Assessing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on latex glove usage and latex allergy complaints among nurses: A descriptive study

BACKGROUND

The coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to a significant increase in the use of latex gloves among nurses. However, concerns about the rise in latex allergies and related complaints due to this increase remain uncertain.

OBJECTİVE

This study aims to assess the rates of latex glove usage and allergy-related complaints among nurses working in hospitals during the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

Between May 15 and June 15, 2021, ethical approvals were obtained for a cross-sectional study involving 448 volunteer nurses. Descriptive statistics were used to represent categorical values as counts (n) and percentages (%), while continuous values were represented as mean±standard deviation. The normal distribution of the data was assessed using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk tests. Comparative analyses were conducted using paired sample t-test, Pearson's chi-squared (x2) test, McNemar's chi-squared (x2) test, and Spearman correlation analysis.

RESULTS

Before the pandemic, the average number of invasive procedures was 45.13±26.48, whereas during the pandemic, this rate increased to 50.23±29.14. The average glove usage duration went from 7.69±3.13 hours to 14.73±3.68 hours during the pandemic. Among nurses, the rate of allergic symptoms, which was previously at 31.5%, rose to 33.3% during the pandemic.

CONCLUSİON

This study revealed a significant increase in daily invasive procedures and the use of latex gloves among nurses during the pandemic period. Simultaneously, the frequency of allergic symptoms also rose. These findings underscore the importance of awareness and preventive measures, particularly regarding latex allergies, in the healthcare field.

Secondary prevention of latex allergy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The present review addresses the secondary prevention in healthcare worker, healthcare setting, and in patients outside the healthcare setting.

RECENT FINDINGS

There is sufficient knowledge of the broad aetiology of latex allergy for secondary preventive programmes to be widely adopted. Currently, avoidance of latex-containing surgical products is mandatory in the care of sensitized patients. They should also have a list of occult sources of natural rubber latex exposure and cross-reacting fruits. During all health-care procedures latex allergic patients should be treated in a 'latex-free' environment. Specific sublingual immunotherapy has been suggested as a suitable therapeutic option. It can be offered, in addition to symptomatic treatment, to selected patients, when avoidance measures are not feasible or effective. The use of omalizumab could also be extended as an adjunct to latex immunotherapy.

SUMMARY

Despite of the progress made in the secondary prevention of latex allergy, the disease still continues to be a global health problem.

Study of Latex Glove Associated Dermatoses Among Nurses in a Tertiary Care Hospital

INTRODUCTION

Natural rubber latex (NRL) is processed from Hevea brasiliensis trees. Allergic reactions to certain proteins in the latex manifest as immediate hypersensitivity reactions and allergic reactions to chemicals added to latex during processing manifest as allergic contact dermatitis. Healthcare workers (HCWs) are at increased risk of developing latex allergies. As little data is available from India, this study was directed toward identifying the prevalence of latex glove-related dermatoses among nurses and the factors leading to it.

METHODOLOGY

This cross-sectional study was undertaken among nurses in a private tertiary care hospital.

RESULTS

A total of 700 nurses were included in the study. Symptoms of latex allergy were present in 74 (10.6%) of study subjects, out of which 69 (9.9%) had features of contact dermatitis. Patch test was done in 50 subjects and was positive in 12 (24%); among them, patch test antigens were positive in 9 (18%) and a positive result to glove piece was seen in 3 subjects.

CONCLUSIONS

Latex allergy in India is a significant problem; though lesser compared to western countries, its prevalence necessitates the development of pre-employment protocols to avoid workplace morbidity.

Occupational contact dermatitis: Retrospective analysis of North American Contact Dermatitis Group Data, 2001 to 2016

BACKGROUND

Patch testing is an important diagnostic tool for suspected allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) in occupational settings.

OBJECTIVE

Provide an overview of occupational skin disease (OSD) and an analysis of occupational ACD in North American patients undergoing patch testing between 2001and 2016.

METHODS

Patients with OSD were analyzed for frequency of allergic reactions to a screening series of allergens, occupational relevance, location of skin disease, and exposure sources. Demographic, occupation, and industry information were recorded.

RESULTS

Of 38,614 patients evaluated, 4471 (11.6%) had OSD, of whom 3150 (70.5%) had ACD. The most common occupationally related allergens included rubber accelerators, preservatives, and bisphenol A epoxy resin. Hands (75.8%), arms (30.0%), and face (15.9%) were common sites of dermatitis. The occupations most affected were service workers and machine operators.

LIMITATIONS

Our cohort may not reflect the general working population.

CONCLUSION

This study identified common occupational allergens, exposure sources, and occupations/industries at risk. This information may help the clinician evaluate and manage patients with occupational contact dermatitis.

Comparison of surgical gloves: perforation, satisfaction and manual dexterity

The purpose of this study was to assess the effectiveness of two different surgical gloves (powdered latex and powder and latex free) for glove perforation frequency, problems and satisfaction with glove usage and manual dexterity levels during surgical operations that include scrub nurses. Scrub nurses wore antiallergenic gloves (powder and latex free) gloves during three operations, double latex and powdered gloves during three operations and single latex and powdered gloves during three operations. The gloves were checked for punctures after each surgery with a water-inflation test. In our study, 19% of single gloves and 18.1 % of double gloves and 4.8% of powder and latex free worn by scrub nurses were punctured during surgery. None of the inner gloves in double gloves were punctured. Although wearing double gloves restricts manual dexterity, results in discomfort problems such as perspiration and fetor and results in a low satisfaction rate among scrub nurses, double gloves are protective against injuries and punctures.

[Diagnosis of allergy in asthma]

Allergy is a hypersensitivity reaction induced by immunological mechanisms. In asthma, allergy has a complex role and is usually IgE mediated. Allergy must be evaluated during the work up but evidence of IgE sensitivity does not mean that allergens play a role in the pathophysiology of the disease. The clinical relevance of the sensitivity has to be considered. This paper describes current available tools to screen for IgE sensitivity, allergen exposure and their role in asthma.

Self-Reported Skin Disorders Among Health Care Workers

This study aimed to estimate the point prevalence and 1-year period prevalence of skin disorder symptoms (SDS) among health care workers (HCWs) and to explore the possible risk factors. A random sample of 400 HCWs from 13 government health centers in Brunei Darussalam self-administered an adapted Nordic Occupational Skin Questionnaire (NOSQ-2002/SHORT). The point and 1-year prevalence of SDS were 12% and 19%, respectively. Having a history of SDS before the current job, exposure to SDS-exacerbating materials at the workplace, and having clinical roles were correlated for both prevalence estimates. Frequent handwashing and moderate use of latex gloves were associated with higher risk of SDS at 1-year. Female HCWs were more likely to report SDS. In multivariate analyses, only contact with SDS-exacerbating materials at the workplace, prejob SDS, and moderate glove usage were significant predictors of SDS.

Analysis of Dental Professionals' and Dental Students' Care for their Skin

Objectives

To determine prevalence of undesirable, work-related skin lesions and their localizations in dental professionals and students, and to collect data about diagnostic procedures they undergo and skin care they take when these lesions occur.

Subjects and methods

Our research included 444 respondents (dentists, dental assistants, dental technicians, dental students) who filled out a questionnaire. They were asked to specify if they had observed any lesions on their skin and where; if they had undergone any treatments and in what way; if they had undergone any allergy tests; and if they had taken any protective measures.

Results

Of all the respondents that took part in the survey, 249 (56.1%) reported undesirable skin reactions commonly on their hands and fingers (96%). Before our survey, only 15% of them had seen a dermatologist, while 33% had undergone allergy tests (without a dermatologists’ clinical examination). Also, 45% of them sometimes used soaps for sensitive skin and the majority (61%) of them used protective hand creams 1-2 times per day.

Conclusion

Although a large number of dental professionals and students have noticed work-related skin lesions, only some of them sought dermatologists’ professional help and most of them did not take care of their skin adequately when those lesions occurred. According to the results of this study, it is necessary to take additional preventive measures to increase dental professionals’ and students’ awareness of occupational dermatoses and adequate skin care.

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).

Current prevalence rate of latex allergy: Why it remains a problem?

Objectives:

This article aims to review the current prevalence rate of latex allergy among healthcare workers, susceptible patients, and the general public, and to investigate why latex is still a ubiquitous occupational health hazard.

Methods:

Scientific publications on PubMed, particularly those published within the last five years, and current regulations from agencies such as Food and Drug Administration (FDA) were reviewed. Consumer and commercial products that may contain latex were also surveyed.

Results:

Approximately 12 million tons of natural rubber latex is produced annually and is widely used to manufacture millions of consumer and commercial products. Only limited number of latex-derived products have been approved and regulated by government agencies, such as FDA, whereas the majority of finished products do not label whether they contain latex. Owing to millions of unidentifiable products containing latex and many routes for exposure to latex, preventing contact with latex allergens and reducing the prevalence of latex allergy are more difficult than expected. Reported data suggest that the average prevalence of latex allergy worldwide remains 9.7%, 7.2%, and 4.3% among healthcare workers, susceptible patients, and general population, respectively.

Conclusions:

Latex-derived products are ubiquitous, and latex allergy remains a highly prevalent health risk in many occupations and to the general population. Developing alternative materials and increasing the ability to identify and label latex-derived products will be practicable approaches to effectively control the health risks associated with latex.

Identification and practical management of latex allergy in occupational settings

Allergy to natural rubber latex (NRL) from Hevea brasiliensis is a relevant occupational health hazard. The use of gloves and products manufactured with latex and environmental allergen exposure in the work environment are risks factors for the development of occupational allergy among different job categories. Healthcare workers have been the most commonly affected, but other professions with exposure to latex products such as hairdressers, cleaners, food handlers and those making natural rubber latex (NRL) products are also at risk of developing occupational allergy. Clinical manifestations of IgE-mediated latex allergy can range from troublesome skin disorders to life-threatening systemic reactions. It is very important to identify the occupational allergic diseases in their early stages in order to implement avoidance strategies. For this purpose, the interventions for prevention should emphasize the importance of latex allergy awareness and surveillance among exposed workforces.

Occupational allergy: respiratory hazards in healthcare workers

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Allergens are one group of respiratory hazards in the workplace of healthcare workers (HCWs). The purpose of this review is to summarize the recent advances in occupational allergy as well as potential hazardous agents in HCWs.

RECENT FINDINGS

The review covers new developments on the epidemiology, diagnosis and management of occupational allergy in HCWs. This article also provides updated information on the prevalence of work-related respiratory symptoms, as well as on respiratory hazards among healthcare providers.

SUMMARY

It is established that HCWs are at risk of asthma symptoms. The growing use of cleaning products is one of the causes of occupational airway disease in that group. Among healthcare professionals, the prevalence of asthma varies depending on worksite. Recent findings indicate a need for education among HCWs concerning occupational risks. A lack of knowledge of product components as well as about exposure to cleaning/disinfecting agents has been demonstrated. Further studies are necessary to determine the relative role of individual agents versus complex workplace exposures in the development of work-related asthma in HCWs.

Do nurses have worse pregnancy outcomes than non-nurses?

BACKGROUND

Nurses encounter multiple occupational exposures at work which may harm their reproductive health. The purpose of the study was to compare pregnancy complications and outcomes including cesarean deliveries, tocolysis, miscarriage, and preterm labor between female nurses and comparable women who were not nurses in Taiwan.

METHODS

This nationwide population-based study was performed using the National Health Insurance Research Database from 1997 to 2008. We identified 3,656 pregnancies among 2,326 nurses and 111,889 pregnancies among 74,919 non-nurses. A generalized estimating equation was used to compare risks between the two groups.

RESULTS

The rates of tocolysis (28.6 vs 22.3%), miscarriage (6.0 vs 5.3%), and preterm labor (8.1 vs 4.4%) were significantly higher among nurses than non-nurses. After adjustment for background differences, nurses had significantly higher risks for cesarean section (adjusted OR 1.12 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03-1.22]), tocolysis (OR 1.18 [95% CI 1.09-1.29]), and preterm labor (OR 1.46 [95% CI 1.28-1.67]) than non-nurses.

CONCLUSIONS

Nurses are at higher risk for cesarean section, tocolysis, and preterm labor than non-nurses. Occupational exposure related to these adverse pregnancy outcomes should be examined. Strategies to decrease the risks should be developed to improve reproductive health among nurses.