Annals
Established in 1927 by the American College of Physicians
:
Advanced search
 
box Article
 arrow  Table of Contents                
space
box Services
 arrow  Send comment/rapid response letter
space
 arrow  Notify a friend about this article
space
 arrow  Alert me when this article is cited
space
 arrow  Add to Personal Archive
space
 arrow  Download to Citation Manager
space
 arrow  ACP Search                        
space
 arrow  Get Permissions
space
box Google Scholar
 arrow  Search for Related Content
space
box PubMed
Articles in PubMed by Author:
  arrow  Shepherd, G. M.
space
 arrow  Related Articles in PubMed
space
 arrow  PubMed Citation
space
 arrow  PubMed
space

LETTER

Safe Use of Latex Rubber

right arrow Gillian M. Shepherd

1 August 1995 | Volume 123 Issue 3 | Pages 234-235


TO THE EDITOR:

In their recent review of latex allergy, Sussman and Beezhold [1] recommend that patients with a positive latex challenge use nonlatex gloves. This recommendation raises the question of the effectiveness of the substitutes—vinyl or synthetic latex (for example, neoprene). The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration have stated that there are no significant differences in barrier protection between intact latex and vinyl gloves. During regular use, however, vinyl appears to tear more easily and is therefore substantially more permeable [2, 3]. Are the authors aware of data on the effectiveness of nonvinyl synthetic gloves?

Latex gloves have been shown to differ 3000-fold in the amount of allergenic latex protein that can be extracted (with the highest levels in powdered gloves) [4]. We have found that many latex-sensitive patients can tolerate a lower allergenic powder-free glove (for example, Safeskin). Assuming that latex offers a greater barrier protection than vinyl, low antigenic latex gloves should be tried before a substitute is considered.

The review also mentions that health care workers often present with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis and asthma. At the New York Hospital, at least one professional in each unit with high glove use (for example, the operating room, intensive care unit, or laboratory) has significant asthma from latex and requires daily medication to continue working. Respiratory symptoms develop from inhaling latex attached to glove powder, which becomes airborne as gloves are used. A recent report found that airborne latex allergen in a medical center ranged from 13 to 268 ng/m3 in areas of frequent powdered glove use compared with 0.3 to 1.8 ng/m3 in areas in which powdered gloves were seldom or never used. Absorption of the antigen onto mucosal surfaces may also enhance the development of sensitivity in exposed workers and patients.

In view of the above factors, an interim approach to this problem should be the widespread use of powder-free gloves. A future theoretical treatment may be specific immunotherapy, but the relevant antigen has not yet been clearly defined. Powder-free gloves are generally more expensive, but this factor should be weighed against the potential costs of disability compared with those of enabling persons already sensitized to continue to work. Most importantly, further sensitization of both health care workers and patients should be prevented. Primum non nocere.


References
space
up arrowTop
dotReferences

1. Sussman GL, Beezhold DH. Allergy to latex rubber. Ann Intern Med. 1995; 122:43-6.

2. Korniewicz DM, Laughton BE, Cyr WH, et al. Leakage of virus through used vinyl and latex examination gloves. J Clin Microbiol. 1990; 28:787-8.

3. DeGroot-Kosolcharoen J, Jones JM. Permeability of latex and vinyl gloves to water and blood. Am J Infect Control. 1989; 17:196-201.

4. Yunginger JW, Jones RT, Fransway AF, Kelso JM, Warner MA, Hunt LW. Extractable latex allergens and proteins in disposable medical gloves and other rubber products. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1994; 93:836-42.

5. Swanson MC, Bubak ME, Hunt LE, Yunginger JW, Warner MA, Reed CE. Quantification of occupational latex aeroallergens in a medical center. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1994; 94:445-51.

About Letters
space

The Editors welcome submissions for possible publication in the Letters section. Authors of letters should:

•Include no more than 300 words of text, three authors, and five references

•Type with double-spacing

•Send three copies of the letter, an authors' form signed by all authors, and a cover letter describing any conflicts of interest related to the contents of the letter.

Letters commenting on an Annals article will be considered if they are received within 6 weeks of the time the article was published. Only some of the letters received can be published. Published letters are edited and may be shortened; tables and figures are included only selectively. Authors will be notified that the letter has been received. If the letter is selected for publication, the author will be notified about 3 weeks before the publication date. Unpublished letters cannot be returned.

Annals welcomes electronically submitted letters.





box Article
 arrow  Table of Contents                
space
box Services
 arrow  Send comment/rapid response letter
space
 arrow  Notify a friend about this article
space
 arrow  Alert me when this article is cited
space
 arrow  Add to Personal Archive
space
 arrow  Download to Citation Manager
space
 arrow  ACP Search                        
space
 arrow  Get Permissions
space
box Google Scholar
 arrow  Search for Related Content
space
box PubMed
Articles in PubMed by Author:
  arrow  Shepherd, G. M.
space
 arrow  Related Articles in PubMed
space
 arrow  PubMed Citation
space
 arrow  PubMed
space


 Home | Current Issue | Past Issues | In the Clinic | ACP Journal Club | CME | Collections | Audio/Video | Mobile | Subscribe | Tools | Help | ACP Online