A risk-based approach to reducing exposure of staff to laboratory animal allergens

Biological occupational allergy: Protein microarray for the study of laboratory animal allergy (LAA)

Background

Laboratory Animal Allergy (LAA) has been considered a risk for the workers since 1989 by the NIOSH. About one third of the Laboratory Animal Workers (LAWs) can manifest symptoms to LAA as asthma, rhinitis, conjunctivitis and cutaneous reactions. The prevalence of LAA-induced clinical symptoms has been estimated with a great variability (4-44%) also due to the different methodologies applied.

Objective

Evaluate the prevalence of IgE positivity to mouse and rat allergens in LAWs and assess which factors are predisposing to sensitization among subjects exposed to laboratory animals in the workplace.

Methods

One hundred LAWs were invited to fill out a questionnaire regarding current allergic symptoms, atopic history, home environment, previous and current occupational history. IgE reactivity versus specific allergens was evaluated with ImmunoCAP ISAC.

Results

Out of one hundred LAWs, 18% had a serum susceptibility to mouse and/or rat allergens and 42% reported to have occupational allergy symptoms. Combining the results acquired by ImmunoCAP ISAC and questionnaire, 17% of LAWs have been defined as LAWs-LAA positive since they present a positive IgE response and allergy symptoms, 1% LAWs-LAA sensitized, 25% LAWs-LAA symptomatic and 57% LAWs-LAA negative. Presence of previous allergy symptoms in work and life environment were significantly related to LAWs-LAA positive/sensitized.

Conclusions

The study aimed to define the immunological profile of LAWs using the proteomic array as an innovative approach in the study of environmental and occupational exposure to allergens. We suggested a definition of LAWs-LAA considering serum IgE response and presence of allergy symptoms. The proposed approach has the advantage to provide a standard methodology for evaluating the specific IgE responsiveness to animal allergens in specific workplace also considering the immunological profile of workers referred to exposure in life and occupational environment.

Occupational Animal Allergy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review explores animal allergen exposure in research laboratories and other work settings, focusing on causes and prevention.

RECENT FINDINGS

(1) Consistent with the hygiene hypothesis, there is new evidence that early childhood exposure to pets produces changes in the gut microbiome that likely lead to a lower risk of allergy. (2) Anaphylaxis from laboratory animal bites occurs more frequently than suggested by prior literature. (3) Animal allergens represent an occupational hazard in a wide variety of work settings ranging from fields that work with animals to public settings like schools and public transportation where allergens are brought into or are present in the workplace. Exposure to animal allergens can result in allergy, asthma, and anaphylaxis. Animal allergy has been most studied in the research laboratory setting, where exposure reduction can prevent the development of allergy. Similar prevention approaches need to be considered for other animal work environments and in all settings where animal allergens are present.

Laboratory Animal Allergy in the Modern Era

Laboratory animal workers face a high risk of developing laboratory animal allergy as a consequence of inhaling animal proteins at work; this has serious consequences for their health and future employment. Exposure to animal allergen remains to be the greatest risk factor although the relationship is complex, with attenuation at high allergen exposure. Recent evidence suggests that this may be due to a form of natural immunotolerance. Furthermore, the pattern of exposure to allergen may also be important in determining whether an allergic or a tolerant immune response is initiated. Risk associated with specific tasks in the laboratory need to be determined to provide evidence to devise a code of best practice for working within modern laboratory animal facilities. Recent evidence suggests that members of lipocalin allergens, such as Mus m 1, may act as immunomodulatory proteins, triggering innate immune receptors through toll-like receptors and promoting airway laboratory animal allergy. This highlights the need to understand the relationship between endotoxin, animal allergen and development of laboratory animal allergy to provide a safe working environment for all laboratory animal workers.