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.

Identification of late asthmatic reactions following specific inhalation challenge

Specific inhalation challenge (SIC) is the reference standard for the diagnosis of occupational asthma. Current guidelines for identifying late asthmatic reactions are not evidence based.ObjectivesTo identify the fall in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) required following SIC to exceed the 95% CI for control days, factors which influence this and to show how this can be applied in routine practice using a statistical method based on the pooled SD for FEV1 from three control days.MethodsFifty consecutive workers being investigated for occupational asthma were asked to self-record FEV1 hourly for 2 days before admission for SIC. These 2 days were added to the in-hospital control day to calculate the pooled SD and 95% CI.Results45/50 kept adequate measurements. The pooled 95% CI was 385 mL (SD 126), or 14.2% (SD 6.2) of the baseline FEV1, but was unrelated to the baseline FEV1 (r=0.06, p=0.68), or gender, atopy, smoking, non-specific reactivity or treatment before or during SIC. Thirteen workers had a late asthmatic reaction with ≥2 consecutive FEV1 measurements below the 95% CI for pooled control days, 4/13 had <15% and 9/13 >15% late fall from baseline. The four workers with ≥2 values below the 95% CI all had independent evidence of occupational asthma.ConclusionThe pooled SD method for defining late asthmatic reactions has scientific validity, accounts for interpatient spirometric variability and diurnal variation and can identify clinically relevant late asthmatic reactions from smaller exposures. For baseline FEV1 <2.5 L, a 15% fall is within the 95% CI.

Cutaneous sensitization to aziridine preceding the onset of occupational asthma

We describe a 47-year-old non-atopic woman, working as a spray painter in a tannery for 23 years, with a 16-year history of cutaneous symptoms and a subsequent 2-year history of asthmatic symptoms after exposure to aerosol and vapour of polyfunctional aziridine (PFA) at work. To confirm the occupational origin of the dermatitis and asthma we performed a skin prick test with PFA and a specific inhalation challenge (SIC) with PFA. Prick test with PFA elicited an immediate positive skin reaction. She developed an immediate asthmatic reaction upon SIC with PFA. The onset of occupational dermatitis before asthma is consistent with the hypothesis that the sensitization to PFA was triggered in the skin. The observation that the reactions elicited in skin and airways upon exposure to PFA exhibited the same time course, suggests a similar mechanism at both sites. Thus, the avoidance of both skin and airway exposure to PFA should be recommended in workplace hygiene practice.