An effective strategy for diagnosing occupational asthma: use of induced sputum

Exhaled Nitric Oxide and Sputum Eosinophils Are Complementary Tools for Diagnosing Occupational Asthma

BACKGROUND

Exposure-related changes in exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) and sputum eosinophils have not been thoroughly compared in the investigation of occupational asthma.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed at comparing the accuracies of the changes in FeNO concentrations and sputum eosinophil counts in identifying asthmatic reactions induced by occupational agents during specific inhalation challenges (SICs).

METHODS

This retrospective multicenter study included 321 subjects who completed an assessment of FeNO and sputum eosinophils before and 24 h after SICs with various occupational agents, of whom 156 showed a positive result.

RESULTS

Post-challenge changes in FeNO and sputum eosinophils showed similar accuracies, with areas under the receiver operating characteristics curve of 0.78 (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.72-0.83) and 0.81 (95% CI, 0.76-0.86), respectively. Increases in FeNO level ≥ 13 ppb and sputum eosinophils ≥ 1.25% were identified as the optimal threshold values for differentiating positive from negative SICs. Using these thresholds, the changes in FeNO and sputum eosinophils each achieved a ≥ 95% specificity but a low sensitivity (55% and 62%, respectively). FeNO and sputum eosinophils showed discordant increases in 38% of subjects with a positive SIC. Combining either a rise in FeNO ≥ 13 ppb or an increase in sputum eosinophils ≥ 1.25% increased the sensitivity to 77%.

CONCLUSIONS

Increases in FeNO concentration and/or sputum eosinophils after exposure to occupational agents strongly support a diagnosis of occupational asthma. The assessment of both markers of airway inflammation should be regarded as a reliable complementary tool to spirometry for identifying bronchial responses to occupational agents.

Endotypes of occupational asthma

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To describe recent findings in endotyping occupational asthma by addressing the role of specific biomarkers.

RECENT FINDINGS

Studies on occupational asthma endotypes have focused on immune and inflammatory patterns associated with different occupational exposures to sensitizers or irritants.Sputum neutrophilia has been found in 58.5% patients with occupational asthma caused by high molecular weight (HMW) agents, and work-related dysphonia in patients with occupational asthma was described as associated with sputum neutrophilia too. Neutrophils have been associated also with irritant-induced asthma. The measurement of specific IgE has been confirmed as a valuable diagnostic tool in occupational asthma caused by HMW agents, on the contrary, for most low-molecular-weight agents, the presence of specific IgE has been proven in a small subset of affected workers. Fractional exhaled nitric oxide has been confirmed as a marker of type 2 (T2) inflammation in occupational asthma, mostly when induced by HMW agents (e.g. flour), and it has proved to be more sensitive than spirometry in measuring the efficacy of an intervention.MicroRNA-155 has been shown to contribute to airway inflammation in occupational asthma induced by toluene diisocyanate.

SUMMARY

Occupational asthma is heterogeneous, thus monitoring multiple biomarkers is crucial to understand, which inflammatory responses are prevalent.

Identification of true chemical respiratory allergens: Current status, limitations and recommendations

Asthma in the workplace is an important occupational health issue. It comprises various subtypes: occupational asthma (OA; both allergic asthma and irritant-induced asthma) and work-exacerbated asthma (WEA). Current regulatory paradigms for the management of OA are not fit for purpose. There is therefore an important unmet need, for the purposes of both effective human health protection and appropriate and proportionate regulation, that sub-types of work-related asthma can be accurately identified and classified, and that chemical respiratory allergens that drive allergic asthma can be differentiated according to potency. In this article presently available strategies for the diagnosis and characterisation of asthma in the workplace are described and critically evaluated. These include human health studies, clinical investigations and experimental approaches (structure-activity relationships, assessments of chemical reactivity, experimental animal studies and in vitro methods). Each of these approaches has limitations with respect to providing a clear discrimination between OA and WEA, and between allergen-induced and irritant-induced asthma. Against this background the needs for improved characterisation of work-related asthma, in the context of more appropriate regulation is discussed.

Work-related asthma

Work-related asthma (WRA) is highly prevalent in the adult population. WRA includes occupational asthma (OA), which is asthma caused by workplace exposures, and work-exacerbated asthma (WEA), also known as work-aggravated asthma, which is preexisting or concurrent asthma worsened by workplace conditions. In adults, the estimated prevalence of OA is 16.0%, whereas that of WEA is 21.5%. An increasing number of chemicals used in industrial production, households, and services are associated with the incidence of adult-onset asthma attributable to exposure to chemicals. This review article summarizes the different types of WRA and describes diagnostic procedures, treatment, prevention, and approaches to patient management. It is not always easy to distinguish between OA and WEA. It is important to establish a diagnosis (of sensitizer-/irritant-induced OA or WEA) in order to prevent worsening of symptoms, as well as to prevent other workers from being exposed, by providing early treatment and counseling on social security and work-related issues.

Assessment and Management of Occupational Asthma

Exposures at work can give rise to different phenotypes of "work-related asthma." The focus of this review is on the diagnosis and management of sensitizer-induced occupational asthma (OA) caused by either a high- or low-molecular-weight agent encountered in the workplace. The diagnosis of OA remains a challenge for the clinician because there is no simple test with a sufficiently high level of accuracy. Instead, the diagnostic process combines different procedures in a stepwise manner. These procedures include a detailed clinical history, immunologic testing, measurement of lung function parameters and airway inflammatory markers, as well as various methods that relate changes in these functional and inflammatory indices to workplace exposure. Their diagnostic performances, alone and in combination, are critically reviewed and summarized into evidence-based key messages. A working diagnostic algorithm is proposed that can be adapted to the suspected agent, purpose of diagnosis, and available resources. Current information on the management options of OA is summarized to provide pragmatic guidance to clinicians who have to advise their patients with OA.

Pulmonary Function Testing in Work-Related Asthma: An Overview from Spirometry to Specific Inhalation Challenge

Work-related asthma (WRA) is a very frequent condition in the occupational setting, and refers either to asthma induced (occupational asthma, OA) or worsened (work-exacerbated asthma, WEA) by exposure to allergens (or other sensitizing agents) or to irritant agents at work. Diagnosis of WRA is frequently missed and should take into account clinical features and objective evaluation of lung function. The aim of this overview on pulmonary function testing in the field of WRA is to summarize the different available tests that should be considered in order to accurately diagnose WRA. When WRA is suspected, initial assessment should be carried out with spirometry and bronchodilator responsiveness testing coupled with first-step bronchial provocation testing to assess non-specific bronchial hyper-responsiveness (NSBHR). Further investigations should then refer to specialists with specific functional respiratory tests aiming to consolidate WRA diagnosis and helping to differentiate OA from WEA. Serial peak expiratory flow (PEF) with calculation of the occupation asthma system (OASYS) score as well as serial NSBHR challenge during the working period compared to the off work period are highly informative in the management of WRA. Finally, specific inhalation challenge (SIC) is considered as the reference standard and represents the best way to confirm the specific cause of WRA. Overall, clinicians should be aware that all pulmonary function tests should be standardized in accordance with current guidelines.

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.

Respiratory health in professional cleaners: Symptoms, lung function, and risk factors

BACKGROUND

Cleaning is associated with an increased risk of asthma symptoms, but few studies have measured functional characteristics of airway disease in cleaners.

AIMS

To assess and characterize respiratory symptoms and lung function in professional cleaners, and determine potential risk factors for adverse respiratory outcomes.

METHODS

Symptoms, pre-/post-bronchodilator lung function, atopy, and cleaning exposures were assessed in 425 cleaners and 281 reference workers in Wellington, New Zealand between 2008 and 2010.

RESULTS

Cleaners had an increased risk of current asthma (past 12 months), defined as: woken by shortness of breath, asthma attack, or asthma medication (OR = 1.83, 95% CI = 1.18-2.85). Despite this, they had similar rates of current wheezing (OR = 0.93, 95% CI = 0.65-1.32) and were less likely to have a doctor diagnosis of asthma ever (OR = 0.62, 95% CI = 0.42-0.92). Cleaners overall had lower lung function (FEV₁ , FVC; P < .05). Asthma in cleaners was associated with less atopy (OR = 0.35, 95% CI = 0.13-0.90), fewer wheezing attacks (OR = 0.40, 95% CI = 0.17-0.97; >3 vs ≤3 times/year), and reduced bronchodilator response (6% vs 9% mean FEV₁ -%-predicted change, P < .05) compared to asthma in reference workers. Cleaning of cafes/restaurants/kitchens and using upholstery sprays or liquid multi-use cleaner was associated with symptoms, whilst several exposures were also associated with lung function deficits (P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Cleaners are at risk of some asthma-associated symptoms and reduced lung function. However, as it was not strongly associated with wheeze and atopy, and airway obstruction was less reversible, asthma in some cleaners may represent a distinct phenotype.

Diagnosing occupational asthma

Making an accurate diagnosis of occupational asthma (OA) is, generally, important. The condition has not only significant health consequences for affected workers, but also substantial socio-economic impacts for workers, their employers and wider society. Missing a diagnosis of OA may lead to continued exposure to a causative agent and progressive worsening of disease; conversely, diagnosing OA when it is not present may lead to inappropriate removal from exposure and unnecessary financial and social consequences. While the most accurate investigation is specific inhalation challenge in an experienced centre, this is a scarce resource, and in many cases, reliance is on other tests. This review provides a technical dossier of the diagnostic value of the available methods which include an appropriate clinical history, the use of specific immunology and measurement of inflammatory markers, and various methods of relating functional changes in airway calibre to periods at work. It is recommended that these approaches are used iteratively and in judicious combination, in cognizance of the individual patient's circumstances and requirements. Based on available evidence, a working diagnostic algorithm is proposed that can be adapted to the suspected agent, purpose of diagnosis and available resources. For better or worse, many of the techniques - and their interpretation - are available only in specialized centres and where there is room for doubt, referral to such a centre is probably wise. Accordingly, the implementation or development of such specialized centres with appropriate equipment and expertise should greatly improve the diagnostic evaluation of work-related asthma.

Review of Diagnostic Challenges in Occupational Asthma

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Occupational asthma (OA) is one of the most frequent occupational diseases and its diagnosis is often difficult. This review summarizes its current diagnostic challenges.

RECENT FINDINGS

OA is associated with significant health and socio-economic burden. It is underdiagnosed and physicians need to adopt a stepwise approach to confirm the diagnosis. Although early removal from exposure to the offending agent is associated with a better prognosis, physicians should try to confirm the diagnosis of work-related asthma before taking a worker off work. A proper occupational and medical history is very important but is not enough to make the diagnosis of OA. Objective evidence of work-related asthma is required and this represents a serious challenge to most physicians. Measurement of non-specific bronchial responsiveness (NSBR) and spirometry may confirm the diagnosis of asthma but do not confirm the diagnosis of OA. Serial monitoring of peak expiratory flows (PEF), NSBR, and airway inflammation at and off work may confirm the diagnosis of OA but are often difficult to perform. Confirming sensitization by skin prick tests or specific IgE may help to support the diagnosis of OA. Specific inhalation challenges (SIC) in the lab or at work are considered the reference standard but are of limited access. Medical surveillance programs along with primary prevention (reducing exposure) may help to reduce the burden of OA, but the ideal program has yet to be defined. The diagnostic workup of OA remains a challenge and needs a rigorous stepwise evaluation.

Specific inhalation challenge: the relationship between response, clinical variables and lung function

INTRODUCTION

The specific inhalation challenge (SIC) is considered the gold standard for the diagnosis of occupational asthma (OA). However, its use is not standardised, and the intensity of exposure is regulated empirically. The aim of this study was to identify clinical variables and/or pulmonary function variables able to predict the scale of patients' response to SIC.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

All patients who underwent SIC at our centre between 2005 and 2013 were studied. Anthropometric characteristics, atopic status, type of causal agent, latency times, pulmonary function tests and SIC results were analysed.

RESULTS

Two hundred and one patients (51% men) were assessed, of whom 86 (43%) had positive SIC. In the patients with positive results, 29 (34%) were exposed to high molecular weight (HMW) agents and 57 (64%) to low molecular weight (LMW) agents. Patients with a positive SIC exposed to HMW agents had a higher fall in FEV₁ after SIC compared with those exposed to LMW agents (p=0.036). The type of asthmatic reaction after SIC also differed between the groups (p=0.020). The logistic regression analysis showed that patients with a higher PC₂₀ before SIC were less likely to have severe decreases in FEV1 after SIC after adjusting for potential confounders (OR=0.771, 95% CI 0.618 to 0.961, p=0.021).

CONCLUSIONS

The scale of the response to SIC is influenced mainly by the degree of bronchial hyper-responsiveness, regardless of whether the causative agent is HMW or LMW, or whether the response is early or late.

Do Low Molecular Weight Agents Cause More Severe Asthma than High Molecular Weight Agents?

Introduction

The aim of this study was to analyse whether patients with occupational asthma (OA) caused by low molecular weight (LMW) agents differed from patients with OA caused by high molecular weight (HMW) with regard to risk factors, asthma presentation and severity, and response to various diagnostic tests.

Methods

Seventy-eight patients with OA diagnosed by positive specific inhalation challenge (SIC) were included. Anthropometric characteristics, atopic status, occupation, latency periods, asthma severity according to the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) control classification, lung function tests and SIC results were analysed.

Results

OA was induced by an HMW agent in 23 patients (29%) and by an LMW agent in 55 (71%). A logistic regression analysis confirmed that patients with OA caused by LMW agents had a significantly higher risk of severity according to the GINA classification after adjusting for potential confounders (OR = 3.579, 95% CI 1.136–11.280; p = 0.029). During the SIC, most patients with OA caused by HMW agents presented an early reaction (82%), while in patients with OA caused by LMW agents the response was mainly late (73%) (p = 0.0001). Similarly, patients with OA caused by LMW agents experienced a greater degree of bronchial hyperresponsiveness, measured as the difference in the methacholine dose-response ratio (DRR) before and after SIC (1.77, range 0–16), compared with patients with OA caused by HMW agents (0.87, range 0–72), (p = 0.024).

Conclusions

OA caused by LMW agents may be more severe than that caused by HMW agents. The severity of the condition may be determined by the different mechanisms of action of these agents.

Advanced diagnostic studies: exhaled breath and sputum analyses

AIM

: The present paper aims to review the advantages and limitations of sputum cell counts and exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) levels in the investigation of occupational asthma (OA).

METHODS

The American College of Chest physicians held a course on occupational and Environmental Lung Diseases in Toronto in 2013. A summary of the session on non-invasive measures of airway inflammation in OA is presented here.

RESULTS

Occupational asthma is associated with an increase in sputum eosinophil percentage during periods at work or after positive specific inhalation challenges. Changes in FeNO are less sensitive than sputum eosinophil counts for predicting OA.

CONCLUSIONS

In settings where this tool is available, sputum eosinophil counts may complement the current investigation of OA. The interpretation of FeNO remains sometimes difficult. The phenotypes of patients who may benefit from this measure needs to be better defined.

Sputum inflammatory profile before and after specific inhalation challenge in individuals with suspected occupational asthma

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to establish the sputum inflammatory profile and changes in levels of leukotriene B₄ (LTB₄) and a panel of Th1/Th2 cytokines in subjects with suspected occupational asthma (OA) following specific inhalation challenge (SIC) to high-molecular-weight (HMW) and low-molecular-weight (LMW) agents.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Fifty-one consecutive subjects undergoing SIC for suspected OA were enrolled. Sputum induction was performed the day before and 24 h after exposure to the offending agent. Total and differential cell counts were assessed. LTB₄ and a 10 Th1/Th2 cytokines were measured in sputum supernatant.

RESULTS

Thirty-four patients tested positive to SIC and were diagnosed with OA (in 10 due to HMW agents and in 24 to LMW agents). SIC was negative in 17 subjects. As compared to baseline an increase was found in the percentage of sputum eosinophils and neutrophils, and in IL-10 concentration after SIC (p = 0.0078, p = 0.0195, and p = 0.046, respectively), and a decrease was seen in LTB₄ level (p = 0.0078) in patients with OA due to HMW agents. An increase in the percentage of sputum neutrophils after SIC (p = 0.0040) was observed in subjects without OA exposed to LMW agents. IL-8 levels after SIC were higher in patients without OA compared with patients with OA (p = 0.0146).

CONCLUSION

When conducting airway inflammation studies in OA, patients should be divided according to the causal agent (HMW or LMW). In OA patients exposed to HMW agents, an increase in the number of neutrophils can be found in parallel to the increase of eosinophils, although this does not contradict an IgE-mediated mechanism. Exposure to LMW agents can result in increased neutrophilic inflammation in patients with airway diseases unrelated to OA. There is variability in the responses observed in patients with OA exposed to LMW agents.

Asthma related to cleaning agents: a clinical insight

OBJECTIVE

To determine the agents causing asthmatic reactions during specific inhalation challenges (SICs) in workers with cleaning-related asthma symptoms and to assess the pattern of bronchial responses in order to identify the mechanisms involved in cleaning-related asthma.

DESIGN

A retrospective case series analysis.

SETTING

The study included all participants who completed an SIC procedure with the cleaning/disinfection products suspected of causing work-related asthma over the period 1992-2011 in a tertiary centre, which is the single specialised centre of the French-speaking part of Belgium where all participants with work-related asthma are referred to for SIC.

RESULTS

The review identified 44 participants who completed an SIC with cleaning/disinfection agents. Challenge exposure to the suspected cleaning agents elicited a ≥20% fall in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) in 17 (39%) participants. The cleaning products that induced a positive SIC contained quaternary ammonium compounds (n=10), glutaraldehyde (n=3), both of these agents (n=1) and ethanolamines (n=2). Positive SICs were associated with a significant decrease in the median (IQR) value of the provocative concentration of histamine causing a 20% fall in FEV1 (PC20) from 1.4 (0.2-4.2) mg/mL at baseline to 0.5 (0.4-3.0) mg/mL after the challenge and a significant increase in sputum eosinophils from 1.8 (0.8-7.2)% at baseline to 10.0 (4.1-15.9)% 7 h after the challenge exposure while these parameters did not significantly change in participants with a negative SIC. Overall, 11 of 17 participants with positive SICs showed greater than threefold decrease in postchallenge histamine PC20 value, a >2% increase in sputum eosinophils, or both of these outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

These data indicate that a substantial proportion of workers who experience asthma symptoms related to cleaning materials show a pattern of bronchial reaction consistent with sensitiser-induced occupational asthma. The results also suggest that quaternary ammonium compounds are the principal cause of sensitiser-induced occupational asthma among cleaners.

Diagnosis and frequency of work-exacerbated asthma among bakers

BACKGROUND

Work-exacerbated asthma (WEA) is asthma worsened by workplace exposures, although the asthma is not caused by sensitizers in the work environment.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the frequency of WEA in bakers reporting work-related respiratory symptoms and the usefulness of diagnostic tests in differentiating WEA from occupational asthma (OA).

METHODS

The study group included 393 bakers reporting respiratory symptoms at the workplace. In all patients, questionnaire, spirometry, skin prick tests (SPTs), and evaluation of serum total and specific IgE levels were performed. Recognition of OA was based on a specific inhalation challenge test.

RESULTS

Occupational asthma was found in 44.5% of patients, whereas WEA was recognized in 16%. The latency period was 11.2 ± 8.2 years in patients with OA vs 13.3 ± 9.7 years in those with WEA. Sixty percent of patients with OA and 50.8% of those with WEA had positive SPT reactions to common allergens; occupational SPT results were positive in 74.9% and 34.9%, respectively. Specific IgE to flours were found in 61.7% of patients with OA and 28.6% of those with WEA. In addition, OA frequently coexisted with occupational rhinitis (53.7% of patients), whereas WEA and rhinitis were found in 31.7% of patients.

CONCLUSION

Work-exacerbated asthma was diagnosed in 16% of bakers who reported allergic respiratory symptoms. The specific challenge test for occupational allergens should be performed in bakers with suspected work-related asthma, because an assessment of sensitization (SPT to occupational allergens, evaluation of specific IgE) is not specific enough to differentiate OA from WEA.

A kit to facilitate and standardize the processing of sputum for measurement of airway inflammation

BACKGROUND

The use of inflammometry has been shown to be effective for managing asthma. However, sputum processing can be time consuming. Furthermore, methods of sputum processing can vary among facilities. To help with standardization and to simplify the procedure for laboratory staff, a novel, commercially available processing device (Accufilter, Cellometrics Inc, Canada) has been developed.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the validity of the Accufilter device and kit for recovery of treated specimens, and for quantitative sputum inflammatory cell counts by comparing intrasample measurements with those using the same procedure without the Accufilter device and kit.

METHODS

The present study was a wet laboratory comparison of induced sputum cell counts obtained from sputum processed with versus without the device and kit. Comparisons of each sputum specimen were performed by the same technologist in random order.

RESULTS

A total of 39 samples were processed using both the standard method and the Accufilter device. The intraclass correlation coefficients were high for the weight of the filtrate, and for eosinophil and neutrophil differential counts.

CONCLUSION

A good degree of agreement of results was apparent when the two methods were compared. The differences noted between both methods were minimal and did not modify clinical interpretation. The use of the Accufilter device and kit can be used in place of the standard method for sputum quantitative analysis, especially in centres with large sample loads.

Diagnosis of occupational asthma: an update

Work-related asthma (WRA) includes patients with sensitizer- and/or irritant-induced asthma in the workplace, as well as patients with preexisting asthma that is worsened by work factors. WRA is underdiagnosed; thus, the diagnosis is critical to prevent disease progression and its potential for morbidity and mortality. The interview is the first diagnostic tool to be used by physicians, and the question, "Does asthma improve away from work?" is of the highest sensitivity. However, history can show numerous false positives, and the relationships between asthma worsening and work should be confirmed by objective methods such as peak expiratory flow (PEF) at and away from work. PEF sensitivity and specificity can be enhanced in combination with nonspecific bronchial hyperresponsiveness to histamine/methacholine (NSBP) before and after 2 weeks at work and a similar period off work. Immunologic testing, especially skin prick test (SPT) or specific IgE, is useful for high molecular weight allergens and some low molecular weight agents. Other immunologic tests, as well as induced sputum, measurement of exhaled nitric oxide, exhaled breath condensate, and specific inhalation challenge (SIC) are methods that contribute to the diagnosis and are typically performed at specialized facilities. A diagnosis of occupational asthma (OA) should no longer be based on a compatible history only but should be confirmed by means of objective testing. SIC is the diagnostic gold standard. When SIC is not available, the combination of PEF measurement, NSBP test , a specific SPT, or specific IgE may be an appropriate alternative in diagnosing OA.

Work-exacerbated asthma and occupational asthma: do they really differ?

BACKGROUND

Although work-exacerbated asthma (WEA) is a prevalent condition likely to have an important societal burden, there are limited data on this condition.

OBJECTIVES

The aims of this study were (1) to compare the clinical, functional, and inflammatory characteristics of workers with WEA and occupational asthma (OA) and (2) compare health care use and related costs between workers with WEA and OA, as well as between workers with work-related asthma (WRA; ie, WEA plus OA) and those with non-work-related asthma (NWRA) in a prospective study.

METHODS

We performed a prospective observational study of workers with and without WRA with a 2-year follow-up. The diagnosis of OA and WEA was based on the positivity and negativity of results on specific inhalation challenges, respectively.

RESULTS

One hundred fifty-four subjects were enrolled: 53 with WEA, 68 with OA, and 33 control asthmatic subjects (NWRA). WEA was associated with more frequent prescriptions of inhaled corticosteroids (odds ratio [OR], 4.4; 95% CI, 1.4-13.6; P = .009), a noneosinophilic phenotype (OR, 0.3; 95% CI, 0.1-0.9; P = .04), a trend toward a lower FEV1 (OR, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.9-1.0; P = .06), and a higher proportion of smokers (OR, 2.5; 95% CI, 0.96-9.7; P = .06) than the diagnosis of OA. The health care use of WRA and related costs were 10-fold higher than those of NWRA.

CONCLUSION

Workers with WEA appeared to have features of greater asthma severity than workers with OA. In contrast with OA, WEA was associated with a noneosinophilic phenotype. Both OA and WEA were associated with greater health care use and 10-fold higher direct costs than NWRA.

The current diagnostic role of the specific occupational laboratory challenge test

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Classically, the specific occupational challenge test has been considered as the reference test in the diagnosis of occupational asthma. The present study assesses the usefulness of this test for diagnosing this disease and compares it with other diagnostic methods.

RECENT FINDINGS

Occupational asthma is the most frequent work-related respiratory disease in developed countries. Its correct diagnosis is vitally important not only from the medical point of view, but also in view of the disease's major socio-economic repercussions both for the patient and for society as a whole. Diagnosis is based on clinical suspicion of bronchial asthma and of a possible association with the patient's occupation. Various diagnostic strategies have been proposed, including clinical history, immunological test, spirometry, the study of peak flow, the methacholine test and the specific occupational challenge test, as well as studies of bronchial inflammation using noninvasive methods.

SUMMARY

The specific occupational challenge test remains the reference test for the diagnosis of occupational asthma for causal agents of both high and low molecular weight.

EAACI consensus statement for investigation of work-related asthma in non-specialized centres

Work-related asthma (WRA) is a relevant problem in several countries, is cause of disability and socioeconomic consequences for both the patient and the society and is probably still underdiagnosed. A correct diagnosis is extremely important to reduce or limit the consequences of the disease. This consensus document was prepared by a EAACI Task Force consisting of an expert panel of allergologists, pneumologists and occupational physicians from different European countries. This document is not intended to address in detail the full diagnostic work-up of WRA, nor to be a formal evidence-based guideline. It is written to provide an operative protocol to allergologists and physicians dealing with asthma useful for identifying the subjects suspected of having WRA to address them to in-depth investigations in a specialized centre. No evidence-based system could be used because of the low grade of evidence of published studies in this area, and instead, 'key messages' or 'suggestions' are provided based on consensus of the expert panel members.

Definitions and classification of work-related asthma

The workplace can trigger or induce asthma and cause the onset of different types of work-related asthma (WRA). Based on current knowledge of clinical features, pathophysiologic mechanisms, and evidence supporting a causal relationship, the following conditions should be distinguished in the spectrum of WRA: (1) immunologic occupational asthma (OA), (2) nonimmunologic OA, (3) work-exacerbated asthma, and (4) variant syndromes, including eosinophilic bronchitis, potroom asthma, and asthmalike disorders caused by organic dusts. The rationale, issues, and controversies relating to this approach are critically reviewed to stimulate the development of a consensus on operational definitions of the various phenotypes of WRA.

Clinical assessment of occupational asthma and its differential diagnosis

Occupational asthma (OA) is defined as asthma caused by sources and conditions attributable to a particular occupational environment and not to stimuli encountered outside the workplace. Two types of OA are distinguished based on their appearance after a latency period or not. The most frequent type appears after a latency period leading to sensitization; the clinical assessment of this type of OA is the topic of this review. The differential diagnosis of OA is also reviewed, including work-exacerbated asthma, eosinophilic bronchitis, hyperventilation syndrome, vocal cord dysfunction, bronchiolitis, and other causes of dyspnea or cough.

Work-related asthma: a case-based approach to management

The management of work-related asthma has some differences from management of other asthma. Components of management include not only making as accurate a diagnosis as possible, identifying the causative agent or triggers at work, and managing the asthma with pharmacologic treatment as for other patients with asthma, but also advising on the appropriate work changes that may be needed, assisting the worker with appropriate compensation claims, and supporting protective measures for coworkers. This article discusses the approaches that may be taken for patients with different forms of work-related asthma.

Diagnostic utility of exhaled breath condensate analysis in conjunction with specific inhalation challenge in individuals with suspected work-related asthma

BACKGROUND

Establishing the role of exhaled breath condensate (EBC) analysis in work-related asthma (WRA), and more specifically, in conjunction with specific inhalation challenge (SIC), is difficult.

OBJECTIVE

To measure EBC pH, and nitrite/nitrate concentrations before and after SIC in individuals with suspected WRA exposed to either high-molecular-weight (HMW) or low-molecular-weight (LMW) agents and evaluate whether these changes are useful to distinguish between occupational asthma (OA) and work-exacerbated asthma (WEA).

METHODS

One hundred twenty-five consecutive workers undergoing SIC were enrolled. Exhaled breath condensate was collected at the end of the baseline day and 24 hours after exposure to the offending agent. In all EBC samples, pH was measured, and nitrite and nitrate concentrations were determined.

RESULTS

Specific inhalation challenge was positive in 66 individuals, who were then diagnosed with OA. Work-exacerbated asthma was diagnosed in 14, and in 45 patients establishing a direct relationship between the symptoms and work exposure was not possible. In patients with WEA, EBC pH values after SIC were significantly lower than those before SIC (P = .0047). Using the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, we found that an EBC pH decrease of greater than 0.4 units after SIC achieved the most satisfactory sensitivity 79% (confidence interval [CI]: 49-94) and specificity of 100% (CI: 68-100), considering only patients with asthma and without OA. A decrease in EBC pH of 0.4 or more common in those exposed to HMW agents (8/19, 42%) than in those exposed to LMW agents (7/47, 15%).

CONCLUSIONS

Exhaled breath condensate pH in conjunction with SIC may be useful for diagnosing WEA.

Airway inflammatory responses following exposure to occupational agents

BACKGROUND

Airway inflammatory responses to specific inhalation challenges (SICs) with low-molecular-weight (LMW) and high-molecular-weight (HMW) agents have not been studied thoroughly. We assessed the changes in airway inflammatory cells following SIC in sensitized workers, and looked at the influence of various factors on the pattern of inflammatory responses to SIC.

METHODS

Induced sputum analysis was performed in workers sensitized to LMW (n = 41) or HMW agents (n = 41) after a control day and after a positive SIC. Cell counts were compared with lung function and various clinical parameters.

RESULTS

In the LMW group, eosinophils were increased following late asthmatic responses (median [interquartile range], 0.02 [0.04] × 10(6) cells/g vs 0.30 [0.80] × 10(6) cells/g and 1.0% [3.5] vs 8.9% [8.0], P < .05), as were neutrophil numbers (0.8 [1.3] × 10(6) cells/g vs 2.3 [5.4] × 10(6) cells/g, P = .04). In the HMW group, eosinophil percentages increased both after early (1.0% [2.2] vs 5.5% [14.5], P = .003) and dual asthmatic responses (4.5% [3.7] vs 15.0% [13.7], P = .02). In the LMW group, the increases in neutrophils were higher in current smokers than in ex-smokers or nonsmokers. The length of exposure to the agent, tobacco use, and baseline percentage of eosinophils were independent predictors of the change in eosinophils, whereas age and baseline neutrophil percentage were predictors of the change in neutrophils.

CONCLUSIONS

This study confirms that eosinophils and neutrophils are increased after SIC, whatever the causal agent. The type of agent is not predictive of the inflammatory response to SIC. Smoking is associated with a more neutrophilic response after SIC with an LMW agent.

May the reduction of exposure to specific sensitizers be an alternative to work cessation in occupational asthma? Results from a follow-up study

BACKGROUND

Few data are reported on the effects of a reduction of exposure to specific sensitizers in occupational asthma (OA). The objective of this study was to evaluate the clinical outcome of subjects with OA, comparing the effect of a reduction with that of the persistence or cessation of occupational exposure to the specific sensitizer.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

Forty-one subjects with OA due to different sensitizers were diagnosed via a specific inhalation challenge. After a follow-up interval of 3.5 years, subjects were reexamined by clinical assessment, bronchial hyperresponsiveness (BH) and induced sputum.

RESULTS

At follow-up, subjects who had reduced occupational exposure (n = 22) showed a significant improvement in BH and a nonsignificant improvement in sputum eosinophilia (from 5.3 to 1.1%, n.s.), while subjects still exposed (n = 10) showed a significant decrease in FEV(1). Subjects who ceased work (n = 9) showed a trend of improvement in BH and sputum eosinophilia. Logistic analysis showed that the major determinant of improvement in BH at follow-up was the severity of BH at diagnosis, with a minimal contribution from the duration of exposure and treatment with inhaled corticosteroids during follow-up; reduction of work exposure did not enter into any model.

CONCLUSION

The reduction of occupational exposure could not be considered to be as effective as work cessation, which remained the best treatment for OA. However, it was not associated with a deterioration of FEV(1) as observed in subjects with persistent exposure.

An official american thoracic society statement: work-exacerbated asthma

RATIONALE

Occupational exposures can contribute to the exacerbation as well as the onset of asthma. However, work-exacerbated asthma (WEA) has received less attention than occupational asthma (OA) that is caused by work.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this Statement is to summarize current knowledge about the descriptive epidemiology, clinical characteristics, and management and treatment of WEA; propose a case definition for WEA; and discuss needs for prevention and research.

METHODS

Information about WEA was identified primarily by systematic searches of the medical literature. Statements about prevention and research needs were reached by consensus.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

WEA is defined as the worsening of asthma due to conditions at work. WEA is common, with a median prevalence of 21.5% among adults with asthma. Different types of agents or conditions at work may exacerbate asthma. WEA cases with persistent work-related symptoms can have clinical characteristics (level of severity, medication needs) and adverse socioeconomic outcomes (unemployment, reduction in income) similar to those of OA cases. Compared with adults with asthma unrelated to work, WEA cases report more days with symptoms, seek more medical care, and have a lower quality of life. WEA should be considered in any patient with asthma that is getting worse or who has work-related symptoms. Management of WEA should focus on reducing work exposures and optimizing standard medical management, with a change in jobs only if these measures are not successful.

CONCLUSIONS

WEA is a common and underrecognized adverse outcome resulting from conditions at work. Additional research is needed to improve the understanding of the risk factors for, and mechanisms and outcomes of, WEA, and to inform and evaluate preventive interventions.

Seafood workers and respiratory disease: an update

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review focuses on seafood workers engaged in harvesting, processing and food preparation. These groups are increasingly at risk of developing occupational allergy and respiratory disease as a result of seafood handling and processing activities. This review provides an update of a previous review conducted a decade ago.

RECENT FINDINGS

Exposure characterization studies have demonstrated that aerosolization of seafood (muscle, visceral organs, skin/mucin) during canning and fishmeal operations result in highly variable levels of airborne particulate (0.001-11.293 mg/m3) and allergens (0.001-75.748 ug/m3). Occupational asthma is more commonly associated with shellfish (4-36%) than with bony fish (2-8%). Other seafood-associated biological (Anisakis) and chemical agents (protease enzymes, toxins and preservatives) have also been implicated. Atopy, smoking and level of exposure to allergens are significant risk factors for sensitization and the development of occupational asthma. Molecular studies of the allergens suggest that aside from tropomyosin and parvalbumin, other as yet uncharacterized allergens are important.

SUMMARY

Future research needs to focus on detailed characterization of allergens in order to standardize exposure assessment techniques, which are key to assessing the impact of interventions. The clinical relevance of agents such as serine proteases and endotoxins in causing asthma through nonallergic mechanisms needs further epidemiological investigation.

Inflammatory phenotypes in adult asthma: clinical applications

BACKGROUND

The pattern of granulocyte infiltration can be used to identify different inflammatory phenotypes in asthma. Recognized granulocyte phenotypes using induced sputum are eosinophilic (EA), neutrophilic, mixed granulocytic and paucigranulocytic asthma.

METHODS

The recognition and importance of inflammatory phenotype analysis using induced sputum in adult asthma are reviewed using published literature.

RESULTS

Knowledge of inflammatory phenotype is useful because it relates to treatment response, mechanistic pathways involved in disease pathogenesis and future disease risk. The population attributable risk of asthma because of eosinophilic inflammation is about 50%, and conversely, this means that up to 50% of asthma cannot be attributed to eosinophilic inflammation, and represents asthma associated with non-eosinophilic processes. In these patients, bronchial biopsy shows significantly fewer eosinophils in the bronchial mucosa than subjects with EA. This confirms that non-eosinophilic asthma is a consistent pattern/phenotype in the airway lumen and the airway mucosa. A key aspect of asthma inflammatory phenotype analysis is that it can be applied to individual patients. The underlying principle relates to the association between a clinical response to corticosteroids and the presence of a selective sputum eosinophilia.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinically useful applications of induced sputum analysis are the detection of non-adherence to corticosteroid therapy, assessment of adequacy of inhaled corticosteroid therapy, long-term therapy management in asthma, oral corticosteroid dose adjustment in refractory asthma and assessment of occupational asthma.

Occupational and work-exacerbated asthma: similarities and differences

Over the years, there have been tremendous efforts to improve the understanding of occupational asthma (OA), whereas work-exacerbated asthma (WEA) has been somewhat overlooked. The aim of this work is to review the literature, comparing the prevalence of OA and WEA, their clinical and inflammatory characteristics, as well as the work environment of those suffering from OA and WEA. We performed a PubMed search up to September 2006 using the keywords: work-related asthma, WEA, work-aggravated asthma and OA. Only studies in English were included for consideration. We found that OA and WEA are prevalent conditions. The characteristics of subjects with OA and WEA vary according to the type of studies undertaken to describe these conditions. Many sensitizing agents have been reported to cause OA, whereas exposures to irritant agents seem to be associated with the occurrence of WEA. The inflammatory profile may differ between these two conditions, but the data are too limited and sometimes too contradictory to allow a firm conclusion to be drawn. The socioeconomic outcome of these conditions seems similar. Therefore, further studies investigating the prevalence of WEA, as well as its clinical, functional and inflammatory characteristics, are needed to improve the management of the workers with WEA.

Occupational asthma: risk factors, diagnosis and preventive measures

In adulthood, new or recurrent asthma is caused by work in approximately 10% of cases. The term occupational asthma is reserved for those cases arising from respiratory hypersensitivity to a specific workplace agent; in others (work-exacerbated asthma) the mechanism is of nonspecific airway irritation on a background of bronchial hyper-reactivity. Some 300 workplace agents are capable of inducing asthma de novo; fortunately, most cases are attributed to a much smaller number to which exposure occurs in a few high-risk occupations. Exposure level is the most important remediable risk factor; the factors governing individual susceptibility are poorly understood. Diagnosis is generally straightforward. Management is rarely pharmacologic and often difficult since the diagnosis incurs important employment and other social consequences.

Noninvasive methods for assessment of airway inflammation in occupational settings

The present document is a consensus statement reached by a panel of experts on noninvasive methods for assessment of airway inflammation in the investigation of occupational respiratory diseases, such as occupational rhinitis, occupational asthma, and nonasthmatic eosinophilic bronchitis. Both the upper and the lower airway inflammation have been reviewed and appraised reinforcing the concept of 'united airway disease' in the occupational settings. The most widely used noninvasive methods to assess bronchial inflammation are covered: induced sputum, fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) concentration, and exhaled breath condensate. Nasal inflammation may be assessed by noninvasive approaches such as nasal cytology and nasal lavage, which provide information on different aspects of inflammatory processes (cellular vs mediators). Key messages and suggestions on the use of noninvasive methods for assessment of airway inflammation in the investigation and diagnosis of occupational airway diseases are issued.

Two variants of occupational asthma separable by exhaled breath nitric oxide level

Exhaled nitric oxide (FE(NO)) has been used as a marker of asthmatic inflammation in non-occupational asthma, but some asthmatics have a normal FE(NO). In this study we investigated whether, normal FE(NO) variants have less reactivity in methacholine challenge and smaller peak expiratory flow (PEF) responses than high FE(NO) variants in a group of occupational asthmatics.

METHODS

We measured FE(NO) and PD(20) in methacholine challenge in 60 workers currently exposed to occupational agents, who were referred consecutively to a specialist occupational lung disease clinic and whose serial PEF records confirmed occupational asthma. Bronchial responsiveness (PD(20) in methacholine challenge) and the degree of PEF change to occupational exposures, (measured by calculating diurnal variation and the area between curves score of the serial PEF record in Oasys), were compared between those with normal and raised FE(NO). Potential confounding factors such as smoking, atopy and inhaled corticosteroid use were adjusted for.

RESULTS

There was a significant correlation between FE(NO) and bronchial hyper-responsiveness in methacholine challenge (p = 0.011), after controlling for confounders. Reactivity to methacholine was significantly lower in the normal FE(NO) group compared to the raised FE(NO) group (p = 0.035). The two FE(NO) variants did not differ significantly according to the causal agent, the magnitude of the response in PEF to the asthmagen at work, or diurnal variation.

CONCLUSIONS

Occupational asthma patients present as two different variants based on FE(NO). The group with normal FE(NO) have less reactivity in methacholine challenge, while the PEF changes in relation to work are similar.

Investigation of occupational asthma: sputum cell counts or exhaled nitric oxide?

BACKGROUND

The measure of sputum eosinophil counts is a useful tool in the investigation of occupational asthma (OA), but processing sputum is time consuming. Measuring the fractional concentration of exhaled nitric oxide (FENO) may be an alternative in clinical practice. The aim of this study was to assess the respective changes of sputum eosinophil counts and FENO following exposure to occupational agents in the routine practice of two tertiary centers in North America and Europe.

METHODS

Workers undergoing specific inhalation challenges (SICs) for possible OA in tertiary clinics in both Canada and Belgium were enrolled. Sputum cell counts and FENO were collected at the end of the control day and at 7 and 24 h after exposure to the offending agent.

RESULTS

Forty-one subjects had a negative SIC; 26 subjects had OA proven by a positive SIC. In subjects with positive SIC, there was a significant increase in sputum eosinophils at 7 h (9.0 [9.9]%) and 24 h (11.9 [14.9]%) after exposure compared with the baseline (2.8 [4.2]%), whereas there was a significant increase in FENO only 24 h after exposure (26.0 [30.5] ppb) compared with the baseline (16.6 [18.5] ppb). A 2.2% change in sputum eosinophil counts achieved a much higher sensitivity and positive predictive value than a 10-ppb change in FENO with similar specificity and negative predictive value for predicting a 20% decrease in FEV(1) during SICs.

CONCLUSIONS

Sputum eosinophil counts constitute a more reliable tool than FENO to discriminate positive and negative SICs.

Occupational and environmental lung disease: occupational asthma

Occupational exposures cause 10-15% of new-onset asthma in adults, and that represents a considerable health and economic burden. Exposure to many causative agents is now well controlled but workplace practices are constantly evolving and new hazards being introduced. Overall, there is no good evidence that the incidence of occupational asthma is decreasing. Evidence-based guidelines such as those published by the British Occupational Health research Foundation and Standards of Care documents should help raise awareness of the problem and improve management. Key targets include the control of occupational exposures, a high index of suspicion in any adult with new onset asthma, and early detailed investigation.

Changes in sputum eicosanoids and inflammatory markers after inhalation challenges with occupational agents

BACKGROUND

An increase in cysteinyl-leukotrienes (LTs) after specific inhalation challenge (SIC) with common allergens in patients with atopic asthma has been shown previously, but there are scarce data with occupational agents. We sought to determine whether there are differences in lower airway inflammatory markers and the production of cytokines and eicosanoids between patients with a positive or negative SIC response to occupational agents.

METHODS

Twenty-six patients with suspected occupational asthma and 13 healthy control subjects were studied. Spirometry, methacholine challenge, and sputum induction were performed at baseline and 24 h after SIC with occupational agents. Several cytokines and inflammatory mediators, including eicosanoids, were measured in sputum.

RESULTS

Twenty-six SICs were carried out with high-molecular-weight or low-molecular-weight agents, and the responses were positive in 18 patients. SIC elicited nine early asthmatic responses, two dual asthmatic responses, and seven isolated late asthmatic responses. Significant increments in sputum eosinophil counts were found only in patients with positive SIC responses compared with baseline values. Interleukin-10 levels were decreased in patients with positive and negative SIC responses compared to those in healthy control subjects. A significant increase (p < 0.05) in the LTC(4)/prostaglandin E(2) (PGE(2)) ratio was observed in patients after positive SIC responses compared to those with negative SIC responses.

CONCLUSIONS

Overexpression of LTC(4), relative underproduction of PGE(2), and greater airway eosinophilia were observed in patients with positive SIC responses.

Sputum eosinophilia: an early marker of bronchial response to occupational agents

BACKGROUND

False-negative responses to specific inhalation challenge (SIC) with occupational agents may occur. We explored whether assessing changes in sputum cell counts would help improve the identification of bronchial reactivity to occupational agents during SICs.

METHODS

The predictive value of the changes in sputum cell counts after a negative FEV(1) response to a first challenge exposure to an occupational agent was determined using the changes in airway calibre observed during repeated challenges as the 'gold standard'. The study included 68 subjects investigated for work-related asthma in a tertiary centre. After a control day, the subjects were challenged with the suspected occupational agent(s) for up to 2 h. All subjects who did not show an asthmatic reaction were re-challenged on the following day. Additional challenges were proposed to those who demonstrated a > or = 2% increase in sputum eosinophils or an increase in nonspecific bronchial hyperresponsiveness to histamine after the second challenge day.

RESULTS

Six of the 35 subjects without changes in FEV(1) on the first challenge developed an asthmatic reaction on subsequent challenges. ROC analysis revealed that a >3% increase in sputum eosinophils at the end of the first challenge day was the most accurate parameter for predicting the development of an asthmatic response on subsequent challenges with a sensitivity of 67% and a specificity of 97%.

CONCLUSIONS

An increase in sputum eosinophils is an early marker of specific bronchial reactivity to occupational agents, which may help to identify subjects who will develop an asthmatic reaction only after repeated exposure.

Occupational asthma: current concepts in pathogenesis, diagnosis, and management

Occupational asthma (OA) may account for 25% or more of de novo adult asthma. The nomenclature has now better defined categories of OA caused by sensitizing agents and irritants, the latter best typified by the reactive airways dysfunction syndrome. Selecting the most appropriate diagnostic testing and management is driven by assessing whether a sensitizer is involved, and if so, identifying whether the sensitizing agent is a high-molecular-weight agent such as a protein or a low-molecular-weight reactive chemical such as an isocyanate. Increased understanding of the pathogenesis of OA from reactive chemical sensitizers is leading to development of better diagnostic testing and also an understanding of why testing for sensitization to such agents can be problematic. Risk factors for OA including possible genetic factors are being delineated better. Recently published guidelines for the diagnosis and management of occupational asthma are summarized; these reflect an increasingly robust evidence basis for recommendations. The utility of diagnostic tests for OA is being better defined by evidence, including sputum analysis performed in relation to work exposure with suspected sensitizers. Preventive and management approaches are reviewed. Longitudinal studies of patients with OA continue to show that timely removal from exposure leads to the best prognosis.

Exhaled nitric oxide and breath condensate ph in asthmatic reactions induced by isocyanates

BACKGROUND

We investigated the usefulness of measurements of fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) and pH of exhaled breath condensate (EBC) for monitoring airway response after specific inhalation challenges with isocyanates in sensitized subjects.

METHODS

Lung function (FEV(1)), FeNO, and pH in argon-deaerated EBC were measured before and at intervals up to 30 days after a specific inhalation challenge in 15 subjects with isocyanate asthma, in 24 not sensitized control subjects exposed to isocyanates, and in 3 nonasthmatic subjects with rhinitis induced by isocyanate. Induced sputum was collected before and 24 h after isocyanate exposure.

RESULTS

Isocyanate-induced asthmatic reactions were associated with a rise in sputum eosinophil levels at 24 h (p < 0.01), and an increase in FeNO at 24 h (p < 0.05) and 48 h (p < 0.005), whereas FeNO level did not vary with isocyanate exposure in subjects with rhinitis and in control subjects. FeNO changes at 24 h positively correlated with corresponding sputum eosinophil changes (rho = 0.66, p < 0.001). A rise in pH was observed in the afternoon samples of EBC, irrespective of the occurrence of isocyanate-induced asthmatic reactions.

CONCLUSIONS

We demonstrated that isocyanate-induced asthmatic reactions are associated with a consistent delayed increase in FeNO but not with the acidification of EBC.

[The diagnosis and management of occupational asthma]

INTRODUCTION

Occupational asthma (OA), with a latency period induced by multiple exposures, is characterized by immunological sensitization to the responsible agent, based on both an IgE mediated mechanisms and non specific bronchial hyper responsiveness.

DIAGNOSTIC METHODS

In the diagnosis of OA, the medical history is obviously the starting-point. Onset of respiratory symptoms at work and resolution on vacation are indications of the diagnosis. After analysis of several publications, this element appears to have the best level of proof (grade 2+) according to the criteria of evidence-based medicine. A visit of the workplace, with the cooperation of the industrial physician, is essential to characterize the nature of the exposure. Positive immunological tests (skin tests and/or specific IgE) associated with objective criteria of symptoms related to work (modification of PEFR, lung function and/or nonspecific bronchial hyper responsiveness) will confirm the aetiological diagnosis of OA. Specific bronchial provocation tests performed in the laboratory allow the identification of new agents involved in OA and are necessary when other investigations are discordant or unavailable. OA needs a stepwise approach including induced sputum eosinophilic counts and measurements of exhaled nitric oxide.

MANAGEMENT OF OA

OA requires removal from the workplace because persistence of exposure to respiratory sensitisers may lead to an increase and prolongation of asthma symptoms. However, removal from the workplace can have tremendous professional, financial and social consequences, and sometimes a compromise must be found with reduction of exposure by various methods combined with adequate treatment. The pharmacological treatment of patients with OA should be the same as for patients with non OA, the use of bronchodilators and corticoids depending on the severity of asthma. Concerning the medico-legal aspects, OA can be recognised as an occupational disease. In France OA is included in several tables of work-related diseases.

Assessing and treating work-related asthma

Work-related asthma is asthma that is caused or exacerbated by exposures at work. It is the most common form of occupational lung disease in developed countries. It has important impacts on the health and well-being of the affected individual, as well as consequences for society because of unemployment issues and workers' compensation claims. With ongoing exposure, occupational asthma can result in persistent airway hyperresponsiveness and, possibly, permanent disability for the individual. Thus, it is important for the clinician to be able to diagnose this disorder as quickly and accurately as possible. The evaluation of a patient with work-related asthma can be extensive. It includes obtaining a consistent history, identifying the cause in the workplace, and confirming the diagnosis with objective tests. After a diagnosis has been made, treatment must sometimes go beyond the medications used for nonoccupational asthma and include interventions to minimize or completely remove the individual from exposure to the causal agent if he or she has sensitizer-induced occupational asthma. In addition, once an individual has been identified with occupational asthma, steps should be taken to prevent the development of this disorder in other workers. The purpose of this article is to review the current literature and provide the clinician with a stepwise approach to the diagnosis and management of a patient with work-related asthma.

Occupational exposures and adult asthma

Occupational exposures can cause a new onset of asthma in a subset of susceptible workers on the basis of sensitization to a specific work agent or a high-level irritant exposure. Epidemiologic studies give insight into the natural history of occupational asthma, including host factors and environmental factors leading to the development of occupational asthma, the progression, and the potential role of preventive measures. Work-exacerbated asthma has been a focus of studies only recently but is recognized as common among asthmatic workers and is a potential cause of significant morbidity and socioeconomic impact.

Diagnosis and management of work-related asthma: American College Of Chest Physicians Consensus Statement

BACKGROUND

A previous American College of Chest Physicians Consensus Statement on asthma in the workplace was published in 1995. The current Consensus Statement updates the previous one based on additional research that has been published since then, including findings relevant to preventive measures and work-exacerbated asthma (WEA).

METHODS

A panel of experts, including allergists, pulmonologists, and occupational medicine physicians, was convened to develop this Consensus Document on the diagnosis and management of work-related asthma (WRA), based in part on a systematic review, that was performed by the University of Alberta/Capital Health Evidence-Based Practice and was supplemented by additional published studies to 2007.

RESULTS

The Consensus Document defined WRA to include occupational asthma (ie, asthma induced by sensitizer or irritant work exposures) and WEA (ie, preexisting or concurrent asthma worsened by work factors). The Consensus Document focuses on the diagnosis and management of WRA (including diagnostic tests, and work and compensation issues), as well as preventive measures. WRA should be considered in all individuals with new-onset or worsening asthma, and a careful occupational history should be obtained. Diagnostic tests such as serial peak flow recordings, methacholine challenge tests, immunologic tests, and specific inhalation challenge tests (if available), can increase diagnostic certainty. Since the prognosis is better with early diagnosis and appropriate intervention, effective preventive measures for other workers with exposure should be addressed.

CONCLUSIONS

The substantial prevalence of WRA supports consideration of the diagnosis in all who present with new-onset or worsening asthma, followed by appropriate investigations and intervention including consideration of other exposed workers.