Diagnosis of natural rubber latex allergy

Latex Allergy - From Discovery to Component-resolved Diagnosis

Latex allergy is a hypersensitivity response to natural rubber latex (NRL) proteins or rubber chemicals used in the manufacture of latex products. An accurate diagnosis is the first step in the effective management of individuals with latex allergy, especially in high-risk groups, such as healthcare workers and those affected by spina bifida. Diagnosis is based on the clinical history and an accurate allergological evaluation. In the case of type I IgE-mediated hypersensitivity reactions, which can manifest urticaria, angioedema, rhinoconjunctivitis, asthma and anaphylaxis after latex exposure, skin prick tests or latex-specific IgE (sIgE) antibody detection using serological assays can be performed to confirm sensitization. Instead, in the case of contact dermatitis, a patch test can be applied to confirm the presence of a type IV T cell-mediated hypersensitivity reaction to rubber accelerators or additives. Basophils activation tests or challenge tests may be performed if there's an incongruity between the clinical history and the results of in vivo and in vitro tests. The aim of this review is to analyze the current state of the art of diagnostic techniques for latex allergy and algorithms employed in clinical practice and possible future developments in this field.

Profile Shift in Latex Sensitization over the Last 20 Years

BACKGROUND

Natural rubber latex (NRL) allergy is commonly diagnosed according to medical history, skin allergy tests, and serological analyses. However, skin tests are increasingly being abandoned because of (i) their time-consuming nature, (ii) latex preparations for skin tests being not commercially available, and (iii) the use of in-house prepared test solutions is becoming ever more difficult due to increasing regulatory hurdles. In this light, we have evaluated differences in the profiles of current and former patients with suspected latex allergy.

METHODS

Sera of skin test-positive patients from a historic cohort (1995-2001, n = 149 patients) and currently (2014-2015, n = 48 patients) were simultaneously analyzed for specific IgE to latex by ImmunoCAP. If the serological screening was positive (≥0.35 kU/L), component-resolved diagnostics including profilins and cross-reactive carbohydrate determinants (CCDs) were performed.

RESULTS

In contrast to 88% (131/149) of the skin test-positive patients from the 1990s, only 51.1% (24/47) of the current cohort were found positive for specific IgE to latex. While 48.3% (72/149) of the patients had a convincing positive history in the 1990s, current skin test-positive patients rarely reported a relevant medical history (8.5%, 4/47). Specific IgE levels to latex were significantly higher in former patients with suspected latex allergy (p < 0.001) than in former sensitized individuals without allergy. However, this significant difference was lost in current allergic and sensitized patients with positive skin tests.

CONCLUSION

Sensitization profiles in patients with latex allergy have changed significantly over the last 2 decades. Discrimination between NRL sensitization and clinical allergy remains a diagnostic challenge. Our data highlight the need for a combination of all 3 criteria, i.e., patient history, skin test, and analysis of specific IgE, for a correct diagnosis of latex allergy.

Skin reactions to latex in dental professionals - first Croatian data

Purpose. To determine the prevalence of undesirable skin reactions to latex in dental professionals and students of the School of Dental Medicine in Zagreb, Croatia. Methods. Our research included 444 participants, of which 200 agreed to undergo a skin prick test (SPT). All participants answered a questionnaire in which we asked about incidence of skin lesions, duration of occupational exposure to latex, localization of skin lesions and symptoms. Statistical analysis of the questionnaire and test results was then carried out. Results. Of the total 444 participants surveyed, 249 (56.1%) reported lesions on their skin (professionals 64.8%, students 6.1-58.5%). From the questionnaire, 239 (96.0%) respondents reported lesions on the hands and fingers, mostly in the form of erythema (37.0%) and occasional dryness of skin (29.0%). Positive SPT results were found in 14 (7.0%) out of the 200 respondents who underwent the test. Conclusions. While a large number of subjects (56.1%) reported skin lesions when using latex products at their workplace, the SPT test was positive only in 7.0%. The results show that the prevalence of self-reported skin lesions was significantly related to the length of occupational exposure, with a substantial effect size (p < 0.001; V = 0.334).

Conversion to Low-Protein, Powder-Free Surgical Gloves: Is it Worth the Cost?

This study was conducted to determine changes in overall costs associated with conversion to powder-free gloves including cost of workers' compensation cases for natural rubber latex (NRL)-related symptoms and health care workers' glove satisfaction. The study, a 2–year, longitudinal design with retrospective and prospective aspects, was developed to determine health care worker use of powder-free, low-protein NRL gloves, sensitization, cost, and glove satisfaction. Informed consent was obtained from 103 health care workers. Prior to glove conversion, nearly one-half (44%, 36 of 82) of the operating room staff reported symptoms related to NRL exposure. At the end of the 14–month data collection period, only 27% (22 of 82, McNemar test = .007) reported symptoms related to NRL exposure. Additionally, a cost savings of $10,000 per year for gloves was evident with reports of increased user satisfaction. This study demonstrated that conversion to the use of powder-free, low-protein NRL gloves not only reduces health care worker NRL symptoms, but also positively affects the costs of glove purchases and workers' compensation.

Evaluation of a prospectively administered written questionnaire to reduce the incidence of suspected latex anaphylaxis during elective cesarean delivery

BACKGROUND

Life-threatening anaphylaxis has been reported in women exposed to latex during surgery. We compared a written screening questionnaire to identify suspected latex sensitivity with a verbal inquiry used previously in a historical control group of women undergoing cesarean delivery to determine if the incidence of suspected latex anaphylaxis could be reduced.

METHODS

To identify suspected latex sensitivity among women undergoing elective cesarean delivery in a single-site tertiary unit, a nine-item written screening questionnaire was compared to historical use of a standard verbal inquiry "Are you allergic to medications or latex?". Women who had suspected latex sensitivity risk factors, or who had known latex allergy, underwent latex-free surgery. Women with suspected anaphylaxis during cesarean delivery were recommended to undergo allergen testing. The primary study outcome was suspected anaphylaxis incidence during the two periods: historical control January to December 2008, questionnaire March 2010 to April 2011.

RESULTS

The questionnaire identified suspected latex sensitivity in 66 of 453 women (14.6%) who completed the questionnaire. The standard verbal inquiry group had identified 12 of 460 women (2.6%) with self-reported latex sensitivity. The incidence of suspected anaphylaxis during cesarean delivery was significantly lower during the questionnaire period when compared to historical controls (3/516, 0.6% vs. 11/460, 2.4%, P=0.015). For both groups, 13 of 14 women (92.9%) with suspected latex anaphylaxis were contactable; five of 13 (38.5%) had undergone allergen testing and all were positive for latex.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of the written screening questionnaire was associated with fewer cases of suspected anaphylaxis during cesarean delivery compared with the historical control. Most women with suspected anaphylaxis did not perform allergy testing; however, all who did were positive for latex.

LATEX sensitization in elderly: allergological study and diagnostic protocol

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of latex allergy varies according to the population studied from 3% to 64%. No data exist in the present literature about elderly people because they were not considered among populations at risk. We report a retrospective observational study of 88 elderly patients of our centre of Dermatology and Allergology at Policlinico Umberto I, University of Rome, Sapienza.

RESULTS

First and second level diagnostic tests showed latex positivity in 11,4% of patients studied for latex allergy in the elderly population.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study demonstrates a prevalence of elderly-latex sensitization of 11,4%, showing that allergy to latex is a growing disease that can occur at any age. So, we propose these patients as an additional risk category for latex allergy.

Latex medical gloves: time for a reappraisal

Many hospitals have implemented policies to restrict or ban the use of devices made of natural rubber latex (NRL) in healthcare as precautionary measures against the perceived risk of NRL allergy. Changes in glove technology, progress in measuring the specific allergenic potential of gloves and a dramatic decrease in the prevalence of NRL allergies after interventions and education prompted us to revisit the basis for justifiable glove selection policies. The published Anglophone literature from 1990 to 2010 was reviewed for original articles and reviews dealing with the barrier and performance properties of NRL and synthetic gloves and the role of glove powder. The review shows that NRL medical gloves, when compared with synthetic gloves, tend to be stronger, more flexible and better accepted by clinicians. The introduction of powder-free gloves has been associated with reductions in protein content and associated allergies. Recently, new methods to quantify clinically relevant NRL allergens have enabled the identification of gloves with low allergenic potential. The use of low-protein, low-allergenic, powder-free gloves is associated with a significant decrease in the prevalence of type I allergic reactions to NRL among healthcare workers. Given the excellent barrier properties and operating characteristics, dramatically reduced incidences of allergic reactions, availability of specific tests for selection of low-allergen gloves, competitive costs and low environmental impact, the use of NRL gloves within the hospital environment warrants reappraisal.

Allergen specific nasal challenge to latex in children with latex allergy: clinical and immunological evaluation

There are no data concerning the significance of allergen specific nasal challenge to latex (ASNCL) in the pediatric population and the effect of mometasone furoate nasal spray (MFNS), topic corticosteroid exerting a potent anti-inflammatory activity in children with latex allergic rhinitis. The aims of this study are: to investigate the clinical and immune pathological effects of ASNCL in children with latex allergy; to study the effects of MFNS pre-medication on the clinical and immune pathological effects of ASNCL in children with latex allergy. Thirteen children: 6 male and 7 female, mean (SD) age 9.6 (2.9) years, with latex allergy and seven children: 3 male and 4 female, mean (SD) age 9.9 (3.8) years, without latex allergy underwent ASNCL. Nasal symptoms were recorded, nasal lavage fluid was collected to measure tryptase, eosinophil cationic protein (ECP), interleukin-5, interferon-gamma levels, and spirometric test was performed for each patient without or with premedication with MFNS. ASNCL induced a clinical allergic response and increased tryptase levels only in children with latex allergy. No serious adverse events occurred after ASNCL. MFNS premedication reduced both tryptase and ECP levels only in children with latex allergy. ASNCL is a simple, reliable and useful tool to make or confirm the diagnosis of nasal symptoms due to latex; it allows us to study both clinical symptoms and local immunological changes. MFNS premedication before an ASNCL may prevent some immunological responses induced by ASNCL without clinical allergic modifications.

Nationwide survey of hospital practices when compounding parenteral nutrition solutions in latex-allergic patients

We surveyed 100 institutions in 50 states, varying in size from 50 to 1,000 beds. The purpose of this survey was to examine the policies and techniques hospitals used in confirming latex allergy (LA) in patients and preparing parenteral nutrition (PN) for LA patients. Our survey indicated that within the institutions in our study, many inpatient pharmacists do not use any defined method for confirming LA other than what is documented in the patient profile upon admission. Most inpatient pharmacies are not aware of any institutional policy concerning parenteral medications in LA patients, and some do not identify the importance of LA in preparing PN. It is apparent from the results of this survey that uniform guidelines or practice standards for this important issue should be developed. Although the publications on LA are numerous, they mostly deal with the exposure to latex gloves or latex devices. Knowledge of preparing parenteral medications for LA patients in the literature is minimal. It is also clear that awareness and knowledge of pharmacy personnel should be enhanced. Finally, we are hoping that this survey will send a clear message to pharmacy organizations to develop guidelines or pharmacy practice standards for this issue, and for health institutions to develop policies and make them available to their personnel.

Acute Peritoneal Eosinophilia in a Child With Prune-Belly Syndrome Following Peritoneal Dialysis Catheter Placement

Peritoneal eosinophilia, although uncommon, was reported after placement of catheters for peritoneal dialysis. We describe a 7-year-old African-American boy with prune-belly syndrome who developed acute onset of peritoneal eosinophilia after placement of a peritoneal dialysis catheter. Peripheral-blood eosinophilia also was noted with the peritoneal eosinophilia, but was not correlative. Intraperitoneal and systemic corticosteroid therapy led to successful resolution of peritoneal eosinophilia. Radioallergosorbent tests indicated sensitization to latex. Unrecognized latex sensitization should be considered in any child with multiple urological surgeries who develops sudden onset of peritoneal eosinophilia.

Investigative methods for natural rubber latex allergy in the UK

Allergy to natural rubber latex (NRL) has become an important health issue in recent years, but little is known about how this condition is investigated by physicians in the UK. This postal questionnaire of British dermatology and allergy specialists shows substantial variation in diagnostic practice, most notably with regard to the utilization and choice of starting dose of commercial latex prick test dilutions, reliance on allergen-specific immunoglobulin E measurement, investigation of associated fruit allergy and provision of resuscitation equipment/method of consent when challenge testing. 17% of responding physicians who investigate for NRL allergy do not perform prick test or glove challenge because of the potential risk of anaphylaxis or lack of resuscitation facilities. 87% of allergy clinic specialists report no reduction in the number of patients presenting as new referrals with suspected NRL allergy. These findings suggest a need for robust guidance to achieve more consistent investigative practice by those dealing with this condition.

Occupation-related allergies in dentistry

BACKGROUND

Allergies to natural rubber latex (NRL) were unknown in dentistry until 1987. That changed with the publication of a report documenting NRL-based anaphylaxis in a dental worker. This case and others prompted regulatory and manufacturing changes in rubber products and increased awareness throughout the profession. However, other common dental chemicals cause allergic reactions and irritation and often are handled with insufficient precautions. Although recognition of NRL allergy has improved, awareness of other potential allergens and irritants in dentistry still is limited.

OVERVIEW

Recent research indicates that the prevalence of NRL protein allergy may be decreasing. In contrast, occupation-related dermatoses associated with other dental products may be more common. Encounters with bonding agents, disinfectants, rubber, metals and detergents can cause occupation-based irritant contact dermatitis and allergic contact dermatitis. These conditions may be found in more than one-quarter of dental and medical personnel. Therefore, dental-specific information about the recognition and management of allergic and irritant reactions is needed.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

The prevalence of occupation-related dermatitis may be increasing in dentistry. Reducing exposure to potential irritants and allergens and educating personnel about proper skin care are essential to reversing this trend.

Occupational allergens in dentistry

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Dental professionals and their physicians frequently do not recognize, accurately diagnose or appropriately manage occupational allergies. Dental allergen identification, diagnostics and practical avoidance strategies are summarized in this review.

RECENT FINDINGS

Methacrylates, natural rubber latex proteins, rubber glove allergens, and glutaraldehyde are the predominant allergens in dentistry. Reactions range from cell-mediated contact allergy to urticaria and occupational asthma.

SUMMARY

Despite recent advances in allergen characterization and increased awareness of selected allergens, treatment of occupational allergies can be improved. Better information and improved cooperation between dental workers and their clinicians is needed.

Latex allergy: diagnosis and management

Latex allergy is an IgE-mediated immediate hypersensitivity response to natural rubber latex (NRL) protein with a variety of clinical signs ranging from contact urticaria, angioedema, asthma, and anaphylaxis. Major allergens include dipped latex products such as gloves and balloons. In highest risk for NRL allergy are patients with spina bifida, but health care workers and others who wear latex gloves are also at risk. NRL allergic patients may also react to fruits/foods, especially banana, kiwi, and avocado. Diagnosis is made by a positive latex RAST and/or skin prick test or challenge test to NRL. Allergen avoidance and substitution and the use of latex-safe devices including synthetic gloves (vinyl, synthetic polyisoprene, neoprene, nitrile, block polymers, or polyurethane) are essential for the affected patient. Accommodation in the workplace may include the use of powder-free, low-allergen NRL gloves or synthetic gloves. These preventive measures have significantly reduced the prevalence of reported reactions to NRL. Hyposensitization is not yet feasible.

Confirmation of the diagnosis of natural rubber latex allergy by the Basotest method

BACKGROUND

The flow cytometry CD63-based basophil activation test (Basotest has already been validated for the diagnosis of immediate-type allergy such as venom, house dust mite or cypress pollen allergies. The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance (specificity and sensitivity) of Basotest in the diagnosis of natural rubber latex allergy.

METHODS

We included 46 latex allergic patients (clinical symptoms of latex allergy, positive latex skin prick tests and/or latex specific IgE) and 33 control subjects and performed Basotest on all subjects.

RESULTS

The sensitivity and specificity of Basotest were 84.8 and 87.9%, respectively, when we considered the theoretic cut-off at 15% of CD63-positive cells. Using ROC curves, the optimal cut-off was evaluated at 22%, for which sensitivity and specificity were 79.3 and 96.7%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The Basotest is a reliable test in addition to clinical history and tests already validated (such as skin prick tests and specific IgE) to confirm the diagnosis of natural rubber latex allergy.

Latex allergy

The prevalence of IgE mediated natural latex rubber allergy is estimated to be < 1% in the general population, < 17% in medical personnel and approximately 0% in children with spina bifida. We review the definition, diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of NLR allergy.