Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 6 de 6
Filtrar
1.
J Occup Environ Med ; 65(6): 443-448, 2023 06 01.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36728008

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: Laboratory animal allergy (LAA) is common and preventable. This study provides a 10-year update on LAA prevention programs in the United States and the effect of COVID-19 on prevention practices. METHODS: An electronic survey was e-mailed to designated institutional officials at laboratory animal facilities identified by the National Institutes of Health Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare. Results were compared with the prior survey. RESULTS: A total of 141 institutions employing 58,224 laboratory animal workers responded. Results were similar to the prior survey with wide variation in practices. Medical surveillance increased (58%-71%), but N95 respirator use decreased (17%-13%). As before, only 25% of institutions knew their LAA incidence and prevalence rates. COVID-19 had a small time-limited effect on personal protective equipment use. CONCLUSIONS: Universal use of evidence-based practices and improved medical surveillance would provide greater worker protection from LAA.


Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Hipersensibilidad , Animales , Estados Unidos/epidemiología , COVID-19/epidemiología , COVID-19/prevención & control , COVID-19/complicaciones , Animales de Laboratorio , Equipo de Protección Personal/efectos adversos , Laboratorios , Hipersensibilidad/epidemiología , Hipersensibilidad/prevención & control , Hipersensibilidad/etiología
2.
J Occup Environ Med ; 59(8): 728-738, 2017 08.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28796663

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: This study documents previously unreported cases of laboratory animal bite anaphylaxis in animal laboratory facilities in the United States. METHODS: An online survey was e-mailed to designated institutional officials at laboratory animal facilities identified by the National Institutes of Health Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare. RESULTS: One hundred ninety eight organizations responded and 15 organizations indicated that workers had experienced anaphylaxis following an animal bite. Case report forms were completed by nine of these institutions for 14 cases, 13 for rodent bites, and one involving a needlestick from a horse. In half of the cases involving rodents, there was no prior history of animal allergy. All workers had uncomplicated recoveries. Treatment, testing, and work restrictions varied across cases. CONCLUSIONS: While uncommon, anaphylaxis from laboratory animal bites occurs more frequently than suggested by the literature.


Asunto(s)
Anafilaxia/etiología , Animales de Laboratorio , Mordeduras y Picaduras/complicaciones , Mordeduras y Picaduras/inmunología , Traumatismos Ocupacionales/complicaciones , Traumatismos Ocupacionales/inmunología , Adulto , Animales , Humanos , Ratones , Persona de Mediana Edad , Ratas , Estados Unidos , Adulto Joven
3.
J Occup Environ Med ; 59(8): 739-741, 2017 08.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28609353

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: This study documents current treatment protocols for laboratory animal bite anaphylaxis in the United States. METHODS: An online survey was e-mailed to designated institutional officials at laboratory animal facilities identified by the National Institutes of Health Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare. RESULTS: One hundred eighty-nine organizations responded to the question of whether they had a treatment protocol with 32% indicating that they had a protocol. Having a case of anaphylaxis increased the likelihood of having a protocol (61%). Of those with a protocol, 58% included treatment with injectable epinephrine, if clinically indicated. Among all respondents, only 14% reported keeping injectable epinephrine at the location where animal work is performed. CONCLUSIONS: A minority of responding organizations had protocols in place to address laboratory animal bite anaphylaxis. Organizations with workers at risk should consider implementing a protocol for assessment and treatment.


Asunto(s)
Anafilaxia/terapia , Animales de Laboratorio , Mordeduras y Picaduras/complicaciones , Traumatismos Ocupacionales/complicaciones , Política Organizacional , Centros Médicos Académicos/organización & administración , Academias e Institutos/organización & administración , Anafilaxia/diagnóstico , Anafilaxia/etiología , Animales , Industria Farmacéutica/organización & administración , Epinefrina/provisión & distribución , Humanos , Salud Laboral , Encuestas y Cuestionarios , Estados Unidos , Universidades/organización & administración
4.
J Occup Environ Med ; 58(12): 1167-1174, 2016 12.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27930473

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the relationship between exercise frequency and health care costs associated with medical and pharmacy claims among a 10-year employee cohort. METHODS: The relationship between self-reported exercise (days/week) and health care costs was analyzed with negative binomial regression, using an integrated database involving 32,044 person-years and linking employee demographics, health risk appraisal information, and health insurance claims. RESULTS: An association demonstrating exercise frequency lowering health care costs was present in most medical and prescription drug categories and was strongest among employees reporting 2 to 3 and 4 to 5 days/week of exercise. Increased exercise was associated with statistically significant reductions in endocrine disease costs and gastrointestinal prescription drug costs. CONCLUSIONS: This cohort demonstrates lower health care costs in employee populations when exercise frequency is increased. Employers may lower modifiable risk factors for chronic disease and reduce health care costs by promoting exercise among their employee population.


Asunto(s)
Ejercicio Físico , Costos de la Atención en Salud , Centros Médicos Académicos , Adulto , Costos de los Medicamentos , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Salud Laboral , Estudios Retrospectivos , Universidades
5.
J Occup Environ Med ; 54(5): 558-63, 2012 May.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-22504957

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: Respiratory allergy to laboratory animals is a common and preventable occupational health problem. This study documents current laboratory animal allergy (LAA) prevention programs in the United States. METHODS: An online survey was e-mailed to designated institutional officials at laboratory animal facilities identified by the National Institutes of Health Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare. RESULTS: A total of 198 organizations responded and more than 80% required the use of uniforms and gloves to control exposure. Respirators were required by 25% of organizations. Medical surveillance was mandated by 58% of organizations (70% for organizations with at least 100 employees working with animals). Work restriction practices varied. Only 25% of organizations reported knowing the prevalence (range: 0% to 75%) and 29% reported knowing the incidence of LAA (range: 0% to 18%). CONCLUSIONS: There is broad variation in policy and practice to prevent LAA. An evidence-based consensus would ensure greater protection of workers.


Asunto(s)
Animales de Laboratorio/inmunología , Asma Ocupacional/prevención & control , Enfermedades Profesionales/prevención & control , Exposición Profesional/prevención & control , Vigilancia de la Población , Academias e Institutos/organización & administración , Animales , Asma Ocupacional/epidemiología , Asma Ocupacional/inmunología , Investigación Biomédica , Industria Farmacéutica/organización & administración , Guantes Protectores/estadística & datos numéricos , Encuestas Epidemiológicas , Humanos , Enfermedades Profesionales/epidemiología , Enfermedades Profesionales/inmunología , Política Organizacional , Dispositivos de Protección Respiratoria/estadística & datos numéricos , Encuestas y Cuestionarios , Estados Unidos/epidemiología , Universidades/organización & administración , Ventilación/estadística & datos numéricos
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA
...