[Latex allergy: a review on the most important aspects]. / Alergia al látex: una revisión sobre los aspectos más importantes.

This allergy is a hypersensitivity reaction that is triggered by contact with latex. Symptoms vary depending on factors such as route, frequency, and exposure dose, as well as individual susceptibility. The clinical manifestations can be localized at the site of contact with latex or generalized. Exposure can occur directly as a result of contact with the skin and mucous membranes, that is by touching or being touched by objects with latex, or by inhaling (breathing) particles from objects with latex. Contact can also be indirect; for example, by ingesting food that has been handled by a worker wearing latex gloves or by having contact with a person who has been blowing up balloons. The diagnosis of latex allergy is made based on the patient's medical history and on what has been reported in the interrogation, and it is complemented with in vivo studies (such as skin tests and provocation tests) or in vitro studies (determination of specific IgE). The fundamental pillar in the treatment of latex allergy is the education of the patient to achieve the avoidance of products made with this material or the contact and intake of food that has had contact with latex. In view of the foregoing, latex allergy has a great medical and social relevance due to all the safety measures that the patient must take.

La alergia es una reacción de hipersensibilidad desencadenada tras el contacto con el látex. Los síntomas varían dependiendo de factores como la ruta, frecuencia y dosis de exposición, además de la susceptibilidad individual. Las manifestaciones clínicas pueden darse de forma localizada, en el sitio de contacto con el látex, o generalizadas. La exposición puede ocurrir de forma directa como resultado del contacto con la piel y mucosas, por tocar o ser tocado por objetos con látex, o al inhalar partículas provenientes de objetos con látex. El contacto también puede ser indirecto, al ingerir alimentos que fueron manipulados por un trabajador con guantes de látex, al tener contacto con una persona que ha estado inflando globos, por ejemplo. El diagnóstico de alergia al látex se realiza basado en la historia clínica del paciente, lo reportado en el interrogatorio y se complementa con estudios in vivo (como las pruebas cutáneas y las pruebas de provocación) o estudios in vitro (determinación de IgE específica). El pilar fundamental en el tratamiento de la alergia al látex es la educación del paciente para lograr la evitación de productos elaborados con este producto o el contacto e ingesta de alimentos que tuvieron contacto con el látex. Por lo anterior, la alergia al látex tiene una gran relevancia médica y social por todas las medidas de seguridad que debe llevar el paciente.

Latex anaphylaxis in a recipient child during kidney transplant performed in a latex-free environment: case report.

Latex responds for most allergic reactions in children, and repeated exposure to the agent is the main cause of sensitization. We report the case of a child allergic to latex who developed anaphylaxis during kidney transplantation performed in a latex-free environment. After immediate treatment with epinephrine the patient gradually improved. Subsequent investigation revealed that kidney harvesting was performed without latex allergy precautions, suggesting graft contamination by the antigen. We conclude that, for preventing this type of anaphylaxis, it is essential to implement latex-free procedures during donor organ harvesting.

Management of latex hypersensitivity in the perioperative setting.

Despite the introduction and use of latex-free gloves, natural rubber latex hypersensitivity is still an issue in hospital medicine both for patients and healthcare professionals. Clear understanding of the groups at risk as well as perioperative assessment and management is key to reducing complications and improving safety. In this literature review, we cover the perioperative management of patients with latex hypersensitivity, as well as the implications for healthcare professionals. We also review the cost analyses of latex hypersensitivity in the healthcare system and the evidence available.

Acute Management, Diagnosis, and Follow-Up of Suspected Perioperative Hypersensitivity Reactions in Flanders 2001-2018.

BACKGROUND: Despite numerous efforts to describe the clinical manifestations and the epidemiology of perioperative hypersensitivity (POH), there remains room to increase awareness among anesthetists and immunologists/allergists. OBJECTIVE: To report the findings of a 17-year survey of suspected POH in Antwerp, Belgium. METHODS: We analyzed clinical and diagnostic data from 715 patients referred because of a suspected POH reaction, between January 1, 2001, and May 31, 2018. A total of 456 patients demonstrating a POH could be queried about subsequent anesthesia. RESULTS: A total of 608 cases formed the final dataset; 208 had a non-life-threatening reaction and 400 a life-threatening reaction. In life-threatening reactions, hypotension was predominating. In the non-life-threatening reactions, 83.9% of the patients displayed cutaneous manifestations. In life-threatening reactions, intravenous adrenaline and fluids were administered in 75.7% and 31%, respectively, and 41.3% had their intervention abandoned. Mast cell activation (MCA) was mainly, but not exclusively, observed in severe grades but did not predict the mechanistic process nor the culprit. A cause was identified in 77.8% of severe and 48.6% of milder cases. Main culprits were neuromuscular blocking agents, latex, cefazolin, and dyes. A total of 156 cases had uneventful anesthesia, except 1 patient who was inadvertently re-exposed to hidden chlorhexidine. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights that there is room for an improved acute management and an optimized diagnostic workup that should not be restricted to patients with severe reactions and/or showing MCA.

Manifestation of intraoperative anaphylactic shock along with latex allergy:a pediatric case report.

Natural rubber latex (NRL) allergy is one of the most important causes of severe anaphylaxis during medical intervention. We report a pediatric case of latex allergy with multiple surgical histories. A 12-year-old girl developed anaphylactic shock during the pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction restenosis. Latex gloves or medications used during the surgery were suspected to be the cause of anaphylactic shock. We diagnosed her latex allergy on the basis of the results that serum latex-specific IgE, skin prick tests of extract from NRL gloves and recombinant Hev b 6.02 solution were positive. Basophil activation test of NRL gloves was also positive, supporting the diagnosis of immediate allergic reactions caused by NRL. It was speculated that a history of multiple surgeries in infancy became a trigger of sensitization to latex in this patient. Reoperation after the diagnosis of NRL allergy was carried out in a latex-free environment and completed without any allergic symptoms. It would be necessary to perform the pre-screening of latex allergy to prevent the onset of latex allergy especially in the patients with multiple surgical histories. J. Med. Invest. 65:292-295, August, 2018.

Latex hypersensitivity to injection devices for biologic therapies in psoriasis patients.

An allergic reaction provoked by reexposure to an allergen or antigen is known as a type I or immediate hypersensitivity reaction. Latex allergy is a common cause of type I hypersensitivity reactions. Allergic responses to latex in psoriasis patients receiving frequent injections with biologic agents are not commonly reported in the literature. We report the case of a patient with a long history of psoriasis who developed an allergic response after exposure to injection devices that contained latex components while undergoing treatment with biologic agents.

Hand eczema and occupational contact allergies in healthcare workers with a focus on rubber additives.

BACKGROUND: Hand eczema (HE) in healthcare workers (HCWs) is common. Besides wet work, healthcare work also implies exposure to contact allergens. OBJECTIVES: To assess HE and contact allergy related to occupational exposures in HCWs. METHODS: In a cross-sectional study, 311 HCWs with HE within the preceding 12 months and a control group of 114 HCWs without HE were investigated with the baseline series and a special patch test series based on substances found in the gloves, soaps, alcoholic hand disinfectants and hand creams provided at the hospitals. RESULTS: Contact allergy to rubber additives was significantly more common in HCWs with HE (6%) than in HCWs without HE (1%, P = .02). The corresponding percentages for fragrances were 11% and 3%, respectively (P = .004). Occupational HE was found in 193 of 311 (62%) HCWs. Of these, 22 of 193 (11%) had occupational allergic contact dermatitis, including 17 with glove-related rubber contact allergy. Contact allergy to diphenylguanidine was as common as contact allergy to thiurams. Occupational contact allergy to rubber additives was significantly associated with sick-leave related to HE. CONCLUSION: Contact allergy to rubber additives in medical gloves is the most common cause of occupational allergic contact dermatitis in HCWs. Aimed patch testing with relevant rubber additives is mandatory when HE in HCWs is investigated.

A Collective Review on Hazards of Powder on Surgical and Examination Gloves.

This article reviews information on the hazards associated with dusting powders on latex surgical and examination gloves. Dusting powders were first applied to latex gloves to facilitate donning. After 1980, manufacturers devised innovative techniques to manufacture gloves without dusting powders. It has been well documented that the powders on gloves present a health hazard to patients, as well as to operating-room personnel. First, these powders elicit tissue toxicity in every tissue in the body. Second, these powders serve as carriers of latex allergen and may precipitate a life-threatening allergic reaction in sensitized patients. These well-documented hazards of glove powders have caused a growing number of hospitals in the world to abandon the use of examination and surgical gloves coated with powder, and instead to use only powder-free gloves.

Patch testing with rubber series in Europe: a critical review and recommendation.

BACKGROUND: Rubber additives constitute an important group of contact allergens, particularly in certain occupations. OBJECTIVES: To collect information regarding the current practice of using a 'rubber series' in Europe, and discuss this against the background of evidence concerning the prevalence of allergy in order to derive a recommendation for a 'European rubber series'. METHODS: The following were performed: (i) a survey targeting all members of the COST action 'StanDerm' consortium, (ii) analysis of rubber contact allergy data in the database of the European Surveillance System on Contact Allergies, and (iii) a literature review. RESULTS: Information from 13 countries was available, from one or several departments of dermatology, and occasionally occupational health. Apart from some substances tested only in single departments, a broad overlap regarding important allergens was evident, but considerable variation existed between departments. CONCLUSIONS: An up-to-date 'European rubber series' is recommended, with the exclusion of substances only of historical concern. A 'supplementary rubber series' containing allergens of less proven importance, requiring further analysis, is recommended for departments specializing in occupational contact allergy. These should be continually updated as new evidence emerges.

Alergia al látex en un hospital pediátrico: Caracterización y factores de riesgo / Latex allergy in a paediatric hospital: Characteristics and risk factors

Introducción: La prevalencia de sensibilización al látex es variable. Se describen diversos factores de riesgo para la sensibilización al látex, como riesgo genético, atopia y múltiples intervenciones quirúrgicas. Objetivo: Caracterizar los pacientes con sospecha de alergia al látex, analizar sus características clínicas y factores de riesgo. Pacientes y método: Estudio retrospectivo, descriptivo, en niños derivados a la Unidad de Inmunología pediátrica por sospecha de alergia al látex y para confirmación diagnóstica. Se revisaron síntomas por contacto o exposición a materiales con látex. Se identificó factores de riesgo para la sensibilización al látex: patologías con múltiples intervenciones quirúrgicas (espina bífida, mielomeningocele, escoliosis y alteraciones nefrourológicas), atopia (rinitis o asma, dermatitis atópica), y se realizó prick test y/o IgE específica para látex. Se efectuó un modelo de regresión logística multivariado para asociar síntomas de exposición al látex con enfermedades de base y condiciones de riesgo. Resultados: Se reclutaron 106 pacientes, de los cuales 50 fueron analizables. El 96% eran mayores de 5 años de edad al momento del diagnóstico. La mayoría de los factores de riesgo descritos en la literatura eran observables en estos pacientes (múltiples cirugías, malformaciones neurológicas y nefrourológicas, intervenciones quirúrgicas antes del año de edad y cateterismo vesical repetido). Luego de la exposición, las manifestaciones cutáneo-mucosas fueron las más frecuentes (52%), seguidas por las respiratorias (36%). El 100% de los pacientes estaban sensibilizados al látex. Conclusión: La sensibilización y alergia al látex es un problema relevante en niños con factores de riesgo. Los resultados mostrados plantean importantes desafíos en relación con medidas preventivas.

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.

Patterns of simultaneous patch test reactions to thiurams and dithiocarbamates in 164 patients.

BACKGROUND: Thiurams and dithiocarbamates are structurally related sensitizing rubber accelerators. OBJECTIVES: To study patterns of simultaneous patch test reactions to thiurams and dithiocarbamates at the Finnish Institute of Occupational Health in 1991-2015. METHODS: We searched the patch test files for patients with allergic reactions to thiuram mix, its four components, and three dithiocarbamates, and analysed patterns of simultaneous reactions to these test substances. RESULTS: We found 155 patients who reacted positively to at least one thiuram or dithiocarbamate in the rubber chemical series. Thirty-four (22%) of these patients reacted positively to some dithiocarbamate derivatives. Twenty-one reacted positively to zinc dimethyldithiocarbamate, 20 to zinc diethyldithiocarbamate, and 1 to zinc dibutyldithiocarbamate. All dithiocarbamate-allergic patients reacted positively to some thiurams, and their thiuram reactions were often strong or extreme positive. Nine thiuram mix reactions turned out to be false-positive reactions, without reactions to the constituents, and 24 patients showed false-negative reactions to thiuram mix during the same time period. CONCLUSIONS: Dithiocarbamate contact allergy was always connected to thiuram allergy. Screening dithiocarbamate allergy with carba mix thus appears to be unnecessary, but ways to improve the present thiuram mix should be investigated. Meanwhile, individual thiurams are best for diagnosing contact allergy to these accelerators.

Occupational skin disease among Australian healthcare workers: a retrospective analysis from an occupational dermatology clinic, 1993-2014.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare workers (HCWs) are at risk of developing occupational skin disease (OSD). OBJECTIVES: To ascertain the causes of OSD in Australian HCWs in a tertiary referral clinic. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed of patients assessed at the Occupational Dermatology Clinic in Melbourne from 1993 to 2014. RESULTS: Of 685 HCWs assessed in the clinic over a period of 22 years, 555 (81.0%) were diagnosed with OSD. The most common diagnosis was irritant contact dermatitis (ICD) (79.1%), followed by allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) (49.7%). Natural rubber latex allergy was also relatively frequent (13.0%). The major substances causing ACD were rubber glove chemicals (thiuram mix and tetraethylthiuram disulfide), preservatives (formaldehyde, formaldehyde releasers, and isothiazolinones), excipients in hand cleansers, which are hard-to-avoid weak allergens, and antiseptics. ACD caused by commercial hand cleansers occurred more frequently than ACD caused by alcohol-based hand rubs (ABHRs). Occupational ICD was mostly caused by water/wet work and hand cleansers, and environmental irritants such as heat and sweating. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding the causes of OSD in HCWs is important in order to develop strategies for prevention. We suggest that skin care advice should be incorporated into hand hygiene education. The use of ABHRs should be encouraged, weak allergens in skin cleansers should be substituted, and accelerator-free gloves should be recommended for HCWs with OSD.

[Latex allergy in a paediatric hospital. Characteristics and risk factors]. / Alergia al látex en un hospital pediátrico. Caracterización y factores de riesgo.

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.

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.