Risk factors associated with airway allergic diseases from exposure to laboratory animal allergens among veterinarians

Biomarkers of respiratory allergy in laboratory animal care workers: an observational study

OBJECTIVES

Laboratory animal allergy is a highly prevalent occupational disease among exposed workers. The aim of the study was to validate the biomarkers of airway inflammation in laboratory animal (LA) care workers.

METHODS

All of the participants in this observational study (63 LA care workers and 64 controls) were administered a clinical questionnaire, underwent spirometry and a skin prick or radioallergosorbent test for common and occupational aeroallergens, and the fraction of exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO₅₀), exhaled breath condensate hydrogen peroxide (EBC H₂O₂) and serum pneumoprotein levels were measured. Multivariate analysis (ANCOVA) was used to assess the interactions of the variables.

RESULTS

FeNO₅₀ levels correlated with exposure (p = 0.002), sensitisation (p = 0.000) and age (p = 0.001), but there was no interaction between exposure and sensitisation when age was considered in the model (p = 0.146). EBC-H₂O₂ levels were higher in the sensitised workers than in the sensitised controls [0.14 (0.08-0.29) µM vs 0.07 (0.05-0.12) µM; p < 0.05]. Serum surfactant protein A (SP-A) levels were unaffected by exposure, sensitisation or age, although higher levels were observed in symptomatic workers; however, SP-D levels were influenced by exposure (p = 0.024) and age (p = 0.022), and club cell 16 levels were influenced by sensitisation (p = 0.027) and age (p = 0.019).

CONCLUSIONS

The presence of the clinical symptoms associated with LA exposure and high FeNO levels should prompt further medical assessments in LA workers. Although EBC-H₂O₂ levels do not seem to reflect eosinophilic inflammation, serum SP-A levels could be used to monitor progression from rhinitis to asthma.

Occupational rhinitis and occupational asthma: Association or progression?

BACKGROUND

Occupational asthma is the most frequently reported occupational respiratory disease in registries, and is often co-diagnosed with occupational rhinitis. We undertook a systematic review of the English-language epidemiologic literature linking these two conditions, with emphasis on progression from occupational rhinitis to occupational asthma.

METHODS

PubMed and Embase were queried in a series of structured searches designed to identify studies comparing occupational asthma and occupational rhinitis incidence or prevalence in occupationally exposed individuals.

RESULTS

The searches yielded a total of 109 unique citations, 15 of which yielded inferential data on the occupational rhinitis-asthma relationship. Nine of fifteen studies showed statistically significant associations between the occurrence of occupational rhinitis and occupational asthma among individual workers.

CONCLUSIONS

Limited data support the notion that occupational rhinitis precedes the development of occupational asthma, particularly when high-molecular-weight (HMW) agents are involved. The relationship between the two conditions could not be evaluated in many relevant studies due to a lack of cross-tabulation of individual cases.

[New pets, allergens and allergic dermatitis]

The number of household pets increased greatly during the twentieth century, with the numbers of new pets (NP, i.e. any pet other than cats and dogs) rising especially sharply over the last decade. Contact with such animals, whose owners do not always know how to look after them properly, expose the population to new risks such as trauma, infection and allergy. While the most common allergies are respiratory, allergic skin reactions, both immediate and delayed, may also result from contact with these new allergens. The animal itself or its environment may be the cause. Herein, we review NPs and reports of allergic dermatitis associated with them.

Cat and dog sensitization in pet shop workers

BACKGROUND

Sensitivity and symptoms related to animal proteins have been investigated in various occupational groups. However, data from pet shops are limited.

AIMS

To investigate rates of sensitivity to cats and dogs among pet shop workers, to assess the relationship between sensitivity, allergen levels and symptoms and to investigate whether passive transport from pet shops to homes is possible.

METHODS

Pet shop workers underwent interviews with a questionnaire adapted from the European Community Respiratory Health Survey. Dust samples for allergen detection were collected from pet shops using a vacuum cleaner. Skin tests were performed with common allergens. Dust samples were also obtained from the houses of 7 workers and 12 control subjects.

RESULTS

Fifty-one workers from 20 pet shops were included in the study. Thirteen (25%) workers reported work-related symptoms. Four workers had sensitivity to animal allergens. The mean cat/dog allergen levels from pet shops were 15.7 and 3.2 µg/g, respectively. There was no significant relationship between cat/dog allergen levels and work-related symptoms and sensitivity to pets. None of the dust samples collected from the homes of pet shop workers contained cat allergens. Dog allergen was detected in only one house (0.58 µg/g). Neither cat nor dog allergens were found in the homes of the 12 control subjects.

CONCLUSIONS

Although a quarter of pet shop workers reported work-related symptoms, sensitivity to cat and dog was low. These findings suggest that work-related symptoms may be due to other factors than cat and dog sensitivity.

Pet shop workers: exposure, sensitization, and work-related symptoms

BACKGROUND

Allergy to laboratory animals is a well-known occupational hazard. The aim was to investigate the frequency of allergic sensitization and respiratory symptoms among pet shop staff and to document their work environment.

METHODS

Subjects (n = 59) from 24 pet shops were investigated with a questionnaire and lung function tests and skin prick tests against a panel of common inhalant and pet shop allergens. Blood samples were taken for immunoglobulin E (IgE) and IgE antibodies against Phadiatop and specific pet shop allergens. Personal airborne rodent allergen (n = 40) and endotoxin exposure (n = 40) was measured during work. Airborne rodent allergens were also collected using petri dishes at work (n = 40) and at home (n = 45).

RESULTS

Fifty-three percent reported nasal symptoms, 34% eye symptoms, and 22% had experienced symptoms indicating asthma. However, only four workers (7%) were previously diagnosed with asthma. One-third reported respiratory symptoms at work, mostly against rodents, birds, insects, and hay, and 29% were sensitized to work-related allergens, mainly rodents and fodder insects, e.g., Zophobas. Atopy and total IgE > 100 kU/l increased prevalence of pet shop sensitization [prevalence ratio (PR) 17 and 5.5, respectively], and atopy increased work-related symptoms (PR 3.2). Endotoxin levels were similar between shops with and without rodents. Exposure to animals outside of work was extensive.

CONCLUSIONS

A third of the pet shop workers reported airway symptoms at work or were sensitized, sometimes to unusual pet shop allergens, especially among atopics. The findings stress the importance of improving the knowledge of health risks and allergen avoidance measures among pet shop staff.

Allergic rhinitis in laboratory animal workers and its risk factors

BACKGROUND

The workers in an animal laboratory are exposed to laboratory animal allergens (LAAs).

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the difference of sensitization to LAAs and the symptoms according to the exposure levels and to investigate the risk factors for sensitization to LAAs.

METHODS

The subjects were divided into 3 groups according to the presence or absence of exposure: 74 subjects were in the direct exposure group, 33 subjects were in the indirect exposure group, and 30 subjects were in the control group. Each group answered the questionnaire and underwent skin prick tests that included 10 common allergens and 10 LAAs. The levels of total IgE and specific IgE to mouse and rat urine allergen were measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay in 2 exposure groups. Allergic symptoms, skin sensitization, and serum IgE level were compared between the study groups.

RESULTS

Twenty-five (34%) of the 74 subjects in the direct exposure group experienced allergic symptoms since their exposure to laboratory animals. The subjects in the direct and indirect exposure groups had more sensitization to LAAs than did the control subjects. The direct exposure group had more positive results for total IgE than did the indirect exposure group. The subjects in the direct exposure group with atopy had more severe allergic symptoms than the subjects in the indirect exposure group with atopy. Atopy and total IgE level were risk factors for the sensitization to LAAs for the direct exposure group (odds ratios, 7.47 and 7.33, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Indirect exposure may be as risky for sensitization to LAAs as direct exposure. More careful protection is needed for laboratory animal workers with atopy.

["NPAs": a new allergic risk?]

In recent years, to the list of classic pet animals (dogs and cats) as allergens we must now add the "new pet animals" (NPAs). This group of animals, referred to by the Anglo-Saxons as "pets", includes both those previously recognized (rabbit, guinea pig, hamster, birds) and the "truly new NPAs"; by general agreement "NPA" will include all animals other than cats and dogs. Some rather rare animals are regularly added to this list. The emergence of "NPAs" can be related to a social phenomenon, in particular, to the fashion and need for the exotic (http://www.aquadesign.be). They are a very diverse group: warm-blooded animals, spiders, batrachia (frogs, toads, salamanders, etc.) and reptiles. Besides the physical risks from their natural aggressive behaviour, the "NPAs" can be an allergic risk factor and this risk has a tendency to increase. Allergists and paediatricians have a role to play in the diagnosis and prevention of these allergies by giving advice on the choice of pet animals. This review concerns allergies to rodents, reptiles, batrachians, spiders, etc.

Is there a need for special preventive medical check-ups in employees exposed to experimental animal dust?

OBJECTIVE

Due to new legal requirements in Germany, the employer must request preventive medical check-ups for activities involving exposure to dust from experimental animals in the rooms in which the animals are kept. The objective is to report our first experiences with these medical check-ups in the context of academic research.

METHODS

The check-ups were carried out since November 2005 and comprised a questionnaire and a medical examination, including a pulmonary function test with whole-body plethysmography. Respiratory, nasal and ocular symptoms related to occupational exposure to animals were documented. Participation in skin prick tests (ubiquitous inhalation allergens and laboratory animal allergens), a bronchial provocation test with methacholine, and serological examinations for total IgE and specific IgE antibodies was voluntary.

RESULTS

Data on 132 persons are presented. One hundred and six of these had already been exposed for at least 1 year. Main complaints at the workplace were sneezing and runny nose. Ocular symptoms and bronchial asthma were reported infrequently. The development of at least one of these symptoms occurred in 34% of employees with an exposure of at least 1 year. If the weekly exposure duration was at least 5 h, the proportion of employees with complaints rose to 44.9%. In employees occupationally exposed to mice and rats, work-related complaints occurred in 33.7 and 37.8%, respectively, and sensitisation rates were 12.7 and 16.3%, respectively. Employees with and without complaints differed in history of allergic symptoms, and workplace safety measures.

CONCLUSIONS

In employees with occupational contact with laboratory animal dust, the frequency of complaints was high. The results confirm the necessity of regular medical check-ups for employees with contact with laboratory animal dust. Nevertheless, the medical check-ups must be part of a prevention strategy including education, engineering controls, administrative controls, use of personal protective equipment and vocational integration.