Natural Rubber Latex Hypersensitivity Research Articles

Management of latex hypersensitivity in the perioperative setting.

Despite the introduction and use of latex-free gloves, natural rubber latex hypersensitivity is still an issue in hospital medicine both for patients and healthcare professionals. Clear understanding of the groups at risk as well as perioperative assessment and management is key to reducing complications and improving safety. In this literature review, we cover the perioperative management of patients with latex hypersensitivity, as well as the implications for healthcare professionals. We also review the cost analyses of latex hypersensitivity in the healthcare system and the evidence available.

Natural rubber latex allergies from dental local anaesthetic: a review and guidance for the dental practitioner

Natural rubber latex (NRL) is present within many dental products including local anaesthetic (LA) cartridges. Patients with NRL sensitivity are at risk of developing type I and type IV allergic reactions from exposure to these products. Evidence from current literature is inconclusive yet highly suggestive that NRL contamination may occur in medicines stored within vials containing natural rubber components. It would therefore be prudent to avoid using such products in patients with a known NRL allergy. For dental practitioners this applies to LA cartridges and is easily achievable, as manufacturers now produce products not made with NRL. This article aims to provide guidance for dental health professionals regarding the use of LA in patients with a known NRL hypersensitivity. CPD/Clinical Relevance: NRL allergies are a rising concern amongst medical professions and these reactions should be avoided wherever possible.

Natural rubber latex hypersensitivity with skin prick test in operating room personnel.

Hypersensitivity reactions to natural rubber latex have increased recently, especially among people with high exposure to latex allergens. Hypersensitivity reactions to latex are related to many conditions like occupational asthma. Our study was performed to determine the prevalence of hypersensitivity to natural rubber latex and potential food cross reactions in operation room personnel in Shiraz hospitals. In this cross-sectional, descriptive study, 580 operation room personnel filled out our questionnaire which included data about their personal history, symptoms of latex hypersensitivity, and other related allergies such as food hypersensitivity. An informed consent was obtained and skin prick tests were performed for natural rubber latex and potential food cross reactions (kiwi, banana, and potato). The obtained data were analyzed by SPSS and Chi-square test. 104 (17.9%) of the operating room personnel showed positive latex skin tests. We revealed a significant correlation between those with positive skin tests to latex with atopia, urthicaria, and food hypersensitivity. The prevalence did not vary by sex, age, education, surgical and non-surgical gloves users, or history of contact dermatitis. Latex hypersensitivity is common among operation room personnel. Evaluation of symptoms and prediction of future diseases necessitate screening tests in individuals at risk.

Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) with a natural rubber latex (NRL) extract is effective in paediatric patients with NRL hypersensitivity,

Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) with a natural rubber latex (NRL) extract is effective in paediatric patients with NRL hypersensitivity,

Atopie et urticaire de contact au latex chez l’enfant: Etude chez 27 malades de moins de 15 ans

Although natural rubber latex hypersensitivity is considered as a major problem in adult, it may be still misdiagnosed in childhood. We collected 27 observations of natural rubber latex contact urticaria in children under 15 Years of age, 21 of them aged under 8. All of them where atopic and 19 out of 27 presented with other association paroxystic signs of immediate hypersensitivity, that were lately related to latex allergy (i. e. asthma, rhinitis, conjunctivitis, fainting). Cross-allergy to food allergens was present in 33 p. 100. Average level of specific IgE to natural rubber latex was 21.7 kU/l. One to 4 Years follow up confirmed the benefit of latex eviction on urticaria as well as on associated symptoms. It led to the early detection of ficus allergy in 4 of them. This series confirms that atopy is at high risk for natural rubber latex allergy in children. These data suggest that atopic children are exposed too early to latex devices such as pacifiers, toodles of latex toys. Contact urticaria in children must be considered as a possible marker of other respiratory or general symptoms that may have been misconsidered under other etiologies.

Latex Hazards: Setting Policy

This past decade, natural rubber latex hypersensitivity has become an increasing concern for the health care industry and nurses. With the adoption of universal precautions in the late 1980s and increased glove use, the incidence of latex allergy has increased dramatically. There have been legislative initiatives to label all products containing natural rubber latex, but the use of latex in health care agencies has not been restricted or regulated in any way. This article reviews the historical perspective of the latex issue, provides strong arguments for banning latex gloves in all health care facilities, and explores some political, social, and legal issues involved in banning latex gloves.

Latex Allergy and Sensitization in Children with Spina bifida

Background: The purpose of this study was to investigate the prevalence rate of latex sensitization and latex allergy among children with spina bifida and to evaluate risk factors for natural rubber latex hypersensitivity. Methods: A total of 34 children between 2.5 and 17 years of age participated in the study. Participants completed a questionnaire and underwent skin prick tests with latex, common aeroallergens and food allergens as well as measurements of specific IgE to latex and food allergens (RAST CAP). Results: The prevalence of latex sensitization and latex allergy was estimated to be 32.4 and 18.8%, respectively. The most common reported clinical manifestation of latex allergy was urticaria. Three out of six symptomatic patients reported anaphylactic reactions. Conclusion: We found that major risk factors for latex sensitization were atopy and a history of numerous operations.

The prevalence of latex allergy in patients with rhinitis.

Natural rubber latex hypersensitivity to the constituent proteins of natural rubber latex is now an international health problem. This study investigates the prevalence of latex allergy in patients presenting with rhinitis. Fifty-nine consecutive patients, who presented to a general Otolaryngology out-patient clinic with symptoms suggestive of rhinitis, completed a questionnaire and underwent skin prick testing. Three out of 59 (5.1 per cent) tested positive to latex. The overall positive rate (all standard aeroallergens) was 45.8 per cent. Our data supports the hypothesis that the prevalence of latex allergy in patients with rhinitis is higher than the general population and that rhinitis may be a presenting symptom.

Minimum prevalence of latex hypersensitivity in health care workers.

Health care workers (HCW) have been shown to be at significant risk for developing latex allergy. Natural rubber latex hypersensitivity has been reported in 2.9 to 17% of health care workers in previously published studies. This study describes the prevalence of latex hypersensitivity in a large cohort of medical center employees. A screening questionnaire was distributed to 1967 employees in six job categories exposed to latex, and 1331 questionnaires were returned (68%) between March and November 1995. Skin and serologic testing was performed on 156 volunteers. Of the 1331 HCWs who completed the screening questionnaire, 290 (21.8%) self-reported contact dermatitis to latex, 67 (5.0%) self-reported urticaria to latex, 163 (12.2%) self-reported rhinoconjunctivitis to latex, and 17 (1.3%) self-reported asthmatic symptoms to latex. Of the total population of 1967 employees, 38 (1.9%) were either skin test or blood test positive and 30 (1.5%) of these 38 were symptomatic around latex. This study suggests a minimum prevalence of IgE-mediated hypersensitivity to latex of 1.5% among medical center employees. Our reported prevalence figures are lower than previously reported, reflecting, in part, reporting methods using a denominator more consistent with the total population at risk. Our study also illustrates the pitfall of relying on self-reporting in making the diagnosis of latex allergy.

Natural Rubber Latex Hypersensitivity: Incidence and Prevalence of Type I Allergy in the Dental Professional

The authors investigated the prevalence of immediate (Type I) hypersensitivity to gloves made from natural rubber latex, or NRL, by performing skin-prick tests on 2,166 dental workers over the course of a two-year period (with two one-year intervals). The investigator used two separate eluents made from different brands of natural rubber latex gloves. The study, conducted in 1994 and 1995 as part of the American Dental Association's Annual Health Screening Program, found that 6.2 percent of the participants (dentists, hygienists and assistants) tested positive for Type I hypersensitivity to NRL proteins.

Clinical management of latex allergy.

The use of latex gloves in the health care setting dates back to the 1800s, when these products were introduced as a means of preventing the passage of microorganisms to operating room patients. Today, fear of human immunodeficiency virus transmission and other blood-borne diseases has led to implementation of standardized guidelines for glove use for health care professionals. Because of the unique combination of strength, flexibility, and elasticity of natural rubber, latex is typically the material of choice for a variety of medical products, including examination gloves. Unfortunately, routine use of latex in the health care setting may be detrimental to patients and caregivers with a history of natural rubber latex hypersensitivity reactions.

Latex-Induced allergic rhinitis in a laboratory nurse

A case of occupational rhinitis in association with natural rubber latex hypersensitivity is presented. In the nasal provocation test for natural rubber latex glove powder the nurse experienced rhinorrhoea. A significant increase in the amount of nasal secretion and mucosal oedema could be detected. The patient also showed a positive skin prick test to natural rubber latex allergens, and an elevated natural rubber specific IgE level in her serum. This, to our knowledge, has not been previously reported in the literature.

Prospective Study of Risk Factors in Natural Rubber Latex Hypersensitivity

Prospective Study of Risk Factors in Natural Rubber Latex Hypersensitivity

Prospective Study of Risk Factors in Natural Rubber Latex Hypersensitivity

Prospective Study of Risk Factors in Natural Rubber Latex Hypersensitivity

Prospective study of risk factors in natural rubber latex hypersensitivity

Five hundred sixty-nine subjects routinely underwent skin prick tests for latent sensitization to latex. The study of risk factors included skin tests to inhalant allergens, to diagnose atopy, and a questionnaire aimed at revealing frequent exposure to latex such as the wearing of gloves, multiple surgical procedures, or urinary catheterization. The subjects were categorized into five groups: group I, subjects with no risk factor (n = 272); group II, nonatopic subjects exposed to latex (n = 73); group III, atopic subjects not exposed (n = 180); group IV, exposed atopic subjects (n = 44); and group V, subjects with a history of intraoperative anaphylactic shock caused by latex (n = 13). Twenty-five subjects had spina bifida and were in either group II (14 subjects) or group IV (11 subjects). The questionnaire identified a probable allergy to latex in 18 subjects: 16 cases were confirmed by skin test, but responses were not informative in 23 patients who were sensitive to latex. Positive prick tests to latex were obtained in 0.37% of group I, 6.85% of group II, 9.44% of group III, and 36.36% of group IV. Of the children with spina bifida, 32% had positive skin test results. As risk factors, atopy and exposure were synergistic. We recommend predictive prick tests not only in children with spina bifida but also in any atopic subject or in any patient with a history of frequent exposure to latex. Latex could be considered a habitual allergen. The use of latex urinary catheters should be avoided in patients who are catheterized on a daily basis.

Prospective study of risk factors in natural rubber latex hypersensitivity

Five hundred sixty-nine subjects routinely underwent skin prick tests for latent sensitization to latex. The study of risk factors included skin tests to inhalant allergens, to diagnose atopy, and a questionnaire aimed at revealing frequent exposure to latex such as the wearing of gloves, multiple surgical procedures, or urinary catheterization. The subjects were categorized into five groups: group I, subjects with no risk factor (n = 272); group II, nonatopic subjects exposed to latex (n = 73); group III, atopic subjects not exposed (n = 180); group IV, exposed atopic subjects (n = 44); and group V, subjects with a history of intraoperative anaphylactic shock caused by latex (n = 13). Twenty-five subjects had spina bifida and were in either group II (14 subjects) or group IV (11 subjects). The questionnaire identified a probable allergy to latex in 18 subjects: 16 cases were confirmed by skin test, but responses were not informative in 23 patients who were sensitive to latex. Positive prick tests to latex were obtained in 0.37% of group I, 6.85% of group II, 9.44% of group III, and 36.36% of group IV. Of the children with spina bifida, 32% had positive skin test results. As risk factors, atopy and exposure were synergistic. We recommend predictive prick tests not only in children with spina bifida but also in any atopic subject or in any patient with a history of frequent exposure to latex. Latex could be considered a habitual allergen. The use of latex urinary catheters should be avoided in patients who are catheterized on a daily basis.