Orozco MS, Chong QLE, Penagos PM, Huerta LJG, Reyes LCAS, Rodríguez RA

Language: Spanish
References: 22
Page: 6-29
PDF size: 183.78 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Introduction: Frequent surgical operations on children have shown an increase in allergy to latex in risk groups, specially if these surgeries are practiced at early ages. Objective: To state the usefulness of skin tests, through prick test, with glove extract, latex raw extract and purified proteins (such as pseudo-heveine, molecular type of heveine, and chemically-modified heveine). Material and methods: From December 2004 to February 2005, 60 children were studied, having been previously classified according to their clinical records as: high-risk patients and clinical symptomatology of exposition to latex products (group I); low-risk patients without symptomatology of exposition to latex products (group II); or test (control) group. Every patient having previously signed a consent letter, was applied a questionnaire identifying family and personal atopy, clinical symptomatology expressed by the exposition to latex products. The patients were practiced skin tests and through the skin prick test, with glove extract, latex raw extract, and purified proteins. Results: The results of this show that skin tests through the prick method with glove extraction in concentrations between 200 and 300 μg/mL, and in purified proteins with chemically-modified heveine in a concentration of 50 μg/mL, are the most proper compounds to determine allergy to latex. No systemic reaction was observed in the patients during the practice of skin tests. Discussion: Skin tests with glove extract in a concentration of 200 μg/mL gave sensitivity of 70% and specificity of 95%. With glove extract in a concentration of 300 μg/mL, it was obtained 705 of sensitivity and 98% of specificity. With regard to purified latex proteins the highest value was obtained by chemically modified heveine, in a concentration of 50 μg/mL, and with a sensitivity of 70% and specificity of 98%. Conclusions: The results in this study are proven with regard to sensitivity and specificity of latex extracts and purified proteins in order to be used in diagnosing allergy to latex. The security of the study was confirmed because there were no systemic reactions when carrying out skin tests. It is important to count upon a good, very carefully, performed clinical record. However, this is not just enough to establish a definite diagnosis about allergy to latex. It is always necessary to correlate the clinical records to the results from the skin test performed on latex extracts and purified proteins.

REFERENCES

1. Janeway AC, Travers P. Immunobiology. 2nd edition. London, Current Biology Ltd. 1996; 11: 3-11.

2. Van Neerven RJ, Ebner C, Yssel H, Kapsenberg ML, Lamb RJ. T-cell responses to allergens: epitope-specificity and clinical relevance. Immunology Today 1996; 17: 526-532.

3. Nuter A. Contact urticaria to rubber. Br J Dermatol 1979; 101: 597-598.

4. Breiteneder H, Scheiner O. Molecular and immunological characteristics of latex allergens. Int Arch Allergy Immunol 1998; 116: 83-92.

5. Posch A, Wheeler CH, Chen Z, Gflagge A. Class I endochitinase containing a hevein domain the causative allergen in latex-associated acovado allergy. Clin Exp Allergy 1999; 29: 667-672.

6. Bufe A. The biological function of allergens: Relevant for the induction of allergic diseases. Int Arch Allergy Immunol 1998; 117: 215-219.

7. Ferreira MB, Carlos AG. Latex: a complex allergy. Allerg Immunol 1999; 31: 18-21.

8. Terwissch SA, Hennin M, Dijkstra BW. The 1.8 Ao resolution structure of hevamina, a plant chitinase/lysozyme and analysis of the conserved sequence and structure motifs of gycosyl hydrolase family 18. J Mol Biol 1996; 262: 243-257.

9. Instituto Nacional de Estadística, Geografía e Informática. XII Censo General de Población y Vivienda. 2002.

10. Slavin RG. Pruebas diagnósticas en alergias. Atlas de Alergia. Segunda Edición. 1997; 3: 43-48.

11. Pires G, Gaspar A, Godinho. Risk factors for latex sensitization in children with spina bifida. Allergol et Immunopathol 2002; 30(1): 5-13.

12. Susan MT, Sussman F. Latex sensitivity in dental students and Staff. A cross sectional study. J Allergy Clin Immunol 1997; 99: 396-401.

13. Kenneth KT, Safadi GS, Sheikh KM. Diagnostic evaluation of type I latex allergy. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 1998; 80: 60-70.

14. Oehling A, Córdova H. El antígeno. Tipos y características. Alergología e Inmunología Clínica 1996; (3): 25-30.

15. Norman P, Lichtenstein L, Ishizaka K. Diagnostic tests in ragweed hay fever: a comparison of direct skin tests, IgE antibody measurements, and basophil histamine release. J Allergy Clin Immunol 1973; 52: 210.

16. Blanco C, Carrillo T, Ortega N et al. Comparison of skin-prick test and specific IgE determination for the diagnostic of latex allergy. Clin Exp Allergy 1999; 29: 133.

17. Aas K. Some variables in skin prick testing. Allergy 1980; 35: 250.

18. Scrup J, Starberg B. Quantification of weal reactions with laser Doppler flowmetry: comparative blood flow measurements of the oedematous center and the perilesional flare of skin-prick histamine wells. Allergy 1985; 40: 233.

19. Browm HM, Su. S, Thantrey N. Prick testing for allergens standardized by using a precision needle. Clin Allergy 1981; 11: 95.

20. Sullivan TJ. Pharmacologic modulation of the whealing response to histamine in human skin. J Allergy Clin Immunol 1982; 69: 260.

21. Nelson HS. Effects of preservatives and conditions of storage on the potency of allergy extracts. J Allergy Clin Immunol 1981; 67: 64.

22. Malling HJ. Skin testing and the use of histamine references. Allergy 1984; 39: 596.