Responses

Download PDFPDF

Lung function decline in laboratory animal workers: the role of sensitisation and exposure
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • Responses are moderated before posting and publication is at the absolute discretion of BMJ, however they are not peer-reviewed
  • Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. Removal or editing of responses is at BMJ's absolute discretion
  • If patients could recognise themselves, or anyone else could recognise a patient from your description, please obtain the patient's written consent to publication and send them to the editorial office before submitting your response [Patient consent forms]
  • By submitting this response you are agreeing to our full [Response terms and requirements]

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on:
    Authors' Reply
    • Lützen Portengen, Institute for Risk Assessment Sciences (IRAS)
    • Other Contributors:
      • A Hollander, G Doekes, G de Meer, and D Heederik

    Dear Editor

    We would like to thank Dr Preece for his letter.[1]

    He raises the issue that loss of symptomatic workers during follow-up does not explain the absence of a decline in lung function in workers who worked with laboratory animals for more than 4 years, and concludes that lung function decline in short-term employed workers is not sustained. We think that this interpretation of our data is somewhat ove...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    Lung function decline in laboratory animal workers

    Dear Editor

    In their recent paper Portengen et al.[1] have made an important contribution to our understanding of laboratory animal allergy. However, they have omitted to draw attention to an observation of clinical importance to occupational physicians.

    They have suggested that the lack of decline in lung function in "experienced" workers may be due to the healthy worker effect. Their suggestion...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.