Prevalence of occupational allergy in medical researchers exposed to laboratory animals

How Working Tasks Influence Biocontamination in an Animal Facility

The exposure to biocontaminants in animal facilities represents a risk for developing infectious, allergic and toxic diseases. The aim of this study was to determine what factors could be associated with a high level of exposure to biological agents through the measure and characterization of airborne fungi, bacteria, endotoxin, (1,3)-β-d-glucan and animal allergens. Airborne microorganisms were collected with an air sampler and identified by microscopic and biochemical methods. Endotoxin, (1,3)-β-d-glucan, Mus m 1, Rat n 1, Can f 1, Fel d 1, Equ c 4 allergens were detected on inhalable dust samples by Kinetic LAL, Glucatell, and ELISA assays, respectively. Our data evidenced that changing cages is a determinant factor in increasing the concentration of the airborne biocontaminants; the preparation of bedding and distribution of feed, performed in the storage area, is another critical working task in terms of exposure to endotoxins (210.7 EU/m3) and (1,3)-β-d-glucans (4.3 ng/m3). The highest concentration of Mus m 1 allergen (61.5 ng/m3) was observed in the dirty washing area. The detection of expositive peaks at risk of sensitization (>2 μg/g) by Fel d 1 in animal rooms shows passive transport by operators themselves, highlighting their role as vehicle between occupational and living environments.

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.

Allergic sensitization to laboratory animals is more associated with asthma, rhinitis, and skin symptoms than sensitization to common allergens

BACKGROUND

Workers exposed to laboratory animals have a high risk of developing laboratory animal allergy (LAA). Atopy seems to be the main risk factor for LAA. We hypothesized that occupational sensitization is a better predictor for the development of asthma, rhinitis, and bronchial hyperresponsiveness (BHR) than common sensitization.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the association between occupational sensitization to laboratory animals and clinical outcomes.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional study performed at two universities on students and employees dealing with small rodents. The subjects were allocated in groups: non-sensitized, common sensitization, or occupational sensitization, according to the results of the skin prick test (SPT). All subjects answered a questionnaire about animal exposures, symptoms, allergic diseases, and underwent spirometry and bronchial challenge test with mannitol. Multivariate analysis was performed using Poisson regression to estimate the prevalence ratio (PR).

RESULTS

Data from 453 volunteers were analysed. Non-sensitized group comprised 237 subjects; common sensitization group, 142 subjects; and occupational sensitization group, 74 subjects. Occupational sensitization was associated with greater risk for all outcomes studied. When the common sensitization group was reference, skin symptoms had PR of 1.36, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.01-1.85; wheezing had PR of 1.75, CI 95%: 1.21-2.53; rhinitis had PR of 1.25, 95%: 1.11-1.40; nocturnal dyspnoea had PR of 2.40, 95% CI: 1.31-4.40; bronchial hyperresponsiveness (BHR) had PR of 2.47, 95% CI: 1.50-4.09; and confirmed asthma had PR of 2.65, 95% CI: 1.45-4.85. In addition, the overlap of asthma, rhinitis, and skin symptoms in a same subject was significantly more prevalent in the occupational sensitization group, 16.2% versus 4.9% in the common sensitization group.

CONCLUSION AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Occupational sensitization is associated with allergic symptoms and respiratory diseases. SPT with occupational allergens along with other parameters may contribute to detection of risk for allergic and respiratory diseases associated with exposure to laboratory animals.

Occupational Rhinitis Revisited: Emphasis on the Risk Factors in Saudi Industry

The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) Task Force defines occupational rhinitis (OR) as "an inflammatory disease of the nose, which is characterized by intermittent or persistent symptoms (i.e., nasal congestion, sneezing, rhinorrea, itching), and/or variable nasal airflow limitation and/or hypersecretion arising out of causes and conditions attributable to a particular work environment and not to stimuli encountered outside the workplace." The objectives of this review are to highlight the causes of OR in industrial settings in Saudi Arabia in order to alert primary healthcare physicians and other healthcare providers of the importance of diagnosing and managing OR to prevent further complications and present to the General Organization for Social Insurance (GOSI) evidence of the existence of OR in Saudi industrial sector. The literature search yielded no publications from Saudi Arabia that have investigated the prevalence of OR, but it is expected to be high judging from the high prevalence of allergic rhinitis in the country. The occupational groups that are at risk of developing OR include workers in the petrochemical industry, healthcare personnel, livestock and bird breeders, bakers, farmers, housewives and other occupations all of which are present in Saudi Arabia. Clinic and industry based research within Saudi Arabia is recommended to determine the prevalence of OR and to alert healthcare providers to suspect OR in all symptomatic working adults, including housewives and domestic helpers. Use of EAACI algorithm for the diagnosis and management of this condition will help to manage the condition and prevent the deterioration and further complications. Furthermore, diagnosis using internationally recognized guidelines and the results of the suggested epidemiologic surveys may convince GOSI to recognize OR as an occupational disease.