Latex allergy among hairdressers

Use of protective gloves by hairdressers: A review of efficacy and potential adverse effects

Occupational hand eczema is common among hairdressers, and protective gloves are important in limiting exposure to irritants and allergens. Various glove types may differ in their protective ability, and their use may lead to hand eczema due to skin irritancy and allergy. MEDLINE was searched for studies investigating permeation of gloves to irritants and allergens used in the hairdressing trade, as well as adverse effects of glove use affecting hairdressers. Forty-four studies were identified; nine reported on permeation. Of those, two in vitro studies found nitrile rubber (NR) gloves to give the best protection when handling hair dyes. Polyethylene (PE) gloves had the lowest reported break-through time. The prevalence of sensitization to rubber materials in European hairdressers was as follows: thiuram mix, median 2.5% (range 0%-8.2%), weighted average 3.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] 3.0%-3.1%); mercapto mix, median 0.4% (range 0%-3.3%), weighted average 0.5% (95% CI 0.47%-0.50%), mercaptobenzothiazole, median 0.6% (range 0%-6.6%), weighted average 0.7% (95% CI 0.6%-0.7%), NRL-type I allergy, median 1.3% (range 1%-16.4%), weighted average 4.0% (95% CI 3.6%-4.5%). In conclusion, NR gloves provide the best skin protection for hairdressers, although natural rubber latex (NRL) and polyvinylchloride (PVC) gloves may be sufficient in most cases. PE gloves are not recommended. Synthetic rubber gloves with low or no levels of accelerators are preferred.

Prevalence of atopy in a population of hairdressing students and practising hairdressers in Melbourne, Australia

Hairdressers are one of the largest groups affected by occupational contact dermatitis. In this population-based study, 193 trainee hairdressers and 184 practising hairdressers each completed a questionnaire and had their hands examined. Participants were asked about past or present atopy including eczema, asthma or hayfever, which occurred in 59.2%, and were individually correlated with a history of occupational skin problems. Almost 60% of hairdressers and trainees had experienced changes on their hands since commencing hairdressing, while 29% had evidence of abnormal skin on examination on the day of participation. Atopic individuals, who plan to work in a career such as hairdressing with known high rates of occupational contact dermatitis, should be advised to care for and protect their skin from the outset to prevent the development of this condition. There has been little awareness of this issue in Australia, despite longstanding knowledge of the association of hairdressing and contact dermatitis.

Prevention of latex allergy among health care workers and in the general population: latex protein content in devices commonly used in hospitals and general practice

BACKGROUND

In this study the latex protein content in devices commonly used in hospitals and general practice were investigated. The main aim was to acquire information for preventing latex allergy in health care workers and in the general population.

METHODS

About 22 different types of medical devices and 23 devices commonly used in general practice were examined evaluating the total allergenic potency by a modified RAST-inhibition assay and quantitative determination of single allergens (Hev b1, Hev b5 and Hev b6.02) by using commercial ELISA kit.

RESULTS

A high level of inhibition was found in medical devices, such as elastic bandage (81.57%), tourniquet (74.09%), Foley urinary catheter (68.35%), Penrose drainage (67.25%) and taping (39.6%), and in common devices, such as rubber inner-sole (84.20%), toy balloon (78.62%), latex mattress (74.27%), household rubber gloves (49.10%), working gloves (38.25%), inflatable floating mattress (32.10%). Concentrations of latex extractable proteins and Hev b1, Hev b5 and Hev b6.02 antigens were high in some medical and general devices.

CONCLUSIONS

Latex exposure sources were found in hospitals and the home. These findings, though only preliminary and far from conclusive, could enable sensitized persons to avoid risky exposures and prevent allergic reactions. From the point of view of prevention, the time may come when every natural rubber object could be systematically labelled as "containing latex" together with the warning that "this item may cause allergic reactions in sensitized subjects."

Latex allergy in children: a follow-up study

BACKGROUND

Natural rubber latex allergy is an important health problem. Multiple contacts with latex in childhood are a risk factor. Many aspects of this disease are still unknown, one of which is the clinical outcome of these children. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical and epidemiological features of latex allergy and compliance with latex avoidance instructions in allergic children.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Seventeen consecutive patients with a history of latex allergy, fruit allergy or chronic urticaria were selected. The patients underwent a skin prick test and determination of specific-IgE to latex at the start and at end of the study (median follow-up: 3 years). At diagnosis, patients with a positive result to one of the tests and a clinical history of latex allergy were considered allergic; patients with a positive test but without a clinical history suggestive of allergy were considered sensitized. These children were given latex avoidance instructions.

RESULTS

Eleven children (64.7 %) were classified as allergic and 6 (35.3 %) as sensitized. Five patients had undergone latex-free surgery after diagnosis without incident. During follow-up, 11 patients (8 allergic and 3 sensitized) had contact with latex. Contact occurred in the home in 10 children, and all were symptomatic. Specific-IgE levels to latex at the end of the study were significantly higher in patients who had contact with latex during the follow-up period than in those without latex contact.

CONCLUSIONS

Strict compliance with latex avoidance instructions is essential both inside and outside the hospital. Greater emphasis should be placed on reducing latex exposure in the home and school environments, as such contact could maintain positive IgE-antibody levels.

Allergic contact dermatitis from natural rubber latex in atopic dermatitis and the risk of later Type I allergy

The aims of the study were to assess whether contact dermatitis in children could be due to a delayed hypersensitivity reaction to natural rubber latex (NRL) and to define risk factors for later occurrence of Type I hypersensitivity to this allergen. Among 1800 children investigated for contact dermatitis, 55 were referred on suspicion of rubber allergy and had patch tests to NRL, as well as prick tests and blood tests for specific immunoglobulin E (IgE). A 2-year follow-up was then carried out. Delayed hypersensitivity to NRL was confirmed in 32 children. Patch testing with NRL proved to be positive, and clinical improvement confirmed the diagnosis and relevance of patch tests. 30 of these 32 patients had associated atopic dermatitis (AD). Prick tests and blood tests for specific IgE to latex were negative at the time of diagnosis. A 2-year follow-up showed that 10 of 27 patients presenting initially with a positive patch test without associated Type I sensitization later developed immediate hypersensitivity. Children with AD are at high risk for allergy to NRL protein. Exclusion of this allergen should be strongly advised in atopics because of the dual risk of dermatitis and later evolution into severe Type I hypersensitivity.

Allergic contact urticaria from natural rubber latex in healthcare and non-healthcare workers

To compare the prevalence of natural rubber latex (NRL) sensitization and allergic contact urticaria from NRL in healthcare and non-healthcare workers, we studied all 1171 patients who attended our clinic during 2001 and 2002. Prick testing for NRL and patch testing with European standard series were performed in all patients and an additional rubber series in those who had contact with rubber. Specific immunoglobulin E (IgE) levels against NRL and tropical fruits were measured when prick testing was positive. Sensitization to NRL (positive prick test and specific IgE levels) was much more common in healthcare workers than that in non-healthcare workers, 16.7 versus 2.3%. Among the non-healthcare workers, sensitization to NRL was more common in food handlers (17.1%), construction workers (6.6%), painters (6.2%), hairdressers (5.1%) and cleaners (3.8%). The difference in the prevalence of specific IgE to tropical fruits was not significant. Allergic contact urticaria from NRL was also much more frequent in healthcare workers, 71.4 versus 28.6%. In conclusion, sensitization to NRL and allergic contact urticaria from NRL are more common in healthcare workers, but this is a growing problem in non-healthcare workers and should be investigated in all workers with a history of NRL intolerance or who have contact with NRL.

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.

Latex hypersensitivity: relationship with positive prick test and patch test responses among hairdressers

BACKGROUND

Natural rubber latex is a frequent cause of IgE-mediated allergy in hairdressers; but a non-IgE-mediated allergy to latex proteins can also occur. Sixty-one hairdressers, reporting latex glove-related symptoms, were enrolled in the study.

METHODS

They were evaluated for latex allergy by assessment of serum specific IgE and skin prick tests. Patients were patch tested to a rubber additive series and to latex. Proportions were compared by one-tailed Fisher's exact test; mean values of continuous variables were compared by Student's t-test.

RESULTS

A diagnosis of IgE-mediated latex allergy was made in 11 (18%) hairdressers; patch tests with rubber-related antigens were positive in 24 (39.3%) subjects. The most positive patch tests were those with para-phenylenediamine (33%). Two hairdressers (3.3%) showed delayed reactions to the latex sample. Hairdressers with IgE-mediated latex allergy were older and presented a personal history of atopy and local hives after exposure to latex; they were more likely to have a positive response to other allergens on prick or patch testing.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study demonstrates a certain number of false-positive and false-negative results when reported symptoms of possible latex sensitivity were compared to prick and CAP tests to latex, indicating the problems of relying solely on self-report.

Occupational contact dermatitis. Recognition and management

Occupational contact dermatitis (OCD) represents 90 to 95% of all occupational dermatoses. The incidence rate of OCD is estimated to be around 0.5 to 1.9 cases per full-time worker per year. However, epidemiologic data are lacking and incidence is probably underestimated, especially in the US. Over the past 20 years, OCD has been the most frequently reported occupational disorder to German social insurance institutions. Critical factors in the management of OCD are recognition of clinical features, knowledge of allergens and irritants present in different occupational fields, knowledge of suitable protection, interpretation of patch test results, and awareness of medicolegal aspects. Management of OCD should be carried out by dermatologists and patch test clinics in cooperation with physicians specialized in industrial medicine. Individuals at high risk of OCD are hairdressers, dental laboratory technicians, other healthcare workers, construction industry workers, metal workers, leather and shoe manufacturers, florists and gardeners, and bakers, caterers, confectioners and cooks.

Immediate-type latex hypersensitivity in a hairdresser

Hairdressers commonly develop contact dermatitis caused by either skin irritants or allergens to which they are exposed. Those using latex gloves are also at risk of developing immediate hypersensitivity reactions to latex. We present a hairdresser with hand dermatitis, primarily as a result of immediate-type hypersensitivity to latex causing contact urticaria, diagnosed with radioallergosorbent testing. Only three previous studies have reported latex allergy in hairdressers. This condition needs to be considered as a differential diagnosis in hairdressers presenting with hand dermatitis and a history of wearing either rubber or disposable latex gloves.

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 IV hypersensitivity reactions to natural rubber latex: results of a multicentre study

BACKGROUND

Positive patch test reactions to natural rubber latex (NRL) have been interpreted as allergic or irritant by different groups. Additives to the NRL test solution have also caused positive reactions in previous studies.

OBJECTIVES

Five centres of the British Contact Dermatitis Group conducted a prospective study on the prevalence of type IV hypersensitivity to NRL, using ammonia-preserved NRL solution for testing.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 2738 consecutive patients were patch tested. Where clinically indicated, specific IgE was measured or a prick test done.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven patients (1%) had a positive patch test reaction to NRL, which was considered to be allergic and of current relevance in 19 (70%) patients. Fourteen of these also had a positive prick test or specific IgE. Thirteen patients (48%) were male, 19 (70%) atopic and 13 (48%) had eczema on their hands.

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that delayed-type hypersensitivity to NRL is a problem for a proportion of patients with eczema, particularly on their hands, and that patch testing with ammonia-preserved NRL can be recommended to identify these patients. Patients with a positive patch test should be investigated for contact urticaria to NRL.

Occupational skin disease in hairdressers

Hairdressers belong to an occupational group that is commonly affected by occupational skin disease, specifically contact dermatitis, which may be allergic or irritant and, less commonly, contact urticaria. Occupational contact dermatitis predominantly affects apprentices, and atopy is a recognized risk factor associated with a poor prognosis. Repetitive wet work leading to irritant contact dermatitis, followed by exposure to allergens and the development of allergic contact dermatitis, are the main factors contributing to occupational contact dermatitis. Once developed, it is often difficult to manage and is a cause of significant morbidity. Early education, training and prevention is the best approach to the management of this disorder that is endemic among hairdressers.

Reduction of use of latex gloves in food handlers: an intervention study

Frequent latex glove use is a risk factor for the development of latex allergy. With the increase in latex glove use, latex allergy has become more prevalent. There are a number of occupational groups in which the use of latex gloves is both inappropriate and even hazardous, including food handlers, where the hazard relates particularly to their latex-sensitive customers. The aim of this study was to assess both the use of latex gloves by food handlers and the impact of an intervention study on reducing latex glove use. This was done at the Queen Victoria Market in Melbourne, Australia. We found that 10 out of 30 stalls (33%) used latex gloves, and that following a short education program, this was reduced to 1 stall (3%, p=0.006). The potential to reduce latex glove use by using this intervention study was 93% (95% confidence interval of 54%-100%). We recommend that food handlers be educated during their training, not only about hygiene issues, but also about the appropriate type of glove to wear, in order to prevent both the development of a new occupational group at risk of becoming allergic to latex, but more importantly to protect their latex-sensitive customers.

Health-care workers and latex allergy

Latex hypersensitivity can pose a threat to anyone, but health-care providers are among the high-risk groups for developing latex hypersensitivity. Latex hypersensitivity likely results from health-care workers' increased use of gloves following implementation of universal precautions. It is also believed that the antigenic load of latex gloves causes an increase in latex hypersensitivity resulting from massive production of gloves. Although there are many studies on the prevalence of latex hypersensitivity among health-care workers, there appear to be discrepancies, which may affect the different apparent prevalence. Testing for latex hypersensitivity raises another problem. Latex allergens cannot be identified specifically; therefore, there is no standard test or testing solution that can identify hypersensitive persons. Although latex glove hypersensitivity was first identified in the late 1970s, there remain many uncertainties associated with it; as a result, there is a growing concern among health-care providers. The authors offer several precautions to avoid the development of latex hypersensitivity.

Patch testing with natural rubber latex

Immediate-type hypersensitivity to natural rubber latex (NRL) may be associated with chronic eczema, and it has recently been suggested that NRL should be used as a patch-test allergen. However, a standardized preparation does not exist, and experience of patch testing with this substance is extremely limited. The aims of our study were to investigate the patch-test response to different preparations of NRL amongst patients with suspected contact dermatitis. 608 patients were patch tested with a latex series which included wet and dry preparations of undiluted high-ammonia (HA) NRL and low-ammonia thiuram-containing NRL. Cutaneous reactions to 1 or more NRL patches were noted in 24 patients. None of these were strong allergic reactions (> +), and in 15 patients, the responses were only doubtful (?+). Positive patch tests were observed in 9 patients, and were probably due to concurrent thiuram allergy in 6. In the remaining 3 patients, the reactions had subsided by the 2nd reading and may have represented false positives. None of the patients showed consistent allergic reactions to all NRL patches, and most of the doubtful readings had resolved within 4 days, suggesting that they were irritant rather than weak allergic responses. Patch testing to dry HA latex was associated with the least number of reactions. We conclude that allergic patch test reactions to NRL are uncommon, and as reactions are usually weak and difficult to interpret, we suggest that patch testing with NRL should remain experimental until further studies have been undertaken.

Latex allergy

Coined the next major health concern of the decade, allergy to natural rubber latex affects people routinely exposed to rubber products. Groups at highest risk include health care workers, rubber industry workers, and persons who have undergone multiple surgical procedures, especially those with spina bifida. Allergy to latex is a type I, immediate, IgE-mediated reaction, which can lead to anaphylaxis and death. Much of latex research is published in allergy journals. Dermatologists may not be aware of the prevalence, symptoms, risks, diagnosis, and treatment of latex allergy. These topics are the subject of this review. Research concerning antigenic proteins, as well as sources of latex alternatives, is also summarized. (J Am Acad Dermatol 1998;39:1-24.)

LEARNING OBJECTIVE

At the completion of this learning activity, participants should have a clear understanding of the history, biology, epidemiology, mechanism, clinical characteristics, diagnostic work-up, and treatment of latex allergy. Readers should also have a greater understanding of multiple potential allergenic latex proteins and their importance in preventing future latex-sensitization.

Latex: a cause of allergic contact eczema in users of natural rubber gloves

BACKGROUND

Latex is a common cause of contact urticaria in glove users. We recently found that 1.2% of patients attending a contact dermatitis investigation unit had delayed type hypersensitivity to latex as a cause of eczema.

OBJECTIVE

We reassessed the relevant contact allergens in users of natural rubber gloves with hand dermatitis. Particular emphasis was placed on allergens not included in the standard patch test series.

METHODS

Consecutive natural rubber glove users with hand dermatitis were investigated for the presence of contact dermatitis and urticaria.

RESULTS

One hundred seventeen consecutive patients were tested. The American standard series missed 34% and the European 40% of patients with positive patch test reactions to rubber related chemicals. Six percent of patients (20% of those with a positive reaction) demonstrated delayed type hypersensitivity to latex, often in the absence of other relevant contact allergens and contact urticaria to latex.

CONCLUSION

Latex is a relatively common cause of allergic contact eczema in the absence of contact urticaria. Latex should be included in a rubber series for screening patients with hand dermatitis who are glove users.