Work-exacerbated asthma in a workers' compensation population

Clinical Importance of Work-Exacerbated Asthma: Findings From a Prospective Asthma Cohort in a Highly Industrialized City in Korea

PURPOSE

Work-related asthma (WRA) occupies about 10%-30% of all asthma cases. Among 2 subtypes of WRA (occupational asthma [OA] and work-exacerbated asthma [WEA]), the rate of WEA has been reported to increase recently. WRA is described as having worse characteristics than non-WRA (NWRA), while WEA is known to show similar severity to OA in terms of symptoms and exacerbations. However, these data were mainly based on indirect surveys. Ulsan is a highly industrialized city in Korea; therefore, it is estimated to have a high incidence of WRA. This study aimed to identify the characteristics of WRA in the city.

METHODS

This was a prospective asthma cohort study of individuals diagnosed with asthma and treated at Ulsan University Hospital between Jan 2015 and Dec 2016. Baseline characteristics and work-related inquiry (9 questionnaires) were investigated at enrollment. Various severity indices and job change were then investigated for the longitudinal analysis at 12 months after enrollment.

RESULTS

In total, 217 asthma patients completed the study. WRA accounted for 17% (36/217), with an equal number of WEA and OA (18 patients each). Before the work-related survey, only 33% (n = 12) of WRA patients (22% [4/18] of WEA and 44% [8/18] of OA) were diagnosed with WRA by the attending physicians. Compared to the NWRA group and the OA subgroup, the WEA subgroup had more outpatient visits, more oral corticosteroids prescriptions, and trends of low asthma control test scores and severe asthma. The rate of job change was markedly lower in the WEA subgroup than in the OA subgroup (20% vs. 5%).

CONCLUSIONS

The overall prevalence of WRA (17%) was similar to those of previous studies, but the share of WEA was high (50% of WRA). WEA was more severe than OA or NWRA. The possible reason for this severity is ongoing workplace exposure.

Update on the Management of Occupational Asthma and Work-Exacerbated Asthma

Work-related asthma is the most common occupational lung disease encountered in clinical practice. In adult asthmatics, work-relatedness can account for 15%-33% of cases, but delays in diagnosis remain common and lead to worse outcomes. Accurate diagnosis of asthma is the first step to managing occupational asthma, which can be sensitizer-induced or irritant-induced asthma. While latency has traditionally been recognized as a hallmark of sensitizer-induced asthma and rapid-onset a defining feature of irritant-induced asthma (as in Reactive Airway Dysfunction Syndrome), there is epidemiological evidence for irritant-induced asthma with latency from chronic moderate exposure. Diagnostic testing while the patient is still in the workplace significantly improves sensitivity. While specific inhalational challenges remain the gold-standard for the diagnosis of occupational asthma, they are not available outside of specialized centers. Commonly available tests including bronchoprovocation challenges and peak flow monitoring are important tools for practicing clinicians. Management of sensitizer-induced occupational asthma is notable for the central importance of removal from the causative agent: ideally, removal of the culprit agent; but if not feasible, this may require changes in the work process or ultimately, removal of the worker from the workplace. While workers' compensation programs may reduce income loss, these are not universal and there can be significant socio-economic impact from work-related asthma. Primary prevention remains the preferred method of reducing the burden of occupational asthma, which may include modification to work processes, better worker education and substitution of sensitizing agents from the workplace with safer compounds.

Trends in Occupations and Work Sectors Among Patients With Work-Related Asthma at a Canadian Tertiary Care Clinic

BACKGROUND

Work-related asthma (WRA) is the most common chronic occupational lung disease in the developed world. Several factors including sociodemographic status and occupation/industry increase the risks of developing WRA. In this study, we sought to identify changes in patterns and characteristics among patients with WRA over a 15-year period in an occupational lung disease clinic.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of patients with WRA charts at the Occupational Lung Disease Clinic of a University Hospital in Toronto, Canada. Patients were divided into two periods classified by first attendance at the clinic 2000 through 2007 and 2008 through 2015. Comparisons between the two periods included: sociodemographic characteristics, smoking status, occupations, exposures, and submitted workers' compensation claims.

RESULTS

Fewer occupational asthma cases were seen in the more recent period vs the earlier period (40 vs 74 cases), with a smaller reduction in work-exacerbated asthma cases (40 vs 58). The recent period included a significantly smaller proportion employed in the manufacturing industry and isocyanate-induced cases compared with the earlier period. An increased proportion were employed in health-care and education industries (primarily cleaners and teachers) in the recent period, consistent with a corresponding increased frequency of cleaning agents and dust exposures.

CONCLUSIONS

The changes observed in work sectors in the patients with WRA in this clinic in Toronto are consistent with reductions reported in Ontario workers' compensation claims for occupational asthma and may relate to preventive measures. Cleaners and teachers should be a focus of further intervention measures for work-related asthma.

Distribution of asthma by occupation: Washington State behavioral risk factor surveillance system data, 2006-2009

Objective

Objective: To estimate the prevalence of asthma in workers by occupation in Washington State. Methods: Data from the 2006–2009 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) and the BRFSS Asthma Call-Back Survey (ACBS) in Washington State (WA) were analyzed. Using state-added and coded Industry and Occupation questions, we calculated prevalence ratios (PRs) for 19 occupational groups. Results: Of the 41 935 respondents who were currently employed during 2006–2009, the prevalence of current asthma was 8.1% [95% confidence interval (CI) 7.8–8.5%] When compared with the reference group of executive, administration and managerial occupations, three occupational groups had significantly (p < 0.05) higher PRs of current asthma: “Teachers, all levels, and Counselors’ (PR 1.3, 95% CI 1.1–1. 6%); ‘Administrative Support, including Clerical” (PR 1. 5, 95% CI 1.2–1.9%); and “Other Health Services” (PR 1.5, 95% CI 1.2–1.9). Half of the 2511 ACBS respondent workers (55.1%) indicated that they believed exposure at work had caused or worsened their asthma, but only 10.7% had ever spoken with a health care professional about their asthma being work related. Conclusions: Some occupations have a higher prevalence of current asthma than other occupations. The systematic collection of industry and occupation data can help identify worker populations with a high burden of asthma and can be used to target disease prevention efforts as well as to aid clinician recognition and treatment. Workers indicated that work-related asthma exposures are not discussed with their health care provider and this communication gap has implications for asthma management.