Allergy to laboratory animals: an epidemiological study.

Aoyama, Kohji; Ueda, Atsushi; Manda, Fumi; Matsushita, Toshio; Ueda, Tomoyuki; Yamauchi, Chuhei

doi:10.1136/oem.49.1.41

Cited by 90 publications

(113 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Although prevalence estimates vary depending on the definition of laboratory animal allergy (LAA), large studies have estimated that 10% to 23% of exposed workers report symptoms of allergy to laboratory animals. [1][2][3] These estimates do not include workers who may have left the workplace after developing symptoms.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Incidence of allergy and allergy symptoms among workers exposed to laboratory animals

Elliott

Heederik

Marshall³

et al. 2005

Occup Environ Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and Aims: Few studies have described relations between exposure to laboratory animals and the incidence of laboratory animal allergy (LAA). Studies that have found exposure-response relations have been cross sectional in design or have focused on exposure to rats and mice. This study used longitudinal data collected over a 12 year period to describe the relations between indices of exposure to laboratory animals and the development of LAA and LAA symptoms. Methods: Data were obtained from questionnaires and serological laboratory results from a dynamic cohort of workers exposed to a variety of laboratory animals in a pharmaceutical manufacturing company. Poisson regression was used to model the incidence rate ratios of species specific and general LAA and LAA symptoms at different levels of exposure. Results: The 12 year incidence rates of LAA symptoms and LAA for all workers were 2.26 (95% CI 1.61 to 2.91) and 1.32 (95% CI 0.76 to 1.87) per 100 person-years, respectively. Higher rate ratios were seen with increasing reported hours of exposure to tasks that required working with animal cages or with many animals at one time. The most common symptoms were related to rhinitis rather than to asthma. Conclusions: This study suggests that the risk of LAA increases with duration of exposure to animals and work in animal related tasks. Incidence might be reduced by limiting hours per week of exposure to laboratory animals.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Incidence of allergy and allergy symptoms among workers exposed to laboratory animals

Elliott

Heederik

Marshall³

et al. 2005

Occup Environ Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Workers exposed to laboratory animals have a high risk of developing allergic reactions 1,2) . Rats and mice are the most common etiology of laboratory animal allergy because they are the most commonly used animals in research 3) . The high prevalence of this condition became evident from epidemiological crosssectional studies conducted in the 1980s 1,4) .…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Study of risk factors for atopic sensitization, asthma, and bronchial hyperresponsiveness in animal laboratory workers

Simoneti

Freitas

Barbosa

et al. 2016

Journal of Occupational Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

al.: Animal laboratory workers: risks for allergy and asthma associated with sensitization, asthma, or BHR. Conclusion: Exposure to laboratory animals was associated with atopic sensitization. However, we did not find a cutoff allergen concentration that increased the risk for sensitization. Duration of exposure seems to be more relevant to sensitization than concentration of allergens in dust. (J Occup Health 2016; 58: 7−15) Key words: Animal experimentation, Atopy, Bronchial hyperreactivity, Occupational disease Workers exposed to laboratory animals have a high risk of developing allergic reactions 1,2) . Rats and mice are the most common etiology of laboratory animal allergy because they are the most commonly used animals in research 3) . The high prevalence of this condition became evident from epidemiological crosssectional studies conducted in the 1980s 1,4) . Eleven to 44% of individuals who work with laboratory animals have reported allergic symptoms. These symptoms can range from skin reactions, nasal congestion, rhinorrhea, sneezing, and conjunctivitis, to severe asthma. Allergic rhinitis and allergic conjunctivitis symptoms are the most commonly reported symptoms. Among workers who become symptomatic, 4 to 22% have occupational asthma 2) . In a cohort study of 342 laboratory animal workers, quantitative analyses of exposure demonstrated a doseresponse relation between the intensity of exposure to skin symptoms and skin prick tests. Intensity of exposure (divided into 4 categories) was evaluated by quantification of rat urinary aeroallergen. Exposureresponse relations for symptoms were observed among sensitized workers, and for chest and eye/nose symptoms, they were not as clear as for skin symptoms. Two exposure indices were created: one based on the The aim of this estudy was to investigate the influence of allergen exposure levels and other risk factors for allergic sensitization, asthma, and bronchial hyperresponsiveness (BHR) in workers exposed to laboratory animals. Methods: This was a crosssectional study performed at two universities, 123 workplaces with 737 subjects. Dust samples were collected from laboratories and animal facilities housing rats, mice, guinea pigs, rabbits, or hamsters and analyzed by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) to measure allergen concentrations. We also sampled workplaces without animals. Asthma was defined by both symptoms and BHR to mannitol. The concentrations of allergens were tested for association with a skin prick test, respiratory symptoms, spirometry data, and BHR. This multivariate analysis was performed by using Poisson regression to estimate the relative risk (RR) for the exposed group. Results: Our sample comprised students and workers, with 336 subjects in the nonexposed group and 401 subjects in the exposed group. Sixty-nine subjects (17%) had positive results in the skin prick test for animal allergens in the exposed group; in the nonexposed group, 10 subjects had positive results (3%) (p<0.001). Exposure to laboratory animals over 2.8 years...

show abstract

“…In cross-sectional and longitudinal studies on workers exposed to LA, OA, and OR tended to occur within the first 2-3 years of exposure (8,10,16,17,25). As workrelated respiratory symptoms may have induced affected workers to leave their jobs (healthy worker survivor effect) (34), studies with a longer duration of exposure may show a lower prevalence of symptoms.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Between 1980 and 2004, 15 prevalence reports studied OA and OR in workers exposed to LA (Table 1) (8)(9)(10)(11)(12)(13)(14)(15)(16)(17)(18)(19)(20)(21)(22). The participation rate ranged from 61% to 100%, median 77-78%.…”

Section: Cross-sectional Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Have the prevalence and incidence of occupational asthma and rhinitis because of laboratory animals declined in the last 25 years?

Folletti¹,

Forcina²,

Marabini

et al. 2008

Allergy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Data for time trends in the prevalence of occupational asthma (OA) and rhinitis (OR) are not known.Objective: To investigate the prevalence and incidence of OA and OR over time.Methods: We chose to review studies on the prevalence and incidence of OA and OR due to laboratory animals (LA) as a marker of changing OA and OR patterns over time and analysed 15 cross‐sectional and 4 longitudinal studies published from 1980 to 2006.Results: The estimated prevalence of OA, defined as work‐related chest symptoms (WRCS), declined from 8.2% in 1976 to 4.2% in 2001 (P < 0.005). When defined by WRCS and positive skin prick test (SPT) to LA, the estimated prevalence of OA was 6.7% in 1977 and 2.9% in 1999 (P < 0.02). The prevalence of OR, defined by WRNS or WRNS and SPT to LA, was not related to study date but was inversely associated with mean exposure duration. In four longitudinal studies no clear trend emerged over time.Conclusions: This review suggests a trend toward a progressive decline in the prevalence of occupational asthma due to laboratory animals, which may be due to the reduction of exposure since the early 1980s. A further reduction of exposure is needed to prevent the onset of occupational rhinitis.

show abstract

Allergy to laboratory animals: an epidemiological study.

Cited by 90 publications

References 16 publications

Incidence of allergy and allergy symptoms among workers exposed to laboratory animals

Incidence of allergy and allergy symptoms among workers exposed to laboratory animals

Study of risk factors for atopic sensitization, asthma, and bronchial hyperresponsiveness in animal laboratory workers

Have the prevalence and incidence of occupational asthma and rhinitis because of laboratory animals declined in the last 25 years?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About