Occupational asthma in office workers.

BACKGROUND: Office work has a relative perception of safety for the worker. Data from surveillance schemes and population-based epidemiological studies suggest that office work carries a low risk of occupational asthma (OA). Office workers are frequently used as comparators in studies of occupational exposure and respiratory disease. AIMS: We aimed to describe and illustrate our tertiary clinical experience of diagnosing OA in office workers. METHODS: We searched the Birmingham NHS Occupational Lung Disease Service clinical database for cases of occupational respiratory disease diagnosed between 2002 and 2020, caused by office work or in office workers. For patients with OA, we gathered existing data on demographics, diagnostic tests including Occupational Asthma SYStem (OASYS) analysis of serial peak expiratory flow and specific inhalational challenge, and employment outcome. We summarised data and displayed them alongside illustrative cases. RESULTS: There were 47 cases of OA (5% of all asthma) confirmed using OASYS analysis of PEFs in the majority. Sixty percent of cases occurred in healthcare, education and government sectors. The most frequently implicated causative exposures or agents were: indoor air (9), printing, copying and laminating (7), cleaning chemicals (4), mould and damp (4), and acrylic flooring and adhesives (4). Exposures were grouped into internal office environment, office ventilation-related and adjacent environment. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians should be vigilant for exposures associated with OA in office workers who present with work-related symptoms, where respiratory sensitizing agents may be present. A structured approach to assessment of the workplace is recommended.

Occupational asthma caused by peracetic acid-hydrogen peroxide mixture.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare practice in the UK has moved away from using aldehyde disinfectants for the decontamination of endoscopes, in part due to the risk of respiratory sensitization. Peracetic acid (PAA) in combination with hydrogen peroxide (HP) is a commonly used alternative. AIM: We describe a case of occupational asthma (OA) diagnosed at our specialist occupational lung disease clinic and caused by occupational exposure to PAA-HP mixture, used as a disinfectant in an endoscope washer-disinfector machine. CASE REPORT: A 48-year-old man employed as a mycologist and environmental microbiologist at a Birmingham city hospital, UK, presented following an acute exposure to PAA-HP mixture causing lacrimation, burning optic pain and headache. He had also experienced symptoms suggestive of OA for the preceding 10 months, and the diagnosis was confirmed through OASYS analysis of serial peak expiratory flow measurements. He had been exposed to PAA-HP mixture whilst working in the endoscopy department for 12 months prior to the acute episode, and a subsequent specific inhalation challenge test was positive with a late asthmatic response to PAA-HP mixture. CONCLUSION: This case provides evidence for a sensitization mechanism in OA caused by PAA-HP mixture.

Cleaning agent occupational asthma in the West Midlands, UK: 2000-16.

BACKGROUND: Cleaning agents are now a common cause of occupational asthma (OA) worldwide. Irritant airway and sensitization mechanisms are implicated for a variety of old and new agents. AIMS: To describe the exposures responsible for cleaning agent OA diagnosed within a UK specialist occupational lung disease service between 2000 and 2016. METHODS: The Birmingham NHS Occupational Lung Disease Service clinical database was searched for cases of OA caused by cleaning agents, and data were gathered on age, gender, atopic status, smoking history, symptom onset, diagnostic investigations (including Occupational Asthma SYStem analysis of workplace serial peak expiratory flow measurements and specific inhalational challenge), proposed mechanism, industry, occupation and causative agent. RESULTS: Eighty patients with cleaning agent OA (77% female, 76% arising de novo) were identified. The median annual number of cases was 4 (interquartile range = 2-7). The commonest cleaning agents causing OA were chloramines (31%), glutaraldehyde (26%) and quaternary ammonium compounds (11%) and frequently implicated industries were healthcare (55%), education (18%) and leisure (8%). CONCLUSIONS: Certain cleaning agents in common usage, such as chlorine-releasing agents, quaternary ammonium compounds and aldehydes, are associated with sensitization and asthma. Their use alters over time, and this is particularly evident in UK healthcare where cleaning and decontamination practice and policy have changed. Vigilance for OA in workplaces such as hospitals, nursing homes, leisure centres and swimming pools, where these cleaning agents are regularly used, is therefore essential.

Occupational asthma caused by acrylic compounds from SHIELD surveillance (1989-2014).

BACKGROUND: Acrylic monomers (acrylates), methacrylates and cyanoacrylates all cause asthma by respiratory sensitization. Occupational inhalation exposures occur across a variety of industries including health care and dental work, beauty, laboratory science, assembly and plastic moulding. AIMS: To examine notifications of occupational asthma caused by acrylic compounds from a UK-based regional surveillance scheme, in order to highlight prevalent exposures and trends in presentation. METHODS: Retrospective review of all cases reported to the SHIELD surveillance scheme for occupational asthma, West Midlands, UK between 1989 and 2014. Patient data were gathered on demographics, employment, asthma symptoms and diagnostic investigations including serum immunological testing, serial peak flow analysis and specific inhalation challenge tests. Descriptive statistics were used to illustrate worker characteristics and evidence for sensitization to acrylic compounds. RESULTS: There were 20 affected patients out of 1790 total cases of occupational asthma (1%); all cases were confirmed by OASYS (Occupational Asthma SYStem) analysis of serial peak flow measurements, with three additional positive specific inhalation challenge tests. Three out of 20 (15%) patients were current smokers and 11/20 (55%) were atopic. A variety of exposures and industries were implicated including: manufacturing, health care, beauty and printing and a novel presentation seen in teachers exposed to floor adhesives. CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest reported series of occupational asthma caused by acrylic compounds, which remain an important aetiological factor in this disease. Exposure occurs in a variety of industries, particularly in manufacturing and is seen with other, perhaps better recognized sensitizing agents such as isocyanates and epoxy resins.

Can serial PEF measurements separate occupational asthma from allergic alveolitis?

BACKGROUND: Occupational asthma commonly results in work-related changes in serial peak expiratory flow (PEF) measurements. Whether alveolitis can result in similar changes is unknown. AIMS: To identify differences and similarities of serial PEF between workers with occupational alveolitis and asthma seen during an outbreak investigation in a factory with metal-working fluid exposure. METHODS: Workers with respiratory symptoms and rest-day improvement were identified by questionnaire. Each was asked to measure PEF 8 times daily for 4 weeks at home and work. Alveolitis was subsequently diagnosed from a validated scoring system including radiological changes, carbon monoxide diffusing capacity, bronchoalveolar lavage and biopsy results. Occupational asthma was confirmed with a positive Oasys score >2.5 and a mean rest-work PEF >16 l/min from serial 2-hourly PEF measurements. The Oasys PEF plotter calculated differences between rest and workdays for mean PEF, diurnal variation and the scores were used to confirm an occupational effect (Oasys, area between curve and time point). Records were compared between the alveolitis group and the group with occupational asthma without alveolitis. RESULTS: Forty workers with occupational asthma and 16 with alveolitis had indistinguishable PEF changes on workdays in terms of magnitude (median reduction 18.5 and 16.1 l/min, respectively) and diurnal variation. Immediate reactions were more common with occupational asthma and late reactions more common with alveolitis. CONCLUSIONS: PEF responses to metal-working fluid aerosols do not distinguish occupational asthma from alveolitis except in timing. They can be used to identify the workplace as the cause of asthma and also alveolitis.

Twenty years of SHIELD: decreasing incidence of occupational asthma in the West Midlands, UK?

INTRODUCTION: Since 2000 a decline in the incidence of occupational asthma (OA) has been reported in the UK and Europe. We aimed to describe and account for trends in the incidence of OA in the West Midlands, UK using annual notification data from the SHIELD voluntary surveillance scheme over the period 1991-2011. METHODS: All notifications to the SHIELD database between January 1991 and December 2011 were identified, along with patients' demographic data, occupations, causative agents and confirmatory tests. Annual notifications were scaled to give an annual count per million workers, giving a measure of incidence, and also standardised against those of bakers' asthma. Non-parametric analyses were undertaken between annual incidence and time (years) for common causative agents using (1) a negative binomial regression univariate model and (2) a logistic regression model calculating annual reporting ORs. A step-change analysis was used to examine time points at which there were marked reductions in incidence. RESULTS: A decrease in annual incidence of OA was observed over the study period (incident rate ratio=0.945; 95% CI 0.933 to 0.957; p<0.0001), an effect that was lost after standardising for bakers' asthma. Decreases in incidence were seen for most common causative agents, with only cleaning product-related OA increasing over 21 years. Marked fall in incidence was seen in 2004 for isocyanates, and in 1995 for latex. Most notifications came from a regional specialist occupational lung disease unit, with notifications from other sites falling from 16 cases/million workers/annum in 1995 to 0 in 2004. CONCLUSIONS: Reporter fatigue and increasing under-recognition of OA are both factors which contribute to the apparent fall in incidence of OA in the West Midlands. There is a future need for interventions that enable health professionals to identify potential cases of OA in the workplace and in healthcare settings.

Cobalt asthma in metalworkers from an automotive engine valve manufacturer.

BACKGROUND: Cobalt asthma has previously been described in cobalt production workers, diamond polishers and glassware manufacturers. AIMS: To describe a case series of occupational asthma (OA) due to cobalt, identified at the Birmingham Heartlands Occupational Lung Disease Unit, West Midlands, UK. METHODS: Cases of cobalt asthma from a West Midlands' manufacturer of automotive engine valves, diagnosed between 1996 and 2005, were identified from the SHIELD database of OA. Case note data on demographics, employment status, asthma symptoms and diagnostic tests, including spirometry, peak expiratory flow (PEF) measurements, skin prick testing (SPT) and specific inhalational challenge (SIC) tests to cobalt chloride, were gathered, and descriptive statistics used to illustrate the data. RESULTS: The natural history of presentations has been described in detail, as well as a case study of one of the affected workers. Fourteen metalworkers (86% male; mean age 44.9 years) were diagnosed with cobalt asthma between 1996 and 2005. Workers were principally stellite grinders, stellite welders or machine setter-operators. All workers had positive Occupational Asthma SYStem analyses of serial PEF measurements, and sensitization to cobalt chloride was demonstrated in nine workers, by SPT or SIC. CONCLUSIONS: We have described a series of 14 workers with cobalt asthma from the automotive manufacturing industry, with objective evidence for sensitization. Health care workers should remain vigilant for cobalt asthma in the automotive manufacturing industry.

Agents and trends in health care workers' occupational asthma.

BACKGROUND: There is a disproportionately high number of cases of work-related asthma occurring in health care occupations due to agents such as glutaraldehyde, latex and cleaning products. AIMS: To understand the causes and measure trends over time of occupational asthma (OA) in health care workers (HCWs). METHODS: We reviewed OA notifications from the Midland Thoracic Society's Surveillance Scheme of Occupational Asthma (SHIELD) database in the West Midlands, UK, from 1991 to 2011 and gathered data on occupation, causative agent and annual number of notifications. RESULTS: There were 182 cases of OA in HCWs (median annual notifications = 7; interquartile range [IQR] = 5-11), representing 5-19% of annual SHIELD notifications. The modal annual notification was 20 (in 1996); notifications have declined since then, in line with total SHIELD notifications. The majority of cases (136; 75%) occurred in nursing, operating theatre, endoscopy and radiology staff. The most frequently implicated agents were glutaraldehyde (n = 69), latex (n = 47) and cleaning products (n = 27), accounting for 79% of the 182 cases. Cleaning product-related OA was an emerging cause with 22 cases after 2001 and only 5 cases between 1991 and 2000. CONCLUSIONS: Control measures within the UK National Health Service have seen a decline in OA in HCWs due to latex and glutaraldehyde, though OA remains a problem amongst HCWs exposed to cleaning products. Continuing efforts are required to limit the number of cases in this employment sector.

An outbreak of occupational asthma due to chromium and cobalt.

BACKGROUND: Five metal turners employed by an aerospace manufacturer presented to the Birmingham Chest Clinic occupational lung disease unit. Four cases of occupational asthma (OA) due to chromium salt (3) and cobalt (1) were diagnosed by serial peak-expiratory flow measurements and specific inhalation challenge testing. AIMS: To measure the extent of the outbreak and to provide epidemiological data to ascertain the aetiology. METHODS: Participants answered a detailed, self-administered questionnaire, designed to detect occupational lung disease. Urine chromium and cobalt excretion, spirometry and exhaled nitric oxide measurements were taken. Those with possible, probable or definite non-OA or OA, after questionnaire, were invited to undertake two-hourly peak flow measurements and received specialist follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 62 workers (95% of workforce) participated. Sixty-one per cent of employees were working in higher metalworking fluid (MWF) exposure areas. Ninety per cent of workers had urinary chromium excretion indicating occupational exposure. Sixty-six per cent of workers reported active respiratory symptoms, although there were no significant differences between exposure groups. Two further workers with probable OA were identified and had significantly higher urinary chromium and cobalt concentration than asymptomatic controls. Eighteen cases of occupational rhinitis (OR) were identified, with significantly raised urinary chromium concentration compared with asymptomatic controls. CONCLUSIONS: Chromium salt and cobalt can be responsible for OA and OR in workers exposed to MWF aerosols. Onset of symptoms in those with positive specific challenges followed change in MWF brand. Workers with OA had increased urinary concentrations of chromium and cobalt, and those with OR had increased urinary concentrations of chromium.

Shift work effects on serial PEF measurements for occupational asthma.

BACKGROUND: Diurnal variation (DV) affects lung function but the changes are thought to be related to sleep patterns rather than time of day. When diagnosing occupational asthma (OA), serial peak expiratory flow (PEF) measurements are the recommended first line investigation, but could be confounded by shift work. AIMS: The aim of the study was to investigate the effects of shift work on PEF measurements used for diagnosing OA. METHODS: PEF records containing more than one shift pattern with ≥ 4 days per shift were identified. OA diagnosis was based on an Oasys-2 score ≥ 2.51 and non-OA on having an alternative clinical diagnosis and Oasys-2 score <2.51. The mean area between curves (ABC) score, mean PEF DV and cross-shift PEF changes were calculated for each shift. RESULTS: Records from 123 workers with OA and 69 without OA satisfied inclusion criteria. In the OA group, PEF declined more on afternoon and night shifts than days (P < 0.001). The ABC score was lower in the OA group on night (P < 0.05) and afternoon shifts (P < 0.05) as compared with days, without significant differences in DV. Among those without OA, cross-shift PEF increased more on day shifts (mean + 25 l/min) than afternoon or night shifts (+1 l/min) (P < 0.001). The sensitivity for the ABC score and DV were good and similar across shifts, but specificity was reduced using DV (DV mean 39%; ABC 98%). CONCLUSIONS: PEF responses between work and rest show small differences according to shift type. The ABC score has a high sensitivity and specificity for all shifts; differences in DV have lower specificity.

Sensitization and irritant-induced occupational asthma with latency are clinically indistinguishable.

BACKGROUND: Acute irritant exposures at work are well-recognized causes of asthma. In the occupational setting, low-dose exposure to the same agent does not provoke asthma. Occupational asthma (OA) with latency due to irritants is not widely accepted. AIMS: To compare workers with OA with latency likely to be due to irritant exposures with workers with the more usual sensitization-induced OA. METHODS: Following identification of a worker who fulfils all the criteria for irritant-induced OA with latency whose investigation documented lime dust as a cause for his OA, we searched the Shield reporting scheme database between 1989 and 2010 for entries where the OA was more likely to be due to irritant than allergic mechanisms and compared these with the remainder where allergic mechanisms were likely. Outcome measures were latent interval from first exposure to first work-related symptom, non-specific bronchial reactivity, smoking, atopy and the presence of pre-existing asthma. RESULTS: A previously fit lecturer teaching bricklaying had irritant-induced OA with latency without unusual exposures with an immediate asthmatic reaction following exposure to a sand/lime mixture (pH 8). The Shield database identified 127 workers with likely irritant-induced asthma with latency and 1646 with hypersensitivity-induced OA. The two groups were indistinguishable in terms of pre-existing asthma, atopy, age, latent interval, non-specific reactivity and smoking. CONCLUSIONS: Irritant exposure is a cause of OA with latency currently clinically indistinguishable from OA due to sensitization.

Differentiating occupational asthmatics from non-occupational asthmatics and irritant-exposed workers.

BACKGROUND: Serial peak expiratory flow (PEF) records have been recommended as a first-line investigation in workers suspected as having occupational asthma (OA). AIMS: To determine which PEF variability index best differentiates workers with OA from non-occupational asthmatics and unaffected irritant-exposed workers. METHODS: PEF was measured at least four times daily for at least 3 weeks in three groups of subjects: (i) forty healthy grain-exposed farmers and dockers, (ii) forty-two consecutive workers with independently confirmed OA and (iii) forty-eight non-occupational asthmatics. Indices of PEF variability were compared between groups. RESULTS: The difference in mean PEF between rest and work periods best separated the occupational asthmatic workers from the others. The upper 95% confidence limit of this index for grain-exposed workers was 2.8% of predicted PEF (16 l/min) and 3.3% (15 l/min) for non-occupational asthmatics. Sensitivity for diagnosing OA using this index was 70%. An increase in diurnal variation on workdays of >7% had a sensitivity of only 27% for the diagnosis of OA. The difference between maximum PEF on workdays and minimum PEF on rest days had a sensitivity of <10% against non-occupational asthmatic controls. CONCLUSIONS: Difference in mean PEF between workdays and rest days is the best simple index for differentiating subjects with OA from those with non-OA or irritant-exposed healthy subjects. Differences >16 l/min are unlikely to be due to significant irritant exposure in healthy workers.

Occupational asthma caused by heated triglycidyl isocyanurate.

Six workers exposed as bystanders to heated triglycidyl isocyanurate (TGIC) developed occupational asthma confirmed by serial peak expiratory flow measurement and Oasys analysis. Specific inhalation challenge testing resulted in late or dual asthmatic reactions to heated TGIC in four of four tested and was negative in three control asthmatics. One worker tested only with unheated TGIC had a negative specific challenge test. Heated TGIC can cause occupational asthma from bystander exposure.

Diagnosis of occupational asthma from time point differences in serial PEF measurements.

BACKGROUND: The diagnosis of occupational asthma requires objective confirmation. Analysis of serial measurements of peak expiratory flow (PEF) is usually the most convenient first step in the diagnostic process. A new method of analysis originally developed to detect late asthmatic reactions following specific inhalation testing is described. This was applied to serial PEF measurements made over many days in the workplace to supplement existing methods of PEF analysis. METHODS: 236 records from workers with independently diagnosed occupational asthma and 320 records from controls with asthma were available. The pooled standard deviation for rest day measurements was obtained from an analysis of variance by time. Work day PEF measurements were meaned into matching 2-hourly time segments. Time points with mean work day PEF statistically lower (at the Bonferroni adjusted 5% level) than the rest days were counted after adjusting for the number of contributing measurements. RESULTS: A minimum of four time point comparisons were needed. Records with >or=2 time points significantly lower on work days had a sensitivity of 67% and a specificity of 99% for the diagnosis of occupational asthma against independent diagnoses. Reducing the requirements to >or=1 non-waking time point difference increased sensitivity to 77% and reduced specificity to 93%. The analysis was only applicable to 43% of available records, mainly due to differences in waking times on work and rest days. CONCLUSION: Time point analysis complements other validated methods of PEF analysis for the diagnosis of occupational asthma. It requires shorter records than are required for the Oasys score and can identify smaller changes than other methods, but is dependent on low rest day PEF variance.

Serial PEF measurement is superior to cross-shift change in diagnosing occupational asthma.

Cross-shift measurements of peak expiratory flow (PEF) are commonly employed in the diagnosis of occupational asthma, although evidence for this approach is lacking. The current paper presents an evaluation of the technique. Mean changes in PEF across morning/day shifts were compared between workers with occupational asthma, confirmed using specific challenge testing, and non-working asthmatics. Individuals were divided into a development set, used to identify the optimum cross-shift change for diagnosing occupational asthma, and an evaluation set, used to test the sensitivity and specificity of this value. Comparative analysis of serial PEF records was performed using the Oasys-2 computerised system. A cross-shift decrease in PEF of 5 L.min(-1) achieved acceptable specificity in the development set. Applied to the evaluation set, this cut-off had a specificity of 90.9% and a sensitivity of 50%. Sensitivity could not be improved without unacceptable compromise to specificity. Analysis of serial PEF records using linear discriminant analysis identified occupational asthma with a sensitivity of 83.3% and a specificity of 90.9%. Serial analysis using mean work/rest day PEF comparison had a sensitivity of 66.7% and a specificity of 100%. Cross-shift changes in PEF in morning/day-shift workers have poor sensitivity in diagnosing occupational asthma, and are inferior to serial techniques.

Fifteen-year trends in occupational asthma: data from the Shield surveillance scheme.

BACKGROUND: Trends of occupational asthma (OA) differ between regions depending on local industries, provisions for health and safety at the workplace and the availability of a reporting scheme to help in data collection and interpretation. AIM: To assess trends in OA in an industrialized part of the UK over a 15-year period. METHODS: Occupational and chest physicians in the West Midlands were invited to submit details of newly diagnosed cases with OA. Data were then transferred to the regional centre for occupational lung diseases for analysis. RESULTS: A total of 1461 cases were reported to the scheme. Sixty-eight per cent were males with mean (standard deviation) age of 44 (12) years. The annual incidence of OA was 42 per million of working population (95% CI = 37-45). OA was most frequently reported in welders (9%) and health care-related professions (9%) while < 1% of cases were reported in farmers. Isocyanates were the commonest offending agents responsible for 21% of reports followed by metal working fluids (MWFs) (11%), adhesives (7%), chrome (7%), latex (6%) and glutaraldehyde (6%). Flour was suspected in 5% of cases while laboratory animals only in 1%. CONCLUSIONS: Our data confirm a high annual incidence of OA in this part of the UK. MWFs are an emerging problem, while isocyanates remain the commonest cause. Incidence remained at a fairly stable background level with many small and a few large epidemics superimposed. Schemes like Midland Thoracic Society's Rare Respiratory Disease Registry Surveillance Scheme of Occupational Asthma could help in identifying outbreaks by linking cases at the workplace.

Clinical investigation of an outbreak of alveolitis and asthma in a car engine manufacturing plant.

BACKGROUND: Exposure to metal working fluid (MWF) has been associated with outbreaks of extrinsic allergic alveolitis (EAA) in the USA, with bacterial contamination of MWF being a possible cause, but is uncommon in the UK. Twelve workers developed EAA in a car engine manufacturing plant in the UK, presenting clinically between December 2003 and May 2004. This paper reports the subsequent epidemiological investigation of the whole workforce. The study had three aims: (1) to measure the extent of the outbreak by identifying other workers who may have developed EAA or other work-related respiratory diseases; (2) to provide case detection so that those affected could be treated; and (3) to provide epidemiological data to identify the cause of the outbreak. METHODS: The outbreak was investigated in a three-phase cross-sectional survey of the workforce. In phase I a respiratory screening questionnaire was completed by 808/836 workers (96.7%) in May 2004. In phase II 481 employees with at least one respiratory symptom on screening and 50 asymptomatic controls were invited for investigation at the factory in June 2004. This included a questionnaire, spirometry and clinical opinion. 454/481 (94.4%) responded and 48/50 (96%) controls. Workers were identified who needed further investigation and serial measurements of peak expiratory flow (PEF). In phase III 162 employees were seen at the Birmingham Occupational Lung Disease clinic. 198 employees returned PEF records, including 141 of the 162 who attended for clinical investigation. Case definitions for diagnoses were agreed. RESULTS: 87 workers (10.4% of the workforce) met case definitions for occupational lung disease, comprising EAA (n = 19), occupational asthma (n = 74) and humidifier fever (n = 7). 12 workers had more than one diagnosis. The peak onset of work-related breathlessness was Spring 2003. The proportion of workers affected was higher for those using MWF from a large sump (27.3%) than for those working all over the manufacturing area (7.9%) (OR = 4.39, p<0.001). Two workers had positive specific provocation tests to the used but not the unused MWF solution. CONCLUSIONS: Extensive investigation of the outbreak of EAA detected a large number of affected workers, not only with EAA but also occupational asthma. This is the largest reported outbreak in Europe. Mist from used MWF is the likely cause. In workplaces using MWF there is a need to carry out risk assessments, to monitor and maintain fluid quality, to control mist and to carry out respiratory health surveillance.