4.6 Article

Latex-induced occupational asthma: time trend in incidence and relationship with hospital glove policies

Journal

ALLERGY
Volume 64, Issue 3, Pages 415-420

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL PUBLISHING, INC
DOI: 10.1111/j.1398-9995.2008.01842.x

Keywords

asthma; latex; occupational disease; prevention

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Natural rubber latex (NRL) has become as a major cause of occupational asthma (OA) in workers using NRL gloves. Few population-based studies have assessed the impact of changes in the patterns of glove usage on the incidence of NRL-induced OA. To characterize the time trends in incident cases of NRL-induced OA in Belgium and examine whether incidence rates were related to the types of gloves used in hospitals. Incident cases of NRL-induced OA were identified through a retrospective review of all claims submitted to the Workers' Compensation Board up to December 2004. Based on the results of diagnostic procedures, the diagnosis of NRL-induced OA was categorized as definite, probable, unlikely, or indeterminate. The patterns of glove usage were characterized through a questionnaire survey of Belgian hospitals. A total of 298 claims for NRL-induced OA were identified, including 127 subjects with definite OA and 68 with probable OA. Categorized by the year of asthma onset, the incident cases of definite and probable NRL-induced OA markedly decreased from 1999 onwards. The use of powdered NRL gloves fell from 80.9% in 1989 to 17.9% in 2004. Powdered NRL gloves were predominantly substituted with NRL-free gloves, especially in the case of non-sterile procedures. These national compensation-based data confirm that a persistent decline in the incidence of NRL-induced OA has occurred since late 1990s. This downward trend has temporally been associated with a decreasing usage of powdered NRL, further supporting a beneficial role of changes in glove policies.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available