Prevalence and Features of Advanced Asbestosis (ILO Profusion Scores above 2/2)

Abstract

In this study, the author addressed the following question: Do workers with advanced asbestosis have a restrictive pulmonary physiology, and, alternately, do those who have restrictive physiological tests have advanced asbestosis? One group was identified by obvious radiographic measurements, and the other group was defined via physiologic measurements. Total lung capacity, vital capacity, and flows were measured in 12,856 men exposed to asbestos, of whom 3,445 had radiographic signs of asbestosis, as defined by the International Labour Office criteria. Radiographically advanced asbestosis-International Labour Office criteria profusion greater than 2/2 was present in 85 (2.5%) of men. An additional 52 men had physiologically restrictive disease. The author, who compared pulmonary flows and volumes of these two groups, used mean percentage predicted, adjusted for height, age, and duration of cigarette smoking. Men with radiographically advanced asbestosis had normal total lung capacity (i.e., 105.5% predicted), reduced forced vital capacities (i.e., 82.7% predicted), air trapping (i.e., residual volume/total lung capacity increased to 54.4%), and reduced flows (i.e., forced expiratory flow [FEF_25–75] = 60.6% predicted, forced expiratory volume in 1 s = 78.0% predicted, and forced expiratory volume in 1 s/forced vital capacity = 65.5%). In contrast, men selected from the same exposed population for restrictive disease (i.e., reduced total lung capacity [72.6% predicted] and forced vital capacity [61.5% predicted]) also had airflow obstruction (i.e., forced expiratory volume in 1 s/forced vital capacity of 74.5% predicted) and air trapping (i.e., residual volume/total lung capacity of 46.7%). Only half of these men had asbestosis—and it was of minimal severity. In summary, advanced asbestosis was characterized by airway obstruction and air trapping, both of which reduced vital capacity but not total lung capacity; therefore, it was not a restrictive disease. In contrast, restrictive disease was rare and was associated with minimal asbestosis.