Docstoc

Latex Allergy Latex Allergy A New and Common Problem

Document Sample
Latex Allergy Latex Allergy A New and Common Problem Powered By Docstoc
					Latex Allergy: A New and Common Problem
B. LAUREN CHAROUS, M.D.
Milwaukee Medical Clinic
Milwaukee, Wisconsin

The occurrence of allergy to natural rubber latex is a singular event in the annals of medicine.
Because of unique advantages in flexibility, strength, elasticity and barrier properties, latex
gloves have been widely used in medicine since the turn of the century. Latex is also a
common component of many other medical devices, including drains, catheters and wraps,
and it is an ingredient in adhesives used for dressings and tapes. While allergic contact
dermatitis due to sensitization to rubber chemical additives has been appreciated for over 40
years, rubber latex itself was long considered immunologically inert.

The abrupt transformation of latex into a potent antigenic protein has been a source of
considerable consternation and doubt. However, the broad scope of this problem is
documented and beyond contradiction. In children with spina bifida or other conditions who
undergo early, frequent instrumentation, latex allergy has reached epidemic levels. Studies of
exposed health care workers from several different countries are remarkably consistent in
finding between 8 and 17 percent who are at risk for allergic reactions. The frequency of
                                                                          1




reports of severe and anaphylactic reactions occurring during skin testing, during medical
procedures and with inadvertent contact outside of the medical setting all suggest an unusual
propensity of this antigen to evoke potentially catastrophic responses. Management of latex
allergy presents additional challenges. Traditional instructions given to patients for avoiding
discretely encountered allergens (such as penicillin) appear less effective when applied to
latex, given the ubiquitous nature of latex products. Patients with latex allergy are also prone
to food allergies in a wide range of cross-reactive tropical fruits, nuts and vegetables, and the
onset may be heralded by an anaphylactic event.    2




As the article by Reddy in this issue of American Family Physician amply attests, physicians
not only care for latex-allergic patients but also are members of a high-risk group themselves.     3




Occupational latex exposure, particularly from powdered latex gloves, constitutes a major risk
factor for latex allergy. Initial reactions of contact urticaria progress to asthma and
anaphylaxis with troubling frequency. Recent findings indicate that nearly one half of latex-
                                        4




allergic health care workers undergoing a challenge test with latex gloves show evidence of
an asthmatic reaction despite no previous history of occupational asthma; these findings
underscore the importance of controlling exposure in the medical setting.     5




In the absence of a high index of suspicion, the diagnosis can easily be missed. It is not
unusual for patients to dismiss early manifestations of latex allergy as unimportant,
particularly if the trigger is not easily recognized. Young women may be too embarrassed to
report allergic reactions to condoms or to diaphragm contraceptives unless directly
 questioned. Health care workers may not perceive the importance of changes in their
 reactions to latex gloves or may conceal symptoms for fear of jeopardizing their jobs.
 Physicians too may "mis-attribute" latex-induced symptoms to drug reactions or
 "misperceive" hysteria or malingering in patients with early latex-induced asthma. Careful
 appraisal is warranted of any report of reactions to latex gloves or of other latex products, of
 food allergies that progress to include tropical fruits or vegetables, or of any previous
 anaphylactic attack.

 The central precept of latex allergy treatment is avoidance. Unfortunately, the lack of content
 labeling of medical devices makes determining which are safe a daunting task. Moreover,
                                                                                       6




 quantities of latex proteins carried by glove-donning powder are sufficient to generate aero-
 allergen levels capable of triggering allergic reactions and promoting atopic sensitization even
 in the absence of direct contact. Substitution of non-powdered low-allergen gloves results in
                                   7




 a dramatic reduction in latex aerosols, indicating that powdered gloves are the primary source
 of latex aero-allergen.   8




 For this reason, the American College of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology and the
 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology have recently issued a joint
 statement calling for an end to the use of powdered latex gloves. Although cost considerations
 are frequently cited as an objection to converting to low-allergen gloves, a recent report from
 the Mayo Clinic documented substantial savings after such a conversion.
                  9




 For those who are already allergic to natural latex rubber, treatment with antihistamines
 should not be considered a safe alternative to avoidance and, in fact, use of antihistamines
 may delay detection of acute reactions. Early initiation of anti-asthmatic therapy, particularly
 inhaled corticosteroids, is encouraged, but affected workers should return to work only after
 all workers in their geographic area or work unit are using non-latex or non-powdered gloves.
 Family physicians are well advised to adopt office policies offering this same measure of
 safety both for patients and for health care workers.

 See article on page 93.

 Dr. Charous is an assistant clinical professor in the section of Allergy and Immunology at the Medical
 College of Wisconsin. He is director of the Allergy and Respiratory Care Center at the Milwaukee
 Medical Clinic and chairman of the Division of Allergy and Immunology, Columbia Hospital,
 Milwaukee.



 REFERENCES

1.       Charous BL. The puzzle of latex allergy: some answers, still more questions [Editorial]. Ann
   Allergy 1994;73:277-81.
2.       Beezhold DH, Sussman G, Liss G, Chang NS. Latex allergy can induce clinical reactions to
   specific foods. Clin Exp Allergy 1996;26:416-22.
3.       Reddy S. Latex allergy. Am Fam Physician 1998;57: 93-100.
4.          Charous BL, Hamilton RG, Yunginger JW. Occupational latex exposure: characteristics of
     contact and systemic reactions in 47 workers. J Allergy Clin Immunol 1994;94:12-8.
5.          Vandenplas O. Occupational asthma caused by natural rubber latex. Eur Respir J
     1995;8:1957-65.
6.          Latex Hypersensitivity Committee. Latex allergy--an emerging healthcare problem. Ann
     Allergy Asthma Immunol 1995;75:19-21.
7.          Swanson MC, Bubak ME, Hunt LW, Yunginger JW, Warner MA, Reed CE. Quantification of
     occupational latex aeroallergens in a medical center. J Allergy Clin Immunol 1994;94(3 Pt 1):445-
     51.
8.          Tarlo SM, Sussman G, Contala A, Swanson MC. Control of airborne latex by use of powder-
     free, latex gloves. J Allergy Clin Immunol 1994;93:985-9.
9.          Hunt LW, Boone-Orke JL, Fransway AF, Fremstad CE, Jones RT, Swanson MC, et al. A
     medical-center-wide, multidisciplinary approach to the problem of natural rubber latex allergy. J
     Occup Environ Med 1996;38:765-70.

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:1
posted:12/7/2011
language:English
pages:3