Advertisement

Discrimination Between Atopic, Allergic, and Asthmatic Volunteers for Human Exposure Studies on Sensory Irritation

  • V. van KampenEmail author
  • F. Hoffmeyer
  • C. Monsé
  • M. Raulf
  • T. Brüning
  • J. Bünger
  • K. Sucker
Chapter
  • 26 Downloads
Part of the Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology book series (AEMB, volume 1279)

Abstract

Atopic, allergic, and especially asthmatic subjects might be particularly susceptible to sensory irritation induced by airborne chemicals compared to healthy individuals. Therefore, a good characterization of subjects is essential in inhalation exposure studies on sensory irritants. A total of 105 volunteers, 87% of whom reported to be non-allergic, participated in a medical examination that included skin prick test (SPT), measurements of total IgE, specific IgE (sIgE) to an ubiquitous allergen mix (sx1), and fractionated exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO), as well as pulmonary function and methacholine test. The median value of sIgE to sx1 was 0.20 kU/L (0.07–91.3 kU/L) and correlated significantly with total IgE (28.8 kU/L (2–756 kU/L)) and FeNO (14 ppb (5–100 ppb)). Forty-three subjects (41%) had sIgE to sx1 ≥ 0.35 kU/L and were classified as atopic. Thirty-five subjects, all also sx1-positive, were positive in SPT. Obstruction, small airway disease, and/or bronchial hyperreactivity were diagnosed in 18 subjects. Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) were performed to check whether signs of sensitization are useful to discriminate subjects with and without airway diseases. However, sx1, total IgE, FeNO, and SPT reached only low areas under the curve (AUC: 0.57–0.66). Although predominantly young and, according to their own statements, mostly non-allergic subjects participated in the study, almost half of them were atopic, and 10% had airway disease or bronchial hyperreactivity. This indicates that the validity of self-reported data might be inaccurate. In summary, diversified investigations of the allergy-related health status appear necessary for a thorough characterization of subjects for exposure studies on sensory irritants.

Keywords

Allergy Asthma Atopy IgE Exhale nitric oxide Inhalation exposure Sensory irritation Volunteers 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank the volunteers for their participation and all the involved technical assistants from our institute for their excellent assistance. We gratefully acknowledge Anja Deckert for support in recruitment.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest in relation to this article.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. The recruitment procedure and the exposure studies were approved by the Ethic Committee of the Ruhr-University Bochum in Germany.

Informed Consent

All participants provided written informed consent and received financial compensation for participation.

References

  1. ATS/ERS (2005) ATS/ERS recommendations for standardized procedures for the online and offline measurement of exhaled lower respiratory nitric oxide and nasal nitric oxide. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 171:912–930CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brener ND, Billy JO, Grady WR (2003) Assessment of factors affecting the validity of self–reported health–risk behavior among adolescents: evidence from the scientific literature. J Adolesc Health 33(6):436–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brüning T, Bartsch R, Bolt HM, Desel H, Drexler H, Gundert–Remy U, Hartwig A, Jäckh R, Leibold E, Pallapies D, Rettenmeier AW, Schlüter G, Stropp G, Sucker K, Triebig G, Westphal G, van Thriel C (2014) Sensory irritation as a basis for setting occupational exposure limits. Arch Toxicol 88(10):1855–1879CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chalupa DC, Morrow PE, Oberdörster G, Utell MJ, Frampton MW (2004) Ultrafine particle deposition in subjects with asthma. Environ Health Perspect 112(8):879–882CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Daigle CC, Chalupa DC, Gibb FR, Morrow PE, Oberdörster G, Utell MJ, Frampton MW (2003) Ultrafine particle deposition in humans during rest and exercise. Inhal Toxicol 15(6):539–552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gorber CS, Tremblay M, Moher D, Gorber B (2007) A comparison of direct vs. self–report measures for assessing height, weight and body mass index: a systematic review. Obes Rev 8(4):307–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Haftenberger M, Laußmann D, Ellert U, Kalcklösch M, Langen U, Schlaud M, Schmitz R, Thamm M (2013) Prävalenz von Sensibilisierungen gegen Inhalations– und Nahrungsmittelallergene. Ergebnisse der Studie zur Gesundheit Erwachsener in Deutschland (DEGS1). Bundesgesundheitsblatt 56:687–697. (Article in German)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ho LP, Wood FT, Robson A, Innes JA, Greening AP (2000) Atopy influences exhaled nitric oxide levels in adult asthmatics. Chest 118:1327–1331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Johansson MK, Johanson G, Öberg M (2016) Evaluation of the experimental basis for assessment factors to protect individuals with asthma from health effects during short–term exposure to airborne chemicals. Crit Rev Toxicol 46(3):241–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kleinbeck S, Pacharra M, Schäper M, Blaszkewicz M, Golka K, Brüning T, van Thriel C. (2018) Sensorische Irritationen durch Ameisensäure: Reagieren allergische Probanden stärker auf kontrollierte Expositionen? (Sensory irritations due to formic acid: Do allergic subjects react more strongly to controlled exposures?) In: Deutschen Gesellschaft für Arbeitsmedizin und Umweltmedizin e.V. (Hrsg.): Dokumentation der 58. Jahrestagung der DGAUM, 7–9 März 2018 in München, p 50 (Article in German)Google Scholar
  11. Knight V, Wolf ML, Trikha A, Curran–Everett D, Hiserote M, Harbeck RJ (2018) A comparison of specific IgE and skin prick test results to common environmental allergens using the HYTEC™ 288. J Immunol Methods 462:9–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Malmberg LP, Pelkonen AS, Haahtela T, Turpeinen M (2003) Exhaled nitric oxide rather than lung function distinguishes preschool children with probable asthma. Thorax 58:494–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Merget R, Heinze E, Neumann L, Taeger D, Brüning T (2005) Comparison of the PARI Provotest II reservoir method with the ATS dosimeter method to assess bronchial hyperresponsiveness to methacholine. In: Proceedings of the 45th annual conference of the German Society for Occupational and Environmental Medicine (DGAUM) 624–625 (Article in German)Google Scholar
  14. Miller MR, Hankinson J, Brusasco V, Burgos F, Casaburi R, Coates A, Crapo R, Enright P, van der Grinten CP, Gustafsson P, Jensen R, Johnson DC, MacIntyre N, McKay R, Navajas D, Pedersen OF, Pellegrino R, Viegi G, Wanger J (2005) Standardisation of spirometry. Eur Respir J 26:319–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Neermark S, Holst C, Bisgaard T, Bay–Nielsen M, Becker U, Tolstrup JS (2019) Validation and calibration of self–reported height and weight in the Danish health examination survey. Eur J Pub Health 29(2):291–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Pacharra M, Kleinbeck S, Schäper M, Blaszkewicz M, Golka K, van Thriel C (2017) Does seasonal allergic rhinitis increase sensitivity to ammonia exposure? Int J Hyg Environ Health 220(5):840–848CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Quanjer PH, Stanojevic S, Cole TJ, Baur X, Hall GL, Culver BH, Enright PL, Hankinson JL, Ip MS, Zheng J, Stocks J, ERS Global Lung Function Initiative (2012) Multi–ethnic reference values for spirometry for the 3–95 yr age range: the global lung function 2012 equations. Eur Respir J 40(6):1324–1343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Rosenkranz D, Bünger J, Hoffmeyer F, Monsé C, van Kampen V, Raulf M, Brüning T, Sucker K (2020) How healthy is healthy? Comparison between self–reported symptoms and clinical outcomes in connection with the enrollment of volunteers for human exposure studies on sensory irritation effects. Adv Exp Med Biol.  https://doi.org/10.1007/5584_2019_472. (Epub ahead of print)
  19. Shusterman D, Murphy MA, Balmes J (2003) Differences in nasal irritant sensitivity by age, gender, and allergic rhinitis status. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 76(8):577–583CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Shusterman D, Tarun A, Murphy MA, Morris J (2005) Seasonal allergic rhinitic and normal subjects respond differentially to nasal provocation with acetic acid vapor. Inhal Toxicol 17(3):147–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Sucker K, Hoffmeyer F, Monsé C, Jettkant B, Berresheim H, Rosenkranz N, Raulf M, Bünger J, Brüning T (2019) Ethyl acrylate: influence of sex or atopy on perceptual ratings and eye blink frequency. Arch Toxicol 93(10):2913–2926CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. van Kampen V, Rabstein S, Sander I, Merget R, Brüning T, Broding HC, Keller C, Müsken H, Overlack A, Schultze–Werninghaus G, Walusiak J, Raulf–Heimsoth M (2008) Prediction of challenge test results by flour–specific IgE and skin prick test in symptomatic bakers. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 63(7):897–902Google Scholar
  23. Wanger J, Clausen JL, Coates A, Pedersen OF, Brusasco V, Burgos F, Casaburi R, Crapo R, Enright P, van der Grinten CP, Gustafsson P, Hankinson J, Jensen R, Johnson D, Macintyre N, McKay R, Miller MR, Navajas D, Pellegrino R, Viegi G (2005) Standardisation of the measurement of lung volumes. Eur Respir J 26(3):511–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • V. van Kampen
    • 1
    Email author
  • F. Hoffmeyer
    • 1
  • C. Monsé
    • 1
  • M. Raulf
    • 1
  • T. Brüning
    • 1
  • J. Bünger
    • 1
  • K. Sucker
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Prevention and Occupational Medicine of the German Social Accident InsuranceInstitute of the Ruhr University (IPA)BochumGermany

Personalised recommendations