Occupational rhinitis

Occupational Rhinitis: An Update

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Occupational rhinitis is an underdiagnosed disease with significant morbidity and implications in the workplace. Multiple factors associated with this disease continue to pose a challenge to investigators. This review aims to summarize recent literature in occupational rhinitis, including classifications, pathogenesis, diagnosis, and treatment, as well as the impact of occupational rhinitis on individuals. Additionally, it identifies areas in need of further research and investigation.

RECENT FINDINGS

We highlight current research on the association between occupational rhinitis and occupational asthma and the role of immunotherapy in this disease. Discussion includes the impact of social trends on workers and the wider consequences of occupational rhinitis including decreased work productivity, absenteeism, and socioeconomic burden. Occupational rhinitis remains a challenging disease entity due to the numerous potential causative factors, reduced recognition, morbidity in asthma, and therapeutic limitations. Additional research is needed to better identify disease predictors and develop effective management strategies.

[Research progress and clinical application of allergen nasal provocation test]

The allergen nasal provocation testing（NPT）, in which allergens are applied directly to the nasal mucosa under standard and controlled conditions to provoke the main symptoms of allergic rhinitis（AR）, reproduces the response of the upper respiratory tract to natural exposure to allergens under controlled conditions and is the only test currently available to confirm nasal reactivity to allergens. It is invaluable in studying the mechanisms of AR and in assessing the response to novel anti-allergic treatments. The test may play an increasingly important role in clinical practice, especially in the identification of local AR, the diagnosis of occupational AR, the clarification of the composition of allergens, the assessment of the efficacy of AR treatment and the selection of candidates undergoing allergen immunotherapy. This article reviewed the application of NPT in the diagnosis of allergic and non-allergic rhinitis, and also introduces the indications, contraindications, advantages and limitations of NPT in evaluating nasal response.

[Evaluation of subjective scale in allergen nasal provocation test]

Objective:To compare the clinical value of visual analogue scale （VAS）, Lebel scale and total nasal symptom scores （TNSS） in evaluating nasal allergen provocation test （NAPT）. Methods:A total of 151 patients suspected of allergic rhinitis admitted to the Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery of our hospital from April 2020 to September 2020 were included, of which 76 were positive for house dust mites and 75 were negative for allergens. Nasal airway resistance（NAR） was measured by active anterior nasal manometry. Nasal symptoms were evaluated by VAS, Lebel and TNSS. House dust mite allergen was used for NAPT by spray method. An increase≥40% in NAR was used as the gold standard for objective evaluation of NAPT. ROC curves of VAS, Lebel and TNSS were drawn to compare the evaluation effectiveness of different subjective evaluation methods, and the optimal critical point of each ROC curve was obtained. Results:With NAR increased by ≥40% as the gold standard, the area under ROC curve of VAS was 0.884, and the sensitivity and specificity were 97.75% and 80.65%, respectively. The area under ROC curve of Lebel was 0.773, and the sensitivity and specificity were 68.54% and 75.81%, respectively. The area under ROC curve of TNSS was 0.792, and the sensitivity and specificity were 68.54% and 79.03%, respectively. There was no significant difference between Lebel and TNSS（P>0.05）. The VAS differed significantly from Lebel and TNSS（P<0.05）. The Kappa values of VAS, Lebel, TNSS and NAR were 0.803, 0.432 and 0.459, respectively. Conclusion:The VAS, Lebel, TNSS subjective scale and NAR are consistent in evaluating the efficacy of NAPT, with the VAS assessment showing highest consistency with NAR. As objective assessment instruments are not widely used in China, subjective assessment method could be adopted to evaluate the efficacy of NAPT in clinical practice, and VAS scale is recommended as a priority.

International consensus statement on allergy and rhinology: Allergic rhinitis - 2023

BACKGROUND

In the 5 years that have passed since the publication of the 2018 International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Allergic Rhinitis (ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2018), the literature has expanded substantially. The ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2023 update presents 144 individual topics on allergic rhinitis (AR), expanded by over 40 topics from the 2018 document. Originally presented topics from 2018 have also been reviewed and updated. The executive summary highlights key evidence-based findings and recommendation from the full document.

METHODS

ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2023 employed established evidence-based review with recommendation (EBRR) methodology to individually evaluate each topic. Stepwise iterative peer review and consensus was performed for each topic. The final document was then collated and includes the results of this work.

RESULTS

ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2023 includes 10 major content areas and 144 individual topics related to AR. For a substantial proportion of topics included, an aggregate grade of evidence is presented, which is determined by collating the levels of evidence for each available study identified in the literature. For topics in which a diagnostic or therapeutic intervention is considered, a recommendation summary is presented, which considers the aggregate grade of evidence, benefit, harm, and cost.

CONCLUSION

The ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2023 update provides a comprehensive evaluation of AR and the currently available evidence. It is this evidence that contributes to our current knowledge base and recommendations for patient evaluation and treatment.

Airway inflammatory profile among cleaning workers from different workplaces

Background

Cleaning workers represent a significant proportion of the active population worldwide, with poor remuneration, particularly in developing countries. Despite this, they remain a relatively poorly studied occupational group. They are constantly exposed to agents that can cause symptoms and respiratory problems. This study aimed to evaluate upper airway inflammation in professional cleaning workers in three different occupational settings by comparing nasal cytology inflammation and clinical profiles.

Methods

We performed a cross-sectional study on the prevalence of upper airway inflammation and symptoms of asthma/rhinitis related to cleaning work, according to workplace. A total of 167 participants were divided into four groups: hospital, university, housekeeper and control. A nasal swab was collected for upper airway inflammation evaluation. Clinical profiles and respiratory symptom employee evaluations were performed using specific questionnaires (European Community Respiratory Health Survey—ECRS and the International Study of Asthma and Allergies in Childhood—ISAAC).

Results

Cleaning workers showed increased neutrophils and lymphocytes; the hospital and university groups showed increased macrophages compared to the housekeeper and control groups. The hospital and housekeeper groups showed increased eosinophils when they performed cleaning services for up to one year and reported having more asthma symptoms than the control group. Cleaning workers showed increased rhinitis symptoms. The university group showed increased rhinitis symptoms aggravated by the workplace compared with the hospital and housekeeper groups. Cleaning workers showed an increased affirmative response when directly asked about rhinitis symptoms compared to the control group.

Conclusions

Cleaning workers showed airway inflammation, asthma symptoms and rhinitis, regardless of the occupational environment to which they were exposed, as well as showed increased rhinitis and asthma symptoms. Hospital cleaning workers showed increased macrophages, lymphocytes and eosinophils compared to the others. The length of time spent performing cleaning work was not related to nasal inflammation or respiratory symptoms in this population. However, there were differences in workplaces. Registered on ClinicalTrials.gov. Trial registration number: NCT03311048. Registration date: 10.16.2017. Retrospectively registered.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12890-022-01949-5.

[New allergens for occupational dermatology?]

BACKGROUND

The environment is continuously subject to change. Exposures in the work environment and therefore the importance of occupational type I and type IV allergens may change.

OBJECTIVES

The most important trends concerning occupational allergens, new occupational allergens/allergen exposures, the diagnostic procedure to detect new allergens in practice and regulatory developments are presented.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Building on known relevant allergen exposures in occupational dermatology, published trends from clinical cohorts are evaluated and a systematic literature search (PubMed 2016-2021) for new occupational allergens is also performed RESULTS: Occupations with the highest incidence of occupational allergic contact urticaria and/or protein contact dermatitis include bakers, farmers and farm workers, veterinary technicians, veterinarians, cooks, dairy and livestock workers, gardeners, and hairdressers. The highest risk of developing occupational contact dermatitis is in health care, agriculture, metalworking occupations and machine operators, the food sector, service industries, and construction occupations. The search strategy "new occupational allerg*" yielded 603 hits and "novel occupational allerg*" 158 hits. A total of 25 papers included results relevant to the research question and were processed. New protein-based immediate-type allergens, as well as contact allergens (haptens) relevant for occupational dermatology, are presented.

CONCLUSIONS

Current trends on known occupational allergens and new occupational allergens in the period 2016-2021 can be identified. Only a thorough individual workplace history and testing of patients' own materials can identify new allergens in occupational dermatology.