Study population
We analyzed 43 persons, which include all patients with occupational exposure to MDI and presumed isocyanate asthma who were referred to our outpatient clinic by general practitioners in the last 5 years (n = 12). Three additional control groups were also studied: 6 asymptomatic industrial workers currently exposed to ~5 ppb MDI investigated in the workplace, 12 patients with occupational baker’s asthma, not exposed to isocyanates, and 13 unexposed healthy control subjects. The median value for the demographic, clinical and functional characteristics of the symptomatic patients and the controls were as follows: patient age 43 year (27–67), controls 46 year (28–61), in the patient group 91 % were men and in the control group 61 %; the total IgE values for the patient group were 102 kU/L IgE (2–1669), for the control group 92 kU/L (7–893); the median FEV1/FVC ratio in the MDI-exposed patient group was 0.79. Smoking status: 33 % of the patients were smokers, 8 % non-smokers and 58 % ex-smokers; in the control group: 11 % were smokers, 64 % non-smokers and 14 % ex-smokers. The patients and controls filled in questionnaires regarding their workplaces, working conditions, exposure, respiratory symptoms and smoking habits (the smoking status was confirmed with cotinine measurements); The patients underwent an extensive asthma examination (see Tables 1, 2; Fig. 1 for details). None of the isocyanate asthma patients (and controls) was under medication at the time of the study. The clinical, demographic and functional characteristics of the individual subjects are delineated in the results, as appropriate. The study was approved by the Institutional Ethics Review Board, (IRB0003648, Hamburg, Germany).
Table 1 Clinical diagnosis of symptomatic patients with MDI exposure history
Table 2 Diagnosis of MDI hypersensitivity pneumonitis with evaluation points for isocyanate alveolitis
Pulmonary function test
FVC (forced vital capacity) and FEV1 (forced expiratory volume in 1 s) were measured according to ERS/ATS recommendations applying reference values from (Brandli et al. 1996, 2000).
NSBHR (non-specific bronchial hyper-responsiveness)
The protocol for NSBHR testing has been described elsewhere (Baur et al. 1998). Briefly, the inhalation challenge involved serial measurements of FEV1 with progressively increasing doses of methacholine (up to 0.4 mg as measured at the mouthpiece). A 20 % fall of FEV1 elicited by ≤0.3 mg of methacholine (PC20 < 0.35) indicates NSBHR (Baur et al. 1998; Jayet et al. 2005).
SPT (skin-prick testing)
SPT was performed with 20 common allergens following a protocol described earlier (Budnik et al. 2011; Baur et al. 1994). For specific MDI-SPT, sterilized, purified HSA-MDI conjugates were prepared: the 96 % sterile albumin solution (for human use from CSL Behring, Germany) was mixed (in solution) with sterile liquid monomeric MDI (Bayer, Germany) until a final concentration of 1 mg/mL MDI was achieved.
The allergens were gently pricked onto the skin surface of the volar side of the forearm. Wheal and flare reactions were read 20 min later (a test result was regarded as positive when a wheal of at least 3 mm in diameter appeared, with a surrounding flare, which was larger than the solvent, that is, negative control). The solvent alone (0.9 % sodium chloride) and histamine (0.01 mg/mL) were tested in parallel as negative and positive controls.
SIC (specific inhalation challenge)
The SIC method performed in exposure chamber (0.5–5.5 ppb for 120 min) described elsewhere (Baur et al. 1994; Budnik et al. 2011). FEV1 was measured before and every 10 min for the 1st h, then hourly for 7 h. The SIC result was considered positive when the fall in FEV1 was at least 20 %.
Clinical diagnosis of patients with MDI exposure history
The individual asthma diagnosis for each patient followed the ERS/ATS guidelines (Anees et al. 2011; Moore et al. 2010; Vandenplas et al. 2011; Tarlo et al. 2008; Baur et al. 1998) as described in detail below. See Table 1, for the schematic diagnostic criteria and supplementary Fig. 1 for diagnostic flow chart of the MDI-asthma diagnosis (see Figure 1 in supplementary material).
Facultative diagnostic testing
In case of uncertainness due to clear-cut work-related symptoms (e.g. associated with the absence of NSBHR), additional spirometry monitoring and/or additional specific inhalative challenge tests were performed (supplementary Fig. 1).
Diagnosis of MDI hypersensitivity pneumonitis (MDI alveolitis)
Diagnosis of MDI hypersensitivity pneumonitis has been described in detail elsewhere (Baur et al. 1992, 2001; Merget et al. 2002). Prerequisites of acute or subacute MDI hypersensitivity pneumonitis are the following:
-
Occupational/environmental history: MDI exposure.
-
Respiratory as well as systemic symptoms after a lag period of 3–12 h: fever, shivering, malaise, cough and shortness of breath.
Diagnostic scheme in case of presumed MDI hypersensitivity pneumonitis is shown in the Table 2.
Exposure assessment
Exposure assessment was performed using the MDA-SPM toxic gas monitor (Honeywell Analytics, Glinde, Germany) and was confirmed by biomonitoring (Budnik et al. 2011). If workplace measurement was not possible, the assessment of exposure was based on occupational case history, detailed reconstruction of the working conditions, data provided by industrial hygienists as well as information provided by the employees.
Preparation of various MDI-HSA conjugates and immunological analysis
The preparation of MDI-HSA conjugates in-vapor and in-solution is a modification of previously published methods (Wisnewski et al. 2004; Sepai et al. 1995; Kumar et al. 2009; Baur 1983). The in-vapor method is based on a specially constructed 2 chamber-system used to fumigate the human albumin (99 % pure, globulin free, Sigma, Germany) solution with vaporized 4,4′ MDI (analytical standard, Riedel-de-Häen, Sigma, Germany). Individual conjugates, were coupled with biotin and used for the fluorescence enzyme immune assay detection method (semi-automatic ImmunoCAP100, Phadia, Freiburg, Germany). Serum-specific IgE is expressed in kilo unit per liter (kU/L) correlated with the WHO reference of human serum IgE (1 kU = 2.4 ng/mL). A seven-point dose–response calibration was performed for each IgE and IgG measurement. For ImmunoCAP-specific IgE, the limit of detection (LOD) of 0.02 kU/L for IgE and 0.2 mg/L for IgG and the limit of calibration of 100 kU/L for Commercial ImmunoCAP conjugates (K76, Phadia) used in routine clinical laboratories were applied in parallel with similar analytical procedures (for the calibration curves and control sera). For validation of the assays, the following controls were included: pooled positive and negative patient/control sera, analytical standards (also used as set points for quality control), HSA solution and biotin control samples. The measured day to day precision was <12 % RSD. The assay validation was performed according to the good laboratory practice. Separate studies with HSA solution showed that IgE values above 0.02 kU/L and IgG values above 3 mg/L can be considered as specific (above means +2 RSD or 10 % analytical variation). The variability between the in-vapor method and the commercial assay method was: 0.5–20 % (for lower and upper edge of failure) for the IgE values. For the IgG data, however, the values collected with commercial CAPs were continuously 5–35 % higher in all tested subjects.
Total IgE antibodies were determined using respective commercial Uni-CAP from Phadia.
Detection of MDI-bound to HSA
The protein concentration of each test conjugate was determined by the method of Bradford (BioRad, Germany). The concentrations were adjusted by dilution or limited evaporation on a speed-vac system. The conjugates were subjected to SDS-PAGE using a 9 % separation gel. The amount of MDI-bound to HSA was calculated from the intact protein shift using MALDI-TOF-MS (using CHCA-matrix) and compared with non-conjugated HSA.
LC-MS/MS measurements
Purified HSA was incubated with MDI and analyzed by MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry (Applied Biosystems, the Netherlands) to determine the mass shift of the intact protein. Additionally, the reacted HSA was digested with trypsin (without any further treatments, such as disulfide bond reduction). The digested mixtures were analyzed by liquid chromatography (LC)-mass spectrometry (MS) (Applied Biosystems, the Netherlands), and modified peptides were scanned using neutral loss and precursor ion scans. Interesting ions were analyzed again with product ion scans to identify them from their fragmentation spectra (data not shown).
Data analysis
Immunological data are expressed as mean value. Each analysis was repeated at least twice with three independent preparations (except for the assay validation). For correlations between diagnosis probability estimates and the specific immunoglobulin binding, the relative prevalence ratios (RR) were calculated from the contingency tables using a logistic model. Two-sample t tests were applied to calculate the distribution of the difference. To calculate correlations, the Person’s correlation test was applied. When the clinical data were combined in union (i.e. NSBHR, MDI-SIC, MDI-SPT, sIgE), the results of tests in combination had to be positive; if any result was negative, the combination was considered negative. When clinical lung function parameters were evaluated, the percent of the predicted lung function values was calculated, applying the reference values of Brändli et al. (see “Methods”). For the comparison of the binding data between the sera for variously responding patients, the data for each individual patient were transformed into a percentage of maximal binding (i.e. if the maximum binding value was 10 kU/L, the 10 would be 100 % and other data points were given as a percentage of this value; if the maximum value was 70 kU/L, then 70 would be 100 %, thus allowing to compare high and low responds within one plot). The patient sera were measured first individually, and then the samples were pooled as follows: all IgE-positives (median, 26 kU/L) gave one pool, all IgG-positives (median, 13 mg/L) gave another, and two control pools (healthy group and baker’ asthma patients) were the third and the last group. When data point for only one conjugate is shown, the following conditions were chosen: in-vapor conjugates were used in AmBic buffer, 60 min-incubation (if not otherwise specified).
To test individual conjugates and to validate the assay, a pool serum from isocyanate asthmatics was used. All immunological methods were validated routinely with control serum samples and additional standard set points (two analytic standards, one low and one high concentration were used as set points). Two-sample t tests were applied to calculate the distribution of the difference. The data analyses were performed with GraphPAD Prism Software (GraphPad Software Inc, San Diego, CA).