Professional and domestic cleaning is associated with work-related asthma (WRA). This position paper reviews the literature linking exposure to cleaning products and the risk of asthma and focuses on prevention. Increased risk of asthma has been shown in many epidemiological and surveillance studies, and several case reports describe the relationship between exposure to one or more cleaning agents and WRA. Cleaning sprays, bleach, ammonia, disinfectants, mixing products, and specific job tasks have been identified as specific causes and/or triggers of asthma. Because research conclusions and policy suggestions have remained unheeded by manufactures, vendors, and commercial cleaning companies, it is time for a multifaceted intervention. Possible preventive measures encompass the following: substitution of cleaning sprays, bleach, and ammonia; minimizing the use of disinfectants; avoidance of mixing products; use of respiratory protective devices; and worker education. Moreover, we suggest the education of unions, consumer, and public interest groups to encourage safer products. In addition, information activities for the general population with the purpose of improving the knowledge of professional and domestic cleaners regarding risks and available preventive measures and to promote strict collaboration between scientific communities and safety and health agencies are urgently needed.In Europe, the fraction of adult asthma attributable to occupational exposure ranges between 10% and 25% (1). Workrelated asthma (WRA) includes occupational asthma (OA), caused by exposure to high or low molecular weight agents in the workplace, and work-exacerbated asthma (WEA), in which pre-existing or concurrent asthma is exacerbated by various work-related factors, such as accidental spills, second-hand cigarette smoke, or exertion (2, 3).Cleaners constitute a large professional group in developed countries. In industrial cleaning, about 30% are migrant workers and about 40% of women are domestic cleaners (4, 5). Professional and domestic cleaning has been associated with new-onset OA due to sensitizers and irritant exposure as well as WEA and respiratory symptoms without asthma (5-7).It is likely that nonoccupational physicians (general practitioners, allergologists, and pneumologists) frequently see Allergy 68 (2013) 1532-1545

The present document is the result of a consensus reached by a panel of experts from European and non-European countries on Occupational Rhinitis (OR), a disease of emerging relevance which has received little attention in comparison to occupational asthma. The document covers the main items of OR including epidemiology, diagnosis, management, socio-economic impact, preventive strategies and medicolegal issues. An operational definition and classification of OR tailored on that of occupational asthma, as well as a diagnostic algorithm based on steps allowing for different levels of diagnostic evidence are proposed. The needs for future research are pointed out. Key messages are issued for each item. Key messages Definition and classification• Occupational rhinitis is an inflammatory disease of the nose, which is characterized by intermittent or persistent symptoms (i.e., nasal congestion, sneezing, rhinorrea, itching), and/or variable nasal airflow limitation and/or hypersecretion due to causes and conditions attributable to a particular work environment and not to stimuli encountered outside the workplace • Work-related rhinitis may be distinguished into: (1) occupational rhinitis that is due to causes and conditions attributable to a particular work environment (2) workexacerbated rhinitis that is pre-existing or concurrent rhinitis exacerbated by workplace exposures Epidemiology • Surveys of workforces exposed to sensitizing agents indicate that OR is 2 to 4 times more common than OA,

Objective To examine whether deviation from the standard intention to treat analysis has an influence on treatment effect estimates of randomised trials. Design Meta-epidemiological study. Data sources Medline, via PubMed, searched between 2006 and 2010; 43 systematic reviews of interventions and 310 randomised trials were included. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies From each year searched, random selection of 5% of intervention reviews with a meta-analysis that included at least one trial that deviated from the standard intention to treat approach. Basic characteristics of the systematic reviews and randomised trials were extracted. Information on the reporting of intention to treat analysis, outcome data, risk of bias items, post-randomisation exclusions, and funding were extracted from each trial. Trials were classified as: ITT (reporting the standard intention to treat approach), mITT (reporting a deviation from the standard approach), and no ITT (reporting no approach). Within each meta-analysis, treatment effects were compared between mITT and ITT trials, and between mITT and no ITT trials. The ratio of odds ratios was calculated (value <1 indicated larger treatment effects in mITT trials than in other trial categories) . Results 50 meta-analyses and 322 comparisons of randomised trials (from 84 ITT trials, 118 mITT trials, and 108 no ITT trials; 12 trials contributed twice to the analysis) were examined. Compared with ITT trials, mITT trials showed a larger intervention effect (pooled ratio of odds ratios 0.83 (95% confidence interval 0.71 to 0.96), P=0.01; between meta-analyses variance τ 2 =0.13). Adjustments for sample size, type of centre, funding, items of risk of bias, post-randomisation exclusions, and variance of log odds ratio yielded consistent results (0.80 (0.69 to 0.94), P=0.005; τ 2 =0.08). After exclusion of five influential studies, results remained consistent (0.85 (0.75 to 0.98); τ 2 =0.08). The comparison between mITT trials and no ITT trials showed no statistical difference between the two groups (adjusted ratio of odds ratios 0.92 (0.70 to 1.23); τ 2 =0.57). Conclusions Trials that deviated from the intention to treat analysis showed larger intervention effects than trials that reported the standard approach. Where an intention to treat analysis is impossible to perform, authors should clearly report who is included in the analysis and attempt to perform multiple imputations.

The review updated recent findings on epidemiology, cleaning agents and their mechanism, and prevention of asthma due to cleaning agents. This article provides new information on the level of exposure, which is still high in professional cleaners and even more in domestic cleaners, and on the frequency of asthma in professional and domestic cleaners. An irritant mechanism is more common, although an immunological mechanism is possible, especially in healthcare workers exposed to disinfectants.

Occupational exposure to foods is responsible for up to 25% of cases of occupational asthma and rhinitis. Animal and vegetable high-molecular-weight proteins present in aerosolized foods during food processing, additives, preservatives, antioxidants, and food contaminants are the main inhalant allergen sources. Most agents typically cause IgE-mediated allergic reactions, causing a distinct form of food allergy (Class 3 food allergy). The allergenicity of a food protein, allergen exposure levels, and atopy are important risk factors. Diagnosis relies on a thorough medical and occupational history, functional assessment, assessment of sensitization, including component-resolved diagnostics where appropriate, and in selected cases specific inhalation tests.Exposure assessment, including allergen determination, is a cornerstone for establishing preventive measures. Management includes allergen exposure avoidance or reduction (second best option), pharmacological treatment, assessment of impairment, and worker's compensation. Further studies are needed to identify and characterize major food allergens and define occupational exposure limits, evaluate the relative contribution of respiratory versus cutaneous sensitization to food antigens, evaluate the role of raw versus cooked food in influencing risk, and define the absolute or relative contraindication of patients with ingestion-related food allergy, | 1853 JEEBHAY Et Al.