4.3 Article

Pesticides, chemical and industrial exposures in relation to systemic lupus erythematosus

期刊

LUPUS
卷 23, 期 6, 页码 527-536

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/0961203313511680

关键词

environmental risk factors; pesticides; occupational exposures; epidemiology; silica; Systemic lupus erythematosus

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Growing evidence suggests exposure to chemicals and industrial pollutants may increase risk of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Here we review research on SLE associations with occupational and industrial exposures, primarily drawing on studies in human populations and summarizing epidemiologic research published in the past decade. The association of occupational silica exposure with SLE is well established, but key questions remain, including the required dose and susceptibility factors, and SLE risk due to other silicate exposures. Research on SLE and other exposures is less well developed, though several potential associations merit further consideration because of the consistency of preliminary human findings, experimental animal research, and biologic plausibility. These include pesticides and solvents, for which experimental findings also support investigation of specific agents, including organochlorines and trichloroethylene. Experimental findings and biologic plausibility suggest research on SLE and occupational exposure to hydrocarbons (i.e. mineral oils) is warranted, especially given the widespread exposures in the population. Experimental and limited human findings support further investigation of SLE related to mercury exposure, especially in dental occupations. Research on environmental risk factors in risk-enriched cohorts (family-based) is recommended, as is further investigation of exposures in relation to intermediate markers of effect (e.g. antinuclear antibodies), clinical features (e.g. nephritis), and outcomes.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据