 |
 |
|
Home |
Current Issue |
Past Issues |
In the Clinic |
ACP Journal Club |
CME |
Collections |
Audio/Video |
Mobile |
Subscribe |
Tools |
Help |
ACP Online
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 January 1995 | Volume 122 Issue 1 | Pages 43-46
Objective: To summarize the clinical symptoms of latex rubber allergy and provide guidelines for the management of this allergy.
Data Sources: The English-language literature was searched from 1979 through 1994 manually and using MEDLINE. Conference proceedings and reference lists of relevant articles were reviewed.
Data Extraction: Studies clinically relevant to latex allergy were selected.
Results: The most common clinical presentation of latex allergy is a nonimmunologic, irritant dermatitis of the hand. Contact dermatitis (type IV delayed hypersensitivity reactions to rubber additives) is the most common immunologic manifestation of latex rubber allergy. Type I allergic responses are less common and include contact urticaria, rhinoconjunctivitis, asthma, and anaphylaxis. Seven percent to 10% of health care workers regularly exposed to latex and 28% to 67% of children with spina bifida have a positive skin test result to latex proteins indicating increased blood levels of IgE antibody. About one third of patients with positive skin test results, however, do not yet have symptoms of latex allergy. Systemic (life-threatening) anaphylactic shock can occur intraoperatively in highly sensitive patients because of mucosal absorption of latex protein allergens from the surgeon's gloves. The present treatment for latex allergy is careful avoidance of latex materials. In addition, the use of powder-free latex gloves can eliminate airborne latex exposure and can allow health care workers with inhalant allergic reactions to return to work.
Conclusion: Latex allergy currently affects thousands of people. These persons have IgE-mediated cutaneous, respiratory, and systemic allergic reactions. A reduction of the total protein level on latex rubber devices may prevent further sensitization and eliminate latex allergic reactions.
Author and Article Information
From the Guthrie Foundation for Medical Research, Sayre, Pennsylvania.
DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT
Allergy to Latex Rubber
Requests for Reprints: Gordon L. Sussman, MD, FRCP, 202 St. Clair Avenue West, Toronto, Ontario, M4V 1R2 Canada.
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  F Larese Filon and G Radman Latex allergy: a follow up study of 1040 healthcare workers Occup. Environ. Med., February 1, 2006; 63(2): 121 - 125. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R J Emery and G L Delclos World at work: Research and testing laboratories Occup. Environ. Med., March 1, 2005; 62(3): 200 - 204. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A. K. Ellis and J. H. Day Diagnosis and management of anaphylaxis Can. Med. Assoc. J., August 19, 2003; 169(4): 307 - 312. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A. I. Neugut, A. T. Ghatak, and R. L. Miller Anaphylaxis in the United States: An Investigation Into Its Epidemiology Arch Intern Med, January 8, 2001; 161(1): 15 - 21. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. Toraason, G. Sussman, R. Biagini, J. Meade, D. Beezhold, and D. Germolec Latex Allergy in the Workplace Toxicol. Sci., November 1, 2000; 58(1): 5 - 14. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 C. A. Muto, M. G. Sistrom, B. A. Strain, and B. M. Farr Glove Leakage Rates as a Function of Latex Content and Brand: Caveat Emptor Arch Surg, August 1, 2000; 135(8): 982 - 985. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 W. S. Beckett Occupational Respiratory Diseases N. Engl. J. Med., February 10, 2000; 342(6): 406 - 413. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 Latex Allergy Journal Watch Dermatology, April 1, 1995; 1995(401): 9 - 9. [Full Text]
|
|
Article
