 88% were of people aged 55 –79 years. Lung cancer accounted for 86% of the deaths, mesothelioma for 7.9% and laryngeal cancer for 2.1%. Asbestos was responsible for the largest number of deaths due to occupational carcinogens (63%); other important risk factors were secondhand smoke (14%), silica (14%) and diesel engine exhaust (5%). The highest mortality rates were in high-income regions, largely due to asbestos-related cancers, whereas in other regions cancer deaths from secondhand smoke, silica and diesel engine exhaust were more prominent. From 1990 to 2016, there was a decrease in the rate for deaths (−10%) and DALYs (−15%) due to exposure to occupational carcinogens. Conclusions Work-related carcinogens are responsible for considerable disease burden worldwide. The results provide guidance for prevention and control initiatives.

public, environmental & occupational health
Control of a wind power station with the strategy of a conventional power plant: Assigning synchronous machine behavior on a full inverter based wind power station

B. Orlik,Markus Schmidt,Florian Fein

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/EPQU.2011.6128933

2011-10-01

Abstract:Integration of wind power stations in primary control of the grid can be necessary in future. One solution to solve this problem is the emulation of a turbine and a generator such as in conventional power plants. The model is split into two parts: The grid-side inverter is controlled by a model of a separately excited synchronous machine with amortisseur in combination with torque and excitation voltage control. On the other side the physical generator is controlled by a virtual turbine that has to keep the voltage of the dc-link on a fixed level. The dc-link represents a virtual shaft between both models. Over droops the wind power station is now able to take part in primary control. Simulation includes all electrical parts of wind power station from wind wheel to grid supplying. Implementation of both models is shown and discussed with results of simulation.
Making Sense of Health Estimates

Irène Akua Agyepong,Tumani Corrah,Yan Guo,Bruce Hollingsworth,Michael J. Klag,Kim Longfield,Maria de Fátima Marinho de Souza,Peter Piot,Jvr Prasada Rao,John-Arne Røttingen,P. G. Smith,M. J. W. Sprenger,Trevor Sutton,Sarah Curran,Edmond S. W. Ng

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(15)60024-1

2015-01-01

Abstract:Epidemiological data provide the metrics from which burdens attributable to different diseases and conditions causing ill health can be estimated. Comprehensive, consistent, and coherent health estimates, together with information about any associated uncertainties, are indispensable for decision making by governments, non-governmental organisations, practitioners, and national and international funders in helping to gauge and track the changing demands and challenges presented by poor health. Estimates of disease burden are an essential platform for public health policy and priority setting, and for evaluating intervention programmes. Additionally, information about the effectiveness of interventions, their societal acceptability, side-effects, cost-effectiveness, and ultimate cost, are needed for the policy setting process. Here, we argue that in the absence of adequate primary health data collection, it is often reasonable to rely on best estimates of disease burden, derived from other sources and modelling, for national planning and other decision making purposes.
The effect of exposure to long working hours on ischaemic heart disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis from the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of the Work-related Burden of Disease and Injury

Jian Li,Frank Pega,Yuka Ujita,Chantal Brisson,Els Clays,Alexis Descatha,Marco M Ferrario,Lode Godderis,Sergio Iavicoli,Paul A Landsbergis,Maria-Inti Metzendorf,Rebecca L Morgan,Daniela V Pachito,Hynek Pikhart,Bernd Richter,Mattia Roncaioli,Reiner Rugulies,Peter L Schnall,Grace Sembajwe,Xavier Trudel,Akizumi Tsutsumi,Tracey J Woodruff,Johannes Siegrist

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2020.105739

Abstract:Background: The World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) are developing Joint Estimates of the work-related burden of disease and injury (WHO/ILO Joint Estimates), with contributions from a large network of experts. Evidence from mechanistic data suggests that exposure to long working hours may cause ischaemic heart disease (IHD). In this paper, we present a systematic review and meta-analysis of parameters for estimating the number of deaths and disability-adjusted life years from IHD that are attributable to exposure to long working hours, for the development of the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates. Objectives: We aimed to systematically review and meta-analyse estimates of the effect of exposure to long working hours (three categories: 41-48, 49-54 and ≥55 h/week), compared with exposure to standard working hours (35-40 h/week), on IHD (three outcomes: prevalence, incidence and mortality). Data sources: We developed and published a protocol, applying the Navigation Guide as an organizing systematic review framework where feasible. We searched electronic databases for potentially relevant records from published and unpublished studies, including MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, CISDOC, PsycINFO, and WHO ICTRP. We also searched grey literature databases, Internet search engines and organizational websites; hand-searched reference lists of previous systematic reviews; and consulted additional experts. Study eligibility and criteria: We included working-age (≥15 years) workers in the formal and informal economy in any WHO and/or ILO Member State but excluded children (aged < 15 years) and unpaid domestic workers. We included randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, case-control studies and other non-randomized intervention studies which contained an estimate of the effect of exposure to long working hours (41-48, 49-54 and ≥55 h/week), compared with exposure to standard working hours (35-40 h/week), on IHD (prevalence, incidence or mortality). Study appraisal and synthesis methods: At least two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts against the eligibility criteria at a first stage and full texts of potentially eligible records at a second stage, followed by extraction of data from qualifying studies. Missing data were requested from principal study authors. We combined relative risks using random-effect meta-analysis. Two or more review authors assessed the risk of bias, quality of evidence and strength of evidence, using Navigation Guide and GRADE tools and approaches adapted to this project. Results: Thirty-seven studies (26 prospective cohort studies and 11 case-control studies) met the inclusion criteria, comprising a total of 768,751 participants (310,954 females) in 13 countries in three WHO regions (Americas, Europe and Western Pacific). The exposure was measured using self-reports in all studies, and the outcome was assessed with administrative health records (30 studies) or self-reported physician diagnosis (7 studies). The outcome was defined as incident non-fatal IHD event in 19 studies (8 cohort studies, 11 case-control studies), incident fatal IHD event in two studies (both cohort studies), and incident non-fatal or fatal ("mixed") event in 16 studies (all cohort studies). Because we judged cohort studies to have a relatively lower risk of bias, we prioritized evidence from these studies and treated evidence from case-control studies as supporting evidence. For the bodies of evidence for both outcomes with any eligible studies (i.e. IHD incidence and mortality), we did not have serious concerns for risk of bias (at least for the cohort studies). No eligible study was found on the effect of long working hours on IHD prevalence. Compared with working 35-40 h/week, we are uncertain about the effect on acquiring (or incidence of) IHD of working 41-48 h/week (relative risk (RR) 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.91 to 1.07, 20 studies, 312,209 participants, I2 0%, low quality of evidence) and 49-54 h/week (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.17, 18 studies, 308,405 participants, I2 0%, low quality of evidence). Compared with working 35-40 h/week, working ≥55 h/week may have led to a moderately, clinically meaningful increase in the risk of acquiring IHD, when followed up between one year and 20 years (RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.26, 22 studies, 339,680 participants, I2 5%, moderate quality of evidence). Compared with working 35-40 h/week, we are very uncertain about the effect on dying (mortality) from IHD of working 41-48 h/week (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.12, 13 studies, 288,278 participants, I2 8%, low quality of evidence) and 49-54 h/week (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.25, 11 studies, 284,474 participants, I2 13%, low quality of evidence). Compared with working 35-40 h/week, working ≥55 h/week may have led to a moderate, clinically meaningful increase in the risk of dying from IHD when followed up between eight and 30 years (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.31, 16 studies, 726,803 participants, I2 0%, moderate quality of evidence). Subgroup analyses found no evidence for differences by WHO region and sex, but RRs were higher among persons with lower SES. Sensitivity analyses found no differences by outcome definition (exclusively non-fatal or fatal versus "mixed"), outcome measurement (health records versus self-reports) and risk of bias ("high"/"probably high" ratings in any domain versus "low"/"probably low" in all domains). Conclusions: We judged the existing bodies of evidence for human evidence as "inadequate evidence for harmfulness" for the exposure categories 41-48 and 49-54 h/week for IHD prevalence, incidence and mortality, and for the exposure category ≥55 h/week for IHD prevalence. Evidence on exposure to working ≥55 h/week was judged as "sufficient evidence of harmfulness" for IHD incidence and mortality. Producing estimates for the burden of IHD attributable to exposure to working ≥55 h/week appears evidence-based, and the pooled effect estimates presented in this systematic review could be used as input data for the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates.
WHO/ILO work-related burden of disease and injury: Protocol for systematic reviews of exposure to occupational ergonomic risk factors and of the effect of exposure to occupational ergonomic risk factors on osteoarthritis of hip or knee and selected other musculoskeletal diseases

Carel T J Hulshof,Claudio Colosio,Joost G Daams,Ivan D Ivanov,K C Prakash,Paul P F M Kuijer,Nancy Leppink,Stefan Mandic-Rajcevic,Frederica Masci,Henk F van der Molen,Subas Neupane,Clas-Håkan Nygård,Jodi Oakman,Frank Pega,Karin Proper,Annette M Prüss-Üstün,Yuka Ujita,Monique H W Frings-Dresen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2018.09.053

Abstract:Background: The World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) are developing a joint methodology for estimating the national and global work-related burden of disease and injury (WHO/ILO joint methodology), with contributions from a large network of experts. In this paper, we present the protocol for two systematic reviews of parameters for estimating the number of disability-adjusted life years from osteoarthritis of hip or knee, and selected other musculoskeletal diseases respectively, attributable to exposure to occupational ergonomic risk factors to inform the development of the WHO/ILO joint methodology. Objectives: We aim to systematically review studies on exposure to occupational ergonomic risk factors (Systematic Review 1) and systematically review and meta-analyze estimates of the effect of exposure to occupational ergonomic risk factors on osteoarthritis of the hip or knee, and selected other musculoskeletal diseases respectively (Systematic Review 2), applying the Navigation Guide systematic review methodology as an organizing framework, conducting both systematic reviews in tandem and in a harmonized way. Data sources: Separately for Systematic Reviews 1 and 2, we will search electronic academic databases for potentially relevant records from published and unpublished studies, including Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science and CISDOC. We will also search electronic grey literature databases, Internet search engines and organizational websites; hand-search reference lists of previous systematic reviews and included study records; and consult additional experts. Study eligibility and criteria: We will include working-age (≥15 years) workers in the formal and informal economy in any WHO and/or ILO Member State, but exclude children (<15 years) and unpaid domestic workers. The included occupational ergonomic risk factors will be any exposure to one or more of: force exertion; demanding posture; repetitiveness; hand-arm vibration; lifting; kneeling and/or squatting; and climbing. Included outcomes will be (i) osteoarthritis and (ii) other musculoskeletal diseases (i.e., one or more of: rotator cuff syndrome; bicipital tendinitis; calcific tendinitis; shoulder impingement; bursitis shoulder; epicondylitis medialis; epicondylitis lateralis; bursitis elbow; bursitis hip; chondromalacia patellae; meniscus disorders; and/or bursitis knee). For Systematic Review 1, we will include quantitative prevalence studies of any exposure to occupational ergonomic risk factors stratified by country, gender, age and industrial sector or occupation. For Systematic Review 2, we will include randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, case-control-studies and other non-randomized intervention studies with an estimate of the relative effect of any exposure with occupational ergonomic risk factors on the prevalence or incidence of osteoarthritis and/or selected musculoskeletal diseases, compared with the theoretical minimum risk exposure level (i.e., no exposure). Study appraisal and synthesis methods: At least two review authors will independently screen titles and abstracts against the eligibility criteria at a first stage and full texts of potentially eligible records at a second stage, followed by extraction of data from qualifying studies. At least two review authors will assess risk of bias and the quality of evidence, using the most suited tools currently available. For Systematic Review 2, if feasible, we will combine relative risks using meta-analysis. We will report results using the guidelines for accurate and transparent health estimates reporting (GATHER) for Systematic Review 1 and the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines (PRISMA) for Systematic Review 2. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018102631.
Global estimates of mortality associated with long-term exposure to outdoor fine particulate matter

Richard Burnett,Hong Chen,Mieczysław Szyszkowicz,Neal Fann,Bryan Hubbell,C. Arden Pope,Joshua S. Apte,Michael Brauer,Aaron Cohen,Scott Weichenthal,Jay Coggins,Qian Di,Bert Brunekreef,Joseph Frostad,Stephen S. Lim,Haidong Kan,Katherine D. Walker,George D. Thurston,Richard B. Hayes,Chris C. Lim,Michelle C. Turner,Michael Jerrett,Daniel Krewski,Susan M. Gapstur,W. Ryan Diver,Bart Ostro,Debbie Goldberg,Daniel L. Crouse,Randall V. Martin,Paul Peters,Lauren Pinault,Michael Tjepkema,Aaron van Donkelaar,Paul J. Villeneuve,Anthony B. Miller,Peng Yin,Maigeng Zhou,Lijun Wang,Nicole A. H. Janssen,Marten Marra,Richard W. Atkinson,Hilda Tsang,Thuan Quoc Thach,John B. Cannon,Ryan T. Allen,Jaime E. Hart,Francine Laden,Giulia Cesaroni,Francesco Forastiere,Gudrun Weinmayr,Andrea Jaensch,Gabriele Nagel,Hans Concin,Joseph V. Spadaro

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1803222115

IF: 11.1

2018-09-04

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract:Significance Exposure to outdoor concentrations of fine particulate matter is considered a leading global health concern, largely based on estimates of excess deaths using information integrating exposure and risk from several particle sources (outdoor and indoor air pollution and passive/active smoking). Such integration requires strong assumptions about equal toxicity per total inhaled dose. We relax these assumptions to build risk models examining exposure and risk information restricted to cohort studies of outdoor air pollution, now covering much of the global concentration range. Our estimates are severalfold larger than previous calculations, suggesting that outdoor particulate air pollution is an even more important population health risk factor than previously thought.

multidisciplinary sciences
A comparative risk assessment of burden of disease and injury attributable to 67 risk factors and risk factor clusters in 21 regions, 1990–2010: a systematic analysis for the …

Stephen S Lim,Theo Vos,Abraham D Flaxman,Goodarz Danaei,Kenji Shibuya,Heather Adair-Rohani,Mohammad A AlMazroa,Markus Amann,H Ross Anderson,Kathryn G Andrews,Martin Aryee,Charles Atkinson,Loraine J Bacchus,Adil N Bahalim,Kalpana Balakrishnan,John Balmes,Suzanne Barker-Collo,Amanda Baxter,Michelle L Bell,Jed D Blore,Fiona Blyth,Carissa Bonner,Guilherme Borges,Rupert Bourne,Michel Boussinesq,Michael Brauer,Peter Brooks,Nigel G Bruce,Bert Brunekreef,Claire Bryan-Hancock,Chiara Bucello,Rachelle Buchbinder,Fiona Bull,Richard T Burnett,Tim E Byers,Bianca Calabria,Jonathan Carapetis,Emily Carnahan,Zoe Chafe,Fiona Charlson,Honglei Chen,Jian Shen Chen,Andrew Tai-Ann Cheng,Jennifer Christine Child,Aaron Cohen,K Ellicott Colson,Benjamin C Cowie,Sarah Darby,Susan Darling,Adrian Davis,Louisa Degenhardt,Frank Dentener,Don C Des Jarlais,Karen Devries,Mukesh Dherani,Eric L Ding,E Ray Dorsey,Tim Driscoll,Karen Edmond,Suad Eltahir Ali,Rebecca E Engell,Patricia J Erwin,Saman Fahimi,Gail Falder,Farshad Farzadfar,Alize Ferrari,Mariel M Finucane,Seth Flaxman,Francis Gerry R Fowkes,Greg Freedman,Michael K Freeman,Emmanuela Gakidou,Santu Ghosh,Edward Giovannucci,Gerhard Gmel,Kathryn Graham,Rebecca Grainger,Bridget Grant,David Gunnell,Hialy R Gutierrez,Wayne Hall,Hans W Hoek,Anthony Hogan,H Dean Hosgood III,Damian Hoy,Howard Hu,Bryan J Hubbell,Sally J Hutchings,Sydney E Ibeanusi,Gemma L Jacklyn,Rashmi Jasrasaria,Jost B Jonas,Haidong Kan,John A Kanis,Nicholas Kassebaum,Norito Kawakami,Young-Ho Khang,Shahab Khatibzadeh,Jon-Paul Khoo,Cindy Kok,Francine Laden,Ratilal Lalloo,Qing Lan,Tim Lathlean,Janet L Leasher,James Leigh,Yang Li,John Kent Lin,Steven E Lipshultz,Stephanie London,Rafael Lozano,Yuan Lu,Joelle Mak,Reza Malekzadeh,Leslie Mallinger,Wagner Marcenes,Lyn March,Robin Marks,Randall Martin,Paul McGale,John McGrath,Sumi Mehta,Ziad A Memish,George A Mensah,Tony R Merriman,Renata Micha,Catherine Michaud,Vinod Mishra,Khayriyyah Mohd Hanafiah,Ali A Mokdad,Lidia Morawska,Dariush Mozaffarian,Tasha Murphy,Mohsen Naghavi,Bruce Neal,Paul K Nelson,Joan Miquel Nolla,Rosana Norman,Casey Olives,Saad B Omer,Jessica Orchard,Richard Osborne,Bart Ostro,Andrew Page,Kiran D Pandey,Charles DH Parry,Erin Passmore,Jayadeep Patra,Neil Pearce,Pamela M Pelizzari

IF: 202.731

2012-01-01

The Lancet

Abstract:BackgroundQuantification of the disease burden caused by different risks informs prevention by providing an account of health loss different to that provided by a disease-by-disease analysis. No complete revision of global disease burden caused by risk factors has been done since a comparative risk assessment in 2000, and no previous analysis has assessed changes in burden attributable to risk factors over time.MethodsWe estimated deaths and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs; sum of years lived with disability [YLD] and years of life lost [YLL]) attributable to the independent effects of 67 risk factors and clusters of risk factors for 21 regions in 1990 and 2010. We estimated exposure distributions for each year, region, sex, and age group, and relative risks per unit of exposure by systematically reviewing and synthesising published and unpublished data. We used these estimates, together with estimates of …

Observations on the in vitro bactericidal activity of sera from pre-natal and post-natal calves

Global, regional and national burdens of non-melanoma skin cancer attributable to occupational exposure to solar ultraviolet radiation for 183 countries, 2000–2019: A systematic analysis from the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of the Work-related Burden of Disease and Injury

Global Disease Burden and Trends of Leukemia Attributable to Occupational Risk from 1990 to 2019: an Observational Trend Study

The prevalences and levels of occupational exposure to dusts and/or fibres (silica, asbestos and coal): A systematic review and meta-analysis from the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of the Work-related Burden of Disease and Injury

Burden of non-melanoma skin cancer attributable to occupational sun exposure in Canada

Criteria for Occupational Health Prevention for Solar UVR Exposed Outdoor Workers-Prevalence, Affected Parties, and Occupational Disease

Evolving burden of lung cancer attributable to occupational carcinogens in 38 OECD countries: Global, national differences, age dynamics and implications for global health.

Estimating the burden of occupational cancer: assessing bias and uncertainty

Association of 13 Occupational Carcinogens in Patients With Cancer, Individually and Collectively, 1990-2017

Global, regional, and national burden of cancers attributable to occupational risks from 1990 to 2019

Global and regional burden of chronic respiratory disease in 2016 arising from non-infectious airborne occupational exposures: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016

Methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase polymorphisms and risk of sporadic and hereditary colorectal cancer with or without microsatellite instability.

Global trends in occupational disease reporting: a systematic review

Global, regional, and national burden of non-communicable diseases attributable to occupational asbestos exposure 1990–2019 and prediction to 2035: worsening or improving?

Global and regional burden of cancer in 2016 arising from occupational exposure to selected carcinogens: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016

Control of a wind power station with the strategy of a conventional power plant: Assigning synchronous machine behavior on a full inverter based wind power station

Making Sense of Health Estimates

The effect of exposure to long working hours on ischaemic heart disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis from the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of the Work-related Burden of Disease and Injury

WHO/ILO work-related burden of disease and injury: Protocol for systematic reviews of exposure to occupational ergonomic risk factors and of the effect of exposure to occupational ergonomic risk factors on osteoarthritis of hip or knee and selected other musculoskeletal diseases

Global estimates of mortality associated with long-term exposure to outdoor fine particulate matter

A comparative risk assessment of burden of disease and injury attributable to 67 risk factors and risk factor clusters in 21 regions, 1990–2010: a systematic analysis for the …