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.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Ferraz,Erica, Arruda,Luisa Karla de Paula, Bagatin,Ericson, Martinez,Edson Z., Cetlin,Andrea A., Simoneti,Christian S., Freitas,Amanda S., Martinez,José A.B., Borges,Marcos C., Vianna,Elcio O.
Format: Digital revista
Language:English
Published: Faculdade de Medicina / USP 2013
Online Access:http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1807-59322013000600750
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
id oai:scielo:S1807-59322013000600750
record_format ojs
spelling oai:scielo:S1807-593220130006007502013-06-18Laboratory animals and respiratory allergies: The prevalence of allergies among laboratory animal workers and the need for prophylaxisFerraz,EricaArruda,Luisa Karla de PaulaBagatin,EricsonMartinez,Edson Z.Cetlin,Andrea A.Simoneti,Christian S.Freitas,Amanda S.Martinez,José A.B.Borges,Marcos C.Vianna,Elcio O. Laboratory Animal Allergy Animal Workers Occupational Allergens Asthma Occupational Health Rhinitis 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. info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessFaculdade de Medicina / USPClinics v.68 n.6 20132013-06-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articletext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1807-59322013000600750en10.6061/clinics/2013(06)05
institution SCIELO
collection OJS
country Brasil
countrycode BR
component Revista
access En linea
databasecode rev-scielo-br
tag revista
region America del Sur
libraryname SciELO
language English
format Digital
author Ferraz,Erica
Arruda,Luisa Karla de Paula
Bagatin,Ericson
Martinez,Edson Z.
Cetlin,Andrea A.
Simoneti,Christian S.
Freitas,Amanda S.
Martinez,José A.B.
Borges,Marcos C.
Vianna,Elcio O.
spellingShingle Ferraz,Erica
Arruda,Luisa Karla de Paula
Bagatin,Ericson
Martinez,Edson Z.
Cetlin,Andrea A.
Simoneti,Christian S.
Freitas,Amanda S.
Martinez,José A.B.
Borges,Marcos C.
Vianna,Elcio O.
Laboratory animals and respiratory allergies: The prevalence of allergies among laboratory animal workers and the need for prophylaxis
author_facet Ferraz,Erica
Arruda,Luisa Karla de Paula
Bagatin,Ericson
Martinez,Edson Z.
Cetlin,Andrea A.
Simoneti,Christian S.
Freitas,Amanda S.
Martinez,José A.B.
Borges,Marcos C.
Vianna,Elcio O.
author_sort Ferraz,Erica
title Laboratory animals and respiratory allergies: The prevalence of allergies among laboratory animal workers and the need for prophylaxis
title_short Laboratory animals and respiratory allergies: The prevalence of allergies among laboratory animal workers and the need for prophylaxis
title_full Laboratory animals and respiratory allergies: The prevalence of allergies among laboratory animal workers and the need for prophylaxis
title_fullStr Laboratory animals and respiratory allergies: The prevalence of allergies among laboratory animal workers and the need for prophylaxis
title_full_unstemmed Laboratory animals and respiratory allergies: The prevalence of allergies among laboratory animal workers and the need for prophylaxis
title_sort laboratory animals and respiratory allergies: the prevalence of allergies among laboratory animal workers and the need for prophylaxis
description 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.
publisher Faculdade de Medicina / USP
publishDate 2013
url http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1807-59322013000600750
work_keys_str_mv AT ferrazerica laboratoryanimalsandrespiratoryallergiestheprevalenceofallergiesamonglaboratoryanimalworkersandtheneedforprophylaxis
AT arrudaluisakarladepaula laboratoryanimalsandrespiratoryallergiestheprevalenceofallergiesamonglaboratoryanimalworkersandtheneedforprophylaxis
AT bagatinericson laboratoryanimalsandrespiratoryallergiestheprevalenceofallergiesamonglaboratoryanimalworkersandtheneedforprophylaxis
AT martinezedsonz laboratoryanimalsandrespiratoryallergiestheprevalenceofallergiesamonglaboratoryanimalworkersandtheneedforprophylaxis
AT cetlinandreaa laboratoryanimalsandrespiratoryallergiestheprevalenceofallergiesamonglaboratoryanimalworkersandtheneedforprophylaxis
AT simonetichristians laboratoryanimalsandrespiratoryallergiestheprevalenceofallergiesamonglaboratoryanimalworkersandtheneedforprophylaxis
AT freitasamandas laboratoryanimalsandrespiratoryallergiestheprevalenceofallergiesamonglaboratoryanimalworkersandtheneedforprophylaxis
AT martinezjoseab laboratoryanimalsandrespiratoryallergiestheprevalenceofallergiesamonglaboratoryanimalworkersandtheneedforprophylaxis
AT borgesmarcosc laboratoryanimalsandrespiratoryallergiestheprevalenceofallergiesamonglaboratoryanimalworkersandtheneedforprophylaxis
AT viannaelcioo laboratoryanimalsandrespiratoryallergiestheprevalenceofallergiesamonglaboratoryanimalworkersandtheneedforprophylaxis
_version_ 1756432205639319552