Evolution of occupational asthma: Does cessation of exposure really improve prognosis?

• Published in: Respiratory medicine Vol. 108; no. 9; pp. 1363 - 1370
• Main Authors: Munoz, X, Viladrich, M, Manso, L, del Pozo, V, Quirce, S, Cruz, M.J, Carmona, F, Sánchez-Pla, A, Sastre, J
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England Elsevier Ltd 01-09-2014; Elsevier Limited
• Subjects: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Asthma; Asthma, Occupational - physiopathology; Asthma, Occupational - prevention & control; Bronchial Provocation Tests - methods; Classification; Cross-Sectional Studies; Disease Progression; Female; Follow-Up Studies; Forced Expiratory Volume - physiology; High molecular weight; Humans; Low molecular weight; Male; Middle Aged; Occupational Exposure - adverse effects; Occupational Exposure - prevention & control; Prognosis; Pulmonary/Respiratory; Severity of Illness Index; Specific inhalation challenge; Spirometry - methods; Statistical analysis; Variables; Vital Capacity - physiology; Young Adult; Low molecular weight; High molecular weight; Specific inhalation challenge
• ISSN: 0954-6111; 1532-3064
• DOI: 10.1016/j.rmed.2014.08.001

Summary Aim To assess the evolution of occupational asthma (OA) depending on whether the patient avoids or continues with exposure to the offending agent. Methods Study in patients diagnosed with OA using a specific inhalation challenge. Patients underwent the following examinations on the same day: clinical interview, physical examination, forced spirometry, methacholine test and determination of total IgE. Clinical improvement, deterioration or no change were defined according to the changes seen on the GINA severity scale at the time of diagnosis. Results Of the 73 patients finally included, 55 had totally ended exposure and 18 continued to be exposed at work. Clinical improvement was observed in 47% of those who had terminated exposure and in 22% of those who remained exposed; clinical deterioration was observed in 14% and 17% respectively ( p  = 0.805). Logistical regression analysis, including the type of agent and the persistence or avoidance of exposure among the variables, did not show any predictive factors of clinical evolution. Similarly, the changes in FEV1 and in bronchial hyperresponsiveness were not associated with the avoidance or continuation of exposure to the causative agent. Conclusions Avoiding exposure to the causative agent in patients with OA does not seem to improve prognosis in this disease. Despite these findings, there is insufficient evidence to recommend a change in current management guidelines.