China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Answers
Published in Ken Addley, MCQs, MEQs and OSPEs in Occupational Medicine, 2023
Laboratory animal allergy is common in those who carry out animal research. Respiratory Sensitisation is often seen in those working with mice, rats, guinea pigs and dogs. The allergens causing sensitisation are high molecular weight compounds commonly found in the animal’s urine, which can then aerosolise when the urine dries. Handling the animals, cleaning or changing the bedding results in respiratory exposure, which can produce conjunctivitis, rhinitis and occupational asthma.
Occupational allergens
Published in Richard F. Lockey, Dennis K. Ledford, Allergens and Allergen Immunotherapy, 2020
Loida Viera-Hutchins, Andrew M. Smith, David I. Bernstein
SCIT with rodent allergens was utilized in 11 patients with allergic symptoms upon exposure to laboratory animals and compared to a group of matched untreated control patients in an unblinded manner [26]. Laboratory animal allergy was confirmed by intracutaneous skin testing and leukocyte histamine release to animal allergens, such as mouse, rabbit, rat, guinea pig, and hamster. All patients had rhinoconjunctivitis symptoms upon exposure to at least one of these animals, and most had symptoms on exposure to several different species. Nine of 11 patients reported a decrease in symptoms after SCIT. Active treatment was associated with significantly increased titers of blocking antibody determined by serum inhibition of allergen-induced histamine release with relevant laboratory animal allergens in comparison to untreated controls (p < .0001). In three of four patients in whom AIT was discontinued, blocking antibodies slowly decreased to pretreatment levels after 16–36 months.
Risk Assessment in Practice and Setting Exposure Limits
Published in David Woolley, Adam Woolley, Practical Toxicology, 2017
Looking at the traditional approach of two multiples of 10, the first is intended to account for potential (probable) differences in response between species. In setting exposure limits, it is normal to use safety evaluation data from the most sensitive species, which may be a nonrodent. Due to the greater variability between individuals of nonrodent species and the smaller data sets in comparison with rodents, a factor of 10 to allow for extrapolation between species may not be enough. If there is not much difference in response or sensitivity between the species that have been investigated, a lower factor than 10 may be reasonable. For the second factor of 10, to account for variability within the human population, there may be huge potential differences in response, a situation that is seen with allergens. It is possible to be exposed over a number of years to an allergen without any evidence of adverse reaction, a situation that is seen repeatedly with animal allergy. The problem for this type of hazard is that the majority of the population will be able to tolerate quite high concentrations, whereas a relatively few sensitive individuals–whom it may be difficult or impossible to exclude from the target population–could be sensitive to concentrations 100-fold lower. In this case, the only approach is to select a safety factor that should protect everyone, even though this may place costly restraints on the production or containment processes.
Evaluation of a Spanish language version of the Asthma Trigger Inventory
Published in Journal of Asthma, 2021
Hernando Torres-Zevallos, Alfredo G. Guerreros, Juan C. Bazo-Alvarez, German F. Alvarado, Karinna Vazquez, Jonathan M. Feldman, Thomas Ritz
Asthma triggers as an aspect of patients’ illness perception have only recently been studied using a structured methodology. The Asthma Trigger Inventory (ATI) has been developed as a self-report measure that allows for a psychometrically valid measurement of patients’ perceived asthma triggers (2). The assessment of the 32-item English language version in primary care patients yielded a six-factor structure that justified the formation of reliable subscales, including animal allergy, pollen allergy, physical activity, air pollution/irritants, infection, psychological triggers, and a single item for house dust. The ATI was validated in English and German language versions (2,15). The feasibility, factor structure, and psychometric integrity of the ATI was confirmed in American child and adolescent asthma patients varying in gender, race and socioeconomic status (16). Findings with the ATI suggest that greater reports of non-allergic triggers, in particular psychological triggers, are associated with poor perceived health, more psychopathology, increased use of health care, and suboptimal asthma control (2,15–18). Thus, variations in patients’ predominant trigger factors may tap into clinically relevant distinctions among subgroups of asthma patients.