4.1 Review

Developments in laboratory diagnostics for isocyanate asthma

Journal

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/ACI.0b013e3280895d22

Keywords

antibody; asthma; diagnosis; exposure; isocyanate

Funding

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [R01 HL062622-07, R01 HL062622-06, R01 HL-62622, R01 HL062622] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NATIONAL HEART, LUNG, AND BLOOD INSTITUTE [R01HL062622] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose of review Isocyanates, reactive chemicals used to generate polyurethane, are a leading cause of occupational asthma worldwide. Workplace exposure is the best-recognized risk factor for disease development, but is challenging to monitor. Clinical diagnosis and differentiation of isocyanates as the cause of asthma can be difficult. The gold-standard test, specific inhalation challenge, is technically and economically demanding, and is thus only available in a few specialized centers in the world. With the increasing use of isocyanates, efficient laboratory tests for isocyanate asthma and exposure are urgently needed. Recent findings The review focuses on literature published in 2005 and 2006. Over 150 articles, identified by searching PubMed using keywords 'diphenylmethane', 'toluene' or 'hexamethylene diisocyanate', were screened for relevance to isocyanate asthma diagnostics. New advances in understanding isocyanate asthma pathogenesis are described, which help improve conventional radioallergosorbent and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay approaches for measuring isocyanate-specific IgE and IgG. Newer immunoassays, based on cellular responses and discovery science readouts are also in development. Summary Contemporary laboratory tests that measure isocyanate-specific human IgE and IgG are of utility in diagnosing a subset of workers with isocyanate asthma, and may serve as a biomarker of exposure in a larger proportion of occupationally exposed workers.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available