Introduction The onset of sarcoidosis is likely the result of a complex genetic-environment-immunological interaction. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to identify occupational toxic particles associated with an increased risk of developing pulmonary sarcoidosis. Methods Publications in English, published from January 2000 to January 2025, were searched in PubMed, Scopus and JSTOR. The risk of bias was assessed for all included studies. Sensitivity analyses stratified by study quality were conducted to evaluate the robustness of the findings and potential bias. To assess publication bias, a funnel plot was used when more than six studies were included in the analysis. Results Five categories of toxic particles were identified to be associated with increased risk of the onset of sarcoidosis: chemicals, inorganic dusts, metals, mixed dusts and fumes and organic dusts. The quantitative analysis includes data from 13 studies. The results suggested that occupational silica, pesticides, mould/mildew and World Trade Center ((WTC) dust exposures were associated with increased odds of pulmonary sarcoidosis. Sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of the association for WTC dust and mould, whereas the risk associated with silica appeared attenuated in high-quality studies. However, gold exposure was identified as a protective factor. Conclusion Pulmonary sarcoidosis is associated with occupational silica, pesticides, WTC dust and mould. Future research should prioritise gene-environment interactions and granuloma mineralogy to refine preventive strategies and disease management.
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Nada Kotti
A. Kchaou
Walid Feki
BMJ Open Respiratory Research
University of Sfax
Hopital Universitaire Habib Bourguiba
Hopital Universitaire Hedi Chaker
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Kotti et al. (Wed,) studied this question.
www.synapsesocial.com/papers/69db36e64fe01fead37c4d5e — DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjresp-2025-003961