Prevalence of latex allergy among anesthesiologists - Identification of sensitized but asymptomatic individuals

被引:75
|
作者
Brown, RH
Schauble, JF
Hamilton, RG
机构
[1] Johns Hopkins Univ, Sch Publ Hlth, Dept Anesthesiol & Crit Care Med, Baltimore, MD 21205 USA
[2] Johns Hopkins Univ, Sch Publ Hlth, Div Physiol, Baltimore, MD 21205 USA
[3] Johns Hopkins Univ, Sch Publ Hlth, Dept Med, Div Allergy & Immunol, Baltimore, MD 21205 USA
关键词
diagnosis; immunoglobulin E; natural rubber; serology; skin test;
D O I
10.1097/00000542-199808000-00004
中图分类号
R614 [麻醉学];
学科分类号
100217 ;
摘要
Background: Occupational exposure to natural rubber latex has led to sensitization of health-care workers. However, the prevalence of latex allergy among occupationally exposed workers in American hospitals has not been reproducibly determined. The objectives of the current study were to determine the prevalence of and risk factors for latex sensitization among a cohort of highly exposed healthcare workers. Methods: Participants were 168 of 171 eligible anesthesiologists and nurse anesthetists working in the Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, A clinical questionnaire was administered, and testing was performed using a characterized nonammoniated latex reagent for puncture skin testing, a Food and Drug Administration-approved assay to quantify latex-specific immunoslobulin E antibody in serum, and, when required for clarification, a validated two-stage (contact-inhalation) latex glove provocation procedure. Results: The prevalence of latex allergy with clinical symptoms and latex sensitization without clinical symptoms was 2.4% and 10.1%, respectively. The prevalence of irritant or contact dermatitis was 24%. The risk factors identified for latex sensitization were atopy (odds ratio, 14.1; 95% CI, 1.8-112.1; P = 0.012); history of allergy to selected fruits, such as bananas, avocados, or kiwis (odds ratio, 9.8; 95% CI, 1.6-61.9; P = 0.015); and history of skin symptoms with latex glove use (odds ratio, 4.6; 95% CI, 1.6-13.4; P = 0.006), Conclusions: The prevalence of latex sensitization among anesthesiologists is high (12.5%). Of these, 10.1% had occult (asymptomatic) latex allergy. Hospital employees may be sensitized to latex even in the absence of perceived latex allergy symptoms. These data support the need to transform the health-care environment into a latex-safe one that minimizes latex exposure to patients and hospital staff .
引用
收藏
页码:292 / 299
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Prevalence of latex sensitization and allergy in Portuguese children
    Jorge, Arminda
    Lorente, Felix
    Taborda-Barata, Luis
    PEDIATRIC ALLERGY AND IMMUNOLOGY, 2006, 17 (06) : 466 - 473
  • [22] Prevalence of natural rubber latex allergy in hairdressers
    Kanerva, L
    Leino, T
    CONTACT DERMATITIS, 1999, 41 (03) : 168 - 169
  • [23] The prevalence of latex allergy in operating theatre staff
    Hack, ME
    ANAESTHESIA AND INTENSIVE CARE, 2001, 29 (01) : 43 - 47
  • [24] Differential latex allergy prevalence in anesthesiology subspecialties
    Greenberg, RS
    Hamilton, RG
    Brown, RH
    ANESTHESIOLOGY, 1999, 90 (04) : 1238 - 1238
  • [25] Prevalence of latex allergy in high risk children
    Yazdanpanah, S.
    Nabavizadeh, H.
    ALLERGY, 2009, 64 : 377 - 377
  • [26] The prevalence of latex allergy in pediatric housestaff.
    Zilkha, NL
    Schuval, SJ
    JOURNAL OF ALLERGY AND CLINICAL IMMUNOLOGY, 1997, 99 (01) : 649 - 649
  • [27] Latex allergy among construction workers
    Conde-Salazar, L
    Gatica, ME
    Barco, L
    Iglesias, C
    Cuevas, M
    Valks, R
    CONTACT DERMATITIS, 2002, 47 (03) : 154 - 156
  • [28] ALLERGY TO LATEX AMONG HOSPITAL EMPLOYEES
    HOLM, JO
    WEREIDE, K
    HALVORSEN, R
    THUNE, P
    CONTACT DERMATITIS, 1995, 32 (04) : 239 - 240
  • [29] Latex allergy among anesthesiology staff
    Konrad, C
    Schupfer, G
    Fieber, T
    Schnider, T
    Mullner, G
    Gerber, H
    ANESTHESIOLOGY, 1996, 85 (3A) : A989 - A989
  • [30] The prevalence of latex allergy among hospital employees in north-west England - Reply
    Handfield-Jones, S
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF DERMATOLOGY, 1999, 140 (03) : 567 - 567