Article

Latex allergy in children with no known risk factor for latex sensitization.

Department of Allergic Diseases, Helsinki University Central Hospital, Finland.
Pediatric Allergy and Immunology (Impact Factor: 3.38). 03/1995; 6(1):36-8. DOI: 10.1111/j.1399-3038.1995.tb00255.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT We describe latex allergy in 11 atopic children, aged 0.7-11.1 years, without any known risk factor. A skin prick-test (SPT) for latex was positive in 8/11, and latex specific IgE was found in all. Latex glove challenge was positive in 9 assessed. These patients demonstrate that latex allergy should be looked for not only in children who have had several operations or those children reporting symptoms from rubber, but also in children with severe atopic eczema, banana allergy, or urticaria or anaphylaxis for which the cause is unknown.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
44 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: There are no documented studies that describe natural rubber latex (NRL) sensitization in children with a history of surgical intervention but without any congenital malformation (urogenital anomalies, spina bifida, etc.), although some authors have studied NRL allergy in children without a history of surgical intervention. The aim of this work was to evaluate the sensitization profile to single NRL allergens in children without spina bifida and without repeated surgical interventions, by using different recombinant and natural latex allergens in two analytical techniques: specific serum immunoglobulin E (IgE) quantification and flow cytometry determination of activated basophils expressing CD63, after stimulating cells from patients with NRL allergens. A total of 23 patients and 10 healthy children were selected. Conjunctival and in-use NRL provocation tests were carried out, as well as specific IgE determination in all patients' and controls' sera with the recombinant NRL allergens: rHev b 1, rHev b 2, rHev b 3, rHev b 5, rHev b 6.01, rHev b 6.02, rHev b 8, rHev b 9 and rHev b 11 and with NRL (k82) using appropriate ImmunoCAPs. The Basophil Activation Test (BAT) was performed with whole latex extract and with the recombinant allergens rHev b 5 and rHev b 6.01, as well as with the natural allergen Hev b 6.02. The sensitivity and the specificity of NRL-specific IgE (k82) were 100%. Positive IgE responses to rHev b 5 were found in sera of 10 children, to rHev b 6.01 in 16 and for rHev b 6.02 in 15 children's sera. Specific IgE to rHev b 8 was found in four sera of the children. We only found significant differences in sensitization to rHev b 5 in children with two or more surgical interventions compared with the non-intervened group or those with only one intervention. Specific IgE in sera of children with latex-fruit syndrome recognized rHev b 6.02, but not to rHev b 11. The patients sensitized to Hev b 8, Hev b 9 and/or Hev b 11 were atopic. The four patients presenting a positive response to the NRL profilin Hev b 8 were allergic to pollen. The BAT against whole NRL extract was positive in 22 of 23 children; against rHev b 5 in 14 of the patients studied; against rHev b 6.01 in seven cases and against nHev b 6.02 in 19 children. In all the control subjects, the results using this technique were negative. If combined rHev b 5, rHev b 6.01 and nHev b 6.02 together, BAT could detect 20 of the 23 children with latex allergy. The combined use of ImmunoCAP with all the recombinant NRL allergens and BAT with rHev b 5, rHev b 6.01 and nHev b 6.02, enabled the identification of NRL allergy in 22 of 23 patients. There is a positive and significant correlation between sensitization to Hev b 5 and the number of interventions. BAT and allergen-specific IgE determination could be used as first-line in vitro diagnostic tests in patients with NRL allergy.
    Pediatric Allergy and Immunology 04/2006; 17(2):148-56. · 3.38 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In this study the latex protein content in devices commonly used in hospitals and general practice were investigated. The main aim was to acquire information for preventing latex allergy in health care workers and in the general population. About 22 different types of medical devices and 23 devices commonly used in general practice were examined evaluating the total allergenic potency by a modified RAST-inhibition assay and quantitative determination of single allergens (Hev b1, Hev b5 and Hev b6.02) by using commercial ELISA kit. A high level of inhibition was found in medical devices, such as elastic bandage (81.57%), tourniquet (74.09%), Foley urinary catheter (68.35%), Penrose drainage (67.25%) and taping (39.6%), and in common devices, such as rubber inner-sole (84.20%), toy balloon (78.62%), latex mattress (74.27%), household rubber gloves (49.10%), working gloves (38.25%), inflatable floating mattress (32.10%). Concentrations of latex extractable proteins and Hev b1, Hev b5 and Hev b6.02 antigens were high in some medical and general devices. Latex exposure sources were found in hospitals and the home. These findings, though only preliminary and far from conclusive, could enable sensitized persons to avoid risky exposures and prevent allergic reactions. From the point of view of prevention, the time may come when every natural rubber object could be systematically labelled as "containing latex" together with the warning that "this item may cause allergic reactions in sensitized subjects."
    International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health 09/2006; 79(7):550-7. · 2.10 Impact Factor
  • Source
    Pediatric Asthma Allergy &amp Immunology 01/2003; 16(3):117-120.