Evaluation and comparison of commercially available latex extracts for skin prick tests.

BACKGROUND: Crude latex extracts are commonly used in skin prick tests (SPT) for the diagnosis of natural rubber latex (NRL) allergy. Nevertheless, variations in protein and allergen composition between latex extracts from different manufacturers can hamper a correct diagnosis. OBJECTIVES: To analyze the heterogeneity of proteins and allergens in latex extracts from 7 different manufacturers and to assess its relevance in the diagnosis of latex allergy. METHODS: Seven latex SPT extracts were analyzed for protein content using sodium dodecyl sulfate polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (SDS-PAGE). The 4 major allergens Hev b 1, Hev b 3, Hev b 5, and Hev b 6.02 were also quantified using enzyme immunoassay. All commercial extracts were tested for their in vitro allergenic capacity using microarray inhibition assays and for their ability to induce biological reactivity in latex-allergic patients undergoing SPT. RESULTS: The protein content of the extracts varied widely from 8.0 microg/mL to 526.5 microg/mL. SDS-PAGE revealed broad differences in protein profiles between the extracts. Marked variability in the contents of all 4 major allergens was observed, and Hev b 3 and Hev b 5 were undetectable in some extracts. Microarray inhibition assays and SPT demonstrated relevant differences in allergenic capacity between the extracts. CONCLUSIONS: The marked heterogeneity in protein and allergen content of latex extracts from different manufacturers could explain the broad spectrum of SPT results recorded. Our findings suggest that the extracts used for the diagnosis of latex allergy should be improved and standardized.

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.