Shift work effects on serial PEF measurements for occupational asthma.

BACKGROUND: Diurnal variation (DV) affects lung function but the changes are thought to be related to sleep patterns rather than time of day. When diagnosing occupational asthma (OA), serial peak expiratory flow (PEF) measurements are the recommended first line investigation, but could be confounded by shift work. AIMS: The aim of the study was to investigate the effects of shift work on PEF measurements used for diagnosing OA. METHODS: PEF records containing more than one shift pattern with ≥ 4 days per shift were identified. OA diagnosis was based on an Oasys-2 score ≥ 2.51 and non-OA on having an alternative clinical diagnosis and Oasys-2 score <2.51. The mean area between curves (ABC) score, mean PEF DV and cross-shift PEF changes were calculated for each shift. RESULTS: Records from 123 workers with OA and 69 without OA satisfied inclusion criteria. In the OA group, PEF declined more on afternoon and night shifts than days (P < 0.001). The ABC score was lower in the OA group on night (P < 0.05) and afternoon shifts (P < 0.05) as compared with days, without significant differences in DV. Among those without OA, cross-shift PEF increased more on day shifts (mean + 25 l/min) than afternoon or night shifts (+1 l/min) (P < 0.001). The sensitivity for the ABC score and DV were good and similar across shifts, but specificity was reduced using DV (DV mean 39%; ABC 98%). CONCLUSIONS: PEF responses between work and rest show small differences according to shift type. The ABC score has a high sensitivity and specificity for all shifts; differences in DV have lower specificity.

Diagnosis of occupational asthma from time point differences in serial PEF measurements.

BACKGROUND: The diagnosis of occupational asthma requires objective confirmation. Analysis of serial measurements of peak expiratory flow (PEF) is usually the most convenient first step in the diagnostic process. A new method of analysis originally developed to detect late asthmatic reactions following specific inhalation testing is described. This was applied to serial PEF measurements made over many days in the workplace to supplement existing methods of PEF analysis. METHODS: 236 records from workers with independently diagnosed occupational asthma and 320 records from controls with asthma were available. The pooled standard deviation for rest day measurements was obtained from an analysis of variance by time. Work day PEF measurements were meaned into matching 2-hourly time segments. Time points with mean work day PEF statistically lower (at the Bonferroni adjusted 5% level) than the rest days were counted after adjusting for the number of contributing measurements. RESULTS: A minimum of four time point comparisons were needed. Records with >or=2 time points significantly lower on work days had a sensitivity of 67% and a specificity of 99% for the diagnosis of occupational asthma against independent diagnoses. Reducing the requirements to >or=1 non-waking time point difference increased sensitivity to 77% and reduced specificity to 93%. The analysis was only applicable to 43% of available records, mainly due to differences in waking times on work and rest days. CONCLUSION: Time point analysis complements other validated methods of PEF analysis for the diagnosis of occupational asthma. It requires shorter records than are required for the Oasys score and can identify smaller changes than other methods, but is dependent on low rest day PEF variance.

Effect of peak expiratory flow data quantity on diagnostic sensitivity and specificity in occupational asthma.

Serial peak expiratory flow records are recommended in the first-line investigation of suspected occupational asthma. The effects of sequentially reducing the numbers of working weeks, consecutive days at work and readings taken per day on diagnostic sensitivity and specificity were investigated, using good quality peak expiratory flow records from 81 workers with independently confirmed occupational asthma and 60 asthmatics without occupational exposure. Sensitivity was 81.8% for records of 4 weeks' duration and 70% for those of 2 weeks' duration (specificity 93.8 and 82.4% respectively). The sensitivity fell to 56.7% if there were only 2 consecutive workdays in each work period. Although best at 8 readings x day(-1), sensitivity and specificity were acceptable with four daily readings (82.4 and 87%). The effect of defining a record as being of adequate quality if it was of > or = 2.5 weeks' duration, with > or = 4 readings x day(-1) and > or = 3 consecutive workdays in each work period, was tested in records not used in the initial data reduction process. The sensitivity and specificity respectively of adequate records were 78.1 and 91.8 versus 63.6 and 83.3% for inadequate records. Peak expiratory flow records for the diagnosis of occupational asthma should be interpreted with caution if they do not satisfy the suggested minimum data quantity criteria.

Interpretation of occupational peak flow records: level of agreement between expert clinicians and Oasys-2.

BACKGROUND: Oasys-2 is a validated diagnostic aid for occupational asthma that interprets peak expiratory flow (PEF) records as well as generating summary plots. The system removes inconsistency in interpretation, which is important if there is limited agreement between experts. A study was undertaken to assess the level of agreement between expert clinicians interpreting serial PEF measurements in relation to work exposure and to compare the responses given by Oasys-2. METHOD: 35 PEF records from workers under investigation for suspected occupational asthma were available for review. Records included details of nature of work, intercurrent illness, drug therapy, predicted PEF, rest periods, and holidays. Simple plots of PEF and the Oasys-2 generated plots were available. Experts were advised that approximately 1 hour was available to review the records. They were asked to score each work-rest-work (WRW) period and each rest-work-rest (RWR) period for evidence of occupational effect. At the end of each record scores of 0-100% were given for evidence of "asthma" and "occupational effect" for the whole record. Kappa values were calculated for each scored period and for the opinions on the whole record. The scores were converted into four groups (0-25%, 26-50%, 51-75%, 76-100%) and two groups (0-50% and 51-100%) for analysis. This is relevant to scores produced by Oasys-2. Agreement between Oasys-2 scores and each expert was calculated. RESULTS: 24 of 35 records were analysed by seven experts in the allotted time. For whole record occupational effect, median kappa values were 0.83 (range 0.56-0.94) for two groups and 0.62 (0.11-0.83) for four groups. For asthma, median kappa values were 0.58 (0-0.67) and 0.42 (0.15-0.70) for two and four groups respectively. For all WRW and RWR periods kappa values were 0.84 (0.42-0.94) and 0.70 (0.46-0.87) respectively. Agreement between Oasys-2 and individual experts showed a median kappa value of 0.75 (0.50-0.92) for two groups and 0.50 (0.39-0.70) for four groups. Kappa values for the median expert score v Oasys-2 were 0.75 for two groups and 0.67 for four groups. Agreement was poor for records with intermediate probability, as defined by Oasys-2. CONCLUSION: Considerable variation in agreement was seen in expert interpretation of occupational PEF records which may lead to inconsistencies in diagnosis of occupational asthma. There is a need for an objective scoring system which removes human variability, such as that provided by Oasys-2.