Hypersensitivity pneumonitis in workers exposed to metalworking fluids.

BACKGROUND: This study used data from a large UK outbreak investigation, to develop and validate a new case definition for hypersensitivity pneumonitis due to metalworking fluid exposure (MWF-HP). METHODS: The clinical data from all workers with suspected MWF-HP were reviewed by an experienced panel of clinicians. A new MWF-HP Score was then developed to match the "gold standard" clinical opinion as closely as possible, using standard diagnostic criteria that were relatively weighted by their positive predictive value. RESULTS: The new case definition was reproducible, and agreed with expert panel opinion in 30/37 cases. This level of agreement was greater than with any of the three previously utilized case definitions (agreement in 16-24 cases). Where it was possible to calculate, the MWF-HP Score also performed well when applied to 50 unrelated MWF-HP cases. CONCLUSIONS: The MWF-HP Score offers a new case definition for use in future outbreaks.

Standards of care for occupational asthma: an update.

BACKGROUND: The British Thoracic Society (BTS) Standards of Care (SoC) Committee produced a standard of care for occupational asthma (OA) in 2008, based on a systematic evidence review performed in 2004 by the British Occupational Health Research Foundation (BOHRF). METHODS: BOHRF updated the evidence base from 2004-2009 in 2010. RESULTS: This article summarises the changes in evidence and is aimed at physicians, nurses and other healthcare professionals in primary and secondary care, occupational health and public health and at employers, workers and their health, safety and other representatives. CONCLUSIONS: Various recommendations and evidence ratings have changed in the management of asthma that may have an occupational cause.

Recognition and surveillance of occupational asthma: a preventable illness with missed opportunities.

Occupational asthma is common, disabling and costly, and it is often difficult to diagnose. Incidence statistics are consequently unreliable, and there are formidable difficulties in recognizing and managing what should be a preventable illness. The opportunities have largely been missed. The author offers a personal view of what, ideally, should be done--recognizing that at present the ideal is not readily practical. Always consider the possibility of an occupational cause at the time adult-onset asthma is first recognized-the probability of this is of the order 9-15%. Do not prescribe treatment unless this possibility is remote or the asthma is life-threatening. If the possibility is not remote seek immediate advice from a specialized centre, without prescribing masking medication and without curtailing usual work practice. The specialized referral centre should place the accurate measurement of airway responsiveness at the centre of investigatory strategies. A return-to-work study, monitored by serial measurements of airway responsiveness and ventilatory function, provides adequate objective evidence for diagnosis in most cases. When a novel cause is suspected, specific inhalation provocation testing with the particular agent in the specialized centre is desirable. Regular competent surveillance is necessary in high-risk occupational environments; this should include environmental monitoring, the detection of relevant new symptoms, spirometry measurements, serum antibody studies (where available) and a robust protocol for managing inevitable failed attendances.

Occupational asthma: an assessment of diagnostic agreement between physicians.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the levels of agreement between expert respiratory physicians when making a diagnosis of occupational asthma. METHODS: 19 cases of possible occupational asthma were identified as part of a larger national observational cohort. A case summary for each case was then circulated to 12 physicians, asking for a percentage likelihood, from the supplied information, that this case represented occupational asthma. The resulting probabilities were then compared between physicians using Spearman's rank correlation and Cohen's kappa coefficients. RESULTS: Agreement between the 12 physicians for all 19 cases was generally good as assessed by Spearman's rank correlation. For all 66 physician-physician interactions, 45 were found to correlate significantly at the 5% level. The agreement assessed by kappa analysis was more variable, with a median kappa value of 0.26, (range -0.2 to +0.76), although 7 of the physicians agreed significantly (p<0.05) with >or=5 of their colleagues. Only in one case did the responses for probability of occupational asthma all exceed the "on balance" 50% threshold, although 12 of the 19 cases had an interquartile range of probabilities not including 50%, implying "on balance" agreement. The median probability values for each physician (all assessing the identical 19 cases) varied from 20% to 70%. Factors associated with a high probability rating were the presence of a positive serial peak expiratory flow Occupation Asthma SYStem (OASYS)-2 chart, and both the presence of bronchial hyper-reactivity and significant change in reactivity between periods of work and rest. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the importance of the diagnosis of occupational asthma and reasonable physician agreement, certain variations in diagnostic assessment were seen between UK expert centres when assessing paper cases of possible occupational asthma. Although this may in part reflect the absence of a normal clinical consultation, a more unified national approach to these patients is required.

Are we failing workers with symptoms suggestive of occupational asthma?

AIMS: To assess the route to secondary care for patients with possible occupational asthma, and to document the duration of workrelated symptoms and referral times. METHODS: Consecutive patients with suspected occupational asthma were recruited to a case series from six secondary care clinics with an interest in occupational asthma. Semi-structured interviews were performed and hospital case notes were reviewed to summarise relevant investigations and diagnosis. RESULTS: 97 patients were recruited, with a mean age of 44.2 years (range 24-64), 51 of whom (53%) had occupational asthma confirmed as a diagnosis. Most (96%) had consulted their general practitioner (GP) at least once with work-related respiratory symptoms, although these had been present for a mean of 44.6 months (range 0-320 months) on presentation to secondary care. Patients experienced a mean delay for assessment in secondary care of 4 years (range 1-27 years) following presentation in primary care. CONCLUSIONS: Significant diagnostic delay currently occurs for patients with occupational asthma in the UK.

Discordance between cross-sectional and longitudinal studies for the effect of dust on COPD: why?

Regression analyses for the effect of an environmental agent on lung function often give discordant results when derived from cross-sectional compared with longitudinal studies. To evaluate why this occurs, a normal population was created by computer, and modeled to simulate functional change during life. Thus, factors known to influence lung function measurement (including those that may cause COPD) were manipulated experimentally so that their contributions to any discordance could be assessed. Regression analyses showed that significant discordance could be induced if the oldest birth cohort failed to reach the same maximal level of function as the youngest (a "cohort effect"). This distorted the cross-sectional (but not longitudinal) estimate for the dominating effect of age and additionally influenced cross-sectional estimates for the effects of partially collinear variables such as cumulative exposure to hazardous environmental dust. Discordance also occurred if regression coefficients became imprecise through random measurement/reporting error, between-subject variability, and differing susceptibility, but then the differences (sometimes marked) between cross-sectional and longitudinal estimates were not significant. We conclude that modeling a population with known characteristics can provide a useful means of demonstrating that cross-sectional versus longitudinal discordance may be fundamental and unavoidable (though explicable), or merely a consequence of imprecision.