Incidence and Determinants of IgE-mediated  Sensitization in Apprentices

Gautrin, Denyse; Ghezzo, Heberto; Infante‐Rivard, Claire; Malo, Jean‐Luc

doi:10.1164/ajrccm.162.4.2001023

Cited by 124 publications

(88 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In a pooled survey of 649 workers from four countries who were exposed to laboratory animals, 18/401 (4.5%) nonatopic subjects had skin reactivity to rat urine [7]. Among the 85 incident cases of sensitization to a laboratory-animal-derived allergen identified in the present authors9 previous study, 18 (21%) had entirely negative skin tests to common allergens [3].…”

mentioning

confidence: 48%

“…A positive reaction was defined as a weal ¢3 mm in the absence of reaction to the diluent and in the presence of a positive reaction to histamine phosphate. Contrary to a previous publication by the present authors in which atopy was defined as at least two positive reactions to the common inhalants [3], in the present study atopy was defined as one positive reaction in order to have no occurrence in nonatopic subjects at baseline in the case of skin reactions to mites.…”

Section: Study Methodsmentioning

confidence: 64%

“…In a prospective assessment of 342 laboratory-animal workers, CULLINAN et al [2] found that 46 (13%) developed skin reactivity to rat urine over a 3.5-yr period. In a prospective study of 417 apprentices starting exposure to laboratory animals and seen for a 32-to 44-month period, 85 (20%) incident cases of sensitization to at least one laboratory-animal-derived allergen were identified [3]. Interestingly, one third of these cases had probable OA as they also developed significant changes in bronchial hyperresponsiveness [4].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In a prospective assessment, the present authors found that atopy was a risk factor for skin sensitization although the relative risk (RR) was relatively low (RR=2.2, 95% confidence interval (CI)=1.2-3.9). The only other factor associated with the development of skin sensitization to animal-derived allergens was the presence of respiratory symptoms in the pollen season (RR=5.2, 95% CI=1.7-16.1) [3]. Although atopic subjects are at greater risk for sensitization, it is known that only one third of subjects will progress to symptomatic state, at least in the first 5 yrs of followup after sensitization [5].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Host determinants for the development of allergy in apprentices exposed to laboratory animals

et al. 2001

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to evaluate whether determinants of workrelated symptoms, skin sensitization and diseases differ between atopic and nonatopic subjects starting a career with exposure to laboratory animals (LA).A cohort of 417 apprentices in animal-health technology was prospectively followed during 32 or 44 months. The effect on the study outcomes of variables derived from questionnaire, skin reactivity, and lung function assessments at baseline were compared in atopic (n=212) and nonatopic (n=183) subjects.Eighty-five incident cases of sensitization to a LA-derived allergen were identified, 67 among atopic and 18 among nonatopic subjects. Baseline rhinitis symptoms in contact with pets and skin sensitization to pets were associated with the development of workrelated rhinoconjunctivitis (RC) symptoms in atopic subjects, whereas perannual rhinitis symptoms and having a PC20 (provocative concentration causing a 20% fall in forced expiratory volume in one second) ¡32 mg?mL -1 were associated in nonatopic subjects. Baseline rhinitis symptoms on contact with pets and a PC20 value ¡32 mg?mL -1 were significant determinants for developing sensitization to a specific allergen in atopic subjects only. Finally, baseline rhinitis symptoms in contact with pets and perannual rhinitis symptoms were associated with the development of occupational RC in atopic subjects, whereas in nonatopic subjects this was associated with having a PC20 value ¡32 mg?mL -1 . In conclusion, the determinants for the development of specific skin sensitization, symptoms and disease are different between atopic and nonatopic apprentices starting occupational exposure to laboratory-animal-derived allergens. Eur Respir J 2002; 19: 96-103 Exposure to laboratory animal-derived allergens carries a significant risk for immunoglobulin (Ig)-Emediated sensitization and development of oculonasal and respiratory symptoms as well as occupational rhinoconjunctivitis (RC) and asthma (OA) [1]. In a prospective assessment of 342 laboratory-animal workers, CULLINAN et al. [2] found that 46 (13%) developed skin reactivity to rat urine over a 3.5-yr period. In a prospective study of 417 apprentices starting exposure to laboratory animals and seen for a 32-to 44-month period, 85 (20%) incident cases of sensitization to at least one laboratory-animal-derived allergen were identified [3]. Interestingly, one third of these cases had probable OA as they also developed significant changes in bronchial hyperresponsiveness [4].As for most high molecular weight occupational allergens, almost all cross-sectional studies on animal workers to date [1] have shown atopy to be a risk factor for sensitization to animal-derived allergens. In a prospective assessment, the present authors found that atopy was a risk factor for skin sensitization although the relative risk (RR) was relatively low (RR=2.2, 95% confidence interval (CI)=1.2-3.9). The only other factor associated with the development of skin sensitization to animal-derived allergens was the presence of r...

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 48%

Section: Study Methodsmentioning

confidence: 64%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Host determinants for the development of allergy in apprentices exposed to laboratory animals

et al. 2001

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It has been suggested that workers may develop allergies more easily to some animals than to others 12 and that the potential for sensitisation is related to the nature of the animal allergen. 6 This study describes the relations between exposures to a variety of laboratory animals and the development of LAA and LAA symptoms in a dynamic cohort of workers over a 12 year period. We examined relations between different indices of exposure and the incidence of LAA, using annual self-reported exposure information about job titles, hours worked with specific animals, and hours spent at different tasks.…”

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