This allergy is a hypersensitivity reaction that is triggered by contact with latex. Symptoms vary depending on factors such as route, frequency, and exposure dose, as well as individual susceptibility. The clinical manifestations can be localized at the site of contact with latex or generalized. Exposure can occur directly as a result of contact with the skin and mucous membranes, that is by touching or being touched by objects with latex, or by inhaling (breathing) particles from objects with latex. Contact can also be indirect; for example, by ingesting food that has been handled by a worker wearing latex gloves or by having contact with a person who has been blowing up balloons. The diagnosis of latex allergy is made based on the patient\'s medical history and on what has been reported in the interrogation, and it is complemented with in vivo studies (such as skin tests and provocation tests) or in vitro studies (determination of specific IgE). The fundamental pillar in the treatment of latex allergy is the education of the patient to achieve the avoidance of products made with this material or the contact and intake of food that has had contact with latex. In view of the foregoing, latex allergy has a great medical and social relevance due to all the safety measures that the patient must take.
La alergia es una reacción de hipersensibilidad desencadenada tras el contacto con el látex. Los síntomas varían dependiendo de factores como la ruta, frecuencia y dosis de exposición, además de la susceptibilidad individual. Las manifestaciones clínicas pueden darse de forma localizada, en el sitio de contacto con el látex, o generalizadas. La exposición puede ocurrir de forma directa como resultado del contacto con la piel y mucosas, por tocar o ser tocado por objetos con látex, o al inhalar partículas provenientes de objetos con látex. El contacto también puede ser indirecto, al ingerir alimentos que fueron manipulados por un trabajador con guantes de látex, al tener contacto con una persona que ha estado inflando globos, por ejemplo. El diagnóstico de alergia al látex se realiza basado en la historia clínica del paciente, lo reportado en el interrogatorio y se complementa con estudios in vivo (como las pruebas cutáneas y las pruebas de provocación) o estudios in vitro (determinación de IgE específica). El pilar fundamental en el tratamiento de la alergia al látex es la educación del paciente para lograr la evitación de productos elaborados con este producto o el contacto e ingesta de alimentos que tuvieron contacto con el látex. Por lo anterior, la alergia al látex tiene una gran relevancia médica y social por todas las medidas de seguridad que debe llevar el paciente.

Occupational skin disease (OSD) arises from work-related activity. However, there is a paucity of literature on OSD in physicians. The aim of the this review was therefore to examine and summarize what types of symptomatic OSD physicians experience.
We conducted a systematic literature search on Cochrane Library, Embase, and Pubmed.
Contact dermatitis from formaldehyde and glutaraldehyde were found in 11.5 and 13.5% of cases, respectively. In total 2.4-14.9% had latex allergy. The reported standardized incidence ratio of squamous cell carcinoma and melanoma was up to 2.15 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.57-1.95] and 3.2 (95% CI 1.38-6.31). Transmission of human papilloma virus (HPV) particles during carbon dioxide laser wart ablation were found in 70% of samples collected from protective gloves and in 52% of samples from vapors.
The most frequently reported OSD in physicians is contact dermatitis from allergens in disinfectants and rubber gloves. There is also a risk of cutaneous reactions to latex. The incidence of skin cancer was higher in physicians than in the general population, and the reason for this remains unexplained and potentially biased. There are no reports of transmission of patient HPV to surgeons during wart ablation, possibly because of proper use of protective equipment.

To determine the test performance parameters for the retrievable range of high-molecular-weight (HMW) and low-molecular-weight (LMW) occupational allergens and to evaluate the impact of allergenic components and the implementation of measures for test validation.
A protocol with predefined objectives and inclusion criteria was the basis of an electronic literature search of MEDLINE and EMBASE (time period 1967-2016). The specific inhalation challenge and serial peak flow measurements were the reference standards for the specific IgE (sIgE) test parameters. All of the review procedures were reported according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.
Seventy-one studies were selected, and 62 entered meta-analysis. Pooled pairs analysis indicated a sensitivity of 0.74(95% CI 0.66 to 0.80) and specificity of 0.71(95% CI 0.63 to 0.77) for HMW allergens and a sensitivity of 0.28(95% CI 0.18 to 0.40) and specificity of 0.89(95% CI 0.77 to 0.95) for LMW allergens. Component-specific analysis improved the test parameters for some allergens. Test validation was handled heterogeneously among studies.
sIgE test performance is rather satisfactory for a wide range of HMW allergens with the potential for component-specific approaches, whereas sensitivity for LMW allergens is considerably lower, indicating methodological complications and/or divergent pathomechanisms. A common standard for test validation is needed.

This article reviews information on the hazards associated with dusting powders on latex surgical and examination gloves. Dusting powders were first applied to latex gloves to facilitate donning. After 1980, manufacturers devised innovative techniques to manufacture gloves without dusting powders. It has been well documented that the powders on gloves present a health hazard to patients, as well as to operating-room personnel. First, these powders elicit tissue toxicity in every tissue in the body. Second, these powders serve as carriers of latex allergen and may precipitate a life-threatening allergic reaction in sensitized patients. These well-documented hazards of glove powders have caused a growing number of hospitals in the world to abandon the use of examination and surgical gloves coated with powder, and instead to use only powder-free gloves.

Latex allergy (LA) is a commonly observed entity for which sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) has been shown to be effective in many small randomized clinical trials. The present study was conducted with an aim of systematically reviewing the existing literature on the efficacy and safety of SLIT in patients with LA and to apply the principles of meta-analysis. A search for randomized controlled trials with appropriate search strategy in PubMed and CENTRAL was conducted. Studies with documented clinical history of LA and SLIT administered in any dose, duration and regimen compared with placebo were included. Outcome measures were symptom scores, glove provocation test score, serum IgE levels, induration following latex skin prick test, medication scores and adverse effects. Random effects model was used when moderate to severe heterogeneity was observed and fixed effects model when there was mild heterogeneity. Forest plots for standardized mean difference (95% confidence interval) for all the continuous outcome measures were created. A total of 152 records were identified from the electronic databases and four studies were finally included in the meta-analysis. A statistically significant reduction for induration following glove provocation test (pooled results from two studies) was observed in the SLIT group with SMD of -0.9 [-1.71, -0.08]. No significant differences were observed in any other outcome measures between the interventions. We did not identify significant reduction in most of the outcome measures with SLIT in patients with LA except for glove provocation test score wherein only two studies were included. Large and more randomized controlled trials are required to ascertain and confirm the utility of SLIT in such patients.

BACKGROUND: Rubber additives constitute an important group of contact allergens, particularly in certain occupations.
OBJECTIVE: To collect information regarding the current practice of using a \'rubber series\' in Europe, and discuss this against the background of evidence concerning the prevalence of allergy in order to derive a recommendation for a \'European rubber series\'.
METHODS: The following were performed: (i) a survey targeting all members of the COST action \'StanDerm\' consortium, (ii) analysis of rubber contact allergy data in the database of the European Surveillance System on Contact Allergies, and (iii) a literature review.
RESULTS: Information from 13 countries was available, from one or several departments of dermatology, and occasionally occupational health. Apart from some substances tested only in single departments, a broad overlap regarding important allergens was evident, but considerable variation existed between departments.
CONCLUSIONS: An up-to-date \'European rubber series\' is recommended, with the exclusion of substances only of historical concern. A \'supplementary rubber series\' containing allergens of less proven importance, requiring further analysis, is recommended for departments specializing in occupational contact allergy. These should be continually updated as new evidence emerges.

Cross-reactivity has important consequences in some immune disorders, including allergic and autoimmune diseases, which can affect both diagnostic and therapeutic approaches. One of the most common cross-reactivity syndromes is pollen-food syndrome (PFS). The patient is sensitized with pollen by the airways and exhibits an allergic reaction to food antigen with a structural similarity to the pollen. PFS usually presents with pruritus and swelling of the mouth and throat during or just after ingestion of fresh, uncooked fruits and vegetables. Latex fruit syndrome is another cross-reactivity syndrome. It is the association of latex allergy and allergy to plant foods, which affects up to 50% of latex-allergic patients. Here, we present two cases with crossreactivity syndrome.

Perioperative anaphylactic reactions are immediate, hypersensitive reactions that are potentially life-threatening resulting from a sudden release of mediators from mast cells and basophiles, due to either immune (IgE or non-IgE mediated) or non-immune mechanisms. The most frequent causing agents are neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs), latex and antibiotics, with latex being the first cause in paediatrics. With regard to perioperative anaphylactic reactions, the usual early signs and symptoms of an anaphylactic reaction could be overlooked or erroneously interpreted and non-severe anaphylaxis could go undetected, with a risk of more severe reactions in the future. Using the data registered on the anaesthesia sheet, it is essential to establish a chronological relationship between drugs and/or substances administered and the reaction observed. An elevated level of tryptase confirms an anaphylactic reaction, but this does not usually increase in the absence of compromised circulation. An allergy study should be carried out preferably between 4 and 6 weeks after the reaction, using a combination of specific IgE, skin and controlled exposure tests (if indicated). Test sensitivity is good for NMBAs, latex, antibiotics, chlorhexidine, gelatine and povidone, and poor for barbiturates, opiates (these can give false positives since they are histamine releasers) and benzodiazepines. Special preventive measures should be taken, especially in the case of latex. We present the maximum concentrations recommended for skin tests, the recommended dosage to treat anaphylactic reactions in paediatrics and a procedure algorithm for the allergological study of these reactions.

This article characterizes hypersensitivity reactions during anesthetic-surgical procedures. This integrative literature review was conducted in the LILACS, CINAHL, COCHRANE and MEDLINE databases including papers published from 1966 to September 2011. A total of 17 case reports, two prevalence studies and one cohort study were identified. Latex reactions were mainly type III and the primary source of intraoperative reaction was latex gloves. The average time for clinical manifestation was 59.8 minutes after anesthetic induction; 44.4% of patients reported a reaction to latex at the pre-anesthetic evaluation. It was determined that the history of allergic reactions to latex obtained in the pre-anesthetic evaluation does not ensure the safety of patients if the staff is inattentive to the severity of the issue. There is also a tendency to initially attribute the anaphylactic event to the anesthetic drugs.

Since more than 50 million people in the United States have allergies, knowledge of the management of allergic reactions in the dental office is extremely important. Appropriate care may range from a simple referral to a primary care physician to lifesaving measures implemented during acute anaphylactic reactions. The authors present a basic review of the pathophysiology of allergic reactions and provide information detailing the diagnosis and management of allergic reactions that may be encountered in the dental office. Utilizing this information, the dental practitioner and ancillary staff will have a thorough understanding of allergic reactions and be prepared to successfully identify and treat these reactions.