4.5 Article

Occupational exposure to organic dusts and risk of developing rheumatoid arthritis: findings from a Swedish population-based case-control study

期刊

RMD OPEN
卷 5, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/rmdopen-2019-001049

关键词

-

资金

  1. Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare [2013-0194]
  2. AFA Insurance [120299]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives We estimated the association between occupational exposures to five different organic dusts: wood, animal, paper, textile and flour dust and the risk of developing rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods This population-based case-control study analysed 12 582 incident cases and 129 335 controls. Participants were identified from national public authority and quality registers. Census data on occupations were collected 1960-2010 and we estimated the exposure to organic dust with the help of job-exposure matrices. We used logistic regression to assess the OR of seropositive or seronegative RA. Estimates were adjusted for the matching variables (sex, county, age and index year), education and occupational silica exposure. Results Exposure to animal dust was associated with an increased risk of RA among both men and women. The OR was 1.2 (95% CI=1.1 to 1.4) for seropositive RA and 1.3 (95% CI=1.1 to 1.5) for seronegative RA among ever exposed participants compared with unexposed. The risk increased with duration of exposure for seropositive RA, and participants who had been exposed in five or more censuses had an OR of 1.6 (95% CI=1.1 to 2.2, p for trend=0.003). Exposure to textile dust also generated a significant dose-response relationship for seropositive RA (p for trend=0.014). We detected no association between exposure to wood, paper or flour dust and risk of RA. Conclusions Overall, exposure to animal dust and textile dust was associated with an increased risk of developing RA. These observations give further support to the notion that airborne exposures are involved in the aetiology of RA.

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

4.5
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