BACKGROUND: Engineering infection controls include a wide range of interventions used indoors to reduce occupants' exposure to respiratory pathogens. PURPOSE: To identify and describe primary studies evaluating the effects of engineering infection control interventions designed to reduce the spread of respiratory infections transmitted through indoor air. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, Global Health, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, Scopus, and Environmental Science Collection from database inception to 12 December 2023. STUDY SELECTION: English-language primary research articles evaluating engineering infection control interventions. DATA EXTRACTION: Publication information, population characteristics, intervention details, and all relevant outcomes were abstracted by a reviewer and verified by a second, senior reviewer. DATA SYNTHESIS: A total of 672 studies published between 1929 and 2024 were identified. Most (n = 606) evaluated environmental samples only, 57 included human participants, and 9 included sentinel animal subjects. About half of the studies included at least 1 intervention classified as pathogen inactivation (n = 405), with fewer involving pathogen removal (n = 200) or air exchange or dilution (n = 143). Across all studies, about half (n = 332) measured the quantity of viable nonpathogenic organisms from air samples, followed by the quantity of nonbiological particulates (n = 197) or viable pathogenic organisms (n = 149). Harms, such as toxic byproducts, were rarely measured. LIMITATION: Exclusion of non-English-language publications and gray literature. CONCLUSION: There is substantial heterogeneity in the available evidence. Gaps in evidence include studies measuring efficacy outcomes that are highly relevant for human infection transmission or harms. Refinements in classification of interventions and outcomes could strengthen reporting of these evaluations. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (Registered on Open Science Framework [https://osf.io/5zmhd]).

Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), a progressive lung disease characterized by scarring and worsening lung function, has a poor prognosis. A recent systematic review estimated that 21% of IPF deaths might be attributable to occupational exposures. To describe IPF mortality among U.S. residents aged ≥15 years who were ever employed, by industry and occupation, CDC conducted an exploratory analysis of 2020-2022 multiple cause-of-death data. During 2020-2022, a total of 67,843 (39,712 [59%] male and 28,131 [41%] female) decedents had IPF, suggesting that during this 3-year period, 8,340 IPF deaths in males and 5,908 deaths in females might have been associated with occupational exposures. By industry group, the highest proportionate mortality ratios among males were among those employed in utilities (1.15) and among females, were among those employed in public administration (1.12). By occupation group, the highest IPF mortality rates among males were among community and social services workers (1.23) and among females among farming, fishing, and forestry workers (1.24). Estimates of elevated IPF mortality among workers in specific industries and occupations warrant confirmation, control of known exposure-related risk factors, and continued surveillance to better understand the full range of occupational exposures that might increase risk for developing IPF.

Multiple respiratory hazards have been identified in the cannabis cultivation and production industry, in which occupational asthma and work-related exacerbation of preexisting asthma have been reported. An employee working in a Massachusetts cannabis cultivation and processing facility experienced progressively worsening work-associated respiratory symptoms, which culminated in a fatal asthma attack in January 2022. This report represents findings of an Occupational Safety and Health Administration inspection, which included a worksite exposure assessment, coworker and next-of-kin interviews, medical record reviews, and collaboration with the Massachusetts Department of Public Health. Respiratory tract or skin symptoms were reported by four of 10 coworkers with similar job duties. Prevention is best achieved through a multifaceted approach, including controlling asthmagen exposures, such as cannabis dust, providing worker training, and conducting medical monitoring for occupational allergy. Evaluation of workers with new-onset or worsening asthma is essential, along with prompt diagnosis and medical management, which might include cessation of work and workers' compensation when relation to work exposures is identified. It is important to recognize that work in cannabis production is potentially causative.

The Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969 and after it the Federal Mine Safety and Health | Act of 1977 provided periodic chest radiographs to underground coal miners at no cost to | themselves.[1] Since the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) was | established in 1971, it has administered this health surveillance through the Coal Workers’ | Health Surveillance Program (CWHSP). If a miner has radiographic evidence of pneumoconiosis, | an interstitial lung disease commonly known as black lung, they are afforded the legal right, | authorized under 30 Code of Federal Regulations Part 90, to work under a reduced dust | exposure standard through the use of engineering controls or job reassignment to a less dusty | working environment. After a miner receives confidential notification by NIOSH that they have | radiographic findings consistent with pneumoconiosis and are eligible for Part 90 | accommodations, they can exercise this option by informing the Mine Safety and Health | Administration (MSHA). Participation of eligible underground coal miners in exercising their | Part 90 rights has historically been low; during the period 1970–1989, participation was 23.2% | (2119/9138),[2] during the period 1986–2016 participation was 14.4% (509/3547),[3, 4] and in | the most recent time period, 2016–2022, participation among underground coal miners was | 22.5% (55/244). | MSHA administers and enforces Part 90 provisions and in 2014 published a final rul

Occupational respiratory diseases are caused by exposure to respiratory hazards at work. It is important to document those exposures and whether they are causing or exacerbating disease because these determinations can have important impacts on diagnosis, treatment, job restrictions, and eligibility for benefits. Without investigation, it is easy to miss clinically relevant exposures, especially in those with chronic diseases that can have work and nonwork causes. The first and most important step in identifying exposures to respiratory hazards at work is to take an appropriate history. For efficiency, this is a two-step process. An initial quick screening history is done by asking only a few questions. Follow-up questions are asked if there are positive responses to the screening questions or if an occupational etiology is suspected based on the clinical presentation. Electronic health records have promise for facilitating this process. Follow-up to the screening history may include additional questions, evaluating additional sources of information about workplace exposures, and medical testing. Radiographic findings or tests conducted on noninvasive samples or lung tissue can be used as biomarkers. Online resources can be used to learn more about exposures associated with occupations and industries and to see if investigations evaluating exposures were performed in the patient's own workplace. It is important to adhere to the patient's wishes about contacting the employer. With patient consent, the employer can be an important source of information about exposures and, if a problem exists, has an important role in taking corrective action. Consultation for challenging cases is available from a variety of professional and governmental entities. If a clinician identifies a significant public health issue, such as an occupational disease outbreak, it is important to notify relevant public health authorities so that steps can be taken to prevent additional exposures and appropriately care for those already exposed.

BACKGROUND: Malignant mesothelioma is associated with environmental and occupational exposure to certain mineral fibers, especially asbestos. This study aims to examine work histories of mesothelioma patients and their survival time. METHOD: Using the NIOSH Industry and Occupation Computerized Coding System, we mapped occupations and industries recorded for 748 of 1444 patients in the U.S. National Mesothelioma Virtual Bank (NMVB) during the period 2006-2022. Descriptive and survival analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Among the 1023 industries recorded for those having mesothelioma, the most frequent cases were found for those in manufacturing (n = 225, 22.0%), construction (138, 13.5%), and education services (66, 6.5%); among the 924 occupation records, the most frequent cases were found for those in construction and extraction (174, 18.8%), production (145, 15.7%), and management (84, 9.1%). Males (583) or persons aged >40 years (658) at the time of diagnosis tended to have worked in industries traditionally associated with mesothelioma (e.g., construction), while females (163) or persons aged 20-40 years (27) tended to have worked in industries not traditionally associated with mesothelioma (e.g., health care). Asbestos, unknown substances, and chemical solvents were the most frequently reported exposure, with females most often reporting an unknown substance. A multi-variable Cox Hazard Regression analysis showed that significant prognostic factors associated with decreased survival in mesothelioma cases are sex (male) and work experience in utility-related industry, while factor associated with increased survival are epithelial or epithelioid histological type, prior history of surgery and immunotherapy, and industry experience in accommodation and food services. CONCLUSION: The NMVB has the potential of serving as a sentinel surveillance mechanism for identifying industries and occupations not traditionally associated with mesothelioma. Results indicate the importance of considering all potential sources of asbestos exposures including occupational, environmental, and extra-occupational exposures when evaluating mesothelioma patients and advising family members.

OBJECTIVE: To understand healthcare worker (HCW) perceptions of infection risk associated with aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs) and their affective response to performing AGPs. DESIGN: Systematic review. METHODS: Systematic searches of PubMed, CINHAL Plus, and Scopus were conducted using combinations of selected keywords and synonyms. To reduce bias, titles and abstracts were screened for eligibility by 2 independent reviewers. Also, 2 independent reviewers extracted data from each eligible record. Discrepancies were discussed until consensus was reached. RESULTS: In total, 16 reports from across the globe were included in this review. Findings suggest that AGPs are generally perceived to place HCWs at high risk of becoming infected with respiratory pathogens and that this perception stimulates a negative affective response and hesitancy to participate in the procedures. CONCLUSIONS: AGP risk perception are complex and context dependent but have important influences on HCW infection control practices, decision to participate in AGPs, emotional welfare, and workplace satisfaction. New and unfamiliar hazards paired with uncertainty lead to fear and anxiety about personal and others' safety. These fears may create a psychological burden conducive to burnout. Empirical research is needed to thoroughly understand the interplay between HCW risk perceptions of distinct AGPs, their affective responses to conducting these procedures under various conditions, and their resulting decision to participate in these procedures. Results from such studies are essential for advancing clinical practice; they point to methods for mitigating provider distress and better recommendations for when and how to conduct AGPs.

OBJECTIVES: Emergency department (ED) health care personnel (HCP) are at risk of exposure to SARS-CoV-2. The objective of this study was to determine the attributable risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection from providing ED care, describe personal protective equipment use, and identify modifiable ED risk factors. We hypothesized that providing ED patient care increases the probability of acquiring SARS-CoV-2 infection. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter prospective cohort study of 1,673 ED physicians, advanced practice providers (APPs), nurses, and nonclinical staff at 20 U.S. centers over 20 weeks (May to December 2020; before vaccine availability) to detect a four-percentage point increased SARS-CoV-2 incidence among HCP related to direct patient care. Participants provided monthly nasal and serology specimens and weekly exposure and procedure information. We used multivariable regression and recursive partitioning to identify risk factors. RESULTS: Over 29,825 person-weeks, 75 participants (4.5%) acquired SARS-CoV-2 infection (31 were asymptomatic). Physicians/APPs (aOR 1.07; 95% CI 0.56-2.03) did not have higher risk of becoming infected compared to nonclinical staff, but nurses had a marginally increased risk (aOR 1.91; 95% CI 0.99-3.68). Over 99% of participants used CDC-recommended personal protective equipment (PPE), but PPE lapses occurred in 22.1% of person-weeks and 32.1% of SARS-CoV-2-infected patient intubations. The following factors were associated with infection: household SARS-CoV-2 exposure; hospital and community SARS-CoV-2 burden; community exposure; and mask non-use in public. SARS-CoV-2 intubation was not associated with infection (attributable risk fraction 13.8%; 95% CI -2.0-38.2%), and nor were PPE lapses. CONCLUSIONS: Among unvaccinated U.S. ED HCP during the height of the pandemic, the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection was similar in nonclinical staff and HCP engaged in direct patient care. Many identified risk factors were related to community exposures.

BACKGROUND: The potential for work to be a risk factor for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was recognized early in the pandemic based on the likelihood of work-related differences in exposures to COVID-19 in different occupations. Due to intense demands of the pandemic, implementation of recommendations to collect information on occupation in relation to COVID-19 has been uneven across the United States. The objective of this study was to investigate COVID-19 test positivity by occupation. METHODS: We analyzed data collected from September 8 to November 30, 2020, by the Delphi Group at Carnegie Mellon University USCOVID-19 Trends and Impact Survey, offered daily to a random sample of US-based Facebook users aged 18 years or older, who were invited via a banner in their news feed. Our focus was ever testing positive for COVID-19 in respondents working outside the home for pay in the past 4 weeks. RESULTS: The major occupational groups of"Production", "Building and grounds cleaning and maintenance,""Construction and extraction,""Healthcare support,"and "Food preparation and serving" had the five highest test positivity percentages (16.7%-14.4%). Highest detailed occupational categories (28.6%-19.1%) were "Massage therapist,""Food processing worker,""Bailiff, correctional officer, or jailer,""Funeral service worker,""First-line supervisor of production and operating workers,"and "Nursing assistant or psychiatric aide."Differences in test positivity by occupation remained after adjustment for age, gender, and pre-existing medical conditions. CONCLUSION: Information on differences in test positivity by occupation can aid targeting of messaging for vaccination and testing and mitigation strategies for the current and future respiratory infection epidemics and pandemics. These results, obtained before availability of COVID-19 vaccines, can form a basis for comparison to evaluate impacts of vaccination and subsequent emergence of viral variants.

This review provides an overview of literature addressing progressive massive fibrosis (PMF) from September 2009 to the present. Advances are described in understanding its pathophysiology, epidemiology of the occurrence of PMF and related conditions, the impact of PMF on pulmonary function, advances in imaging of PMF, and factors affecting progression of pneumoconiosis in dust-exposed workers to PMF. Basic advances in understanding the etiology of PMF are impeded by the lack of a well-accepted animal model for human PMF. Recent studies evaluating lung tissue samples and epidemiologic investigations support an important role for the silica component of coal mine dust in causing coal workers' pneumoconiosis and PMF in contemporary coal miners in the United States and for silica in causing silicosis and PMF in artificial stone workers throughout the world. Development of PMF is associated with substantial decline in pulmonary function relative to no disease or small opacity pneumoconiosis. In recent reports, computed tomography has had greater sensitivity for detecting PMF than chest x-ray. Magnetic resonance imaging shows promise in differentiating between PMF and lung cancer. Although PMF develops in dust-exposed workers without previously identified small opacity pneumoconiosis, the presence of small opacity pneumoconiosis increases the risk for progression to PMF, as does heavier dust exposure. Recent literature does not document any effective new treatments for PMF and new therapies to prevent and treat PMF are an important need.

Inhalation of asbestos fibers can cause malignant mesothelioma, a rapidly progressing and lethal cancer of the mesothelium, the thin layer of tissues surrounding internal organs in the chest and abdomen. Patients with malignant mesothelioma have a poor prognosis, with a median survival of 1 year from diagnosis. The estimated median interval from initial occupational asbestos exposure to death is 32 years (range = 13-70 years) (1). Occupational asbestos exposure is most often reported in men working in industries such as construction and manufacturing; however, women are also at risk for exposure to asbestos fibers, and limited data exist on longer-term trends in mesothelioma deaths among women. To characterize deaths associated with mesothelioma and temporal trends in mesothelioma mortality among women in the United States, CDC analyzed annual Multiple Cause of Death records from the National Vital Statistics System for 1999-2020, the most recent years for which complete data are available. The annual number of mesothelioma deaths among women increased significantly, from 489 in 1999 to 614 in 2020; however, the age-adjusted death rate per 1 million women declined significantly, from 4.83 in 1999 to 4.15 in 2020. The largest number of deaths was associated with the health care and social assistance industry (89; 15.7%) and homemaker occupation (129; 22.8%). Efforts to limit exposure to asbestos fibers, including among women, need to be maintained.

BACKGROUND: In 2019, the United States experienced a nationwide outbreak of e-cigarette, or vaping, product use-associated lung injury (EVALI). More than half of these patients required admission to an intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS: To synthesize information critical to pulmonary/critical care specialists in the care of patients with EVALI, we examined data available from patients hospitalized with EVALI between August 2019 and January 2020; reviewed the clinical course and critical care experience with those patients admitted to the ICU; and compiled opinion of national experts. RESULTS: Of the 2,708 confirmed or probable EVALI patients requiring hospitalization as of January 21, 2020, 1,604 (59.2%) had data available on ICU admission; of these, 705 (44.0%) were admitted to the ICU and are included in this analysis. The majority of ICU patients required respiratory support (88.5%), and in severe cases required intubation (36.1%), or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) (6.7%). The majority (93.0%) of these ICU patients survived to discharge. Review of the clinical course and expert opinion provided insight into: imaging; considerations for bronchoscopy; medical treatment, including use of empiric antibiotics, antivirals, and corticosteroids; respiratory support, including considerations for intubation, positioning maneuvers, and ECMO; and patient outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Review of the clinical course of EVALI patients requiring ICU admission and compilation of expert opinion provided critical insight into pulmonary/critical care-specific considerations for this patient population. As a large proportion of patients hospitalized with EVALI required ICU admission, it is important to remain prepared to care for patients with EVALI.

OBJECTIVES: To propose a framework for considering SARS-CoV-2 antigen testing of unexposed asymptomatic workers in selected workplaces. METHODS: This is a commentary based on established occupational safety and health principles, published articles, and other pertinent literature, including non-peer-reviewed preprints in medrixiv.org prior to April 16, 2021. RESULTS: Not applicable to this commentary/viewpoint article. CONCLUSION: Antigen testing is a rapidly evolving and useful public health tool that can be used to guide measures to reduce spread of SARS-CoV-2 in the community and in selected workplaces. This commentary provides a proposed framework for occupational safety and health practitioners and employers for considering antigen testing as a method to screen asymptomatic workers in selected non-healthcare settings. When applied selectively, antigen testing can be a useful, effective part of a comprehensive workplace program for COVID-19 prevention and control.

A workshop "Electronic Health Records and Pulmonary Function Data: Developing an Interoperability Roadmap" was held at the American Thoracic Society 2019 International Conference. "Interoperability" is defined as is the ability of different information-technology systems and software applications to directly communicate, exchange data, and use the information that has been exchanged. At present, pulmonary function test (PFT) equipment is not required to be interoperable with other clinical data systems, including electronic health records (EHRs). For this workshop, we assembled a diverse group of experts and stakeholders, including representatives from patient-advocacy groups, adult and pediatric general and pulmonary medicine, informatics, government and healthcare organizations, pulmonary function laboratories, and EHR and PFT equipment and software companies. The participants were tasked with two overarching Aobjectives: 1) identifying the key obstacles to achieving interoperability of PFT systems and the EHR and 2) recommending solutions to the identified obstacles. Successful interoperability of PFT data with the EHR impacts the full scope of individual patient health and clinical care, population health, and research. The existing EHR-PFT device platforms lack sufficient data standardization to promote interoperability. Cost is a major obstacle to PFT-EHR interoperability, and incentives are insufficient to justify the needed investment. The current vendor-EHR system lacks sufficient flexibility, thereby impeding interoperability. To advance the goal of achieving interoperability, next steps include identifying and standardizing priority PFT data elements. To increase the motivation of stakeholders to invest in this effort, it is necessary to demonstrate the benefits of PFT interoperability across patient care and population health.

OBJECTIVES: To identify important background information on pooled tested of employees that employers workers, and health authorities should consider. METHODS: This paper is a commentary based on the review by the authors of pertinent literature generally from preprints in medrixiv.org prior to August 2020. RESULTS/CONCLUSIONS: Pooled testing may be particularly useful to employers in communities with low prevalence of COVID-19. It can be used to reduce the number of tests and associated financial costs. For effective and efficient pooled testing employers should consider it as part of a broader, more comprehensive workplace COVID-19 prevention and control program. Pooled testing of asymptomatic employees can prevent transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and help assure employers and customers that employees are not infectious.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), state and local health departments, and public health and clinical stakeholders have investigated a nationwide outbreak of e-cigarette, or vaping, product use-associated lung injury (EVALI). 1 As of February 25, 2020, a total of 2,807 hospitalized cases of EVALI have been reported to the CDC from all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and two US territories (Puerto Rico and US Virgin Islands). Sixty-eight deaths have been confirmed in 29 states and the District of Columbia (as of February 18, 2020).2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Mechanisms for lung injury in this syndrome are still being investigated. Vitamin E acetate (VEA) is strongly linked to the EVALI outbreak. VEA has been found in product samples tested by FDA and state laboratories and patient BAL fluid samples tested by the CDC from geographically diverse states. VEA has not been found in the BAL fluid of people who do not have EVALI. However, evidence is not sufficient to rule out the contribution of other chemicals of concern, including chemicals in either tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) or non-THC products, in some of the reported EVALI cases. The current article summarizes evidence as of February 25, 2020, for potential toxicants and mechanisms of toxicity for EVALI.

BACKGROUND: Since August, 2019, US public health officials have been investigating a national outbreak of e-cigarette, or vaping, product use-associated lung injury (EVALI). A spectrum of histological patterns consistent with acute to subacute lung injury has been seen in biopsies; however, autopsy findings have not been systematically characterised. We describe the pathological findings in autopsy and biopsy tissues submitted to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for the evaluation of suspected EVALI. METHODS: Between Aug 1, 2019, and Nov 30, 2019, we examined lung biopsy (n=10 individuals) and autopsy (n=13 individuals) tissue samples received by the CDC, submitted by 16 US states, from individuals with: a history of e-cigarette, or vaping, product use; respiratory, gastrointestinal, or constitutional symptoms; and either pulmonary infiltrates or opacities on chest imaging, or sudden death from an undetermined cause. We also reviewed medical records, evaluated histopathology, and performed infectious disease testing when indicated by histopathology and clinical history. FINDINGS: 21 cases met surveillance case definitions for EVALI, with a further two cases of clinically suspected EVALI evaluated. All ten lung biopsies showed histological evidence of acute to subacute lung injury, including diffuse alveolar damage or organising pneumonia. These patterns were also seen in nine of 13 (69%) autopsy cases, most frequently diffuse alveolar damage (eight autopsies), but also acute and organising fibrinous pneumonia (one autopsy). Additional pulmonary pathology not necessarily consistent with EVALI was seen in the remaining autopsies, including bronchopneumonia, bronchoaspiration, and chronic interstitial lung disease. Three of the five autopsy cases with no evidence of, or a plausible alternative cause for acute lung injury, had been classified as confirmed or probable EVALI according to surveillance case definitions. INTERPRETATION: Acute to subacute lung injury patterns were seen in all ten biopsies and most autopsy lung tissues from individuals with suspected EVALI. Acute to subacute lung injury can have numerous causes; however, if it is identified in an individual with a history of e-cigarette, or vaping, product use, and no alternative cause is apparent, a diagnosis of EVALI should be strongly considered. A review of autopsy tissue pathology in suspected EVALI deaths can also identify alternative diagnoses, which can enhance the specificity of public health surveillance efforts. FUNDING: US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Importance: To date, limited information is available on the characteristics of adolescents with e-cigarette, or vaping, product use-associated lung injury (EVALI). Objective: To inform public health and clinical practice by describing differences in demographics, substance use behaviors, and clinical characteristics of EVALI among adolescents compared with adults. Design, Setting, and Participants: Surveillance data reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention during the 2019 EVALI outbreak were used to calculate adjusted prevalence ratios (aPRs) with 95% CIs and to test differences between 360 hospitalized or deceased adolescents vs 859 young adults and 936 adults with EVALI (N = 2155). Main Outcomes and Measures: Demographics, substance use behaviors, and clinical characteristics. Results: Included in this cross-sectional study were 360 hospitalized or deceased adolescents (age range, 13-17 years; 67.9% male) vs 859 young adults (age range, 18-24 years; 72.4% male) and 936 adults (age range, 25-49 years; 65.6% male) with EVALI. Adolescents diagnosed as having EVALI reported using any nicotine-containing (62.4%), any tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)-containing (81.7%), and both (50.8%) types of e-cigarette or vaping products. Informal sources for obtaining nicotine-containing and THC-containing e-cigarette or vaping products were more commonly reported by adolescents (50.5% for nicotine and 96.5% for THC) than young adults (19.8% for nicotine [aPR, 2.49; 95% CI, 1.78-3.46] and 86.9% for THC [aPR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.05-1.18]) or adults (24.3% for nicotine [aPR, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.49-2.84] and 75.1% for THC [aPR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.19-1.40]). Mental, emotional, or behavioral disorders were commonly reported; a history of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder was almost 4 times more likely among adolescents (18.1%) than adults (4.9%) (aPR, 3.74; 95% CI, 1.92-7.26). A history of asthma was more likely to be reported among adolescents (43.6%) than adults (28.3%) (aPR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.14-2.05). Gastrointestinal and constitutional symptoms were more common in adolescents (90.9% and 97.3%, respectively) than adults (75.3% and 94.5%, respectively) (aPR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.13-1.28 and aPR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.00-1.06, respectively). Because of missing data, percentages may not be able to be calculated from data provided. Conclusions and Relevance: Public health and clinical professionals should continue to provide information to adolescents about the association between EVALI and THC-containing e-cigarette or vaping product use, especially those products obtained through informal sources, and that the use of any e-cigarette or vaping product is unsafe. Compared with adults, it appears that adolescents with EVALI more frequently have a history of asthma and mental, emotional, or behavioral disorders, such as attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, and report nonspecific problems, including gastrointestinal and constitutional symptoms; therefore, obtaining a confidential substance use history that includes e-cigarette or vaping product use is recommended.

Health care personnel who care for critically ill patients with suspected or confirmed novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) routinely participate in procedures, such as endotracheal intubation, that may create infectious aerosols. Among persons infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus that causes COVID-19, approximately 8% will require endotracheal intubation and mechanical ventilation.1 | | Aerosol-generating procedures have been described as “…procedures performed on patients [that] are more likely to generate higher concentrations of infectious respiratory aerosols than coughing, sneezing, talking, or breathing.”2 Health Protection Scotland defines aerosol-generating procedures “as medical and patient care procedures that result in the production of airborne particles (aerosols) that create the potential for airborne transmission of infections that may otherwise only be transmissible by the droplet route.”3 Although there is no generally accepted and comprehensive list of aerosol-generating procedures performed during clinical care, examples include open suctioning of airways, sputum induction, manual ventilation, endotracheal intubation and extubation, noninvasive ventilation, bronchoscopy, and tracheotomy.4 There is great interest in understanding the hazards posed by the range of potentially hazardous aerosol-generating procedures for the transmission of COVID-19 and other infectious diseases.

OBJECTIVES: Four machine manufacturing facility workers had a novel occupational lung disease of uncertain aetiology characterised by lymphocytic bronchiolitis, alveolar ductitis and emphysema (BADE). We aimed to evaluate current workers' respiratory health in relation to job category and relative exposure to endotoxin, which is aerosolised from in-use metalworking fluid. METHODS: We offered a questionnaire and spirometry at baseline and 3.5 year follow-up. Endotoxin exposures were quantified for 16 production and non-production job groups. Forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) decline >/=10% was considered excessive. We examined SMRs compared with US adults, adjusted prevalence ratios (aPRs) for health outcomes by endotoxin exposure tertiles and predictors of excessive FEV1 decline. RESULTS: Among 388 (89%) baseline participants, SMRs were elevated for wheeze (2.5 (95% CI 2.1 to 3.0)), but not obstruction (0.5 (95% CI 0.3 to 1.1)). Mean endotoxin exposures (range: 0.09-28.4 EU/m(3)) were highest for machine shop jobs. Higher exposure was associated with exertional dyspnea (aPR=2.8 (95% CI 1.4 to 5.7)), but not lung function. Of 250 (64%) follow-up participants, 11 (4%) had excessive FEV1 decline (range: 403-2074 mL); 10 worked in production. Wheeze (aPR=3.6 (95% CI 1.1 to 12.1)) and medium (1.3-7.5 EU/m(3)) endotoxin exposure (aPR=10.5 (95% CI 1.3 to 83.1)) at baseline were associated with excessive decline. One production worker with excessive decline had BADE on subsequent lung biopsy. CONCLUSIONS: Lung function loss and BADE were associated with production work. Relationships with relative endotoxin exposure indicate work-related adverse respiratory health outcomes beyond the sentinel disease cluster, including an incident BADE case. Until causative factors and effective preventive strategies for BADE are determined, exposure minimisation and medical surveillance of affected workforces are recommended.

What is already known on this topic? In a recent examination of rehospitalization and death among previously hospitalized patients with e-cigarette or vaping, product use–associated lung injury (EVALI), at least one quarter of rehospitalizations and deaths occurred within 2 days of discharge; comorbidities were common among patients who were rehospitalized or who died after discharge. What is added by this report? Updated guidance recommends posthospitalization outpatient follow-up, optimally within 48 hours of discharge, and emphasizes the importance of preparation for hospital discharge and postdischarge care coordination to reduce risk of rehospitalization and death among hospitalized EVALI patients. What are the implications for public health practice? Incorporating this updated guidance into the management of hospitalized EVALI patients might reduce EVALI-associated morbidity and mortality. © 2020 Department of Health and Human Services. All rights reserved.

CDC, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), state and local health departments, and public health and clinical stakeholders are investigating a nationwide outbreak of e-cigarette, or vaping, product use-associated lung injury (EVALI) (1). CDC has published recommendations for health care providers regarding EVALI (2-4). Recently, researchers from Utah and New York published proposed diagnosis and treatment algorithms for EVALI (5,6). EVALI remains a diagnosis of exclusion because, at present, no specific test or marker exists for its diagnosis, and evaluation should be guided by clinical judgment. Because patients with EVALI can experience symptoms similar to those associated with influenza or other respiratory infections (e.g., fever, cough, headache, myalgias, or fatigue), it might be difficult to differentiate EVALI from influenza or community-acquired pneumonia on initial assessment; EVALI might also co-occur with respiratory infections. This report summarizes recommendations for health care providers managing patients with suspected or known EVALI when respiratory infections such as influenza are more prevalent in the community than they have been in recent months (7). Recommendations include 1) asking patients with respiratory, gastrointestinal, or constitutional symptoms about the use of e-cigarette, or vaping, products; 2) evaluating those suspected to have EVALI with pulse oximetry and obtaining chest imaging, as clinically indicated; 3) considering outpatient management for clinically stable EVALI patients who meet certain criteria; 4) testing patients for influenza, particularly during influenza season, and administering antimicrobials, including antivirals, in accordance with established guidelines; 5) using caution when considering prescribing corticosteroids for outpatients, because this treatment modality has not been well studied among outpatients, and corticosteroids could worsen respiratory infections; 6) recommending evidence-based treatment strategies, including behavioral counseling, to help patients discontinue using e-cigarette, or vaping, products; and 7) emphasizing the importance of annual influenza vaccination for all persons aged >/=6 months, including patients who use e-cigarette, or vaping products.

BACKGROUND: The burden and prognosis of malignant mesothelioma in the United States have remained largely unchanged for decades, with approximately 3200 new cases and 2400 deaths reported annually. To address care and research gaps contributing to poor outcomes, in March of 2019 the Mesothelioma Applied Research Foundation convened a workshop on the potential usefulness and feasibility of a national mesothelioma registry. METHODS: The workshop included formal presentations by subject matter experts and a moderated group discussion. RESULTS: Workshop participants identified top priorities for a registry to be: (a) connecting patients with high-quality care and clinical trials soon after diagnosis and (b) making useful data and biospecimens available to researchers in a timely manner. Existing databases that capture mesothelioma cases are limited by factors such as delays in reporting, de-identification, and lack of exposure information critical to understanding as yet unrecognized causes of disease. National disease registries for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis in the United States, and for mesothelioma in other countries, provide examples of how a registry could be structured to meet the needs of patients and the scientific community. CONCLUSIONS: Small-scale pilot initiatives should be undertaken to validate methods for rapid case identification, develop procedures to facilitate patient access to guidelines-based standard care and investigational therapies, and explore approaches to data-sharing with researchers. Ultimately, federal coordination and funding will be critical to the success of a national mesothelioma registry in improving mesothelioma outcomes and preventing future cases of this devastating disease.

Forty-nine states, the District of Columbia, and one U.S. territory have reported 1,299 cases of lung injury associated with the use of electronic cigarette (e-cigarette), or vaping, products. Twenty-six deaths have been reported from 21 states. Based on the most current data, CDC's updated interim guidance provides a framework for health care providers in their initial assessment, evaluation, management, and follow-up of persons with symptoms of e-cigarette, or vaping, product use associated lung injury (EVALI). Rapid recognition by health care providers of patients with EVALI and an increased understanding of treatment considerations could reduce morbidity and mortality associated with this injury.

On September 6, 2019, this report was posted as an MMWR Early Release on the MMWR website (https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr). As of August 27, 2019, 215 possible cases of severe pulmonary disease associated with the use of electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) products (e.g., devices, liquids, refill pods, and cartridges) had been reported to CDC by 25 state health departments. E-cigarettes are devices that produce an aerosol by heating a liquid containing various chemicals, including nicotine, flavorings, and other additives (e.g., propellants, solvents, and oils). Users inhale the aerosol, including any additives, into their lungs. Aerosols produced by e-cigarettes can contain harmful or potentially harmful substances, including heavy metals such as lead, volatile organic compounds, ultrafine particles, cancer-causing chemicals, or other agents such as chemicals used for cleaning the device (1). E-cigarettes also can be used to deliver tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the principal psychoactive component of cannabis, or other drugs; for example, "dabbing" involves superheating substances that contain high concentrations of THC and other plant compounds (e.g., cannabidiol) with the intent of inhaling the aerosol. E-cigarette users could potentially add other substances to the devices. This report summarizes available information and provides interim case definitions and guidance for reporting possible cases of severe pulmonary disease. The guidance in this report reflects data available as of September 6, 2019; guidance will be updated as additional information becomes available.

BACKGROUND: A cluster of severe lung disease occurred at a manufacturing facility making industrial machines. We aimed to describe disease features and workplace exposures. METHODS: Clinical, functional, radiologic, and histopathologic features were characterized. Airborne concentrations of thoracic aerosol, metalworking fluid, endotoxin, metals, and volatile organic compounds were measured. Facility airflow was assessed using tracer gas. Process fluids were examined using culture, polymerase chain reaction, and 16S ribosomal RNA sequencing. RESULTS: Five previously healthy male never-smokers, ages 27 to 50, developed chest symptoms from 1995 to 2012 while working in the facility's production areas. Patients had an insidious onset of cough, wheeze, and exertional dyspnea; airflow obstruction (mean FEV1 = 44% predicted) and reduced diffusing capacity (mean = 53% predicted); and radiologic centrilobular emphysema. Lung tissue demonstrated a unique pattern of bronchiolitis and alveolar ductitis with B-cell follicles lacking germinal centers, and significant emphysema for never-smokers. All had chronic dyspnea, three had a progressive functional decline, and one underwent lung transplantation. Patients reported no unusual nonoccupational exposures. No cases were identified among nonproduction workers or in the community. Endotoxin concentrations were elevated in two air samples; otherwise, exposures were below occupational limits. Air flowed from areas where machining occurred to other production areas. Metalworking fluid primarily grew Pseudomonas pseudoalcaligenes and lacked mycobacterial DNA, but 16S analysis revealed more complex bacterial communities. CONCLUSION: This cluster indicates a previously unrecognized occupational lung disease of yet uncertain etiology that should be considered in manufacturing workers (particularly never-smokers) with airflow obstruction and centrilobular emphysema. Investigation of additional cases in other settings could clarify the cause and guide prevention.

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a complex lung disease characterized by airways inflammation and lung tissue remodeling, leading to loss of small airways and emphysema.1 It is the fourth leading cause of death in the United States, responsible for more than 150,000 deaths yearly.2 More than 15 million people have been diagnosed with COPD and, compared to 4.7% in large metropolitan areas, a staggering 8.2% of those living in rural areas have the disease.2 That translates to about 3.5 million people, and it does not include the estimated additional 1 million undiagnosed.2, 3 Notably, even among never‐smokers, rural residence and poverty are risk factors for COPD.4 The disease also takes a heavy financial toll: national medical costs associated with COPD are projected to increase from $32.1 billion in 2010 to $49 billion in 2020.5

The year 2017 marked the 50th anniversary of NIOSH's Respiratory Health Division (RHD). RHD began in 1967 as the Appalachian Laboratory for Occupational Respiratory Diseases (ALFORD), with a focus on coal workers' pneumoconiosis. ALFORD became part of NIOSH in 1971 and added activities to address work-related respiratory disease more generally. Health hazard evaluations played an important role in understanding novel respiratory hazards such as nylon flock, diacetyl, and indium-tin oxide. Epidemiologic and laboratory studies addressed many respiratory hazards, including coal mine dust, silica, asbestos, cotton dust, beryllium, diesel exhaust, and dampness and mold. Surveillance activities tracked the burden of diseases and enhanced the quality of spirometry and chest radiography used to screen workers. RHD's efforts to improve scientific understanding, inform strategies for prevention, and disseminate knowledge remain important now and for the future.

We read with great interest the American College of Chest Physicians’ guidelines for lung cancer screening1 and the excellent Point and Counterpoint editorials by Drs Wood and Mazzone2, 3, 4, 5 in CHEST (June 2018) addressing the important issue of how to approach persons at high risk for lung cancer who don’t meet the guidelines’ core criteria for lung cancer screening. In his final rebuttal, Dr Mazzone5 states that the guidelines “…recommend that the cohort that does not meet our core eligibility criteria, but is at elevated risk for lung cancer based on risk calculators, should not be ‘routinely’ screened. We remark under this recommendation that although we do not recommend ‘routinely’ screening this cohort, we recognize that some individuals within this high-risk cohort will be healthy enough to consider screening.”

Work exposures are well-known risk factors for lung cancer. A recent review noted that the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has found “sufficient evidence” that 19 occupational agents can cause lung cancer in humans (IARC Group 1; see the box on the next page).1 Two key factors affecting risk for work-related lung cancer are level of exposure to one or more occupational carcinogens2 and smoking history, with these two factors often having greater than additive effects.3