Tailored Sublingual Immunotherapy in a Monosensitized Child with Natural Rubber Latex Allergy.

Adverse reactions to natural rubber latex (NRL) represent a group of clinical manifestations that include non-allergic reactions and immediate-type or delayed-type allergic reactions. NRL sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) has been demonstrated to be an effective and safe practice for latex clinical manifestations with good patient tolerance. A pediatric case of NRL allergy managed with an effective tailored SLIT is described. This case is compelling because the girl, who did not have an atopic background, suffered from NRL allergy with high reactivity and unique monosensitization. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first case with this characteristic described to date. Moreover, the SLIT follow-up time reported was unusually long, extending from childhood to adulthood. The case described highlights several problems of real-life management, and it demonstrates how the pediatric allergist plays a key role in the management of all these issues in order to succeed in guiding the patient through the immunotherapy process with a personalized approach, in line with the precision medicine principles. However, further long-term clinical studies are needed to better define the natural history of NRL allergy and find new potential biomarkers of response to NRL immunotherapy.

Profile Shift in Latex Sensitization over the Last 20 Years.

BACKGROUND: Natural rubber latex (NRL) allergy is commonly diagnosed according to medical history, skin allergy tests, and serological analyses. However, skin tests are increasingly being abandoned because of (i) their time-consuming nature, (ii) latex preparations for skin tests being not commercially available, and (iii) the use of in-house prepared test solutions is becoming ever more difficult due to increasing regulatory hurdles. In this light, we have evaluated differences in the profiles of current and former patients with suspected latex allergy. METHODS: Sera of skin test-positive patients from a historic cohort (1995-2001, n = 149 patients) and currently (2014-2015, n = 48 patients) were simultaneously analyzed for specific IgE to latex by ImmunoCAP. If the serological screening was positive (≥0.35 kU/L), component-resolved diagnostics including profilins and cross-reactive carbohydrate determinants (CCDs) were performed. RESULTS: In contrast to 88% (131/149) of the skin test-positive patients from the 1990s, only 51.1% (24/47) of the current cohort were found positive for specific IgE to latex. While 48.3% (72/149) of the patients had a convincing positive history in the 1990s, current skin test-positive patients rarely reported a relevant medical history (8.5%, 4/47). Specific IgE levels to latex were significantly higher in former patients with suspected latex allergy (p < 0.001) than in former sensitized individuals without allergy. However, this significant difference was lost in current allergic and sensitized patients with positive skin tests. CONCLUSION: Sensitization profiles in patients with latex allergy have changed significantly over the last 2 decades. Discrimination between NRL sensitization and clinical allergy remains a diagnostic challenge. Our data highlight the need for a combination of all 3 criteria, i.e., patient history, skin test, and analysis of specific IgE, for a correct diagnosis of latex allergy.

An Analysis of Skin Prick Tests to Latex and Patch Tests to Rubber Additives and other Causative Factors among Dental Professionals and Students with Contact Dermatoses.

BACKGROUND: Dental workers often experience unwanted allergic and nonallergic skin reactions resulting in different contact dermatoses (e.g., contact urticaria, irritant and allergic contact dermatitis) that are often attributed to rubber gloves. OBJECTIVE: To examine allergic and nonallergic contact dermatoses by different methods amongst dental professionals and dental students, more specifically, reactions to natural rubber latex (NRL), rubber additives, and other causative factors. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study we surveyed a total of 444 subjects (dentists, assistants, technicians, and students); 200 agreed to be tested to latex by the standard skin prick test (SPT) and prick-by-prick test, of whom 107 were patch tested to rubber additives (mercapto mix, thiuram mix, carba mix, and N-isopropyl-N-phenyl-4-phenylenediamine [IPPD]). RESULTS: Skin lesions appeared significantly more frequently with longer work experience (p = 0.002; V = 0.181), frequent glove changes (p < 0.001; V = 0.310), and hand washing (p < 0.001; V = 0.263), and in subjects with a history of allergies (atopic dermatitis, allergic rhinitis, allergic conjunctivitis, and others) (p < 0.001; V = 0.183). Positive SPTs to latex occurred in 14/200 subjects (7%), of whom 5/14 subjects (35.7%) were also positive in prick-by-prick tests. Patch tests were positive in 5/104 subjects (4.8%) (mercapto mix 1%, thiuram mix 1.9%, and carba mix 1.9%). CONCLUSION: Only a small number of our subjects were allergic to latex (7%) or rubber additives (4.8%). Thus, self-reported contact dermatoses (during NRL product use) in dental professionals and students are not commonly caused by allergies to latex and rubber additives, as is often assumed, but by other factors.

Profilin, a Change in the Paradigm.

Profilin is a protein that is present in all eukaryotic cells and is responsible for cross-reactivity between pollen, latex, and plant foods. It has been classically acknowledged as a minor or nearly irrelevant allergen, although recent data are changing this conception. The objective of this manuscript is to provide a comprehensive review of published data on the role of this ubiquitous allergen in pollen, latex, and plant food allergy. The patterns of recognition of this minor allergen follow a north-south gradient. Although present in all pollens and vegetables, profilin is significantly associated with allergy to grass pollen and to Cucurbitaceae fruits. Heb v 8, the latex profilin, is usually a marker of profilin allergy in plant food-allergic patients, although it has no clinical relevance in latex allergy. Sensitization to profilin jeopardizes the diagnosis of pollen allergy and selection of immunotherapy, and although component-resolved diagnosis can identify its impact, there are no tailored treatments available. In recent years, several new publications have shown how profilin should be taken into account and, under certain circumstances, considered a marker of severity, an allergen capable of inducing respiratory symptoms, and, in its natural purified form, a potential candidate for etiological treatment of food allergy. Current data on profilin strongly support the need for a shift in the previously accepted paradigm for this allergen. More research should be done to assess the real clinical impact of sensitization in specific populations and to develop therapeutic strategies.

Atopic status and latex sensitization in a cohort of 1,628 students of health care faculties.

BACKGROUND: Atopic diseases have increased since the second half of the previous century. Atopic workers are at higher risk to be sensitized to latex, and the first years of exposure are supposed to be especially risky. OBJECTIVE: To assess atopic status and rate of latex sensitization in health care students starting their exposure to latex gloves. METHODS: We analyzed medical surveillance data from 1,628 health care students from 2010 to 2016. Students completed a questionnaire focused on their previous and current latex exposure and personal and family histories of allergic diseases; underwent skin prick testing with common allergens and latex extract (and/or total and latex-specific immunoglobulin E in serum); and underwent a medical examination. RESULTS: Skin prick test results for common inhalant allergens showed that 807 of 1,628 students (49.6%) had atopy. Atopy by skin prick testing was associated with male sex (odds ratio 1.49, 95% confidence interval 1.18-1.86), a personal history of oculorhinitis or asthma (odds ratio 10.22, 95% confidence interval 7.4-14.13), and atopic eczema (odds ratio 1.87, 95% confidence interval 1.05-3.36) at multivariate regression analysis. Eleven students (0.7% of total population) were found to be sensitized to latex and all had atopy. CONCLUSION: Despite the high prevalence of atopy in health care students of Trieste, the latex sensitization rate is very low and comparable to general population. This is reasonably due to the low exposure to latex gloves at the time of the evaluation and to low latex release from the gloves currently used in our hospital.

Content of Asthmagen Natural Rubber Latex Allergens in Commercial Disposable Gloves.

The use of natural rubber latex (NRL) gloves in many occupations may lead to latex sensitization, allergic asthma, and skin reactions. Due to their good properties and environmental safety NRL gloves are still being used in the healthcare setting, but also in the food industry, by hairdressers, cleaners, etc. The aim of our study was to assess the protein and NRL allergen content in commercial gloves by different methods, including a new assay. Twenty commercially available NRL gloves were analyzed. Protein extraction was performed according to the international standard ASTM D-5712. Total protein content was measured with a modified Lowry method, NRL content with the CAP Inhibition Assay, the Beezhold ELISA Inhibition Assay, and an innovative ELISA with IgY-antibodies extracted from eggs of NRL-immunized hens (IgY Inhibition Assay). We found a high protein content in a range of 215.0-1304.7 µg/g in 8 out of the 20 NRL gloves. Seven of the 20 gloves were powdered, four of them with a high protein content. In gloves with high protein content, the immunological tests detected congruently high levels of NRL allergen. We conclude that a high percentage of commercially available NRL gloves still represent a risk for NRL allergy, including asthma. The modified Lowry Method allows to infer on the latex allergen content.

Jackfruit anaphylaxis in a latex allergic patient.

Several fruits have been reported to crossreact with latex antigen in latex allergy patients but little is known regarding tropical fruits in particular. Here we report the case of a 34-year old nurse who developed anaphylaxis following the ingestion of dried jackfruit (Artocarpus heterophyllus). The patient had a history of chronic eczema on both hands resulting from a regular wear of latex gloves. She and her family also had a history of atopy (allergic rhinitis and/or atopic dermatitis). The results of skin prick tests were positive for jackfruit, latex glove, kiwi and papaya, but the test was negative for banana. While we are reporting the first case of jackfruit anaphylaxis, further research needs to be conducted to identify the mechanisms underlying it. In particular, in-vitro studies need to be designed to understand if the anaphylaxis we describe is due to a cross reactivity between latex and jackfruit or a coincidence of allergy to these 2 antigens.

Dietary intervention for oral allergy syndrome as a treatment in orofacial granulomatosis: a new approach?

BACKGROUND: Orofacial granulomatosis (OFG) is a chronic granulomatous condition of the mouth, face and lips. Recent work demonstrates a high rate of atopy and silver birch sensitisation from skin prick testing (SPT). Oral allergy syndrome (OAS) is an acute oro-pharyngeal IgE mediated reaction, triggered by foods that cross react with pollens, most commonly silver birch. The aim of this study was to determine if patients with OFG and positive SPT to common OAS associated pollens responded to avoidance of cross reactive foods. METHODS: Patients with OFG and positive SPT to silver birch, grass, mugwort, ragweed and latex were required to avoid cross reacting foods, for 6 weeks and, in those who responded, for a total of 12 weeks. All had standardized oral examinations and were given severity scores (SS) at each appointment. RESULTS: Twenty two of 47 (47%) patients had one or more positive SPT and 13/22 completed 6 weeks on the diet. No difference was seen in SS between weeks 0 (14.62 ± 11.16) and 6 (13.31 ± 10.33; P = 0.656). Six of 14 (43%) had significantly improved SS (week 0; 19.17 ± 12.95, week 6; 10.83 ± 4.99, P = 0.027). Five completed 12 weeks and no further improvement was seen (week 6; 11 ± 5.57, week 12; 10.4 ± 9.94; P = 0.068). Two patients required no further treatments. CONCLUSIONS: On an intention to treat basis, only 2/14 patients improved and required no further intervention. Whilst this diet cannot be recommended routinely, the improvement seen in some patients raises questions about the role of OAS in patients with OFG.

Profile of latex sensitization and allergies in children and adolescents with myelomeningocele in São Paulo, Brazil.

BACKGROUND: Latex allergy is an important cause of occupational allergy. In many countries the prevalence of latex allergy is still high and the profile of latex sensitization is unknown. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the frequency of sensitization and allergy to latex in children and adolescents with myelomeningocele and to identify associated risk factors. METHODS: The study included 55 children and adolescents with myelomeningocele followed at a specialized center. In addition to a standard questionnaire and skin prick tests (SPTs) to aeroallergens and total latex, the patients underwent determination of total and specific serum IgE to latex and recombinant allergens. RESULTS: We observed a prevalence of 25% for latex sensitization and of 20% for latex allergy. Twenty-four patients (43.6%) were atopic and the average age for the first reaction to latex was 44.5 months. Cutaneous reactions were the most frequently reported reactions (72.7%). Specific immunoglobulin (Ig) E to rHev b 1, rHev b 3, rHev b 5, rHev b 6.1, and rHev b 6.2 was detected in over 50% of patients allergic to latex. Multivariate analysis showed current asthma, atopy, and having undergone 4 or more operations to be risk factors for latex sensitization. CONCLUSIONS: Our study documented a high prevalence of sensitization and allergy to latex in patients with myelomeningocele. Specific IgE to rHev b 1, rHev b 3, rHev b 5, rHev b 6.1, and rHev b 6.2 was detected in over 50% of children and adolescents with myelomeningocele who are allergic to latex. A history of current asthma, atopy, and having undergone 4 or more operations were independent risk factors for latex allergy.

Bilateral eyelid erythema associated with false eyelash glue.

We report an unusual case of bilateral eyelid erythema caused by eyelash glue. A 22-year-old woman presented with a 3-day history of bilateral eyelid dermatitis after attaching false eyelashes by using latex-containing glue. Slit-lamp examination revealed erythema and swelling of the upper lids of both eyes. The skin prick test was positive for eyelash glue and her total tear IgE score was high. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first report of bilateral eyelid dermatitis caused by eyelash glue.

Diagnosis of latex allergy: the importance of hev B 11.

We present the cases of 5 patients with a positive clinical history of cutaneous symptoms due to contact with latex products. A latex allergological assessment was made through skin prick tests (SPTs) both with commercial latex extracts and extemporaneous glove extracts, and serum-specific IgE to latex and glove-use tests. In addition, serum-specific IgE to recombinant allergens for Hevea brasiliensis was dosed. Molecular diagnostics in association with the glove-use test and, to a lesser extent, the SPTs with glove eluate are useful diagnostic tests to confirm the diagnosis of latex allergy in patients with mucocutaneous symptoms.

Diagnostic value of specific IgE analysis in latex allergy.

BACKGROUND: The precision of the methods used to diagnose latex allergy is of great importance due to false-positive results. Neither the skin prick test (SPT) nor the latex-specific IgE assay has 100% diagnostic accuracy. We analysed the diagnostic value of latex-specific IgE by the first-ever concomitant use of the SPT and nasal provocation test (NPT). METHODS: Twenty-seven latex-sensitive patients (group 1), 46 aeroallergen-sensitive patients (group 2a) and 33 healthy subjects (group 2b) participated in the study. All groups underwent an SPT with latex and aeroallergens and an NPT with latex. Latex-specific IgE and total IgE levels were measured by the ImmunoCAP assay. RESULTS: Latex-specific IgE was positive in 92.6, 30.4 and 9.1% of groups 1, 2a and 2b, respectively. The 11 aeroallergen-sensitive patients in group 1 and all of the patients in group 2a were predominantly sensitised to pollens (grass, weed and tree) and reacted to a lesser degree to house dust mite, moulds and animal dander. Combined pollinosis was remarkably more prevalent in patients with positive latex-specific IgE in group 2a than in those with negative latex-specific IgE (p = 0.001). The NPT was positive in 84.6% of group 1 and negative in all control subjects. The sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value and positive predictive value of the latex-specific IgE assay were 90.9, 72.2, 96.3 and 50%, respectively. CONCLUSION: The high rate of false-positive results for latex-specific IgE by ImmunoCAP should be taken into account when making a diagnosis of latex allergy in patients with pollinosis, especially in those sensitised to more than one pollen species.

Different in vivo reactivity profile in health care workers and patients with spina bifida to internal and external latex glove surface-derived allergen extracts.

BACKGROUND: Allergy to natural rubber latex is a well-recognized health problem, especially among health care workers and patients with spina bifida. Despite latex sensitization being acquired in health institutions in both health care workers and patients with spina bifida, differences in allergen sensitization profiles have been described between these two risk groups. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the in vivo reactivity of health care workers and patients with spina bifida to extracts of internal and external surfaces of latex gloves and also to specific extracts enriched in major allergens for these risk groups. METHODS: Gloves from different manufacturers were used for protein extraction, and salt precipitation and hydrophobic interaction chromatography (HIC) were applied to obtain the enriched latex extracts. The major latex allergens were quantified by an enzyme immunoassay. The extracts obtained were tested in 14 volunteers using skin prick tests (SPT). RESULTS: Latex glove extracts enriched in the hydrophobic allergens that are most often seen in patients with spina bifida were obtained by selective precipitation, whereas HIC produced extracts enriched in the hydrophilic allergens commonly found in health care workers. The health care workers had positive SPTs to glove extracts from internal surfaces and to the hydrophilic allergen-enriched extracts. By contrast, patients with spina bifida had larger skin reactions both to external glove extracts and to the extracts enriched with the hydrophobic major allergens for this risk group. Despite the protein concentration of these extracts being less than half the concentration of the commercial extract, the weal-and-flare reactions were of similar magnitude. CONCLUSION: Using novel latex extracts, our study showed a different in vivo reactivity pattern in health care workers and in patients with spina bifida to extracts of the internal and external surfaces of gloves, which suggests that sensitization may occur by different routes of exposure, and that this influences the allergen reactivity profiles of these risk groups.

Profilin cross-reactive panallergen causes latex sensitization in the pediatric population allergic to pollen.

BACKGROUND: Component-resolved diagnostics (CRD) has been demonstrated to be an excellent new tool for improving the current diagnosis of allergies, and it allows differentiation between polysensitization and cross-reactivity. OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate the role of cross-reactive pollen allergens in pediatric patients living in areas with large amounts of airborne grass pollen grains who are sensitive to grass pollen and latex. METHODS: Serum samples were obtained from 106 children between 3 and 14 years of age diagnosed with allergies to pollen based on clinical history, skin prick tests, and specific immunoglobulin E (IgE). None of them had allergy symptoms to latex or fruits. From these 106 children, 56 patients revealed positive results to Phleum-specific major allergens but not to cross-reactive allergens. The other 50 patients who showed positive specific IgE to Phleum-specific major allergens and to cross-reactive pollen allergens also showed positive results to latex allergens. CRD was carried out by specific IgE quantification using a fluoro-enzyme immunoassay (ImmunoCAPT System). RESULTS: Results demonstrated a positive significant relationship between the specific IgE to Hev b 8 and Phl p 12 and also between the specific IgE to Hev b 8 and latex extract in the group of patients sensitized to species-specific and cross-reactive Phleum allergens. Positive significant relationships were also found between profilin and avocado or peach sensitizations. No other latex allergens gave positive results. CONCLUSION: The apparent sensitization to latex in pediatric patients allergic to grass pollen is caused by the cross-reactive profilin panallergen; however, it is appears not to be clinically relevant.

Component-resolved immunologic modifications, efficacy, and tolerance of latex sublingual immunotherapy in children.

BACKGROUND: As the frequency of natural rubber latex (NRL) allergy has increased, attempts have been made to diminish exposure in high-risk patients. Despite some good results, complete NRL avoidance was not possible, so latex immunotherapy was developed. OBJECTIVE: To examine variations in immunologic parameters, clinical efficacy, and safety of NRL sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT). METHODS: This prospective, observational, open, case-control study included 23 patients (18 patients receiving NRL SLIT and 5 controls). Skin prick, conjunctival provocation, and in-use tests with NRL, specific IgE and specific IgG4 to NRL, specific IgE to recombinant NRL allergens, and basophil activation test (BAT) with whole latex, natural, and recombinant allergens were performed before immunotherapy (T0) and at 6 (T1) and 12 months (T2) of treatment. RESULTS: Patients were sensitized to Hev b 5, Hev b 6.01, and Hev b 6.02 proteins, optimal for SLIT. Changes in specific IgE were not significant. Increases in specific IgG4 between T1 and T2 were larger in the active group. BAT determinations showed significant decreases in recombinant Hev b 6.01 and natural Hev b 6.02 in the active group at T1 but not at T2. Both groups had new sensitizations at T1 but not at T2. The active group had significant increases in the response threshold in the in vivo tests at T1 and T2. Adverse effects were limited to local reactions. CONCLUSION: NRL SLIT is effective and safe in children with latex allergy. Our results suggest that specific IgE determinations and BAT measurements to natural and recombinant latex allergens may allow obtaining an allergen-based diagnosis to help determine specific immunotherapy.

The clinical meaning of positive latex sIgE in patients with food/pollen adverse reactions.

Natural rubber latex allergy (NRL-A) is an international problem of public health. About 50-60% of NRL-A patients may present adverse reactions after ingestion of cross-reacting vegetable foods. This condition, called "Latex-fruit Syndrome", is a matter of research. The aim of our study is to distinguish between clinical/subclinical latex-fruit syndrome and cross-sensitization to latex and food/pollen allergens on the basis of latex recombinant allergens. We studied 51 patients with food hypersensitivity and serological evidence of NRL sensitization. The subjects underwent an accurate allergological evaluation (skin prick test with latex, food and pollen extracts, specific IgE to latex and recombinant allergens, challenge provocation tests). The patients were divided in two groups: group A) 34 patients with clinical and serological latex and fruit/vegetable allergies; group B) 17 patients allergic to fruits/vegetables and/or pollens, with serological, but not clinical NRL-A. All the latex challenge tests resulted positive in group A patients and only two patients of group B presented positive cutaneous challenge tests. Moreover, specific IgE-antibodies were detected to rHev b 5, to rHev b 6.01, to rHev b 6.02 and to rHev b 8 (and other profilins) of group A patients, while in group B we observed a monosensitization to Hev b8, probably linked to a cross-sensitization to pollens and foods. At the present state of knowledge, we need a multi-parametric approach based on a combination of clinical history, diagnostic tests (CRD) and latex challenge tests to make diagnosis of latex-fruit syndrome.