Contact allergy to rubber accelerators in consecutively patch tested Danish eczema patients: A retrospective observational study from 1990 to 2019.

BACKGROUND: Rubber accelerators are used in the production of rubber gloves and may cause contact allergy. OBJECTIVES: To estimate long-term trend and prevalence of contact allergy to rubber accelerators for a 30-year period in Denmark, high-risk occupations, and exposures. METHODS: Data from all patients with contact dermatitis consecutively patch tested at the department of Skin and Allergy Gentofte hospital with the rubber accelerators from the European baseline series (EBS) from 1990 to 2019, were analysed. Further, patients under suspicion of rubber accelerator contact allergy were additionally patch-tested with rubber accelerators from the specialised rubber series from 2005 to 2019 and these were additional extracted. RESULTS: The overall prevalence of contact allergy to one or more of the rubber accelerators from the EBS series was 2.7% with a significant decline in the first 12-years, followed by a stable frequency in the past 18-years. Associations with occupational contact dermatitis, hand dermatitis, and leg/foot dermatitis were found. Wet-work occupations were most often affected and gloves the most frequent exposure. CONCLUSIONS: Contact allergy to one or more of the rubber accelerators from the EBS is frequent and has been unchanged for several decades, which calls for prevention.

Integrated approaches to prevent exposure risks related to latex-derived products.

Natural rubber latex is a widely used industrial raw material to produce many consumer and commercial products. Chronic exposures to latex allergenic proteins residual in the finished products can promote hypersensitive immune responses, which affects millions of workers and the general public worldwide. Research has shown the average prevalence of latex allergy worldwide remains approximately 10% among healthcare workers, 7% among susceptible patients, and 4% among general population. Although most effective in preventing latex allergy, completely avoiding contact to latex-derived products is extremely challenging, given the fact that millions of products possibly contain latex, but few are regulated and properly labeled. Due to the difficulty to assure a product completely absent of latex allergens, the United States Food and Drug Administration has recommended to stop using labels like "latex-free" or "does not contain latex." Here we evaluate published data, industrial standards and regulations, identify possible countermeasures, and propose an integrated strategy, including some more practicable approaches (e.g., education/training, product labeling, the use of proper personal protective equipment, occupational selection, and searchable product database) and novel medical treatments (e.g., immunotherapy) to help decreasing latex allergy prevalence.

An Investigation of Latex Sensitivity and Respiratory Complaints in Workers in a Rubber-Based Material Manufacturing Industry.

OBJECTIVE: To present study aimed to investigate the prevalence of latex sensitivity in a workplace that produced rubber-based vehicle seals. METHOD: The serum latex-specific IgE levels, respiratory complaints, PFT, serum interleukin (IL)-4, IL-5, IL-8, IL-10, IL-13 levels of all male workers (n = 108) exposed to latex in the workplace, which produced rubber seals, were compared with the control group (n = 52). RESULTS: The rates of latex-specific IgE >0.10 kU/L in the workers and control group were 12.3% and 4.1%, respectively ( P = 0.147). There was no difference in IL-4, IL-5, IL-10, and IL-13 levels between latex-specific IgE-positive, and -negative participants. CONCLUSION: Latex sensitivity was higher in workers who used rubber as a raw material than in the control group but it was not statistically significant.

Perioperative anaphylactic reactions to central venous and pulmonary artery catheters containing chlorhexidine, sulfadiazine, or latex: a historical cohort study.

PURPOSE: Central venous catheters (CVCs) and pulmonary artery catheters (PACs) containing chlorhexidine, silver sulfadiazine, or latex can cause perioperative anaphylaxis. We examined the incidence of and outcomes associated with anaphylaxis caused by CVCs/PACs. METHODS: In a historical cohort study, we retrospectively identified adult patients fitted with CVCs/PACs at the Mayo Clinics in Minnesota, Arizona, and Florida from 1 January 2008 to 1 March 2018. Potential and confirmed cases of perioperative anaphylactic reactions were individually reviewed and classified. RESULTS: During the study period, 39,505 procedures were performed during which CVCs/PACs were inserted. Of these, 2,937 patients with pre-existing chlorhexidine, sulfonamide (sulfa), and/or latex allergies had CVCs/PACs inserted that contained these substances. Perioperative anaphylaxis, in which CVCs/PACs were the confirmed or potential causative agent, occurred during 53 procedures. Seven patients had a preoperatively reported sulfa or latex allergy; no patients had a preoperative chlorhexidine allergy. Six of the seven patients with reported allergies to sulfa or latex had a CVC/PAC inserted that contained these substances. Twenty-four patients with anaphylaxis had postoperative allergic disease consultation; ten of these (42%) underwent skin testing. CONCLUSION: Perioperative anaphylactic reactions related to CVCs/PACs containing chlorhexidine, silver sulfadiazine, or latex were rare in this large historical cohort study. We identified 2,937 patients with pre-existing chlorhexidine, sulfa, and/or latex allergies and had CVCs/PACs inserted that contained these substances. Although few cases of perioperative anaphylaxis attributable to these substances were observed in patients with corresponding allergies, the potential for substantial complication exists. Providers should be aware of the potential for these hidden exposures.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Les cathéters veineux centraux (CVC) et les cathéters artériels pulmonaires (CAP) contenant de la chlorhexidine, de la sulfadiazine argentique ou du latex peuvent provoquer une anaphylaxie périopératoire. Nous avons examiné l'incidence et les devenirs associés à l'anaphylaxie causée par les CVC/CAP. MéTHODE: Dans une étude de cohorte historique, nous avons identifié rétrospectivement des patients adultes chez lesquels un CVC/CAP avait été installé aux cliniques Mayo du Minnesota, de l'Arizona et de la Floride du 1er janvier 2008 au 1er mars 2018. Les cas potentiels et confirmés de réactions anaphylactiques périopératoires ont été examinés et classés individuellement. RéSULTATS: Au cours de la période à l'étude, 39 505 interventions ont été réalisées au cours desquelles des CVC/CAP ont été insérés. Parmi celles-ci, des CVC/CAP contenant de la chlorhexidine, des sulfamides et/ou du latex ont été insérés chez 2937 patients présentant des allergies préexistantes à ces substances. Une anaphylaxie périopératoire, dont l'agent causal confirmé ou potentiel était le CVC/CAP, s'est produite dans 53 interventions. Sept patients présentaient une allergie aux sulfamides ou au latex signalée avant l'opération; aucun patient n'a eu d'allergie préopératoire à la chlorhexidine. Un CVC/CAP contenant des sulfamides ou du latex a été inséré chez six des sept patients ayant signalé des allergies à ces substances. Vingt-quatre patients atteints d'anaphylaxie ont eu une consultation postopératoire pour une maladie allergique; dix d'entre eux (42 %) ont subi des tests cutanés. CONCLUSION: Les réactions anaphylactiques périopératoires liées aux CVC/CAP contenant de la chlorhexidine, de la sulfadiazine argentique ou du latex étaient rares dans cette vaste étude de cohorte historique. Nous avons identifié 2937 patients présentant des allergies préexistantes à la chlorhexidine, aux sulfamides et/ou au latex chez lesquels des CVC/CAP contenant ces substances ont été insérés. Bien que peu de cas d'anaphylaxie périopératoire attribuable à ces substances aient été observés chez des patients présentant des allergies correspondantes, il existe un risque de complication importante. Les fournisseurs doivent être conscients du potentiel de ces expositions cachées.

Impact of individual molecular components in determining primary sensitization to latex.

Allergy to natural rubber latex emerged as one of the main allergies at the beginning among some professional groups and the general population. Sensitization and development of latex allergy have been attributed to exposure to products containing residual latex proteins. The prevailing cross-reactivity of latex proteins with other food allergens is of great concern. Numerous purified allergens are currently available, which greatly help in patient management, thus determining their specific profile. We conducted a multicenter study to investigate changes, from the ROC analysis, in the characteristics of patients with latex allergy by measuring its major protein components. Sensitization to latex proteins is crucial because it highlights the cross reactivity to inhalants (pollen) and food (fruit). It is very essential in an accurate and specific clinical setting.

Clinical and quality of life assessment in patients with latex allergy during COVID-19 pandemic: Possible protective role of continuous latex immunotherapy.

Introduction: During COVID-19 pandemic, the massive use of Personal Protective Equipment could provoke severe adverse reactions in latex allergy patients and could negatively affect their quality of life. Methods: Trough a survey the study aimed: (a) to evaluate the incidence of allergic reactions in patients with latex allergy during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic; (b) to evaluate the protective role of continuous latex sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) during this period; and (c) to evaluate quality of life of natural rubber latex allergy (NRLA) patients during the pandemic. Results: 67 patients (9 males and 58 females, mean age of 45.9 ± 11.4 years) suffering from latex allergy were included in the present study. We recorded among our patients 13 cases (34.2%) of urticarial/angioedema (U/A), 9 cases (23.6%) of respiratory symptoms (dyspnoea, shortness of breath and wheezing) and 7 cases (18.4%) of anaphylaxis. In patients who underwent continuous SLIT, we observed less cases of U/A (p < 0.001), respiratory symptoms (p < 0.001), anaphylaxis (p = 0.003), hospitalizations (p = 0.014) and a lower therapy administration. We compared the results of SF-36 questionnaire in patients who underwent continuous and not-continuous SLIT with a significance differences score between these two groups. Conclusions: Our study is the first that investigated the clinical and quality of life effects of COVID-19 pandemic in NRLA patients.

CoronaVac/Sinovac COVID-19 Vaccine-Related Hypersensitivity Reactions and Second-Dose Vaccine Administration: Tertiary Allergy Center Experience.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic has caused a global health crisis. To prevent the disease, the Ministry of Health of Turkey gained approval for the CoronaVac COVID-19 vaccine for emergency use as the first-line. This study aimed to evaluate patients who developed hypersensitivity reactions (HRs) due to the CoronoVac vaccine and to share our experience of administering the second dose of vaccine to these patients. METHODS: The study group included the patients who presented to the Ege University Allergy and Immunology Division between January and May 2021. Demographic data, atopic status, allergic reactions to the first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine and the route of second-dose vaccine administrations were recorded. RESULTS: A total of 7 patients (four healthcare professionals), 6 (86%) of whom were women, with an average age of 53.4 years, were included in the study. The rate of allergic reactions among Ege University health workers was 0.036% (2/5,558). Six of our patients had a history of additional allergic diseases and comorbid diseases. None had any allergic reactions to previous vaccinations and latex allergy. Reactions developed commonly on the skin, as generalized urticaria/angioedema and pruritus. The severity of the reactions was evaluated as mild in 2, moderate in 3, and severe in 2 cases. The second-dose CoronaVac was safely administered by using a gradually increase dose in a total of 6 patients. CONCLUSION: In patients with HRs due to Sinovac in the first dose, the second dose can be safely performed using a gradually increased dose.

[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 allergy: therapeutic options]. / Alergia al látex: opciones terapéuticas.

Latex allergy is a major problem worldwide due to both the severity of the symptomatology it produces and the risk groups that are exposed to it. Complete avoidance is difficult, if not impossible, due to its ubiquity. Natural rubber latex (NRL) is a natural polymer that is released by the Hevea brasiliensis (Hev b) tree, which functions as a protective sealant. It is currently used for the manufacture of health-care products such as tube caps, pistons, masks, and cannulas. The purpose of this review is to highlight the epidemiological, clinical, and diagnostic aspects of NRL allergy, and to conduct a review of the literature on its management through a bibliographic search of articles in databases such as PubMed, Cochrane, UpToDate, and Google Scholar, up to September 2021. About 121 articles were reviewed, of which 76 were used as a reference. We concluded that latex allergy is an entity for which its treatment, even nowadays, is avoidance, despite having a worldwide prevalence of 4.3 % and representing a surgical complication in about 20 % of surgeries with an anaphylactic reaction and a mortality rate that can reach 9 %. The only treatment that could modify the evolution of this disease is immunotherapy, but there are no standardized extracts yet and it has not been possible to determine the safest and most effective way to apply it.

La alergia al látex es un problema importante en el mundo debido a la gravedad de la sintomatología que produce y a los grupos de riesgo expuestos. La evitación completa es difícil, casi imposible, dada su ubicuidad. El látex de caucho natural (LCN) es un polímero secretado por el árbol Hevea brasiliensis (Hev b), que funciona como sellador protector. Actualmente se usa para fabricar productos para el cuidado de la salud como tapones para tubos, pistones, mascarillas y cánulas. El objetivo de esta revisión es resaltar los aspectos epidemiológicos, clínicos y diagnósticos de la alergia al LCN, y realizar una revisión de la literatura sobre su manejo, mediante una búsqueda bibliográfica de artículos en bases de datos como PubMed, Cochrane, UpToDate y Google Académico, hasta septiembre del 2021. Se revisaron aproximadamente 121 artículos, de los cuales se utilizaron 76 como referencia. Concluimos que la alergia al látex es una entidad cuyo tratamiento aún hoy en día es la evitación, a pesar de tener una prevalencia mundial de 4.3 % y representar una complicación quirúrgica de cerca de 20 % de las cirugías con una reacción anafiláctica y una mortalidad que puede llegar a 9 %. El único tratamiento que podría modificar la evolución de esta enfermedad es la inmunoterapia, pero aún no se cuenta con extractos estandarizados y no se ha podido determinar la vía más segura y efectiva.

Occupational allergic contact dermatitis: A 24-year, retrospective cohort study from Turkey.

BACKGROUND: Limited data exist on occupational allergic contact dermatitis (OACD) in Turkey. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the epidemiologic profile of OACD in Turkey. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study on 294 patients with OACD among 2801 consecutively patch-tested patients in the Allergy Unit of the Dermatology Department of Istanbul Faculty of Medicine between 1996 and 2019. RESULTS: The overall prevalence of OACD was 10.5%, showing a male predominance. OACD was most frequently seen in construction workers (45.2%), followed by hairdressers, metalworkers, health care workers, and miscellaneous. The main relevant allergens were chromium in cement, thiurams in rubber gloves, hairdressing chemicals, resins/glues/plastics, metals, isothiazolinones, and fragrances. Hands were the mainly involved site (95.6%). Airborne eczema was observed in 21.4%. Hand and foot eczema and co-sensitizations to chrome and thiuram and chrome and cobalt were significantly associated with being a construction worker. Sensitizations to isothiazolinones in house painters, ammonium persulfate and p-phenylenediamine in hairdressers, and colophonium increased after 2010. CONCLUSION: This was the largest group of data on OACD from Turkey, reflecting the importance of rubber glove allergy in all occupations and the striking increase in ammonium persulfate allergy among hairdressers. Chrome and cobalt were still the main cement allergens in Turkey, where the cement directive is not yet in force.

Prevalence of latex sensitivity and allergy among physicians of a residency program in a children´s hospital of Buenos Aires. / Prevalencia de sensibilidad y alergia al látex en médicos de un programa de residencia de un hospital pediátrico de Buenos Aires.

Introduction: International publications estimate a 7 %-17 % latex sensitization (LS) prevalence among health care workers, but values in Argentina are unknown. Objectives: To estimate the prevalence of latex sensitization and allergy among residents of a children's hospital using the immediate-reading prick test and to assess associated risk factors in this population. Population and methods: Cross-sectional study. Residents, trainers, and Chief residents of the Departments of Pediatrics, Orthopedics, Surgery and Intensive Care were included between June and October 2017. All of them were administered a questionnaire (assessing atopic diseases and other risk factors) and underwent the immediatereading prick test. Total and latex-specific immunoglobulin E levels were determined in a subgroup of individuals (first- and fourth-year residents, surgical specialties, and intensive care). Results: A total of 113 participants were included. LS prevalence was 7.96 % (95 % confidence interval: 3.70-14.58); 4 participants were allergic to latex. A history of latex-related symptoms (LRS) was significantly associated with a positive result in the immediate-reading prick test (p = 0.0196; odds ratio: 6.13; 95 % confidence interval: 1.44-26.04). There was no association between LS and the year of the residency program. Conclusions: The observed LS prevalence was 7.9 %. There was a significant relation between a history of LRS and a positive result in the immediate-reading prick test.

Introducción. Publicaciones internacionales estiman una prevalencia de sensibilización al látex (SL) en el personal de salud del 7 % al 17 %, y se desconocen los valores en la Argentina. Objetivos. Estimar la prevalencia de sensibilización y alergia al látex en médicos residentes de un hospital pediátrico mediante la prueba epicutánea de lectura inmediata y evaluar factores de riesgo asociados en dicha población. Población y métodos. Estudio de corte transversal. Se incluyeron los residentes, jefes e instructores de Pediatría, Ortopedia, Cirugía y Terapia Intensiva entre junio y octubre de 2017. En todos, se realizó un cuestionario (que evaluó enfermedades atópicas y otros factores de riesgo) y la prueba epicutánea de lectura inmediata. En un subgrupo (residentes de 1ero, 4to año, especialidades quirúrgicas y terapia) se dosó inmunoglobulina E total y específica para látex. Resultados. Se incluyeron 113 participantes. La prevalencia de SL fue del 7,96 % (intervalo de confianza del 95 %: 3,70-14,58); 4 participantes resultaron alérgicos al látex. El antecedente de síntomas relacionados con el látex se asoció significativamente con prueba epicutánea de lectura inmediata + (p = 0,0196; odds ratio 6,13; intervalo de confianza del 95 %: 1,44-26,04). No hubo asociación entre SL y año de residencia. Conclusiones. La prevalencia de SL hallada fue del 7,9 %. Se evidenció una relación significativa entre el antecedente de SRL y un resultado de prueba epicutánea de lectura inmediata positiva.

Contact urticaria and protein contact dermatitis in the Finnish Register of Occupational Diseases in a period of 12 years.

BACKGROUND: Although occupational contact urticaria (CU) and protein contact dermatitis (PCD) are considered frequent among workers with exposure to proteinaceous materials, data on occupations at risk and the main causes of these occupational skin diseases are relatively limited. OBJECTIVES: To report the causative agents and risk occupations for CU and PCD in the Finnish Register of Occupational Diseases (FROD). METHODS: We retrieved from the FROD all recognized cases of CU/PCD in the years 2005-2016. RESULTS: With 570 cases, CU and PCD constituted 11% of all recognized cases of occupational skin diseases in the study period. Occupations with the highest incidence of CU/PCD included bakers, chefs and cooks, farmers and farm workers, veterinarians, gardeners, and hairdressers. The most common causative agents were cow dander and flour and grain, followed by natural rubber latex (NRL) and other food. In food-related occupations, wheat and other flours were by far the most common cause of CU/PCD, with 76 cases, whereas fish and other animal-derived food caused 33 and other plant-derived food caused 23 cases. CONCLUSIONS: Apart from the Finnish peculiarity of cow dander allergy, a striking finding was a large share of CU/PCD caused by flours in food handlers as compared to other food.

Current state of occupational latex allergy.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: During the 1980s, natural rubber latex (NRL) emerged as a major cause of occupational allergy and asthma, especially in healthcare workers using powdered NRL gloves. Increased recognition of NRL allergies and transfer of research findings into prevention strategies resulted into an almost elimination of this health problem. Here, the current knowledge on allergens, their use in diagnostics, prevalence data of occupational NRL allergy and the status of prevention strategy are summarized. RECENT FINDINGS: While the current studies conducted in high-income countries show that prevention measures have reduced NRL allergy, this does not yet apply worldwide. For latex allergy diagnosis, it is important that recombinant allergens as reliable tools are available, because in several European countries and the United States, NRL skin prick test extracts and powdered latex gloves for bronchial challenge test are no longer commercially available, leading to a deficit in diagnostic tools. Due to the fact that latex is suitable with good properties as a raw material for gloves, alternatives with significantly lower protein content and without cross-reactive structures to latex proteins are sought. SUMMARY: Awareness of the sensitization risk associated with the use of latex gloves should still be present in all occupational settings.

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.

Skin reactions to latex in dental professionals - first Croatian data.

Purpose. To determine the prevalence of undesirable skin reactions to latex in dental professionals and students of the School of Dental Medicine in Zagreb, Croatia. Methods. Our research included 444 participants, of which 200 agreed to undergo a skin prick test (SPT). All participants answered a questionnaire in which we asked about incidence of skin lesions, duration of occupational exposure to latex, localization of skin lesions and symptoms. Statistical analysis of the questionnaire and test results was then carried out. Results. Of the total 444 participants surveyed, 249 (56.1%) reported lesions on their skin (professionals 64.8%, students 6.1-58.5%). From the questionnaire, 239 (96.0%) respondents reported lesions on the hands and fingers, mostly in the form of erythema (37.0%) and occasional dryness of skin (29.0%). Positive SPT results were found in 14 (7.0%) out of the 200 respondents who underwent the test. Conclusions. While a large number of subjects (56.1%) reported skin lesions when using latex products at their workplace, the SPT test was positive only in 7.0%. The results show that the prevalence of self-reported skin lesions was significantly related to the length of occupational exposure, with a substantial effect size (p < 0.001; V = 0.334).

Latex Allergy Risks Live On.

Reduction in the prevalence of IgE-mediated allergy to latex proteins from gloves in patients may lead to lax attention by health care personnel to avoid use of latex products in latex-allergic subjects. Recent evidence from the Pennsylvania Patient Safety Reporting System shows an alarming continuation of adverse events mostly from latex urinary catheters. We are strongly advocating that health care personnel must continue to pay close attention to avoidance of latex in patients with a history of latex allergy.

[Latex sensitization and allergy in Hospital General de Mexico surgery residents]. / Sensibilización y alergia a látex en residentes quirúrgicos del Hospital General de México.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of latex allergy ranges from 0.8 to 6.5% and is the second cause of perioperative anaphylaxis. The main risk factors are being a health worker or latex producer, hours of latex gloves or products usage, exposure to other hand irritants, history of atopy, neural tube closure defects or numerous surgeries at early age. OBJECTIVE: To determine the frequency of latex sensitization in resident physicians of the Hospital General de México surgical area. METHODS: Prospective, cross-sectional, descriptive study where skin prick tests were applied to residents of the surgical area of the Hospital General de México, which depends on the Ministry of Health and is located in Mexico City. RESULTS: Ninety-two subjects were included and had skin tests practiced, with 11 surgical specialties participating. Latex sensitization in this population was 11.9%, whereas the presence of latex allergy was 10.8%. CONCLUSIONS: A high frequency of latex sensitization and allergy was demonstrated in Hospital General de Mexico surgery residents, which indicates the need for policies and procedures to be developed for health workers with latex allergy, as well as continuous training of employees on latex allergy.

Antecedentes: La prevalencia de alergia al látex oscila entre 0.8 y 6.5 % y es la segunda causa de anafilaxia perioperatoria. Los principales factores de riesgo son ser trabajador de la salud o productor de látex, horas de utilización de guantes o productos de látex, exposición a otros irritantes de manos, antecedente de atopia, defectos del cierre del tubo neural o numerosas cirugías a edad temprana. Objetivo: Determinar la frecuencia de sensibilización al látex en médicos residentes del área quirúrgica del Hospital General de México. Métodos: Estudio clínico prospectivo, transversal, descriptivo, mediante la realización de prueba de punción cutánea a residentes del área quirúrgica del Hospital General de México, Secretaría de Salud, Ciudad de México. Resultados: Se incluyeron 92 sujetos a los cuales se les realizó pruebas cutáneas, participando 11 especialidades quirúrgicas. La sensibilización al látex en esta población fue de 11.9 % y la presencia de alergia al látex de 10.8 %. Conclusiones: Se demuestró alta frecuencia de sensibilización y alergia al látex en los residentes quirúrgicos del Hospital General de México, lo que indica la necesidad de desarrollar políticas y procedimientos para los trabajadores de salud con alergia al látex y la capacitación continua de empleados sobre alergia al látex.

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.

[Latex allergy self-report in medical students: prevalence and associated factors]. / Autorreporte de alergia al látex en estudiantes de medicina: prevalencia y factores asociados.

BACKGROUND: Prevalence of latex allergy in medical students is not known. OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of self-reported latex allergy and associated factors in medical students. METHODS: Cross-sectional, analytical study of students with or without self-reported latex allergy. By means of a structured questionnaire, past personal and family history of allergic disease, time and frequency of exposure to latex gloves and symptoms after exposure to products or foods associated with latex allergy were inquired. Logistic regression models were carried out. RESULTS: Out of 854 subjects, 431 (50.5%) were females. Median age was 21 years. Overall prevalence of latex allergy was 4.3% (95% CI = 3.1 to 5.9). Associated risk factors were age (OR = 1.37; 95% CI = 1.05 to 1.79), personal history of atopic dermatitis (OR = 7.32; 95% CI = 3.14 to 17.08), use of gloves ≥ 15/week (OR = 2.59; 95% CI = 1.17 to 5.76), use of latex products (OR = 5.76; 95% CI = 2.15 to 15.49) and fruit allergy (OR = 3.24; 95% CI = 1.27 t o8.27). CONCLUSION: Four out of a hundred students reported latex allergy. Age, personal history of atopic dermatitis, higher frequency of exposure to latex gloves and history of fruit allergy were risk factors for self-report latex allergy.

Antecedentes: La prevalencia de la alergia al látex se desconoce en los estudiantes de medicina. Objetivo: Determinar prevalencia y factores asociados con autorreporte de alergia al látex en estudiantes de medicina. Métodos: Estudio transversal de estudiantes con o sin autorreporte de alergia al látex. Mediante cuestionario estructurado se indagó historia personal y familiar de enfermedad alérgica; tiempo y frecuencia de exposición a guantes de látex y síntomas tras la exposición a productos o alimentos relacionados con alergia al látex. Se realizaron modelos de regresión logística. Resultados: De 854 sujetos, 431 (50.5 %) fueron mujeres. La mediana de edad fue de 21 años. La prevalencia global de alergia al látex fue 4.3 % (IC 95 % = 3.1 a 5.9). Los factores de riesgo relacionados fueron edad (RM = 1.37; IC 95 % = 1.05 a 1.79), historia personal de dermatitis atópica (RM = 7.32; IC 95 % = 3.14 a 17.08), uso de guantes ≥ 15/semana (RM = 2.59; IC 95 % = 1.17 a 5.76), uso de productos con látex (RM = 5.76; IC 95 % = 2.15 a 15.49) y alergia a frutas (RM = 3.24; IC 95 % = 1.27 a 8.27). Conclusión: Cuatro de cada 100 estudiantes reportaron alergia al látex. La edad, la historia personal de dermatitis atópica, la mayor frecuencia de exposición a guantes de látex y antecedente de alergia a frutos fueron factores de riesgo.