Type I allergy to natural rubber latex and Type IV allergy to rubber chemicals in children with risk factors

[Latex allergy in a paediatric hospital. Characteristics and risk factors]

INTRODUCTION

The prevalence of latex sensitisation varies according to the population studied. There are various risk factors that increase latex sensitisation, such as genetic risk, atopy, and multiple surgeries.

OBJECTIVE

To characterise patients referred to an Immunology Unit with suspected latex allergy, and to analyse their clinical features and risk factors.

PATIENTS AND METHOD

A retrospective, descriptive study was conducted on children suspected of latex allergy. Their medical records were reviewed in order to assess symptoms with contact or exposure to latex materials. Known risk factors to latex sensitisation, such as pathologies requiring repeated surgery (spina bifida, myelomeningocele, scoliosis and nephro-urological alterations), atopy (rhinitis, asthma, atopic dermatitis) were investigated. A prick test and/or specific IgE to latex were also performed. A multivariate logistic regression model was performed to find associations between symptoms triggered by exposure to latex with underlying diseases and other risk conditions.

RESULTS

A total of 106 patients were enrolled in the study, of whom 50 were evaluable. At diagnosis 96% of patients were older than five years. Most of the risk factors described were observable in these patients, such as multiple surgeries, neurological and nephro-urological malformations, surgery before one year-old, and repeated bladder catheterisation. After latex exposure, mucous cutaneous manifestations were the most common (52%), followed by respiratory symptoms (36%). All patients were sensitised and allergic to latex.

CONCLUSION

Latex allergy is a significant problem in children with risk factors. The results shown in this study raise important challenges for preventive measures and awareness.

Double-blind, placebo-controlled study of sublingual immunotherapy in patients with latex-induced urticaria: a 12-month study

BACKGROUND

Natural rubber latex (NRL) allergy is a worldwide problem. Although prevention is sufficient to reduce sensitization, prolonged avoidance is needed to prevent resensitization or adverse reactions on re-exposure.

OBJECTIVES

This double-blind, placebo-controlled study was conducted to determine the efficacy of sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) with latex.

METHODS

Forty patients with NRL allergy were enrolled. At diagnosis, 30 presented urticaria and 10 asthma. Patients were evaluated on their clinical history and an allergological assessment: skin prick test with latex extract, serum-specific IgE and provocation tests. Patients were subdivided by complaint (asthma or urticaria), and randomized to receive SLIT with latex extract (ALK-Abelló, Lainate, Milan, Italy) or placebo.

RESULTS

The evaluable population consisted of 35 patients, 18 treated with SLIT and 17 with placebo. The results show that 12 months of SLIT improved the symptoms score and reduced the medication score in all subjects. The subjective evaluation was corroborated by improved bronchial and glove provocation test results. The latex-specific IgE levels increased slightly in the SLIT group, and skin sensitization was reduced at the end of the trial in all the patients treated with SLIT. The immunotherapy was not complicated by any severe adverse reactions.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first double-blind, placebo-controlled evaluation of the efficacy of SLIT with latex extract conducted in adult patients allergic to NRL. SLIT with latex can be proposed for subjects with latex allergy, especially those for whom complete avoidance of latex exposure may be very difficult or even impossible. More studies are needed to evaluate the efficacy of SLIT in the treatment of subjects with latex allergy who are sensitized to inhalant allergens.

Frequency in allergy to proteins of latex in health care workers

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study is to evaluate allergy prevalence to latex proteins in health care workers at the Laboratory and Surgery Room of Hospital CIMA Chihuahua.

METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS

A thorough clinical chart was recorded for all health care workers studied: hematic biometry, total IgE by ELISA method, specific IgE to latex antigen by ELISA (pharmacy CAP system), cutaneous tests with latex antigen (Aphi de México, Hevea Brasiliensis Biopal Inc. Spoken WA), through scarification, together with histamine and Evans (positive-negative control). The number included is 99 individuals. Specific IgE to latex in 4 cases was positive (4%) and in the cutaneous tests to latex, 24 cases (24%) resulted positive.

CONCLUSIONS

The study reports a prevalence of (4%) when performing the specific IgE to latex and (24%) to the cutaneous test with antigen to total latex. This data allows us to continue evaluating the personnel at risk at the hospital, with better results in the administration of Labor Medicine at this medical institution.

[Contact urticaria to natural rubber latex in childhood and associated atopic symptoms: a study of 27 patients aged under 15 years]

BACKGROUND

Although natural rubber latex hypersensitivity is considered as a major problem in adult, it may be still misdiagnosed in childhood.

PATIENTS AND METHOD

We collected 27 observations of natural rubber latex contact urticaria in children under 15 Years of age, 21 of them aged under 8.

RESULTS

All of them where atopic and 19 out of 27 presented with other association paroxystic signs of immediate hypersensitivity, that were lately related to latex allergy (i. e. asthma, rhinitis, conjunctivitis, fainting). Cross-allergy to food allergens was present in 33 p. 100. Average level of specific IgE to natural rubber latex was 21.7 kU/l. One to 4 Years follow up confirmed the benefit of latex eviction on urticaria as well as on associated symptoms. It led to the early detection of ficus allergy in 4 of them.

DISCUSSION

This series confirms that atopy is at high risk for natural rubber latex allergy in children. These data suggest that atopic children are exposed too early to latex devices such as pacifiers, toodles of latex toys. Contact urticaria in children must be considered as a possible marker of other respiratory or general symptoms that may have been misconsidered under other etiologies.

Latex hypersensitivity: personal data and review of the literature

Latex allergy is an increasingly common condition, because use of latex products is widespread. The reactions to latex manufactures can be classified as allergic and non-allergic, these are the most common. Latex proteins are responsible for immediate IgE-mediated hypersensitivity allergic reactions. Symptoms range from rhinitis, conjunctivitis and urticaria to anaphylactic shock. Chemical additives can cause allergic contact dermatitis. The clinical symptoms of latex allergy could arise from direct contact with latex products, but may also result from inhalation of airborne allergens. Subpopulations at particular risk include: atopics, children with spina bifida or individuals who required frequent surgical instrumentations, health care workers, and all persons who have regular contact with latex products. Diagnosis of allergy is based initially on history: search for specific serum IgE, skin prick test and provocation test may confirm the suspicion. The most effective strategy in the treatment of latex allergy is avoidance, however this is virtually impossible, given large number of latex products we encounter since childhood. In this paper we review the current state of knowledge concerning latex allergy, including the clinical spectrum, identified allergens, the cross-reactions regarding the latex-fruit syndrome, diagnostic procedures and preventive measures. Several personal data increase awareness on this issue.

Type I allergy to natural rubber latex and type IV allergy to rubber chemicals in health care workers with glove-related skin symptoms

BACKGROUND

It has been established that there are type I and type IV allergens in latex gloves.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of the study was to establish the prevalence of rubber glove-induced skin symptoms among health care workers in one Italian hospital.

METHODS

Health care workers (n = 1584) were evaluated using a written questionnaire and 295 respondents with glove-induced skin symptoms were tested. We performed: skin prick test with latex glove extract and commercial latex, and environmental and food allergens; glove use test; patch tests with a rubber additive series; and RASTs.

RESULTS

Hospital employees who used or had used latex gloves at work were 1294. Three hundred and sixteen (24.4%) reported glove-induced symptoms, namely, cutaneous symptoms in all the cases and non-cutaneous symptoms in 105 subjects (8.1%). Twenty-seven of the 295 symptomatic employees tested (9.1%) were latex sensitive. Thirty-one patients (10.5%) exhibited positive patch test to rubber-related allergens. The most positive readings were obtained from the Thiuram mix and the Carba mix, with 12 and 9 positivities, respectively. The risk factors for latex skin sensitization were: a previous history of atopy and asthma; history of surgery; pre-existing hand dermatitis; work-related symptoms; and positive skin tests to common inhalant and certain foods (P < 0.05). Subjects who exhibited positive patch test were significantly more likely to have a prior hand dermatitis (P < 0.001). Of the 295 cases, 275 (93.2%) were contact dermatitis (CD), 13 (4.4%) contact urticaria (CU) (including protein CD) and 7 (2.4%) CD associated with CU.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results show a high prevalence of rubber glove-induced dermatoses among the employees in one Italian hospital. The majority of skin complaints of latex gloves are related to skin irritation rather than to allergy. The immediate allergy to latex and the delayed allergy to rubber chemicals suggest that all the health care workers with glove-related dermatitis should undergo both skin prick test and glove use test to detect type I hypersensitivity to latex, and patch test to detect type IV hypersensitivity to rubber chemicals.

Occupational irritant and allergic contact dermatitis among healthcare workers

Contact dermatitis is the most frequent occupational dermatosis and non-specific irritants in addition to specific Type IV sensitization are involved. We reviewed our database for data from 1994 to 1998 and selected 360 consecutive patients working in healthcare environments and experiencing contact dermatitis at their hands, wrists and forearms. We found that allergic contact dermatitis and irritant contact dermatitis were considered to be work-related in 16.5% (72/436) and 44.4% (194/436) of diagnoses, respectively. Occupational irritant contact dermatitis is due to exposure to a wide range of irritants in the workplace, such as soaps, solvents, cleansers and protective gloves, which conspire to remove the surface lipid layer and/or produce cellular damage. In this study the major relevant aetiological agents that induced occupational allergic contact dermatitis were: nickel sulphate (41 patch positivities), components of disinfectants [glutaraldehyde (5) and benzalkonium chloride (7)] and rubber chemicals [thiuram mix (15), carba mix (9) and tetramethylthiuram monosulphide (6)]. The best treatment for allergic contact dermatitis is to avoid those allergens causing the rash. Whenever this is not possible, contact with them needs to be reduced using properly selected protective gloves. Finally, subjects with atopic dermatitis should avoid 'wet work' and contact with irritants, because atopic dermatitis is significantly associated with irritant contact dermatitis.