Occupational asthma after withdrawal from the occupational allergen exposure

Bronchial Response to High and Low Molecular Weight Occupational Inhalant Allergens

PURPOSE

Occupational asthma may be induced by high- or low-molecular weight allergens (HMWA or LMWA, respectively). The study was conducted to compare the pattern of bronchial response in 200 HMWA-induced asthmatics (n = 130) and LMWA-induced asthmatics (n = 70).

METHODS

The study participants underwent a single-blind, placebo-controlled specific inhalation challenge (SIC) with workplace allergens, accompanied by evaluation of non-specific bronchial hyperresponsiveness (NSBHR) with methacholine before and after the SIC.

RESULTS

A single early bronchial response more frequently occurred in HMWA-induced asthmatics than in LMWA-induced asthmatics (86.2% vs. 20%). An isolated late bronchial response or atypical patterns were more frequently observed in LMWA-induced asthmatics than in LMWA-induced asthmatics (45.7% vs. 3.8% or 34.3% vs. 10%, respectively). Baseline NSBHR before SIC was more often detected in LMWA-induced asthmatics than in HMWA-induced asthmatics (81.4% vs. 54.6%), and the median value of the provocation concentration of methacholine was relevantly lower in these patients before and after SIC. A significant 3-fold increase in NSBHR after SIC was observed more often in LMWA-induced asthmatics than in HMWA-induced asthmatics (82.8% vs. 66.1%). In addition, compared to LMWA-induced asthmatics, HMWA-induced asthmatics were older, were more frequently active smokers, showed lower level of NSBHR, and more frequently continued their work in harmful occupational exposure.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study suggest that HMWA-induced asthmatics may have milder clinical courses and that there is a possibility of job continuation despite asthma exacerbation requiring medical surveillance.

Workplace interventions for treatment of occupational asthma

BACKGROUND

The impact of workplace interventions on the outcome of occupational asthma is not well understood.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of workplace interventions on occupational asthma.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE (PubMed); EMBASE(Ovid); NIOSHTIC-2; and CISILO (CCOHS) up to July 31, 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all eligible randomized controlled trials, controlled before and after studies and interrupted time-series of workplace interventions for occupational asthma.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed study eligibility and risk of bias, and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 26 non-randomized controlled before and after studies with 1,695 participants that reported on three comparisons: complete removal from exposure and reduced exposure compared to continued exposure, and complete removal from exposure compared to reduced exposure. Reduction of exposure was achieved by limiting use of the agent, improving ventilation, or using protective equipment in the same job; by changing to another job with intermittent exposure; or by implementing education programs. For continued exposure, 56 per 1000 workers reported absence of symptoms at follow-up, the decrease in forced expiratory volume in one second as a percentage of a reference value (FEV1 %) was 5.4% during follow-up, and the standardized change in non-specific bronchial hyperreactivity (NSBH) was -0.18.In 18 studies, authors compared removal from exposure to continued exposure. Removal may increase the likelihood of reporting absence of asthma symptoms, with risk ratio (RR) 4.80 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.67 to 13.86), and it may improve asthma symptoms, with RR 2.47 (95% CI 1.26 to 4.84), compared to continued exposure. Change in FEV1 % may be better with removal from exposure, with a mean difference (MD) of 4.23 % (95% CI 1.14 to 7.31) compared to continued exposure. NSBH may improve with removal from exposure, with standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.43 (95% CI 0.03 to 0.82).In seven studies, authors compared reduction of exposure to continued exposure. Reduction of exposure may increase the likelihood of reporting absence of symptoms, with RR 2.65 (95% CI 1.24 to 5.68). There may be no considerable difference in FEV1 % between reduction and continued exposure, with MD 2.76 % (95% CI -1.53 to 7.04) . No studies reported or enabled calculation of change in NSBH.In ten studies, authors compared removal from exposure to reduction of exposure. Following removal from exposure there may be no increase in the likelihood of reporting absence of symptoms, with RR 6.05 (95% CI 0.86 to 42.34), and improvement in symptoms, with RR 1.11 (95% CI 0.84 to 1.47), as well as no considerable change in FEV1 %, with MD 2.58 % (95% CI -3.02 to 8.17). However, with all three outcomes, there may be improved results for removal from exposure in the subset of patients exposed to low molecular weight agents. No studies reported or enabled calculation of change in NSBH.In two studies, authors reported that the risk of unemployment after removal from exposure may increase compared with reduction of exposure, with RR 14.28 (95% CI 2.06 to 99.16). Four studies reported a decrease in income of 20% to 50% after removal from exposure.The quality of the evidence is very low for all outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Both removal from exposure and reduction of exposure may improve asthma symptoms compared with continued exposure. Removal from exposure, but not reduction of exposure, may improve lung function compared to continued exposure. When we compared removal from exposure directly to reduction of exposure, the former may improve symptoms and lung function more among patients exposed to low molecular weight agents. Removal from exposure may also increase the risk of unemployment. Care providers should balance the potential clinical benefits of removal from exposure or reduction of exposure with potential detrimental effects of unemployment. Additional high-quality studies are needed to evaluate the effectiveness of workplace interventions for occupational asthma.

Occupational asthma follow-up--which markers are elevated in exhaled breath condensate and plasma?

OBJECTIVES

To search for optimal markers in the exhaled breath condensate (EBC), plasma and urine that would reflect the activity/severity of occupational asthma (OA) after the withdrawal from the exposure to the allergen.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Markers of oxidative stress: 8-iso-prostaglandin F2α (8-isoprostane, 8-ISO), malondialdehyde (MDA), 4-hydroxy-trans-2-nonenale (HNE), cysteinyl leukotrienes (LT) and LTB4 were determined using liquid chromatography and mass spectrometry in 43 subjects with immunological OA (49.3 ± 11.8 years), removed from the exposure to the sensitizing agent 10.5 ± 6.5 years ago; and in 20 healthy subjects (49.0 ± 14.9 years). EBC was harvested both before and after the methacholine challenge test. In parallel, identical markers were collected in plasma and urine. The results were analyzed together with forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1), blood eosinophils, immunoglobulin E (IgE) and eosinophilic cationic protein (ECP) and statistically evaluated (Spearman rank correlation rS, two- or one-sample t tests and alternatively Kruskal Wallis or pair Wilcoxon tests).

RESULTS

Several parameters of lung functions were lower in the patients (FEV1% predicted, MEF25% and MEF50%, Rtot%, p < 0.001). Shorter time interval since the removal from the allergen exposure correlated with higher ECP (rS = 0.375) and lower FEV1%, MEF25% and MEF50% after methacholine challenge (rS = -0.404, -0.425 and -0.532, respectively). In the patients, IgE (p < 0.001) and ECP (p = 0.009) was increased compared to controls. In EBC, 8-ISO and cysteinyl LTs were elevated in the asthmatics initially and after the challenge. Initial 8-ISO in plasma correlated negatively with FEV1 (rS = -0.409) and with methacholine PD20 (rS = -0.474). 8-ISO in plasma after the challenge correlated with IgE (rS = 0.396).

CONCLUSIONS

The improvement in OA is very slow and objective impairments persist years after removal from the exposure. Cysteinyl LTs and 8-ISO in EBC and 8-ISO in plasma might enrich the spectrum of useful objective tests for the follow-up of OA.

Response to oyster mushroom (Pleurotus ostreatus) extract by sensitized and nonsensitized guinea pig trachea

Occupational exposure to oyster mushroom (Pleurotus ostreatus) has been associated with obstructive lung disease. Previously, we studied an extract of oyster mushroom (OME) and determined that it causes dose-dependent contractions of nonsensitized guinea pig trachea (GPT). We extend these studies to the investigation of sensitized tissue. In the present study 24 animals were sensitized using ovalbumin (OA) and subsequently challenged with an aerosol of 2.5% OA. A control group of 12 nonsensitized GPs was also studied. Tracheas were removed and were divided into rings in which the epithelium was retained (EP+) or removed (EP-). Dose-related contractions of sensitized and nonsensitized GPTs were elicited with OME. In nonsensitized animals the EP+ GPTs demonstrated a significantly greater response to OME (100-1000 μl) than did the EP- GPTs (p < 0.01). By contrast, in sensitized GPTs with and without epithelium there was no difference to challenge with OME. Finally, sensitized GPTs with and without epithelium and nonsensitized GPTs with epithelium responded similarly to challenge with OME. These findings suggest that in nonsensitized animals there is an enhancement of contractile response to OME which is in part mediated by the GPT epithelium. In sensitized animals with or without epithelium, the level of bronchoconstrictor response is similar to that of the nonsensitized animals with epithelium, suggesting an enhanced constrictor response independent of epithelium in the sensitized animals.

Workplace interventions for treatment of occupational asthma

BACKGROUND

The impact of workplace interventions on the outcome of occupational asthma is not well-understood.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of workplace interventions on the outcome of occupational asthma.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE; EMBASE; NIOSHTIC-2; CISDOC and HSELINE up to February 2011.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials, controlled before and after studies and interrupted time series of workplace interventions for occupational asthma.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed study eligibility and trial quality, and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 21 controlled before and after studies with 1447 participants that reported on 29 comparisons.In 15 studies, removal from exposure was compared with continued exposure. Removal increased the likelihood of reporting absence of symptoms (risk ratio (RR) 21.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) 7.20 to 63.77), improved forced expiratory volume (FEV1 %) (mean difference (MD) 5.52 percentage points, 95% CI 2.99 to 8.06) and decreased non-specific bronchial hyper-reactivity (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.67, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.21).In six studies, reduction of exposure was compared with continued exposure. Reduction increased the likelihood of reporting absence of symptoms (RR 5.35, 95% CI 1.40 to 20.48) but did not affect FEV1 % (MD 1.18 percentage points, 95% CI -2.96 to 5.32).In eight studies, removal from exposure was compared with reduction of exposure. Removal increased the likelihood of reporting absence of symptoms (RR 39.16, 95% CI 7.21 to 212.83) but did not affect FEV1 % (MD 1.16 percentage points, 95% CI -7.51 to 9.84).Two studies reported that the risk of unemployment after removal from exposure was increased compared with reduction of exposure (RR 14.3, 95% CI 2.06 to 99.16). Three studies reported loss of income of about 25% after removal from exposure.Overall the quality of the evidence was very low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is very low-quality evidence that removal from exposure improves asthma symptoms and lung function compared with continued exposure.Reducing exposure also improves symptoms, but seems not as effective as complete removal.However, removal from exposure is associated with an increased risk of unemployment, whereas reduction of exposure is not. The clinical benefit of removal from exposure or exposure reduction should be balanced against the increased risk of unemployment. We need better studies to identify which interventions intended to reduce exposure give most benefit.

Asthma and rhinitis in the workplace

Accumulating evidence indicates that the workplace environment substantially contributes to the global burden of asthma and rhinitis. Work-related asthma and rhinitis represent a public health concern due to their health and socioeconomic impacts. This article summarizes the scientific evidence on sensitizer-induced occupational asthma and rhinitis that has been published during the past 5 years. The review addresses the strategies for diagnosing and managing these highly prevalent occupational diseases.

Management of work-related asthma

The physician managing work-related asthma (WRA) assumes many roles. The first is to confirm an accurate diagnosis, recognizing that WRA has multiple phenotypes, including sensitizer-induced occupational asthma (OA) caused by high-molecular-weight (HMW) proteins or low-molecular-weight (LMW) chemicals; irritant-induced asthma; and work-exacerbated asthma. Pharmacotherapy for WRA is identical to nonwork-related asthma and should be guided by current asthma guidelines emphasizing control of both asthma impairment and risk domains. It is well established that the majority of workers diagnosed with OA caused by sensitizers experience persistent asthma after leaving the workplace. However, the long-term risk of persistent unremitting asthma can be prevented in a minority of cases, particularly with OA caused by LMW sensitizers, by establishing an early diagnosis of OA and reducing or eliminating exposure. The physician consultant may advise employers on workplace interventions needed to minimize effectively an affected employee's exposure to a causative agent or condition, and what measures are required to prevent new cases of WRA (ie, primary prevention). Although allergen immunotherapy has a putative role in treating and preventing WRA caused by HMW sensitizers, further study is needed.

Chronic cough – occupational considerations

Chronic cough is a common symptom in a wide range of respiratory conditions, and may also occur as a result of upper airway or gastro-esophageal problems. Whilst chronic cough of any cause may be exacerbated by work, in some cases it has a direct occupational cause, resulting from a harmful acute or chronic workplace exposure. Such occupational conditions may only be suspected by taking a detailed occupational history, and directly asking employed patients whether their cough improves away from work. Early and accurate diagnosis, linked with tailored drug therapy, modification of workplace exposures, and expert compensation advice is likely to offer the best outcome for this group of patients.