Anaphylaxis after mouse bite

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.

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.

Anaphylaxis in laboratory workers because of rodent handling: two case reports

Introduction:

Occupational allergy to rodents among laboratory animal workers is common. Most patients generally experience allergic symptoms after the first few years of work. Associated symptoms are usually mild, such as rhinoconjunctivits, urticaria, and asthma. Anaphylaxis, although rare, could be severe and life threatening.

Methods:

We have described in this study two cases of laboratory workers that developed skin and respiratory reactions following laboratory rat and mouse bites, consistent with anaphylaxis.

Results:

Skin testing was found positive for rat epithelium in the patient with anaphylaxis due to rat bite. Elevated levels of specific IgE antibodies against rat and mouse epitheliums were also detected in both the patients.

Conclusion:

These cases illustrate a severe hypersensitivity reaction that could potentially occur in occupational workers that are in close contact with rodents. Reduction of allergen exposure, regular screening, and job modification could be beneficial for affected individuals. Health care workers should be made aware that anaphylaxis could be a serious consequence of laboratory animal bites, particularly in those already sensitized.