Latex hypersensitivity: its prevalence among dental professionals

Occupational hazards in orthodontics: A review of risks and associated pathology

The purpose of this article was to review the occupational hazards related to the practice of orthodontics. A systematic approach was used to include all risks involved in an orthodontic practice. The classification of hazards was based on major sources of risks by system or tissue and by orthodontic office area (dental chair, laboratory, sterilization area, x-ray developing area). Potentially hazardous factors relate to the general practice setting; to specific materials and tools that expose the operator to vision and hearing risks; to chemical substances with known allergenic, toxic, or irritating actions; to increased microbial counts and silica particles of the aerosols produced during debonding; to ergonomic considerations that might have an impact on the provider's muscoleskeletal system; and to psychological stress with proven undesirable sequelae. The identification and elimination of these risk factors should be incorporated into a standard practice management program as an integral part of orthodontic education. Professional organizations can also assist in informing practitioners of potential hazards and methods to deal with them.

Anaphylaxis: Drug Allergy, Insect Stings, and Latex

The highest rates of anaphylaxis in humans occur in early childhood associated with food allergy. Latex allergy, pharmaceutical drugs, and stinging insect reactions are important later in childhood, with drug allergy peaking in adult populations. Knowledge about diagnosis and therapy of anaphylaxis is critical, because a large percentage of subjects are not previously known to be at risk at the time of initial reactions. This article summarizes the basic clinical knowledge of anaphylaxis in childhood.

Alergia ao látex e a frutas em profissionais da área da saúde

INTRODUÇÃO: A alergia ao látex tornou-se um risco crescente aos indivíduos expostos, como os profissionais da área da saúde, tendo como agravo a associação com hipersensibilidade a vários alimentos, especialmente frutas. OBJETIVO: Avaliar a freqüência de sensibilização ao látex e a frutas em profissionais da área da saúde. MÉTODOS: Foram avaliados 53 profissionais da saúde, 81,9% do sexo feminino, aplicando-se questionário alergológico e testes cutâneos por puntura para alérgenos inaláveis, do látex e de frutas (mamão papaia, kiwi, abacate, banana, figo, tomate, noz). RESULTADOS: Dos 53 indivíduos estudados, 15 (28,5%) eram alérgicos ao látex. A sensibilidade a frutas foi diagnosticada em 14 (26,4%), dos quais 10 (18,8%) apresentavam teste por puntura positivo para o látex; as frutas alergênicas mais freqüentes foram papaia (80,0%), kiwi (60,0%) e abacate (50,0%). CONCLUSÃO: Estes achados demonstram a existência da alergia látex-fruta, como descrito na literatura, sendo de suma importância uma avaliação in vivo em profissionais da área de saúde, caracterizados como potencial grupo de risco.

Epidemiology of latex sensitization and allergies in health care workers

Although it is often claimed that health care workers are at increased risk of latex sensitization and type I allergies, there has been no systematic analysis of the epidemiologic studies that are relevant to this conclusion. A systematic analysis of the epidemiologic literature found that, in the past 14 years, there have been 48 epidemiologic studies of type I latex allergy among health care workers. Of these, 2 cohort studies estimated the incidence of latex sensitization by skin prick testing at between 1% and 2.5% per year. Neither compared the risk to that in the general population. The prevalence of sensitization in health care workers varied between 0% and 30%, yet this large variation was unexplained. Increased risk of sensitization was not clearly associated with the duration of work in health care, the time spent wearing latex gloves, the frequency of exposure, the specific job categories, the use of powdered versus nonpowdered latex gloves, the use of latex versus nonlatex gloves, or any measurements of ambient exposure to latex proteins. The epidemiologic studies do not support a conclusion that health care workers are at clearly increased risk of latex sensitization or type I allergies compared to other occupations in the United States. The role of latex gloves in causing latex sensitization and type I allergic symptoms remains poorly defined because of the inconsistent results across studies. Future epidemiologic studies are needed that include measured exposures to latex antigens, that compare health care workers to appropriate referent groups, and that address confounding by atopy, age, sex, and race.

Alergia látex-fruta

O látex está sendo considerado o alergênico do ano 2000, tendo em vista que inúmeros indivíduos, principalmente profissionais da área de saúde e pacientes submetidos a várias intervenções diagnósticas e terapêuticas, estão freqüentemente expostos aos alérgenos do látex, presentes em produtos de borracha natural. As manifestações clínicas conseqüentes às reações alérgicas de hipersensibilidade imediata vão desde rinite, urticária, conjuntivite, angioedema, asma, até anafilaxia. Estudos recentes estão demonstrando que pacientes alérgicos ao látex desenvolvem concomitantemente sensibilização a certos alimentos de origem vegetal, especialmente frutas como papaia, figo, banana, abacate, kiwi, pêssego, abacaxi, melão e castanha, acreditando-se numa provável ocorrência de reações cruzadas entre os alérgenos do látex e destas frutas. Faz-se, então, uma revisão sobre a alergia ao látex, em particular sobre os grupos de risco, incluindo a presença de reatividade cruzada entre o látex e as frutas.

Health-care workers and latex allergy

Latex hypersensitivity can pose a threat to anyone, but health-care providers are among the high-risk groups for developing latex hypersensitivity. Latex hypersensitivity likely results from health-care workers' increased use of gloves following implementation of universal precautions. It is also believed that the antigenic load of latex gloves causes an increase in latex hypersensitivity resulting from massive production of gloves. Although there are many studies on the prevalence of latex hypersensitivity among health-care workers, there appear to be discrepancies, which may affect the different apparent prevalence. Testing for latex hypersensitivity raises another problem. Latex allergens cannot be identified specifically; therefore, there is no standard test or testing solution that can identify hypersensitive persons. Although latex glove hypersensitivity was first identified in the late 1970s, there remain many uncertainties associated with it; as a result, there is a growing concern among health-care providers. The authors offer several precautions to avoid the development of latex hypersensitivity.

Latex allergy: a review for the dental professional

Reactions to latex products are reportedly occurring with an increased frequency both in patients and in health care providers. Natural rubber latex is found in numerous products, and adverse latex reactions range from contact dermatitis to life-threatening anaphylaxis. A complete understanding of the pathophysiology of latex allergy provides the foundation for the proper diagnosis and treatment of patients with latex allergy. This article provides the reader with a review of latex allergy and suggests strategies for the management of patients with latex hypersensitivity.

Rubber latex allergy and the endodontic patient

Increasingly, patients with rubber latex allergy are being seen in dental offices. Health care workers, persons allergic to certain foods and those with certain medical histories are potentially latex-sensitive. This article presents the case of a patient with a history of severe rubber latex allergy and the associated management of an endodontically involved tooth. The possibility of the latex allergic patient being sensitive to gutta-percha obturation material is also raised.

Atopy and other risk factors for UK dentists reporting an adverse reaction to latex gloves

A study was conducted to assess the significance of a personal history of atopy and other risk factors for UK dentists reporting an adverse reaction to natural rubber latex (NRL) gloves. 2535 dentists completed a self-administered questionnaire and, of these, 1034 (group 1) reported an adverse reaction to NRL gloves and 1501 (group 2) did not. Risk factors investigated were: sex, years in clinical practice, exposure to gloves and a history of atopy or food allergy. The signs and symptoms reported by group 1 dentists were recorded. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify a set of risk factors that produced the most discrete model for a dentist reporting an adverse reaction to NRL gloves. A personal history of atopy was a significant risk factor. Dentists with a history of eczema and hand eczema in childhood were most likely to report an adverse reaction to NRL gloves.

Implementation recommendations for making health care facilities latex safe

The problem of latex allergy is not limited to health care workers who provide direct patient care. Individuals in environmental services, dietary, engineering, and medical records departments have the potential for sensitization. Due to the significant liability that may arise from a latex-induced anaphylaxis or death, it is no longer prudent for health care facilities to ignore the problem. This article proposes practical recommendations for implementation of an institution wide latex-safe environment in health care facilities.

Diagnostic evaluation of type I latex allergy

BACKGROUND

Latex hypersensitivity affects a significant number of health care workers. No universally accepted method for the diagnosis of latex allergy is currently available in the United States.

OBJECTIVE

Determine the accuracy of clinical assessment in predicting type I latex allergy, and compare the ability of various latex skin test preparations and in vitro assays in confirming the diagnosis of latex allergy.

METHODS

Subjects were classified into "history positive," "history ambiguous," or "history negative" based on reports of clinical symptoms. Skin prick tests were performed with ammoniated latex and glove extracts. Sera were analyzed for latex-specific IgE using the Pharmacia CAP and DPC AlaSTAT assays.

RESULTS

A total of 207 subjects had histories taken, skin testing, and blood drawn. Out of 49 type I latex-allergy "history positive," 42 (86%) were skin test positive, and 24 (49%) were serum positive. Fifty-nine subjects were latex allergy "history ambiguous." In this group, skin testing showed 19 (32%) positives, and latex-specific IgE were detected in 10 (17%). Out of 99 latex "history negative," 9 (9%) were skin test positive, and 11 (11%) were positive for latex-specific IgE. Out of the 61 subjects with IgE symptoms following latex exposure who were skin test positive, a positive in vitro assay was found in 32 (52%).

CONCLUSIONS

Skin testing is more likely to confirm a positive latex allergy history. Use of raw ammoniated and glove skin testing preparation sources combined adds to the diagnostic sensitivity. AlaSTAT and CAP correlate well with each other and have good negative predictive value, but lack the sensitivity of skin testing. Use of AlaSTAT and CAP assays combined raises the diagnostic sensitivity as compared to using one in vitro test alone.

Latex hypersensitivity in emergency medical service providers

BACKGROUND

Emergency medical service providers have a high degree of exposure to latex products. Patients utilizing emergency medical services can be allergic to latex products used during rescue efforts.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the prevalence of latex hypersensitivity among emergency medical service providers.

METHODS

Study questionnaires were distributed to a group of emergency medical service providers. Skin prick testing was performed using latex, common aeroallergens, and food extracts. Patch testing was done using latex and individual rubber additives. Serum latex-specific IgE was also measured.

RESULTS

A total of 93 completed surveys were collected. Average exposure to latex in the work environment was 8.2 years. Eighty-four (90%) used latex gloves routinely at work. Of those, thirteen (14%) gave history of reaction to latex gloves. Sixty-two percent were not aware of the possibility of latex allergy in themselves or their patients. Forty-one (44%) had skin testing. Of those, four (10%) had positive prick tests for at least one of the four latex preparations used. Five had positive skin tests to avocado extract without supporting clinical history. Two had positive skin tests to banana, one with supporting clinical history for banana allergy. No food cross-reactivity with latex was demonstrated. Latex-specific serum correlated with prick skin test results. No positive reactions were noted with patch testing.

CONCLUSIONS

A significant percentage of emergency medical service providers were not aware of the occupational risk of latex allergy or the potential risk in their patients. A positive prick skin test for latex was present in 4 of 41 (10%), representing one-third of those who reported symptoms from latex exposure.