Occupational asthma after exposure to ortho-phthalaldehyde (OPA)

Efficacy of high-level disinfection of endoscopes contaminated with Streptococcus equi subspecies equi with 2 different disinfectants

BACKGROUND

Prevention of spread of Streptococcus equi subspecies equi (S. equi) after an outbreak is best accomplished by endoscopic lavage of the guttural pouch, with samples tested by culture and real time, quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR). Disinfection of endoscopes must eliminate bacteria and DNA to avoid false diagnosis of carrier horses of S. equi.

HYPOTHESIS/OBJECTIVES

Compare failure rates of disinfection of endoscopes contaminated with S. equi using 2 disinfectants (accelerated hydrogen peroxide [AHP] or ortho-phthalaldehyde [OPA]). The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference between the AHP and OPA products (based on culture and qPCR results) after disinfection.

METHODS

Endoscopes contaminated with S. equi were disinfected using AHP, OPA or water (control). Samples were collected before and after disinfection and submitted for detection of S. equi by culture and qPCR. Using a multivariable logistic regression model-adjusted probability, with endoscope and day as controlled variables, the probability of an endoscope being qPCR-positive was determined.

RESULTS

After disinfection, all endoscopes were culture-negative (0%). However, the raw unadjusted qPCR data were positive for 33% AHP, 73% OPA, and 71% control samples. The model-adjusted probability of being qPCR-positive after AHP disinfection was lower (0.31; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.03-0.64) compared to OPA (0.81; 95% CI, 0.55-1.06), and control (0.72; 95% CI, 0.41-1.04).

CONCLUSION AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE

Disinfection using the AHP product resulted in significantly lower probability of endoscopes being qPCR-positive compared to the OPA product and control.

Occupational risk factors and exposure-response relationships for airway disease among health workers exposed to cleaning agents in tertiary hospitals

OBJECTIVES

This study investigated occupational risk factors and exposure-response relationships for airway disease among health workers (HWs) exposed to cleaning agents in two tertiary hospitals in South Africa and Tanzania.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, 697 participants completed questionnaire interviews while 654 underwent fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) testing. Asthma Symptom Score (ASS) was computed based on the sum of answers to five questions on asthma-related symptoms in the past 12 months. For exposure-response analyses, cleaning agent-related self-reported exposure variables were categorised into three levels (cleaning product not used; use of a cleaning product for up to 99 min per week and use of a cleaning product for ≥100 min per week).

RESULTS

Asthma-related outcomes (ASS and FeNO) demonstrated positive associations with medical instrument cleaning agents (orthophthalaldehyde and enzymatic cleaners) and tasks (instruments precleaning and changing sterilisation solutions) as well as patient care activities (disinfection prior to procedures and disinfecting wounds). A particularly pronounced dose-response relationship was observed between work-related ocular-nasal symptoms and medical instrument cleaning agents (orthophthalaldehyde, glutaraldehyde, enzymatic cleaners, alcohols and bleach) (OR range: 2.37-4.56) and tasks (OR range: 2.92-4.44). A strong association was also observed between ASS and use of sprays for fixed surface cleaning (mean ratio 2.81; 95% CI 1.41 to 5.59).

CONCLUSIONS

Specific agents for medical instrument disinfection for example, orthophthalaldehyde and enzymatic cleaners, patient care activities and use of sprays are important occupational risk factors for airway disease among HWs.

Prior Exposure to Ortho-Phthalaldehyde Augments IgE-Mediated Immune Responses to Didecyldimethylammonium Chloride: Potential for 2 Commonly Used Antimicrobials to Synergistically Enhance Allergic Disease

Health-care workers have an increased incidence of allergic disease compared with the general public and are exposed to a variety of high-level disinfectants. Although exposure to these agents has been associated with allergic disease, findings between epidemiology and animal studies often conflict respecting immunological mechanisms. Therefore, we hypothesized that previous exposure to a representative IgE-mediated sensitizer (ortho-phthalaldehyde [OPA]) alters immune responses to a representative T-cell-mediated sensitizer (didecyldimethlyammonium chloride [DDAC]). Here, BALB/c mice were topically exposed to OPA (0.5%) for 3 days, rested, then topically exposed to DDAC (0.0625%, 0.125%, and 0.25%) for 14 days. Coexposure resulted in phenotypic changes in draining lymph node (dLN) cells, including a decreased frequency of CD8+ T cells and increased frequency and number of B cells compared with DDAC-only treated mice. The coexposed mice also had enhanced Th2 responses, including significant alterations in: dLN Il4 (increased), B-cell activation (increased), CD8+ T-cell activation (decreased), and local and systemic IgE production (increased). These changes were not observed if mice were exposed to DDAC prior to OPA. Exposure to OPA alone shows Th2 skewing, indicated by increased activation of skin type 2 innate lymphoid cells, increased frequency and activation of draining lymph node B cells, and increased levels of type 2 cytokines. These findings suggest that the OPA-induced immune environment may alter the response to DDAC, resulting in increased IgE-mediated immune responses. This data may partially explain the discordance between epidemiological and laboratory studies regarding disinfectants and provide insight into the potential immunological implications of mixed chemical exposures.

Respiratory Health Effects of Exposure to Cleaning Products

There is consistent and growing evidence of an epidemic of "asthma-like" symptoms among professional cleaners. Questions include how big is this problem worldwide, which cleaning agents are dangerous, how do they affect the lungs, and is it really asthma? This issue is important to public health because of the increasing number of professional cleaners, many from vulnerable categories. There are implications for anybody exposed to cleaning products during housekeeping, including children. This article uses available evidence to give a broad but concise overview on what we know so far and how we can prevent the cleaning-associated respiratory public health burden.

New causes of immunologic occupational asthma 2014-2020

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of this review was to list all new confirmed cases of immunological occupational asthma (IOA) described between mid-2014 and April 2020.

RECENT FINDINGS

Several new agents, both of high and low molecular weight, have been identified in the last 6 years as potential respiratory sensitizers being able to induce immunological occupational asthma. This review confirms that new causes of IOA are still identified regularly, particularly in subjects exposed to high molecular agents, in the food industry (farming, pest control, food processing), pharmaceutical industry (antibiotics, various drugs) and cosmetic environment (dyes, powders).

SUMMARY

It stressed the need for clinicians to stay alert and suspect occupational asthma in any adult with new onset asthma or newly uncontrolled asthma.

Progress in Occupational Asthma

Occupational asthma (OA) represents one of the major public health problems due to its high prevalence, important social and economic burden. The aim of this review is to summarize current data about clinical phenotypes, biomarkers, diagnosis and management of OA, a subtype of work-related asthma. Most studies have identified two phenotypes of OA. One is sensitizer-induced asthma, occuring after a latency period and caused by hypersensitivity to high- or low-molecular weight agents. The other is irritant-induced asthma, which can occur after one or more exposures to high concentrations of irritants without latency period. More than 400 agents causing OA have been identified and its list is growing fast. The best diagnostic approach for OA is a combination of clinical history and objective tests. An important tool is a specific inhalation challenge. Additional tests include assessments of bronchial hyperresponsiveness to methacholine/histamine in patients without airflow limitations, monitoring peak expiratory flow at- and off-work, sputum eosinophil count, exhaled nitric oxide measurement, skin prick tests with occupational allergens and serum specific IgE. Treatment of OA implies avoidance of exposure, pharmacotherapy and education. OA is a heterogeneous disease. Mechanisms of its different phenotypes, their diagnosis, role of new biomarkers and treatment require further investigation.

Update on the Management of Occupational Asthma and Work-Exacerbated Asthma

Work-related asthma is the most common occupational lung disease encountered in clinical practice. In adult asthmatics, work-relatedness can account for 15%-33% of cases, but delays in diagnosis remain common and lead to worse outcomes. Accurate diagnosis of asthma is the first step to managing occupational asthma, which can be sensitizer-induced or irritant-induced asthma. While latency has traditionally been recognized as a hallmark of sensitizer-induced asthma and rapid-onset a defining feature of irritant-induced asthma (as in Reactive Airway Dysfunction Syndrome), there is epidemiological evidence for irritant-induced asthma with latency from chronic moderate exposure. Diagnostic testing while the patient is still in the workplace significantly improves sensitivity. While specific inhalational challenges remain the gold-standard for the diagnosis of occupational asthma, they are not available outside of specialized centers. Commonly available tests including bronchoprovocation challenges and peak flow monitoring are important tools for practicing clinicians. Management of sensitizer-induced occupational asthma is notable for the central importance of removal from the causative agent: ideally, removal of the culprit agent; but if not feasible, this may require changes in the work process or ultimately, removal of the worker from the workplace. While workers' compensation programs may reduce income loss, these are not universal and there can be significant socio-economic impact from work-related asthma. Primary prevention remains the preferred method of reducing the burden of occupational asthma, which may include modification to work processes, better worker education and substitution of sensitizing agents from the workplace with safer compounds.

Opportunities and obstacles in translating evidence to policy in occupational asthma

PURPOSE

Occupational asthma (OA), a common respiratory disorder in Western countries, is caused by exposures at the workplace. It is part of a broader definition of work-related asthma (WRA) that also includes pre-existing asthma aggravated by substances present in the workplace environment, and it is potentially preventable. The purpose of this paper is to illustrate preventive measures for occupational asthma by case studies.

METHODS

In three case studies we discuss preventive measures that have been associated with reductions in incidence of occupational asthma from natural rubber latex and from diisocyanates as supported by published literature. We also discuss challenges in relation to asthma from cleaning products in healthcare work.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

Several preventive measures have been associated with reduction in incidence of occupational asthma from natural rubber latex and from diisocyanates, and may provide lessons for prevention of other causes of occupational asthma. Cleaning products remain an unresolved problem at present with respect to asthma risks but potential measures include the use of safer products and safer applications such as avoidance of spray products, use of occupational hygiene methods such as improving local ventilation, and when appropriate, the use of personal protective devices.

Do chronic workplace irritant exposures cause asthma?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The present review summarizes the recent literature on the relation between chronic workplace irritant exposures and asthma, focusing on exposures of low to moderate levels. We discuss results from epidemiological surveys, potential biological mechanisms, and needs for further research. These aspects are largely illustrated by studies on exposure to cleaning products.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent results from nine population-based and workplace-based epidemiological studies, mostly cross-sectional, found an increased risk of both new-onset and work-exacerbated asthma among participants exposed to moderate level of irritants and/or cleaning products.

SUMMARY

Evidence of a causal effect of chronic workplace irritant exposure in new-onset asthma remains limited, mainly because of a lack of longitudinal studies and the difficulty to evaluate irritant exposures. However, recent epidemiological studies strengthen the evidence of an effect of chronic exposure to irritants in work-related asthma. The underlying mechanism remains unknown but may be related to oxidative stress, neurogenic inflammation and dual irritant and adjuvant effects. However, disentangling chronic irritant effects from either acute irritant-induced asthma or immunological low molecular weight agent-induced asthma is difficult for some agents. Further research is needed to improve assessment of irritant exposures and identify biomarkers.