Chacinero’s lung – hypersensitivity pneumonitis due to dry sausage dust

Morell, Ferrán; Cruz, María Jesús; Gómez, Fernando Gómez; Rodríguez-Jerez, F.; Xaubet, Antoni; Muñoz, Xavier

doi:10.5271/sjweh.3151

Cited by 34 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A greater prevalence of rhinitis has been observed with exposure to humidity, fungi and some VOC, 40,41,64 and increased incidence of tuberculosis has been reported with exposure to biomass combustion. 33,37,72 In addition, there have been reports of cases of hypersensitivity pneumonitis related with certain fungi [73][74][75] or ventilation systems. 76 It has also been suggested that biomass smoke exposure may produce lung fibrosis.…”

Section: Lung Cancermentioning

confidence: 96%

Indoor Air Contaminants and Their Impact on Respiratory Pathologies

Fernández

Álvarez

González‐Barcala

et al. 2013

Archivos de Bronconeumología (English Edition)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Lung Cancermentioning

confidence: 96%

Indoor Air Contaminants and Their Impact on Respiratory Pathologies

Fernández

Álvarez

González‐Barcala

et al. 2013

Archivos de Bronconeumología (English Edition)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Dairy farms and waste treatment sites are examples of such environments where humans are exposed to a wide variety of fungi (Mbareche et al, 2017;Mbareche et al, 2018a;Mbareche et al, 2019a). Fungi can also become airborne in environments where they are deliberately introduced, such as in the food industry where fungi are used for production (Morell et al, 2011;Simon & Duquenne, 2014). The health effects of fungal exposure range from relatively serious effects such as allergy-related diseases, pulmonary inflammation, increased sensitivity to endotoxins, and pulmonary embolisms to milder effects such as irritation of the nose and eyes, bronchial irritation, mucous membrane irritation syndrome, nasal congestion, and sore throat (Wyngaarden, Smith & Bennett, 1992;Fogelmark, Sjostrand & Rylander, 1994;Rylander, 1996;Burge & Rogers, 2000;Arshad et al, 2001;Hardin, Kelman & Saxon, 2003;Daisey, Angell & Apte, 2003;Pieckova & Wilkins, 2004;Stark et al, 2005;Zekovic et al, 2005;Beezhold et al, 2008;Bush, 2008;Porter et al, 2009;Sarkar et al, 2010;Selman et al, 2010;Glass & Amedee, 2011;Chowdhary et al, 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of the performance of ITS1 and ITS2 as barcodes in amplicon-based sequencing of bioaerosols

Mbareche

Veillette

Bilodeau

et al. 2020

PeerJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents the performance of two eukaryotic genomic ribosomal regions, ITS1 and ITS2, in describing fungal diversity in aerosol samples using amplicon-based High-Throughput Sequencing (HTS). Composting sites, biomethanization facilities, and dairy farms, all affected by the presence of fungi, were visited to collect air samples. The amplicon-based HTS approach is a target enrichment method that relies on the amplification of a specific target using particular primers before sequencing. Thus, the results are highly dependent on the quality of amplification. For this reason, the authors of this paper used a shotgun metagenomic approach to compare its outcome with the amplicon-based method. Indeed, shotgun metagenomic does not rely on any amplification prior to sequencing, because all genes are sequenced without a specific target. In addition, culture methods were added to the analyses in biomethanization and dairy farms samples to validate their contribution to fungal diversity of aerosols. The results obtained are unequivocal towards ITS1 outperformance to ITS2 in terms of richness, and taxonomic coverage. The differential abundance analysis did demonstrate that some taxa were exclusively detected only by ITS2, and vice-versa for ITS1. However, the shotgun metagenomic approach showed a taxonomic profile more resembling to ITS1 than ITS2. Based on these results, neither of the barcodes evaluated is perfect in terms of distinguishing all species. Using both barcodes offers a broader view of the fungal aerosol population. However, with the actual knowledge, the authors strongly recommend using ITS1 as a universal fungal barcode for quick general analyses of diversity and when limited financial resources are available, primarily due its ability to capture taxonomic profiles similar to those obtained using the shotgun metagenomic. The culture comparison with amplicon-based sequencing showed the complementarity of both approaches in describing the most abundant taxa.

show abstract

“…Second, and likely the determinant factor, is that all types of hypersensitivity pneumonitis were included, regardless of the causal agent. As would be expected, our group has considerable experience in performing SIC with avian proteins [10] and fungi [11,27,28], but much more limited practice with the less common causal agents of hypersensitivity pneumonitis. This was illustrated when only patients with hypersensitivity pneumonitis caused by exposure to birds or fungi were analysed: there were only 10 false-negative results and the sensitivity of the test rose to 85%.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diagnostic yield of specific inhalation challenge in hypersensitivity pneumonitis

et al. 2014

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reliable methods are needed to diagnose hypersensitivity pneumonitis. The aim of the study was to establish the diagnostic yield of specific inhalation challenge (SIC) in patients with hypersensitivity pneumonitis.All patients with suspected hypersensitivity pneumonitis in whom SIC was performed (n5113) were included. SIC was considered positive when patients showed a decrease of .15% in forced vital capacity (FVC) or .20% in diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon dioxide, or a decrease of 10% to 15% in FVC accompanied by a temperature increase of 0.5uC within 24 h of inhalation of the antigen.SIC was positive to the agents tested in 68 patients: 64 received a diagnosis of hypersensitivity pneumonitis and SIC results were considered false-positive in the remaining four patients. In the SICnegative group (n545), 24 patients received a diagnosis of hypersensitivity pneumonitis and SIC results were considered false-negative, and 21 patients were diagnosed with other respiratory diseases. The sensitivity and specificity of the test were 72.7% and 84%, respectively. Having hypersensitivity pneumonitis caused by an antigen other than birds or fungi predicted a false-negative result (p50.001).In hypersensitivity pneumonitis, positive SIC testing virtually confirms the diagnosis, whereas negative testing does not rule it out, especially when the antigenic sources are not birds or fungi. @ERSpublications Specific inhalation challenge can be very useful for establishing the diagnosis of hypersensitivity pneumonitis

show abstract

Chacinero’s lung – hypersensitivity pneumonitis due to dry sausage dust

Cited by 34 publications

References 29 publications

Indoor Air Contaminants and Their Impact on Respiratory Pathologies

Indoor Air Contaminants and Their Impact on Respiratory Pathologies

Comparison of the performance of ITS1 and ITS2 as barcodes in amplicon-based sequencing of bioaerosols

Diagnostic yield of specific inhalation challenge in hypersensitivity pneumonitis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About