Role of the occupational disease consultant in the multidisciplinary discussion of interstitial lung diseases
Ségolene Carlier, Mouhamad Nasser, Emmanuel Fort, Céline Lamouroux, Salim Si‐Mohamed, Lara Chalabreysse, Jean‐Michel Maury, Rémi Diesler, Vincent Cottin, Barbara Charbotel
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Diffuse interstitial lung diseases (ILD) constitute a heterogeneous group of conditions with complex etiological diagnoses requiring a multidisciplinary approach. Much is still unknown about them, particularly their relationship with occupational exposures. The primary objective of this study was to investigate the distribution of occupational exposures according to type of ILD. The secondary objectives were to estimate the proportion of ILDs possibly related to occupational exposure and to evaluate the added value of the participation of an occupational disease consultant in ILD multidisciplinary discussions (MDD). METHODS: From May to December 2020, all consecutive patients with ILD whose cases were reviewed during a MDD in a referral centre for ILD were prospectively offered a consultation with an occupational disease consultant. RESULTS: Of the 156 patients with ILD whose cases were reviewed in MDD during the study period, 141 patients attended an occupational exposure consultation. Occupational exposure was identified in 97 patients. Occupational exposure to asbestos was found in 12/31 (38.7%) patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) and in 9/18 (50.0%) patients with unclassifiable fibrosis. Occupational exposure to metal dust was found in 13/31 (41.9%) patients with IPFs and 10/18 (55.6%) patients with unclassifiable fibrosis. Silica exposure was found in 12/50 (24.0%) patients with autoimmune ILD. The link between occupational exposure and ILD was confirmed for 41 patients after the specialist occupational consultation. The occupational origin had not been considered (n = 9) or had been excluded or neglected (n = 4) by the MDD before the specialised consultation. A total of 24 (17%) patients were advised to apply for occupational disease compensation, including 22 (15.6%) following the consultation. In addition, a diagnosis different from the one proposed by the MDD was proposed for 18/141 (12.8%) patients. CONCLUSIONS: In our study, we found a high prevalence of occupational respiratory exposure with a potential causal link in patients with ILD. We suggest that a systematic specialised consultation in occupational medicine could be beneficial in the ILD diagnostic approach.