4.3 Article

May the Reduction of Exposure to Specific Sensitizers Be an Alternative to Work Cessation in Occupational Asthma? Results from a Follow-Up Study

Journal

INTERNATIONAL ARCHIVES OF ALLERGY AND IMMUNOLOGY
Volume 157, Issue 2, Pages 186-193

Publisher

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000327550

Keywords

Occupational asthma; Specific sensitizer exposure; Bronchial hyperresponsiveness

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Few data are reported on the effects of a reduction of exposure to specific sensitizers in occupational asthma (OA). The objective of this study was to evaluate the clinical outcome of subjects with OA, comparing the effect of a reduction with that of the persistence or cessation of occupational exposure to the specific sensitizer. Subjects and Methods: Forty-one subjects with OA due to different sensitizers were diagnosed via a specific inhalation challenge. After a follow-up interval of 3.5 years, subjects were reexamined by clinical assessment, bronchial hyperresponsiveness (BH) and induced sputum. Results: At follow-up, subjects who had reduced occupational exposure (n = 22) showed a significant improvement in BH and a nonsignificant improvement in sputum eosinophilia (from 5.3 to 1.1%, n.s.), while subjects still exposed (n = 10) showed a significant decrease in FEV1. Subjects who ceased work (n = 9) showed a trend of improvement in BH and sputum eosinophilia. Logistic analysis showed that the major determinant of improvement in BH at follow-up was the severity of BH at diagnosis, with a minimal contribution from the duration of exposure and treatment with inhaled corticosteroids during follow-up; reduction of work exposure did not enter into any model. Conclusion: The reduction of occupational exposure could not be considered to be as effective as work cessation, which remained the best treatment for OA. However, it was not associated with a deterioration of FEV1 as observed in subjects with persistent exposure. Copyright (C) 2011 S. Karger AG, Basel

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available