4.6 Article

Occupational asthma in France: a 1-yr report of the Observatoire National de Asthmes Professionnels project

Journal

EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY JOURNAL
Volume 19, Issue 1, Pages 84-89

Publisher

EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY SOC JOURNALS LTD
DOI: 10.1183/09031936.02.00102202

Keywords

occupational asthma; reactive airway dysfunction syndrome; surveillance

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Observatoire National des Asthmes Professionnels (ONAP) was created in 1996 by two French professional societies to estimate the incidence of occupational asthma and to promote preventive measures against it. Occupational and chest physicians were asked to report newly diagnosed cases of work-related asthma and reactive airway dysfunction syndrome (RADS), the information collected included age, sex, occupation, suspected causal agents and diagnostic methods. In 1997, 82.3% of 559 cases reported (64% males, mean age 36+/-13 yrs) involved occupational asthma, 4.7% RADS and 12.7% atypical asthma syndromes. Incidence rates (expressed as number of cases per million workers) showed a regional variation that ranged from 4 to 73 (national mean: 25.7). The most frequently suspected agents were flour (23.3%), followed by isocyanates (16.6%), latex (7.5%), aldehydes (5.5%), and persulphates (4.1%). Occupations at risk were bakers (23.9%), healthcare workers (12%), painters (9.1%), hairdressers (5.2%), wood industry workers (4.8%) and cleaners (3.5%). These results are compared to those of other systems set up in Europe and North America. Because of the considerable bias inherent in a surveillance system based on voluntary, reporting, the number of occupational asthma cases reported is probably lower than the real incidence. Nevertheless, the French National Observatory for Occupational Asthma encourages physician awareness of occupational asthma and provides an estimate of its incidence and aetiologies in France.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available