eMedicine Specialties > Emergency Medicine > Allergy & Immunology

Latex Allergy

Amy J Behrman, MD, Associate Professor, Department of Emergency Medicine, Director, Division of Occupational Medicine, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine
Marilyn Howarth, MD, Director, Occupational and Environmental Consultation Service, Clinical Assistant Professor, Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Pennsylvania

Updated: Aug 7, 2008

Introduction

Background

Allergy to natural rubber latex is increasingly common and serious in children and adults. Latex is the milky fluid derived from the lactiferous cells of the rubber tree, Hevea brasiliensis. It is composed primarily of cis -1,4-polyisoprene, a benign organic polymer that confers most of the strength and elasticity of latex. It also contains a large variety of sugars, lipids, nucleic acids, and highly allergenic proteins.

More than 200 polypeptides have been isolated from latex. Latex proteins vary in their allergenic potential. Protein content varies with harvest location and manufacturing process. Basic knowledge of the manufacturing processes aids in understanding the medical problems related to latex exposure.

Freshly harvested latex from Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, and South America is treated with ammonia and other preservatives to prevent deterioration during transport to factories. Latex is treated with antioxidants and accelerators including thiurams, carbamates, and mercaptobenzothiazoles. It is then shaped into the desired object and vulcanized to produce disulfide cross-linking of latex molecules.

After being dried and rinsed to reduce proteins and impurities, the product frequently is dry-lubricated with cornstarch or talc powder. Powder particles rapidly adsorb residual latex proteins; other proteins remain in soluble form on the surface of finished products.

Latex is ubiquitous in modern society and particularly in health care. William Halstead first used latex surgical gloves in 1890. Latex has been used in a myriad of medical devices for decades. In the late 1980s, however, its use skyrocketed as latex gloves were widely recommended to prevent transmission of blood-borne pathogens, including the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). Billions of pairs of medical gloves are imported to the United States in annually, often as powdered, nonsterile examination gloves.

In the 1980s and 1990s, heightened demand for latex to manufacture gloves and other objects resulted in hundreds of new, poorly regulated latex factories in tropical countries. The incidence of minor and serious allergic reactions to latex began to rise rapidly among patients and health care workers (HCWs). Latex sensitization can occur after skin or mucosal contact, after peritoneal contact during surgery, and possibly after inhalation of aerosolized particles with latex on their surfaces.

For related information, see Medscape's Allergy & Immunology Resource Center.

Pathophysiology

Latex exposure is associated with 3 clinical syndromes.

The first syndrome is irritant dermatitis. It is a result of mechanical disruption of the skin due to the rubbing of gloves and accounts for the majority of latex-induced local skin rashes. It is not immune mediated, is not associated with allergic complications, and is not the subject of this article. It may be confused with Type IV hypersensitivity. Any chronic hand dermatitis in HCWs raises the risk of nosocomial infections, including blood-borne pathogens.

The second syndrome is a delayed (type IV) hypersensitivity reaction, resulting in a typical contact dermatitis. Symptoms usually develop within 24-48 hours of cutaneous or mucous membrane exposure to latex in a sensitized person. The primary allergens are residual accelerators and antioxidants left from the original manufacturing process. Langerhans cells process the antigens and present them to cutaneous T cells. Multiple objects can cause sensitization, but the most common sources in this country are probably examination gloves for adults and shoe soles for children. Type IV hypersensitivity is more common in atopic individuals. The dermatitis may predispose patients to further sensitizations or infections.

The third, most serious, and least common syndrome is immediate (type I) hypersensitivity. It is mediated by an immunoglobulin E (IgE) response specific for latex proteins. As noted, latex proteins are highly allergenic, and they are variable between lots from different plantations, factories, and manufacturers. Cross-linking of IgE molecules on mast cell and basophil cell membranes by latex protein allergens triggers the release of histamine and other mediators of the systemic allergic cascade in sensitized individuals.

Exposure can occur following skin, mucous membrane, or visceral/peritoneal contact. It also can follow inhalation of latex-laden particles or bloodstream exposure to soluble latex proteins following intravascular access procedures. Powdered latex examination gloves have been the most frequent source of sensitization in adults, causing cutaneous and inhalational exposures. (Fortunately, their use is decreasing as many hospitals move toward powder-free, "low-allergen," or nonlatex glove products.)

Sensitization is more common in atopic individuals. Symptoms generally begin within minutes of exposure. The spectrum of clinical manifestations includes localized or generalized urticaria, rhinitis, conjunctivitis, bronchospasm, laryngospasm, hypotension, and full-blown anaphylaxis. Type I allergy has been implicated clearly in intraoperative and intraprocedure anaphylaxis, and it can be fatal without emergent treatment.

Frequency

United States

Latex allergy is present in 1-5% of the general population, with an increased prevalence in atopic individuals. Latex allergy is increased in populations with chronic occupational exposure to latex. It is found in 2-17% of HCWs and in at least 10% of rubber industry workers. Symptoms of latex allergy have been described in 14% of a group of EMS providers and in 54% of a pediatric ED staff. Atopy raises the risk of occupational sensitization.

The highest prevalence of latex allergy (20-68%) is found in patients with spina bifida or congenital urogenital abnormalities. Sensitization in these patients apparently follows multiple urinary tract, rectal, and thecal procedures, as well as multiple surgeries during early childhood. Patients with spina bifida also may have a genetic predisposition for latex sensitization. Patients with spina bifida and human leukocyte antigen (HLA) alleles DRB and DQB1 were more likely to have a specific IgE response to a common latex antigen. Again, within this risk group, atopic children are at increased risk.

Other patients with a history of multiple surgeries or other latex-exposing procedures are also at increased risk relative to the general population. Patients with cerebral palsy, mental retardation, or quadriplegia also appear to have increased risk of latex allergy, probably because of repeated medical exposures.

Finally, the prevalence of latex allergy is increased in persons with allergies to avocado, banana, chestnut, kiwi, papaya, peach, or nectarine. Cross-reacting antigens have been found between these tropical fruits and latex.

International

The risk patterns described above are similar in other developed countries. One study from Germany suggests that the incidence of type I latex allergy has risen faster recently among HCWs than Type IV hypersensitivity, possibly due to recent manufacturing changes that lessen exposure to accelerators but not to latex proteins. A recent meta-analysis of the French literature confirmed that HCWs have an increased risk of sensitization and allergic symptoms to latex. Workers with occupational exposure during harvesting and/or processing latex in developing countries where H brasiliensis is grown have an increased risk relative to the general populations.

Mortality/Morbidity

Patients with type I hypersensitivity are at risk of developing anaphylaxis and/or respiratory obstruction, which can be fatal.
Deaths have been reported following the intraoperative use of latex rectal catheters. Latex anaphylaxis has occurred after childbirth, instrumentation, intravenous injection, balloon blowing, and condom use.
Although most patients can be treated effectively for type IV and type I reactions without clinical sequelae, major allergy may prevent them from pursuing certain careers, using many household and workplace objects, and seeking timely medical care due to justified fear of latex exposure.

Sex

Incidence in males and females is equal.

Age

Latex allergy probably is more common in children and in younger working adults because of the increased medical and/or occupational exposure over the past two decades.

Clinical

History

Symptoms of delayed (type IV) hypersensitivity usually develop within 1-2 days of exposure. Immediate (type I) hypersensitivity causes symptoms within minutes of exposure. Symptoms may include the following:

Pruritus of exposed skin and mucous membranes
Edema of the skin, mucous membranes, or subcutaneous tissues
Hoarseness
Tearing
Rhinitis
Dyspnea
Lightheadedness, syncope
Abdominal cramping
Nausea, vomiting
Diarrhea

Physical

Rash
- Erythema, edema, papules, and vesicles in areas of direct contact (type IV)
- Erythema, thickening, and pigment changes with chronic exposure (type IV)
- Urticaria, localized or generalized (type I)
Angioedema
Conjunctivitis
Rhinitis
Stridor
Wheezing
Hypotension, shock

Causes

The source of latex exposure may be obvious or occult. The history of latex allergy may be known or unknown. Individuals may be exposed to latex through their skin, mucous membranes, or airway (ie, oral, nasal, or endotracheal tissue). Medical procedures may cause reactions in sensitized providers or patients. Inadvertent inhalational exposure is frequent in medical settings where aerosolized latex-laden glove powder may remain airborne for hours. Inhalational exposure also may occur outside hospitals from use of powder-lubricated latex products or even tire particles in heavy traffic areas. Common sources of latex exposure include, but are not limited to, the following:

Gloves (eg, examination, surgical, household)
Tourniquets, blood pressure cuffs
Stethoscopes
Catheters
Intravenous tubing ports, syringe plungers
Electrode pads
Goggles
Respirators
Wound drains and tubes
Multidose vial tops
Dental dams
Tires
Handgrips
Carpeting
Shoe soles, elastic in clothing
Condoms, diaphragms
Balloons
Pacifiers, baby bottle nipples
Erasers, computer mouse pads, and rubber bands

Differential Diagnoses

Anaphylaxis	Dermatitis, Contact
Angioedema	Pediatrics, Anaphylaxis
Asthma	Shock, Cardiogenic
Conjunctivitis	Shock, Septic
Dermatitis, Atopic

Workup

Laboratory Studies

ED diagnosis and management depends on the history and the physical examination. Results of laboratory tests sent from the ED are not available in a useful time frame. Several types of study are useful in nonemergent evaluations.
- Total serum IgE may be elevated in patients with type I allergy, but it is neither sensitive nor specific.
- Radioimmunoassay test (RAST) results for latex-specific IgE range from 50-100% sensitive and 63-100% specific. Predictive value depends on the exact test used, the patient population, and the source of allergen. RAST can be a useful and safe confirmatory test in patients with suggestive clinical histories. The sensitivity and specificity are improving with newer-generation testing methods.
- Enzyme-linked assays of latex-specific IgE (ELISA) may serve the same purpose.

Other Tests

Skin patch testing is useful in identifying specific allergens in patients with type IV hypersensitivity to latex products.
Skin prick testing with latex extracts is sensitive, specific, and rapid; however, it carries the risk of anaphylaxis. Significant variability in the allergen content of extracts continues to limit the reliability and reproducibility of skin prick testing.
Testing with glove fingertips applied to the patient's skin is useful when the history is consistent with latex allergy but the blood tests are negative. It carries the risk of anaphylaxis in type I-sensitized patients.

Procedures

If type I latex allergy is suspected, all procedures should be performed with latex-free instruments, devices, and protective clothing.

Treatment

Prehospital Care

Prehospital providers should be aware of the risk of latex allergy in patients and providers.
Search for and read MedicAlert-type bracelets.
Note the patient's history of relevant allergies to medical devices or fruits.
To rule out latex allergy that could worsen with further medical exposure, review the patient's history of activities/exposures immediately preceding any systemic allergic reaction.
Use powder-free latex gloves or, ideally, high-quality nonlatex gloves to minimize risk to patients and providers. Latex-free resuscitation and intravenous (IV) access equipment should be available for high-risk patients. Do not give medication from rubber-topped multidose vials or through latex IV ports in latex-allergic patients.

Emergency Department Care

Patients with known or suspected latex allergy who seek care for unrelated medical conditions or injuries must be kept within a latex-safe environment to prevent serious complications. This includes all patients with spina bifida.

Patients presenting with frank symptoms of type I latex allergy are treated as any other patients with systemic allergic reactions, except they must be protected from further latex contact to avoid clinical deterioration. Many EDs represent very high-risk environments for latex-sensitive patients, particularly if powdered latex gloves are still in use.

Latex-free resuscitation equipment must be available. This frequently is accomplished with a mobile, latex-free cart carrying nonlatex intubation and ventilation equipment, IV tubing, syringes, tourniquets, electrode pads, gloves, masks, and medication vials.
Routine care of high-risk patients should use nonlatex supplies. Major reactions in sensitized patients have been precipitated with pelvic and rectal exams using latex gloves, urinary catheterization with latex catheters, IV medication given through latex ports, and inhalation of aerosolized latex glove powder.
Consultants must be aware of the need to completely avoid latex exposure to the patient during examinations and procedures.
Patients needing studies in other hospital areas, such as radiology, must be transported without risking latex exposure.
Identification of latex versus nonlatex medical devices traditionally has required laborious contacts with individual manufacturers. Since 1999, the US Food and Drug Administration has required all manufacturers to apply warning labels to medical devices containing natural rubber latex. This regulation has helped to facilitate safe care of patients who are allergic to latex. In addition, medical device manufacturers have developed many latex-free alternatives for routine care and invasive procedures.

Consultations

Consultants must be aware of the need to scrupulously avoid exposing the patient to latex during exams and procedures.

Medication

Latex allergies are best treated with patient education to avoid further exposure. Type I reactions are treated as any other systemic allergic reaction. The cornerstones of treatment are epinephrine and H1 antihistamines. Systemic corticosteroids and H2 blockers may be useful. Please see articles on Anaphylaxis, Angioedema, and Asthma for details of therapy. No specific immunotherapy has been shown to be effective.

Type IV reactions (localized contact dermatitis) are unlikely to require ED treatment. They can be treated with topical steroids and patient education to avoid further exposures.

Follow-up

Further Inpatient Care

Patients with major latex allergies who are admitted for allergic complications or unrelated conditions must be moved to latex-safe rooms with clear warnings on doors and charts.
All examinations and care must be done without use of latex-containing devices or equipment.
All providers should be educated to avoid inadvertent exposure.
Latex is the second most common cause of intraoperative anaphylaxis, which can be difficult to diagnose because of infrequent cutaneous signs and patients' inability to express symptoms. Known latex allergy or a history suggestive of major latex allergy should trigger the use of latex-free operating rooms and postoperative care.

Further Outpatient Care

Patients and their families should be educated to identify and avoid latex in home, work, and medical/dental settings.
Patients should be referred to an allergist or primary care provider for follow-up.
Patients should be aware of the life-threatening complications of anaphylaxis, bronchospasm, and laryngospasm.
Patients with type I hypersensitivity should carry subcutaneous epinephrine kits at all times.
Patients should obtain and wear a MedicAlert-type bracelet identifying their allergy.
Patients should be aware of the risk of cross-reacting fruit allergies.

Inpatient & Outpatient Medications

See articles on Anaphylaxis, Angioedema, and Asthma for inpatient and outpatient medications.
All patients with type I latex allergy should carry a subcutaneous epinephrine kit at all times.

Deterrence/Prevention

Hospitals should make policy and purchasing decisions to minimize latex exposure in the institution, with the goal being to protect sensitized patients and employees as well as to reduce the risk of primary sensitization. Several cost analyses have found that becoming latex-safe is cost-effective for health care facilities.
- Minimally, this requires reducing or eliminating powdered latex examination gloves and substituting less allergenic latex gloves or, ideally, high-quality nonlatex gloves. This strategy has been shown to reduce natural rubber latex aeroallergen, sensitization of exposed HCWs, and incidence of asthma in HCWs. Follow-up studies of latex allergic HCWs have shown a reduction in latex-specific IgE antibodies after latex use is substantially reduced in the health care workplace.
- It also requires clear guidelines for the safe treatment of sensitized patients and for the accommodation of sensitized employees.
- Multidisciplinary hospital committees can be effective in accomplishing these goals.
- Federal guidelines to reduce latex exposure will have an impact on all hospitals in the near future.

Complications

Respiratory compromise
Anaphylaxis

Prognosis

Most latex-allergic patients can function normally by avoiding significant latex exposure at home, at work, and in medical/dental situations.
Some patients will become more sensitized and have greater difficulty functioning.
A small percentage of patients with IgE-mediated allergy become so sensitized that inadvertent exposure to minute amounts of latex, either by contact or inhalation, causes frequent life-threatening episodes.
In the absence of effective immunomodulatory therapy, avoidance of latex and excellent ED care must be the patients' mainstays.

Patient Education

Patients can and should be referred to local or national support groups to stay abreast of new developments in latex-free devices that may make their lives safer and more convenient.
These groups frequently maintain lists of latex-safe medical and dental practices; many track regulatory and legislative developments.

Miscellaneous

Medicolegal Pitfalls

All EDs eventually treat patients with severe latex allergies. Inadvertent latex exposure to such a patient in the ED may result in adverse outcomes and litigation.
Failure to maintain latex-safe equipment in the ED may result in adverse outcomes and litigation.
Failure to obtain a history suggestive of recognized or unrecognized latex allergy may result in adverse outcomes and litigation.
Discharge without appropriate patient education may result in adverse outcomes and litigation.
Failure to comply with evolving federal regulations to decrease latex exposure to HCWs and patients may incur liability for an institution.
Institutional failure to accommodate latex-sensitized HCWs may lead to litigation.

References

Agarwal S, Gawkrodger DJ. Latex allergy: a health care problem of epidemic proportions. Eur J Dermatol. Jul-Aug 2002;12(4):311-5. [Medline].
Ahmed DD, Sobczak SC, Yunginger JW. Occupational allergies caused by latex. Immunol Allergy Clin North Am. May 2003;23(2):205-19. [Medline].
Ahmed SM, Aw TC, Adisesh A. Toxicological and immunological aspects of occupational latex allergy. Toxicol Rev. 2004;23(2):123-34. [Medline].
Allmers H, Brehler R, Chen Z, et al. Reduction of latex aeroallergens and latex-specific IgE antibodies in sensitized workers after removal of powdered natural rubber latex gloves in a hospital. J Allergy Clin Immunol. Nov 1998;102(5):841-6. [Medline].
Bernardini R, Mistrello G, Pucci N, Roncarolo D, Lombardi E, Zanoni E. Diagnostic value of three different latex extracts. Int J Immunopathol Pharmacol. Apr-Jun 2007;20(2):393-400. [Medline].
Biagini RE, MacKenzie BA, Sammons DL, Smith JP, Krieg EF, Robertson SA. Latex specific IgE: performance characteristics of the IMMULITE 2000 3gAllergy assay compared with skin testing. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. Aug 2006;97(2):196-202. [Medline].
Blanco C, Carrillo T, Ortega N, et al. Comparison of skin-prick test and specific serum IgE determination for the diagnosis of latex allergy. Clin Exp Allergy. Aug 1998;28(8):971-6. [Medline].
Dorevitch S, Forst L. The occupational hazards of emergency physicians. Am J Emerg Med. May 2000;18(3):300-11. [Medline].
Fein JA, Selbst SM, Pawlowski NA. Latex allergy in pediatric emergency department personnel. Pediatr Emerg Care. Feb 1996;12(1):6-9. [Medline].
Feng C, Wang H. Natural rubber latex allergy among health care workers. J Allergy Clin Immunol. Jun 2007;119(6):1561; author reply 1561. [Medline].
Filon FL, Radman G. Latex allergy: a follow up study of 1040 healthcare workers. Occup Environ Med. Feb 2006;63(2):121-5. [Medline].
Food and Drug Administration. Natural rubber containing medical devices: user labeling.[Docket No. 96N-0119]. 21 CFR Part 801 Fed. Regist. 1997;62:51021-51030.
Hamilton RG, Peterson EL, Ownby DR. Clinical and laboratory-based methods in the diagnosis of natural rubber latex allergy. J Allergy Clin Immunol. Aug 2002;110(2 Suppl):S47-56. [Medline].
Jackson EM, Arnette JA, Martin ML, et al. A global inventory of hospitals using powder-free gloves: a search for principled medical leadership. J Emerg Med. Feb 2000;18(2):241-6. [Medline].
Korniewicz DM, Chookaew N, El-Masri M, Mudd K, Bollinger ME. Conversion to low-protein, powder-free surgical gloves: is it worth the cost?. AAOHN J. Sep 2005;53(9):388-93. [Medline].
LaMontagne AD, Radi S, Elder DS, Abramson MJ, Sim M. Primary prevention of latex related sensitisation and occupational asthma: a systematic review. Occup Environ Med. May 2006;63(5):359-64. [Medline].
Liss GM, Sussman GL. Latex sensitization: occupational versus general population prevalence rates. Am J Ind Med. Feb 1999;35(2):196-200. [Medline].
Phillips VL, Goodrich MA, Sullivan TJ. Health care worker disability due to latex allergy and asthma: a cost analysis. Am J Public Health. Jul 1999;89(7):1024-8. [Medline].
Taylor JS, Erkek E. Latex allergy: diagnosis and management. Dermatol Ther. 2004;17(4):289-301. [Medline].
Thong BY, Yeow-Chan. Anaphylaxis during surgical and interventional procedures. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. Jun 2004;92(6):619-28. [Medline].
Yagami A, Suzuki K, Kano H, Matsunaga K. Follow-up study of latex-allergic health care workers in Japan. Allergol Int. Sep 2006;55(3):321-7. [Medline].

Keywords

natural rubber latex, allergy to latex, latex gloves, irritant dermatitis, latex-induced skin rashes, delayed (type IV) hypersensitivity reaction, contact dermatitis, type I hypersensitivity, immediate (type I) hypersensitivity

Contributor Information and Disclosures

Author

Amy J Behrman, MD, Associate Professor, Department of Emergency Medicine, Director, Division of Occupational Medicine, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine
Amy J Behrman, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine
Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Coauthor(s)

Marilyn Howarth, MD, Director, Occupational and Environmental Consultation Service, Clinical Assistant Professor, Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Pennsylvania
Marilyn Howarth, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine
Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Medical Editor

Mark Louden, MD, FACEP, Assistant Medical Director, Emergency Department, Duke Raleigh Hospital
Mark Louden, MD, FACEP is a member of the following medical societies: American Academy of Emergency Medicine and American College of Emergency Physicians
Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Pharmacy Editor

Francisco Talavera, PharmD, PhD, Senior Pharmacy Editor, eMedicine
Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Managing Editor

Matthew M Rice, MD, JD, Vice President, Chief Medical Officer, Northwest Emergency Physicians, Assistant Clinical Professor of Medicine, University of Washington at Seattle; Assistant Clinical Professor, Uniformed Services University of Health Sciences
Matthew M Rice, MD, JD is a member of the following medical societies: American College of Emergency Physicians
Disclosure: Team Health Salary Employment

CME Editor

John D Halamka, MD, MS, Associate Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center; Chief Information Officer, CareGroup Healthcare System and Harvard Medical School; Attending Physician, Division of Emergency Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center
John D Halamka, MD, MS is a member of the following medical societies: American College of Emergency Physicians, American Medical Informatics Association, Phi Beta Kappa, and Society for Academic Emergency Medicine
Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Chief Editor

Jonathan Adler, MD, Attending Physician, Department of Emergency Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital; Division of Emergency Medicine, Harvard Medical School
Jonathan Adler, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American Academy of Emergency Medicine and Society for Academic Emergency Medicine
Disclosure: eMedicine.com, Inc. Consulting fee Consulting

Further Reading