New insights into laboratory animal exposures and allergic responses

Prevalence of occupational allergy in medical researchers exposed to laboratory animals

Allergy to laboratory animals is a well known occupational hazard and remains a health concern for individuals in contact with lab animals. This study evaluates the prevalence of allergy symptoms among medical researchers exposed to laboratory animals. We analyzed data from a cross-sectional survey, involving subjects (n=169, 21-59 yr), working in Kochi Medical School, Japan. They were asked to fill out a questionnaire to evaluate symptoms related to contact with laboratory animals. The overall response rate was 86.2%. The prevalence of laboratory animal allergy was 17.6%. The symptoms most reported were allergic rhino-conjunctivitis and asthma. A small number of the subjects received education on the allergy issue and 62.5% of subjects with an allergy to laboratory animals claimed to have atopy. Protection from animal allergens should be a high priority for institutions using lab animals; providing continuous education to animal handlers would be meaningful to reduce and control exposure.

Cat and dog sensitization in pet shop workers

BACKGROUND

Sensitivity and symptoms related to animal proteins have been investigated in various occupational groups. However, data from pet shops are limited.

AIMS

To investigate rates of sensitivity to cats and dogs among pet shop workers, to assess the relationship between sensitivity, allergen levels and symptoms and to investigate whether passive transport from pet shops to homes is possible.

METHODS

Pet shop workers underwent interviews with a questionnaire adapted from the European Community Respiratory Health Survey. Dust samples for allergen detection were collected from pet shops using a vacuum cleaner. Skin tests were performed with common allergens. Dust samples were also obtained from the houses of 7 workers and 12 control subjects.

RESULTS

Fifty-one workers from 20 pet shops were included in the study. Thirteen (25%) workers reported work-related symptoms. Four workers had sensitivity to animal allergens. The mean cat/dog allergen levels from pet shops were 15.7 and 3.2 µg/g, respectively. There was no significant relationship between cat/dog allergen levels and work-related symptoms and sensitivity to pets. None of the dust samples collected from the homes of pet shop workers contained cat allergens. Dog allergen was detected in only one house (0.58 µg/g). Neither cat nor dog allergens were found in the homes of the 12 control subjects.

CONCLUSIONS

Although a quarter of pet shop workers reported work-related symptoms, sensitivity to cat and dog was low. These findings suggest that work-related symptoms may be due to other factors than cat and dog sensitivity.

Pet shop workers: exposure, sensitization, and work-related symptoms

BACKGROUND

Allergy to laboratory animals is a well-known occupational hazard. The aim was to investigate the frequency of allergic sensitization and respiratory symptoms among pet shop staff and to document their work environment.

METHODS

Subjects (n = 59) from 24 pet shops were investigated with a questionnaire and lung function tests and skin prick tests against a panel of common inhalant and pet shop allergens. Blood samples were taken for immunoglobulin E (IgE) and IgE antibodies against Phadiatop and specific pet shop allergens. Personal airborne rodent allergen (n = 40) and endotoxin exposure (n = 40) was measured during work. Airborne rodent allergens were also collected using petri dishes at work (n = 40) and at home (n = 45).

RESULTS

Fifty-three percent reported nasal symptoms, 34% eye symptoms, and 22% had experienced symptoms indicating asthma. However, only four workers (7%) were previously diagnosed with asthma. One-third reported respiratory symptoms at work, mostly against rodents, birds, insects, and hay, and 29% were sensitized to work-related allergens, mainly rodents and fodder insects, e.g., Zophobas. Atopy and total IgE > 100 kU/l increased prevalence of pet shop sensitization [prevalence ratio (PR) 17 and 5.5, respectively], and atopy increased work-related symptoms (PR 3.2). Endotoxin levels were similar between shops with and without rodents. Exposure to animals outside of work was extensive.

CONCLUSIONS

A third of the pet shop workers reported airway symptoms at work or were sensitized, sometimes to unusual pet shop allergens, especially among atopics. The findings stress the importance of improving the knowledge of health risks and allergen avoidance measures among pet shop staff.

Occupational allergy to birds within the population of Polish bird keepers employed in zoo gardens

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the risk factors for the development of occupational allergy to birds among Polish zoo garden keepers.

METHODS

A total of 200 bird zookeepers employed in the Polish zoo gardens in KLódź, Warsaw, Gdańsk, Chorzów and Płock and exposed occupationally to bird allergens were examined using a questionnaire, skin prick tests (SPTs) to common allergens and bird allergens, spirometry and cytograms of nasal swab. The level of total IgE in serum and serum-specific IgE to parrot, canary, pigeon feathers and serum were also evaluated.

RESULTS

Eight percent of bird zookeepers were sensitized to at least one of the bird allergens. The most frequent allergens yielding positive SPT results were D. farinae - 32 cases (16%), D. pteronyssinus - 30 cases (15%) and grass pollens (16.5%). In the studied group, allergen-specific IgE against bird allergens occurred with the following frequency: 87 (43.5%) against canary feathers and/or serum, 80 (40%) against parrot feathers and/or serum and 82 (41%) against pigeon feathers and/or serum. Occupational allergy was diagnosed in 39 (26.5%) cases, occupational rhinitis was present in 22 (15%) cases, occupational asthma in 20 (13.6%) subjects, occupational conjunctivitis in 18 (12.2%) cases, whereas occupational skin diseases in 11 (7.5%) cases. More eosinophils were found in nose swab cytograms among bird zookeepers with occupational airway allergy.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings indicate that occupational allergy to birds is an important health problem among zoo bird keepers in Poland.

Allergic rhinitis in laboratory animal workers and its risk factors

BACKGROUND

The workers in an animal laboratory are exposed to laboratory animal allergens (LAAs).

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the difference of sensitization to LAAs and the symptoms according to the exposure levels and to investigate the risk factors for sensitization to LAAs.

METHODS

The subjects were divided into 3 groups according to the presence or absence of exposure: 74 subjects were in the direct exposure group, 33 subjects were in the indirect exposure group, and 30 subjects were in the control group. Each group answered the questionnaire and underwent skin prick tests that included 10 common allergens and 10 LAAs. The levels of total IgE and specific IgE to mouse and rat urine allergen were measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay in 2 exposure groups. Allergic symptoms, skin sensitization, and serum IgE level were compared between the study groups.

RESULTS

Twenty-five (34%) of the 74 subjects in the direct exposure group experienced allergic symptoms since their exposure to laboratory animals. The subjects in the direct and indirect exposure groups had more sensitization to LAAs than did the control subjects. The direct exposure group had more positive results for total IgE than did the indirect exposure group. The subjects in the direct exposure group with atopy had more severe allergic symptoms than the subjects in the indirect exposure group with atopy. Atopy and total IgE level were risk factors for the sensitization to LAAs for the direct exposure group (odds ratios, 7.47 and 7.33, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Indirect exposure may be as risky for sensitization to LAAs as direct exposure. More careful protection is needed for laboratory animal workers with atopy.