Laboratory animals and respiratory allergies: The prevalence of allergies among laboratory animal workers and the need for prophylaxis

OBJECTIVE: Subjects exposed to laboratory animals are at a heightened risk of developing respiratory and allergic diseases. These diseases can be prevented by simple measures such as the use of personal protective equipment. We report here the primary findings of the Laboratory Animals and Respiratory Allergies Study regarding the prevalence of allergic diseases among laboratory animal workers, the routine use of preventive measures in laboratories and animal facilities, and the need for prevention programs. METHODS: Animal handlers and non-animal handlers from 2 Brazilian universities (University of São Paulo and State University of Campinas) answered specific questionnaires to assess work conditions and symptoms. These subjects also underwent spirometry, a bronchial challenge test with mannitol, and skin prick tests for 11 common allergens and 5 occupational allergens (rat, mouse, guinea pig, hamster, and rabbit). RESULTS: Four hundred fifty-five animal handlers (32±10 years old [mean±SD], 209 men) and 387 non-animal handlers (33±11 years old, 121 men) were evaluated. Sensitization to occupational allergens was higher among animal handlers (16%) than non-animal handlers (3%, p<0.01). Accessibility to personal protective equipment was measured at 85% (median, considering 73 workplaces of the animal handler group). Nineteen percent of the animal handlers indicated that they wear a respirator at all times while handling animals or working in the animal room, and only 25% of the animal handlers had received an orientation about animal-induced allergies, asthma, or rhinitis. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, our data indicate that preventive programs are necessary. We suggest providing individual advice to workers associated with institutional programs to promote a safer work environment. .

Prevalence of Laboratory Animal Allergy in Laboratory Workers / 한국실험동물학회지

This study was designed to analyze the prevalence rates of laboratory animal allergy (LAA) in laboratory workers who perform researches with animals, and detect the mouse urinary allergen (Mus m 1) level in animal facilities for the purpose of establishing program for prevention of exposure to allergen. Study subjects were 240 employees who were working for two animal research institutions in Korea. Then the questionnaire and skin prick tests (SPTs) using twenty allergens were conducted with them. Presence of Mus m 1 in each air borne sample collected from animal facility was determined by using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Through 240 questionnaire sheets, we found that; (1) 17.0% of workers in the direct exposure group answered that they had allergic symptoms due to laboratory animals; and (2) 6.2% of them had asthmatic symptoms. Twenty one subjects (27.6%) among the subjects with common allergens positive result and five subjects (6.6%) among the subjects with negative result showed a positive response to LAA under the SPTs. The Mus m 1 concentration (1.339 ng/m3) in the sample collected during cage exchange in mouse breeding room was up to 2.8 times higher than its concentration (0.483 ng/m3) in the sample collected at the stationary state. We suggest that LAA management programs including control of exposure to laboratory animal allergens should be considered as a measure to reduce the incidence of LAA and relieve the laboratory worker's allergic sensitivity to laboratory animals.

Laboratory animal allergy in laboratory animal workers / 천식및알레르기

BACKGROUND: Laboratory animal workers who are in regular contact with furred animals commonly develop laboratory animal allergy (LAA). LAA is one of the most common occupational allergic diseases. OBJECTIVES: This study was performed to estimate the prevalence of sensitization and symptoms of LAA, and to determine important host factors for the development of LAA. METHOD: Sixteen subjects with laboratory animal workers in one medical research center were enrolled in this study. They responded to a questionnaire about work-related symptoms and underwent allergy skin prick test to common inhalant and laboratory animal allergens. RESULTS: The prevalence of sensitization to laboratory animal allergens was 18.8%, and all sensitized workers were atopic (positive skin reactivity to one or more common inhalant allergens). Prevalence rate of allergy symptoms caused by working with laboratory animals was 31.3%. Positive skin prick responses to dog or cat allergens were highly associated with specific sensitization to laboratory animal allergens, and positive skin responses to laboratory animal allergens were associated with laboratory allergy symptoms. Among sixteen subjects, we found out one case of occupational asthma due to mouse allergy and also reported the case here. CONCLUSION: Some laboratory animal workers showed sensitization to laboratory animal allergens and had allergic symptoms attributed to contact with laboratory animals. Atopy, especially atopy to dogs or cats may be an important host factor for the development of LAA.