The Authors Reply: Drs Cullinan and Acquilla are correct in that a comparison of the findings of our study with those carried out on the Bhopal survivors would be inappropriate. The populations concerned are not comparable in that our subjects were exposed to much lower levels that would not lead to death or immediate serious impairment. Your correspondents ask us whether our population included only those who were still working. Our study subjects comprised a group of currently employed workers and also a group of retired workers who had undergone several examinations over the period of observation. Thus our study included both cross-sectional and longitudinal data. The cross-sectional data include only active workers, whilst the latter included both active and retired subjects; however, it was not possible to examine all of the retired workers. In our description of the subjects studied, we referred to a group of employees of a former owner of the facility who were retired or deceased. The retirees were a group of workers whose exposure was indirectly assessed by their former long-term supervisors. It will be noted that we were somewhat concerned about the accuracy of the assessments; nevertheless, the data available to us indicated that the vast majority of this group retired because of age rather than illness. For this reason, we doubt any serious survivor bias was present. Turning to the second question, namely, what they term "highly subjective exposure measurements," and ask whether they reflect short-term intensity exposures to MIC. Our paper described a significant number of workers who were seen at the clinic with acute symptoms, mainly eye and nasal irritations, which resulted from exposure to MIC. Some of these workers were seen during the time serial measurements of exposure were being made. The ventilatory capacity of these workers immediately after exposure was normal or virtually so, and when the examination was repeated later, there was no evidence of any airways obstruction. This information is contained in the last paragraph of the Results section, and we are somewhat surprised that it eluded your correspondents. In regard to Drs Cullinan and Acquilla's point relating to small airways disease, we are quite willing to accept that those exposed in the Bhopal disaster developed severe bronchiolitis. Nonetheless, we would point out that the detection of small airways diseases in the general population, many of whom smoke cigarettes (or Bidis in India), some of whom have asthma or are overweight, and who may also be exposed to many other irritant agents that affect the small airways, is fraught with difficulty. Thus it is necessary to exclude large airways disease first, ie, those subjects in whom small airways disease is sought must have a normal forced expiratory volume in one second(FEV1) and a normal forced vital capacity (FVC). In addition, they must have a normal compliance curve.1 Provided that both of these impairments are absent, one can try to persuade an asymptomatic subject to undergo one or another of a series of tests, some of which are unpleasant, most of which are time-consuming, and all of which are imprecise and lack the ability to predict the development of irreversible airways obstruction or respiratory disability.2 In this connection, we are referring to tests such as frequency dependence of dynamic compliance, closing volume, the performance of flow volume curves with helium and oxygen, the measurement of upstream airways resistance, lung elastic recoil, etc. We used these extensively some 25 or more years ago in a variety of occupationally exposed populations3-5 and found it difficult to decide the significance, if any, of our findings. Perhaps Drs Cullinan and Acquilla could advise us in this regard. This is not to deny that small airways disease can cause disability; it is a statement indicating how frustrating and futile it is to try to detect small airways disease in a working population by using tests that are imprecise and impractical. We would add that we enjoyed carrying out these studies, but we now realize that they were really a form of play therapy for potential respiratory physiologists. W. K. C. Morgan, MD Robert B. Reger, PhD Chest Diseases Unit; London Health Sciences Centre; London, Ontario, Canada
Read full abstract