Eur Respir J 2004; 23:300-303
Copyright ©ERS Journals Ltd 2004
Exaggerated bronchoconstriction due to inhalation challenges with occupational agents
J-L. Malo1,
A. Cartier1,
C. Lemière1,
A. Desjardins1,
M. Labrecque1,
J. L'Archevêque1,
G. Perrault2,
J. Lesage2 and
Y. Cloutier2
1 Dept of Chest Medicine, Sacré-C ur Hospital, and 2 Institut de recherche Robert-Sauvé ensanté et sécurité du travail du Québec, Montreal, Canada
CORRESPONDENCE: J-L. Malo, Dept of Chest Medicine, Sacré-C ur Hospital, 5400 West Gouin Blvd, Montréal, H4J 1C5, Canada. Fax: 1 514 3383123. E-mail: malojl@meddir.umontreal.ca
Keywords: asthma, bronchial provocation tests, occupational asthma
Received: May 15, 2003
Accepted September 2, 2003
Inhalation challenges with occupational agents are used to confirm the aetiology of occupational asthma. It has been proposed that using closed-circuit equipment rather than the realistic challenge method would improve the methodology of these tests.
Changes in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) were examined in 496 subjects with "positive specific inhalation challenges", i.e. changes in FEV1 of 20% after exposure to an occupational agent, including 357 subjects exposed by the realistic method, 108 using the closed-circuit method and 31 by both methods.
For immediate reactions, 18 of 95 (19%) showed changes in FEV1 of 30% with the closed-circuit method, whereas a significantly larger proportion, i.e. 77 of 200 (38.5%), showed such changes using the realistic method. As regards nonimmediate reactions, changes in FEV1 of 30% occurred in 16 of 43 (37%) cases with the closed-circuit method as compared to a larger proportion, i.e. 87 of 180 (48%) cases, using the realistic method. This favourable effect was significantly more pronounced in workers with higher levels of bronchial hyperresponsiveness to methacholine.
It is concluded that, for agents that can be generated using the closed-circuit method, use of such apparatus results in a smaller proportion of exaggerated bronchoconstriction than does the realistic method, this being particularly true for low-molecular weight agents.
This article has been cited by other articles:

|
 |

|
 |
 
S. M. Tarlo, J.-L. Malo, and on behalf of the Third Jack Pepys Workshop on Asth
An Official ATS Proceedings: Asthma in the Workplace: The Third Jack Pepys Workshop on Asthma in the Workplace: Answered and Unanswered Questions
Proceedings of the ATS,
August 1, 2009;
6(4):
339 - 349.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
E Suarthana, D Heederik, H Ghezzo, J-L Malo, S M Kennedy, and D Gautrin
Risks for the development of outcomes related to occupational allergies: an application of the asthma-specific job exposure matrix compared with self-reports and investigator scores on job-training-related exposure
Occup. Environ. Med.,
April 1, 2009;
66(4):
256 - 263.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
R Castano, D Gautrin, G Theriault, C Trudeau, H Ghezzo, and J-L Malo
Occupational rhinitis in workers investigated for occupational asthma
Thorax,
January 1, 2009;
64(1):
50 - 54.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
J-P. Rioux, J-L. Malo, J. L'Archeveque, K. Rabhi, and M. Labrecque
Workplace-specific challenges as a contribution to the diagnosis of occupational asthma
Eur. Respir. J.,
October 1, 2008;
32(4):
997 - 1003.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
C. E. Mapp, P. Boschetto, P. Maestrelli, and L. M. Fabbri
Occupational Asthma
Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med.,
August 1, 2005;
172(3):
280 - 305.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|
Copyright © 2004 by the European Respiratory Society.
|