| Literature DB >> 26686997 |
David Knight1,2, Rodney Ehrlich3, Katherine Fielding4, Hannah Jeffery5, Alison Grant6, Gavin Churchyard7.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Given the intimate association between silicosis and tuberculosis, understanding the epidemiology of the South African gold mining industry silicosis epidemic is essential to current initiatives to control both silicosis and tuberculosis in this population, one of the most heavily affected globally. The study's objectives were to compare the prevalence of silicosis among working black gold miners in South Africa during 2004-2009 to that of previous studies, including autopsy series, and to analyse the influence of silicosis and/or tuberculosis on exiting employment.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26686997 PMCID: PMC4684919 DOI: 10.1186/s12889-015-2566-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Public Health ISSN: 1471-2458 Impact factor: 3.295
Fig. 1Baseline survey sampling scheme
Prevalence of radiological silicosis by age category and years since first employment in the mining industry, both reading sets
| Reader I | Combined reading | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ILO grade ≥1/0 | ILO grade ≥1/1 | ILO grade ≥1/0 | ILO grade ≥1/1 | ||||||
| N | n | Prevalence % (95 % CI)a | n | Prevalence % (95 % CI)a | n | Prevalence % | n | Prevalence % | |
| Total | 11,557 | 659 | 478 | ||||||
| By age (years) | |||||||||
| 18–44 | 6468 | 128 | 2.0 (1.5, 2.7) | 85 | 1.3 (0.9, 1.8) | 56 | 0.9 | 98 | 1.5 |
| 45+ | 4994 | 526 | 10.5 (8.6, 12.9) | 389 | 7.8 (6.1, 10.0) | 659 | 13.2 | 551 | 11.0 |
| Totalb | 11,462 | 654 | 5.7 (4.6, 7.1) | 474 | 4.1 (3.2, 5.3) | 715 | 6.2 | 649 | 5.7 |
| By duration since first employment (years) | |||||||||
| ≤20 | 5456 | 81 | 1.5 (1.1, 2.1) | 52 | 1.0 (0.7, 14.0) | 27 | 0.5 | 48 | 0.9 |
| 21+ | 6020 | 573 | 9.5 (7.8, 11.7) | 423 | 7.0 (5.5, 9.0) | 681 | 11.3 | 618 | 10.3 |
| Totalc | 11,476 | 654 | 5.7 (4.6, 7.1) | 475 | 4.1 (3.2, 5.3) | 708 | 6.2 | 666 | 5.8 |
CI confidence interval. All figures rounded to one decimal
a95 % confidence intervals adjusted for clustering using robust standard errors
bRestricted to those with age known (age unknown for n = 95)
cRestricted to those with duration in workforce known (years since first employment unknown for n = 81)
Comparison of prevalence of silicosis by age: 1984 study [7, 8] versus current study (ILO grade ≥1/0)
| 1984 study | Current study | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | N (%) | Cases n | Silicosis prevalence % (95 % CI)a | Age (years) | N | Age distribution % | Silicosis prevalence (reader I) % (95 % CI)b | Silicosis prevalence (combined reading) (%) |
| ≤45 | 125,038 (94.2) | 1009 | 0.8 (0.8, 0.9) | ≤44 | 6468 | 56.4 | 2.0 (1.5, 2.7) | 0.9 |
| 46+ | 7726 (5.8) | 801 | 10.4 (9.7, 11.1) | 45+ | 4994 | 43.6 | 10.5 (8.6, 12.9) | 13.2 |
| Crude | 132,765 | 1810 | 1.4 (1.3, 1.4) | Crude | 11,462 | 100 | 5.7 (4.6, 7.1) | 6.2 |
| Adjustedc | 5.0 | |||||||
All figures rounded to one decimal
a95 % confidence intervals using binomial exact standard errors
b95 % confidence intervals adjusted for clustering using robust standard errors
cAge standardised to current study age distribution
Comparison of prevalence of silicosis by duration: 2000 study [12, 13] versus current study (ILO grade ≥1/1)
| 2000 study (≥37 years of age) | Current study (≥40 years of age)a | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Duration yearsb | N % | Cases | Silicosis prevalence % (95 % CI)c | Duration yearsb | N % | Silicosis prevalence (reader I) % (n-cases) (95 % CI)c | Silicosis prevalence (combined reading) % |
| ≤20 | 179 | 14 | 7.8 (4.3, 12.8) | ≤20 | 48 | 12.5 (6)(4.7, 25.2) | 8.3 |
| 21+ | 331 | 79 | 23.9 (19.4, 28.8) | 21+ | 182 | 20.3 (37)(14.7, 26.9) | 14.4 |
| Crude | 510d | 93 | 18.2 (15.0, 21.9) | Overall | 230 | 18.7 (43)(13.9, 24.3) | 13.0 |
| Adjustede | 20.5 | ||||||
CI confidence interval. All figures rounded to one decimal
aFor comparability, restricted to participants in this study from the same shaft and ≥40 years of age (N = 230)
bDuration of exposure (2000 study), duration since first employment (current study)
c95 % confidence intervals using binomial exact standard errors
dNumbers used to derive Fig. 1 in 2000 study obtained from authors
eStandardised to duration distribution of current study and the same shaft
Survival analysis (Cox regression) of time to exiting the workforce (for any reason) during follow up (N = 11 529)a
| Model | Disease | Presence | Number | Left workforce | Cumulative proportion leaving workforce by 2 years | HR (95 % CI) |
| Adjusted HR (95 % CI) |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Silicosis (grade 1/1+) | No | 11,053 | 2473 | 0.175 | 1.0 | 0.001 | 1.0 | 0.12 |
| Yes | 476 | 174 | 0.252 | 1.69 (1.34, 2.11)b | 1.18 (0.96, 1.47)c | ||||
| TBd | No | 8512 | 1623 | 0.150 | 1.0 | <0.001 | 1.0 | <0.001 | |
| Yes | 3017 | 1024 | 0.260 | 1.97 (1.77, 2.19)b | 1.64 (1.47, 1.84)c | ||||
| Interaction between silicosis and active/previous TB | |||||||||
| 2 | Silicosis (grade 1/1+) and TBd | No silicosis, no TB | 8230 | 1525 | 0.147 | 1.0 | <0.001 | 1.0 | <0.001 |
| Silicosis, no TB | 282 | 98 | 0.233 | 1.97 (1.51, 2.57)b | 1.54 (1.17, 2.04)e | ||||
| No silicosis, TB | 2823 | 948 | 0.258 | 2.01 (1.79, 2.26)b | 1.71 (1.51, 1.94)e | ||||
| Silicosis plus TB* | 194 | 76 | 0.281 | 2.26 (1.84, 2.78)b | 1.54 (1.20, 1.96)e | ||||
HR hazard ratio, CI confidence interval, TB tuberculosis
aBased on reader I’s readings
bAdjusted for clustering using robust standard errors
cAdjusted for age category, years since first employed, country of origin, time spent underground, occupational level, silicosis/TB (active or previous) as appropriate, and clustering using robust standard errors. (n = 11 371)
dTB defined as either previous or active TB at baseline by medical history or CXR by reader I
eAdjusted for age category, years since first employed, country of origin, time spent underground, occupational level, and clustering using robust standard errors. (n = 11 371)
*p-value for interaction between active/previous TB and silicosis <0.001 adjusting for clustering only, and p-value <0.001 from the fully adjusted model