{"title":"职业性和非职业性哮喘患者特异性吸入激发试验结果的比较:监测呼气峰流量是否足以诊断?","authors":"Cebrail Şimşek, Bilge Akgunduz, Gulden Sari","doi":"10.19080/ijoprs.2021.05.555666","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: It is recommended to monitoring PEFR to diagnosing OA. Gold standard method is SIC test. The aim of this study is to evaluate comparison of SIC test results in patients with OA and non-OA and to discuss PEFR monitoring and underdiagnosed. Materials and Methods: 24 patients (16 OA, 8 non-OA) who underwent SIC test were analyzed retrospectively. Results: Although number of patients exposed to LMW (wood powders [n: 5]) was higher, IgE level was found significantly higher at OA (697.39 ± 839.36 kU/ml) (p: 0.027). Average PEFR monitoring days mean was 26.53±12.90.13 patients who diagnosed with OA with SIC was evaluated PEFR monitoring results were negative [%92.86]. Minimum FEV1 value on exposure day was lower in OA (p:0.001). Conclusion: We detected underdiagnosed cases rates were higher with diagnosing OA with PEFR monitoring alone. Our study also demonstrated that LMW agents cause immunological OA, independently from agent type and duration of exposure.","PeriodicalId":257243,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Pulmonary & Respiratory Sciences","volume":"294 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Specific Inhalation Challenge Test Results in Occupational and Non- Occupational Asthma Patients: Is Monitoring Peak Expiratory Flow Rate Sufficient for Diagnosis?\",\"authors\":\"Cebrail Şimşek, Bilge Akgunduz, Gulden Sari\",\"doi\":\"10.19080/ijoprs.2021.05.555666\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Objective: It is recommended to monitoring PEFR to diagnosing OA. Gold standard method is SIC test. The aim of this study is to evaluate comparison of SIC test results in patients with OA and non-OA and to discuss PEFR monitoring and underdiagnosed. Materials and Methods: 24 patients (16 OA, 8 non-OA) who underwent SIC test were analyzed retrospectively. Results: Although number of patients exposed to LMW (wood powders [n: 5]) was higher, IgE level was found significantly higher at OA (697.39 ± 839.36 kU/ml) (p: 0.027). Average PEFR monitoring days mean was 26.53±12.90.13 patients who diagnosed with OA with SIC was evaluated PEFR monitoring results were negative [%92.86]. Minimum FEV1 value on exposure day was lower in OA (p:0.001). Conclusion: We detected underdiagnosed cases rates were higher with diagnosing OA with PEFR monitoring alone. Our study also demonstrated that LMW agents cause immunological OA, independently from agent type and duration of exposure.\",\"PeriodicalId\":257243,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Pulmonary & Respiratory Sciences\",\"volume\":\"294 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-11-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Pulmonary & Respiratory Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.19080/ijoprs.2021.05.555666\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Pulmonary & Respiratory Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.19080/ijoprs.2021.05.555666","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Comparison of Specific Inhalation Challenge Test Results in Occupational and Non- Occupational Asthma Patients: Is Monitoring Peak Expiratory Flow Rate Sufficient for Diagnosis?
Objective: It is recommended to monitoring PEFR to diagnosing OA. Gold standard method is SIC test. The aim of this study is to evaluate comparison of SIC test results in patients with OA and non-OA and to discuss PEFR monitoring and underdiagnosed. Materials and Methods: 24 patients (16 OA, 8 non-OA) who underwent SIC test were analyzed retrospectively. Results: Although number of patients exposed to LMW (wood powders [n: 5]) was higher, IgE level was found significantly higher at OA (697.39 ± 839.36 kU/ml) (p: 0.027). Average PEFR monitoring days mean was 26.53±12.90.13 patients who diagnosed with OA with SIC was evaluated PEFR monitoring results were negative [%92.86]. Minimum FEV1 value on exposure day was lower in OA (p:0.001). Conclusion: We detected underdiagnosed cases rates were higher with diagnosing OA with PEFR monitoring alone. Our study also demonstrated that LMW agents cause immunological OA, independently from agent type and duration of exposure.