Occupational Animal Allergy.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review explores animal allergen exposure in research laboratories and other work settings, focusing on causes and prevention. RECENT FINDINGS: (1) Consistent with the hygiene hypothesis, there is new evidence that early childhood exposure to pets produces changes in the gut microbiome that likely lead to a lower risk of allergy. (2) Anaphylaxis from laboratory animal bites occurs more frequently than suggested by prior literature. (3) Animal allergens represent an occupational hazard in a wide variety of work settings ranging from fields that work with animals to public settings like schools and public transportation where allergens are brought into or are present in the workplace. Exposure to animal allergens can result in allergy, asthma, and anaphylaxis. Animal allergy has been most studied in the research laboratory setting, where exposure reduction can prevent the development of allergy. Similar prevention approaches need to be considered for other animal work environments and in all settings where animal allergens are present.

Long COVID-ACOEM Guidance Statement.

ABSTRACT: Persistent symptoms are common after acute COVID-19, often referred to as long COVID. Long COVID may affect the ability to perform activities of daily living, including work. Long COVID occurs more frequently in those with severe acute COVID-19. This guidance statement reviews the pathophysiology of severe acute COVID-19 and long COVID and provides pragmatic approaches to long COVID symptoms, syndromes, and conditions in the occupational setting. Disability laws and workers' compensation are also addressed.

Occupational Medicine Physicians Transition to Retirement: An International Survey of Plans, Preparation, and Interests.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study is to understand the needs and interests of occupational medicine physicians (OMPs) as they transition to retirement. METHODS: An electronic survey was distributed through member organizations in the United States (ACOEM), United Kingdom (SOM/FOM), India (IAOH), South Africa (SASOM), and Medichem. RESULTS: Four hundred ninety-seven OMPs at various career stages responded, including 282 from the United States, 97 from the United Kingdom, 36 from India, 30 from South Africa, and 52 from other countries. Two hundred seventy-eight work full-time, 160 part-time, and 58 are not doing paid work. Approximately 60% serve as volunteers. Sixty percent have a written financial plan. Thirty-five percent are very comfortable with their retirement plans. After leaving full-time work, 85% plan to work part-time. There is a high level of interest in learning about opportunities for part-time work and volunteering. CONCLUSIONS: Occupational medicine physicians are very interested in learning more about compensated and uncompensated work in retirement.

Animal bite anaphylaxis, rarely diagnosed but underappreciated.

BACKGROUND: Animal allergies are common, with reactions ranging from rhinoconjunctivitis from respiratory exposure to anaphylaxis, usually from animal bites. Since animal bites are also common, this raises the question of how often anaphylaxis occurs following a bite. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A PubMed, Google, and Google Scholar literature review was performed using keywords such as animal bite anaphylaxis. An inquiry was made to the Anaphylaxis Registry ANAPHYLAXIE.net to see if additional cases were contained in the registry. RESULTS: Approximately 40 cases of animal bite anaphylaxis are described in the literature, mostly from rodent bites (mice, rats, hamsters, and guinea pigs). A survey of laboratory animal bite anaphylaxis in the U.S. identified previously unreported cases, suggesting that most cases are not reported. CONCLUSION: Anaphylaxis from animal bites is rarely reported, but occurs more frequently than suggested by case reports and should be considered in a symptomatic patient following a bite.

The Role and Value of Corporate Medical Directors in Employer Benefits Management: Current Perceptions of Corporate Medical Directors and Benefits Professionals.

OBJECTIVE: Knowledge of health-related employer benefits is considered a core competency by the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. This study seeks to understand how this translates into practice. METHODS: An electronic survey was e-mailed to members of American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine Corporate Medicine and Health and Human Performance Sections; Integrated Benefits Institute; and Employer Health Innovation Roundtable. RESULTS: One hundred nineteen responses were received, including 54 from corporate medical directors (CMDs) and 43 from employee benefits professionals, from a variety of industries. Fifty percent of CMDs reported expertise in designing benefits, but only 25% are engaged with health benefits. The majority of CMDs thought that their involvement was important, while the majority of benefits professionals thought that it was not important. CONCLUSIONS: Many CMDs report having benefits expertise but being underutilized while others report not having expertise.

Prevention of Laboratory Animal Allergy and Impact of COVID-19 on Prevention Programs in the United States: A National Survey 10-Year Update.

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.

Role and Value of the Corporate Medical Director.

ABSTRACT: The role of the Corporate Medical Director (CMD) has received increased attention during the COVID-19 pandemic and has continued to evolve. This updated guidance addresses the role and value of the CMD in: health policy, strategy, and leadership; fostering a culture of health and well-being; supporting worker health and productivity/performance; addressing mental health; collaborating on employer benefits design; developing programs for global health, travel medicine, and remote/extreme environments; overseeing on- and near-site clinics; incorporating digital technology, artificial intelligence, and telehealth in health programs; supporting critical incident preparedness and business continuity planning; addressing workplace hazards; and overseeing periodic executive health examinations.

Worksite Temperature Screening for COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether temperature screening is useful in detecting and reducing workplace transmission of SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: A survey was conducted to determine whether temperature screening successfully identified workers with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) among a convenience sample of medical directors of multinational corporations in a wide range of industries. RESULTS: More than 15 million screenings were performed by 14 companies. Fewer than 700 episodes of fever were identified. Of these, only about 53 cases of COVID-19 were detected. By contrast about 2000 workers with diagnosed COVID-19 were in the workplace and not detected by screening. CONCLUSIONS: One case of COVID-19 was identified by screening for approximately every 40 cases that were missed. Worksite temperature screening was ineffective for detecting workers with COVID-19 and is not recommended.

Laboratory Animal Bite Anaphylaxis: A National Survey: Part 2: Treatment Protocols.

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.

Laboratory Animal Bite Anaphylaxis: A National Survey: Part 1: Case Series and Review of the Literature.

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.

Effect of smoking status on productivity loss.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to describe health-related productivity losses in nonsmokers, former smokers, and current smokers using a large, cross-sectional database of U.S. employees. METHODS: Volunteers completed the Wellness Inventory, an instrument measuring productivity losses related to 11 health conditions affecting employee health. Results are aggregated, dollarized, and reported by smoking group. RESULTS: Current smokers missed more days of work and experienced more unproductive time at work compared with former smokers and nonsmokers. The average annual cost for lost productivity for nonsmokers was 2623 dollars/year compared with 3246 dollars/year for former smokers and 4430 dollars/year for current smokers. More than half the costs were due to unproductive time at work. CONCLUSION: Current smokers incurred the highest productivity losses, which translated into higher costs to employers for current smokers. Costs were lower for former smokers and nonsmokers.

Guidance to employers on integrating e-cigarettes/electronic nicotine delivery systems into tobacco worksite policy.

In recent years, new products have entered the marketplace that complicate decisions about tobacco control policies and prevention in the workplace. These products, called electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) or electronic nicotine delivery systems, most often deliver nicotine as an aerosol for inhalation, without combustion of tobacco. This new mode of nicotine delivery raises several questions about the safety of the product for the user, the effects of secondhand exposure, how the public use of these products should be handled within tobacco-free and smoke-free air policies, and how their use affects tobacco cessation programs, wellness incentives, and other initiatives to prevent and control tobacco use. In this article, we provide a background on e-cigarettes and then outline key policy recommendations for employers on how the use of these new devices should be managed within worksite tobacco prevention programs and control policies.

Primary and secondary allergies to laboratory animals.

Although laboratory animal allergy (LAA) is a significant occupational hazard among workers exposed to laboratory animals, few studies have evaluated long-term risks to workers who remain in the workplace. This short-term focus has obscured the evaluation of subsequent animal allergies (secondary LAA). We analyzed surveillance data from a 10-year LAA prevention program to estimate incidence rates of primary and secondary LAA and to evaluate the effectiveness of the prevention program in reducing the development of primary LAA. The 10-year incidence rates of primary and secondary LAA were 1.34 (95% CI, 0.78-1.90) and 11 (95% CI, 7.4-14.6) cases per 100 person-years, respectively. The annual incidence of primary LAA was reduced from 3.6% to 0 in the first 5 years and did not rise above 1.2% over the remaining years, whereas the incidence of secondary LAA was greater than 8% in most years. These findings suggest that programs effective at preventing primary LAA may need to be evaluated for their effectiveness at protecting against further risk.

Quantifiable impact of the contract for health and wellness: health behaviors, health care costs, disability, and workers' compensation.

Current literature about the long-term impacts of corporate health and wellness programs has brought to light new evidence about the cost savings associated with health-promotion interventions. A critical element in these initiatives is attracting the participation of employees at risk for high benefits use. This study presents evidence that suggests accomplishing this task has economic savings implications to large employers. A health and wellness intervention program offered at GlaxoSmithKline, entitled the Contract for Health and Wellness, is examined. Focusing on a group of 6049 employees, the study examines the impact on health behaviors and on integrated health benefits use of this continuously employed population from 1996 to 2000. Total benefits costs are examined for participants and nonparticipants, and the annual savings associated with the isolated impact of the program are, on average, $613 per participant. Reductions in disability costs accounted for the majority of these savings.

Laboratory animal allergy: an update.

Allergic reactions are among the most common conditions affecting the health of workers involved in the care and use of research animals. Between 11 and 44% of the individuals working with laboratory animals report work-related allergic symptoms. Of those who become symptomatic, 4 to 22% may eventually develop occupational asthma that can persist even after exposure ceases. Allergic symptoms consist of rashes where animals are in contact with the skin, nasal congestion and sneezing, itchy eyes, and asthma (cough, wheezing, and chest tightness). The generation of immunoglobulin E (IgE) antibodies is a prerequisite for the production of allergic symptoms. The mechanism by which IgE antibodies develop is becoming clearer. The propensity to produce IgE is genetically determined, and pre-existing allergy may be a risk factor for the development of laboratory animal allergy (LAA). However, exposure to animal allergens is the major risk factor for the development of LAA. Techniques to measure the airborne concentration of laboratory animal allergens have been developed. Research on animal allergens themselves indicates that many of the mouse and rat urinary proteins belong to a family of proteins called lipocalins, which share sequence homology with antigens of the parasitic agent that causes schistosomiasis. The fact that parasite infections also trigger IgE antibody responses may account for the development of LAA in persons who have never had any previous allergy. The prevention of LAA should be a major goal of an effective health and safety program in the animal research facility, and it can be accomplished by education and training of employees, reduction of exposure (including the use of personal protective gear), and changes in facility design. Medical surveillance programs can also play a role in improving health of individuals working with laboratory research animals. Early recognition of symptoms and evidence of sensitization can lead to interventions to reduce exposure and thereby avoid the long-term health consequences of LAA.

Occupational medicine programs for animal research facilities.

Occupational medicine is a key component of a comprehensive occupational health and safety program in support of laboratory animal research and production facilities. The mission of the department is to maximize employee health and productivity utilizing a population health management approach, which includes measurement and analysis of health benefits utilization. The department works in close cooperation with other institutional health and safety professionals to identify potential risks from exposure to physical, chemical, and biological hazards in the workplace. As soon as exposures are identified, the department is responsible for formulating and providing appropriate medical surveillance programs. Occupational medicine is also responsible for targeted delivery of preventive and wellness services; management of injury, disease, and disability; maintenance of medical information; and other clinic services required by the institution. Recommendations are provided for the organization and content of occupational medicine programs for animal research facilities.

Prevention of laboratory animal allergy in the United States: a national survey.

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.