Airborne occupational exposures associated with pulmonary sarcoidosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

The aetiology and pathophysiology of sarcoidosis is ill defined-current hypotheses centre on complex genetic-immune-environmental interactions in an individual, triggering a granulomatous process. The aim of this systematic review is to define and describe which airborne occupational exposures (aOE) are associated with and precede a diagnosis of pulmonary sarcoidosis. The methodology adopted for the purpose was systematic review and meta-analyses of ORs for specified aOE associated with pulmonary sarcoidosis (DerSimonian Laird random effects model (pooled log estimate of OR)). Standard search terms and dual review at each stage occurred. A compendium of aOE associated with pulmonary sarcoidosis was assembled, including mineralogical studies of sarcoidosis granulomas. N=81 aOE were associated with pulmonary sarcoidosis across all study designs. Occupational silica, pesticide and mould or mildew exposures were associated with increased odds of pulmonary sarcoidosis. Occupational nickel and aluminium exposure were associated with a non-statistically significant increase in the odds of pulmonary sarcoidosis. Silica exposure associated with pulmonary sarcoidosis was reported most frequently in the compendium (n=33 studies) and was the most common mineral identified in granulomas. It was concluded that aOE to silica, pesticides and mould or mildew are associated with increased odds of pulmonary sarcoidosis. Equipoise remains concerning the association and relationship of metal dusts with pulmonary sarcoidosis.

Pulmonary function test and computed tomography features during follow-up after SARS, MERS and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic follows severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) coronavirus epidemics. Some survivors of COVID-19 infection experience persistent respiratory symptoms, yet their cause and natural history remain unclear. Follow-up after SARS and MERS may provide a model for predicting the long-term pulmonary consequences of COVID-19. Methods: This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to describe and compare the longitudinal pulmonary function test (PFT) and computed tomography (CT) features of patients recovering from SARS, MERS and COVID-19. Meta-analysis of PFT parameters (DerSimonian and Laird random-effects model) and proportion of CT features (Freeman-Tukey transformation random-effects model) were performed. Findings: Persistent reduction in the diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide following SARS and COVID-19 infection is seen at 6 months follow-up, and 12 months after MERS. Other PFT parameters recover in this time. 6 months after SARS and COVID-19, ground-glass opacity, linear opacities and reticulation persist in over 30% of patients; honeycombing and traction dilatation are reported less often. Severe/critical COVID-19 infection leads to greater CT and PFT abnormality compared to mild/moderate infection. Interpretation: Persistent diffusion defects suggestive of parenchymal lung injury occur after SARS, MERS and COVID-19 infection, but improve over time. After COVID-19 infection, CT features are suggestive of persistent parenchymal lung injury, in keeping with a post-COVID-19 interstitial lung syndrome. It is yet to be determined if this is a regressive or progressive disease.

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.

Identification of late asthmatic reactions following specific inhalation challenge.

Specific inhalation challenge (SIC) is the reference standard for the diagnosis of occupational asthma. Current guidelines for identifying late asthmatic reactions are not evidence based. OBJECTIVES: To identify the fall in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) required following SIC to exceed the 95% CI for control days, factors which influence this and to show how this can be applied in routine practice using a statistical method based on the pooled SD for FEV1 from three control days. METHODS: Fifty consecutive workers being investigated for occupational asthma were asked to self-record FEV1 hourly for 2 days before admission for SIC. These 2 days were added to the in-hospital control day to calculate the pooled SD and 95% CI. RESULTS: 45/50 kept adequate measurements. The pooled 95% CI was 385 mL (SD 126), or 14.2% (SD 6.2) of the baseline FEV1, but was unrelated to the baseline FEV1 (r=0.06, p=0.68), or gender, atopy, smoking, non-specific reactivity or treatment before or during SIC. Thirteen workers had a late asthmatic reaction with ≥2 consecutive FEV1 measurements below the 95% CI for pooled control days, 4/13 had <15% and 9/13 >15% late fall from baseline. The four workers with ≥2 values below the 95% CI all had independent evidence of occupational asthma. CONCLUSION: The pooled SD method for defining late asthmatic reactions has scientific validity, accounts for interpatient spirometric variability and diurnal variation and can identify clinically relevant late asthmatic reactions from smaller exposures. For baseline FEV1 <2.5 L, a 15% fall is within the 95% CI.

Identifying causation in hypersensitivity pneumonitis: a British perspective.

Background: Establishing whether patients are exposed to a 'known cause' is a key element in both the diagnostic assessment and the subsequent management of hypersensitivity pneumonitis (HP). Objective: This study surveyed British interstitial lung disease (ILD) specialists to document current practice and opinion in relation to establishing causation in HP. Methods: British ILD consultants (pulmonologists) were invited by email to take part in a structured questionnaire survey, to provide estimates of demographic data relating to their service and to rate their level of agreement with a series of statements. A priori 'consensus agreement' was defined as at least 70% of participants replying that they 'Strongly agree' or 'Tend to agree'. Results: 54 consultants took part in the survey from 27 ILD multidisciplinary teams. Participants estimated that 20% of the patients in their ILD service have HP, and of these, a cause is identifiable in 32% of cases. For patients with confirmed HP, an estimated 40% have had a bronchoalveolar lavage for differential cell counts, and 10% a surgical biopsy. Consensus agreement was reached for 25 of 33 statements relating to causation and either the assessment of unexplained ILD or management of confirmed HP. Conclusions: This survey has demonstrated that although there is a degree of variation in the diagnostic approach for patients with suspected HP in Britain, there is consensus opinion for some key areas of practice. There are several factors in clinical practice that currently act as potential barriers to identifying the cause for British HP patients.

Characteristics of hypersensitivity pneumonitis diagnosed by interstitial and occupational lung disease multi-disciplinary team consensus.

INTRODUCTION: The causes of hypersensitivity pneumonitis (HP) in the UK are changing as working practices evolve, and metalworking fluid (MWF) is now a frequently reported causative exposure. We aimed to review and describe all cases of HP from our UK regional service, with respect to the causative exposure and diagnostic characteristics. METHODS: In a retrospective, cross-sectional study, we collected patient data for all 206 cases of HP diagnosed within our UK-based regional NHS interstitial and occupational lung disease service, 2002-17. This included demographics, environmental and occupational exposures, clinical features, and diagnostic tests (CT imaging, bronchiolo-alveolar cell count, lung function, histology). We grouped the data by cause (occupational, non-occupational and unknown) and by presence or absence of fibrosis on CT, in order to undertake hypothesis testing. RESULTS: Cases were occupational (n = 50), non-occupational (n = 56) or cryptogenic (n = 100) in aetiology. The commonest causes were birds = 37 (18%) and MWF = 36 (17%). Other occupational causes included humidifiers and household or commercial waste, but only one case of farmers' lung. Cryptogenic cases were associated with significantly older age, female gender, lower lung function parameters, fewer alveolar lymphocyte counts >20%, and fibrosis on CT; exposure information was missing in 22-33% of cryptogenic cases. CONCLUSION: MWF is the commonest occupational cause of HP, where workers usually present with more acute/subacute features and less fibrosis on CT; refuse work is an emerging cause. Cryptogenic HP has a fibrotic phenotype, and a full occupational history should be taken, as historical workplace exposures may be relevant.

Occupational asthma; the limited role of air-fed respiratory protective equipment.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based reviews have found that evidence for the efficacy of respiratory protective equipment (RPE) in the management of occupational asthma (OA) is lacking. AIMS: To quantify the effectiveness of air-fed RPE in workers with sensitizer-induced OA exposed to metal-working fluid aerosols in a car engine and transmission manufacturing facility. METHODS: All workers from an outbreak of metal-working fluid-induced OA who had continuing peak expiratory flow (PEF) evidence of sensitizer-induced OA after steam cleaning and replacement of all metal-working fluid were included. Workers kept 2-hourly PEF measurements at home and work, before and after a strictly enforced programme of RPE with air-fed respirators with charcoal filters. The area-between-curve (ABC) score from the Oasys plotter was used to assess the effectiveness of the RPE. RESULTS: Twenty workers met the inclusion criteria. Records were kept for a mean of 24.6 day shifts and rest days before and 24.7 after the institution of RPE. The ABC score improved from 26.6 (SD 16.2) to 17.7 (SD 25.4) l/min/h (P > 0.05) post-RPE; however, work-related decline was <15 l/min/h in only 12 of 20 workers, despite increased asthma treatment in 5 workers. CONCLUSIONS: Serial PEF measurements assessed with the ABC score from the Oasys system allowed quantification of the effect of RPE in sensitized workers. The RPE reduced falls in PEF associated with work exposure, but this was rarely complete. This study suggests that RPE use cannot be relied on to replace source control in workers with OA, and that monitoring post-RPE introduction is needed.

Hospital Attendances and Acute Admissions Preceding a Diagnosis of Occupational Asthma.

PURPOSE: Occupational exposures are a common cause of adult-onset asthma; rapid removal from exposure to the causative agent offers the best chance of a good outcome. Despite this, occupational asthma (OA) is widely underdiagnosed. We aimed to see whether chances of diagnosis were missed during acute hospital attendances in the period between symptom onset and the diagnosis of OA. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with OA at the regional occupational lung disease service in Birmingham between 2007 and 2018 whose home address had a Birmingham postcode were included. Emergency department (ED) attendances and acute admission data were retrieved from acute hospitals in the Birmingham conurbation for the period between symptom onset and diagnosis. RESULTS: OA was diagnosed in 406 patients, 147 having a Birmingham postcode. Thirty-four percent (50/147) had acute hospital attendances to a Birmingham conurbation hospital preceding their diagnosis of OA, including 35 (24%) with respiratory illnesses, which resulted in referral for investigation of possible OA in 2/35. The median delay between symptom onset and diagnosis of OA was 30 months (IQR = 13-60) and between first hospital attendance with respiratory illness and diagnosis 12 months (IQR = 12-48, range 3-96 months) CONCLUSIONS: The chance to reduce the delay in the diagnosis of OA was missed in 33/35 patients admitted or seen in ED with respiratory symptoms in the period between symptom onset and diagnosis of OA. The diagnosis of OA was delayed by a median of 12 months by failure to ask about employment and work relationship of symptoms.

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.

Respiratory failure caused by lipoid pneumonia from vaping e-cigarettes.

A young female vaper presented with insidious onset cough, progressive dyspnoea on exertion, fever, night sweats and was in respiratory failure when admitted to hospital. Clinical examination was unremarkable. Haematological tests revealed only thrombocytopenia, which was long standing, and her biochemical and inflammatory markers were normal. Chest radiograph and high-resolution CT showed diffuse ground-glass infiltrates with reticulation. She was initially treated with empirical steroids and there was improvement in her oxygenation, which facilitated further tests. Since the bronchoscopy and high-volume lavage was unyielding, a video-assisted thoracoscopicsurgical biopsy was done later and was suggestive of lipoid pneumonia. The only source of lipid was the vegetable glycerine found in e-cigarette (EC). Despite our advice to quit vaping, she continued to use EC with different flavours and there is not much improvement in her clinical and spirometric parameters.

Do laboratory challenge tests for occupational asthma represent what happens in the workplace?

Specific inhalation challenge (SIC) is the diagnostic reference standard for occupational asthma; however, a positive test cannot be considered truly significant unless it can be reproduced by usual work exposures. We have compared the timing and responses during SIC in hospital to Oasys analysis of serial peak expiratory flow (PEF) during usual work exposures.All workers with a positive SIC to occupational agents between 2006 and 2015 were asked to measure PEF every 2 h from waking to sleeping for 4 weeks during usual occupational exposures. Responses were compared between the laboratory challenge and the real-world exposures at work.All 53 workers with positive SIC were included. 49 out of 53 had records suitable for Oasys analysis, 14 required more than one attempt and all confirmed occupational work-related changes in PEF. Immediate SIC reactors and deterioration within the first 2 h of starting work were significantly correlated with early recovery, and late SIC reactors and a delayed start to workplace deterioration were significantly correlated with delayed recovery. Dual SIC reactions had features of immediate or late SIC reactions at work rather than dual reactions.The concordance of timings of reactions during SIC and at work provides further validation for the clinical significance of each test.

Asbestosis is prevalent in a variety of construction industry trades.

A diagnosis of asbestosis, which is a long-latency, fibrotic lung disease, has implications for the patient in terms of prognosis, treatment and compensation. Identifying and quantifying asbestos exposure is difficult without a detailed occupational history, and the threshold dose of asbestos required to cause asbestosis is not well understood. We reviewed all cases of asbestosis diagnosed between 2001 and 2016 at the Birmingham Regional NHS Occupational Lung Disease Service to determine the industries and occupations most frequently implicated in causation, in order to help clinicians identify where asbestosis might enter the differential diagnosis for a patient with chronic respiratory symptoms. A variety of construction trades were frequently reported including carpenters and joiners, pipe fitters, laggers, labourers, painters and shop fitters. Traditionally heavily exposed occupations such as shipbuilding were not commonly seen.

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.

Biopsy-proven hypersensitivity pneumonitis caused by a fluorocarbon waterproofing spray.

BACKGROUND: We present the case of a 35-year-old male who developed a chronic hypersensitivity pneumonitis (HP) following inhalational exposure to a fluorocarbon waterproofing aerosol spray, caused by his work for an upholstery and soft furnishings retailer. This is the first case report from inhalational fluorocarbon exposure with histological evidence of chronic HP. This is then discussed in the context of previous reports of interstitial lung disease and lung injury, caused by similar occupational and non-occupational exposures.