Epidemiologic assessment of laboratory animal allergy among university employees

✍ Scribed by Laurence J. Fuortes; LeAnn Weih; Martin L. Jones; Leon F. Burmeister; Peter S. Thorne; Sue Pollen; James A. Merchant

• Publisher: John Wiley and Sons
• Year: 1996
• Tongue: English
• Weight: 634 KB
• Volume: 29
• Category: Article
• ISSN: 0271-3586
• DOI: 10.1002/(sici)1097-0274(199601)29:1<67::aid-ajim9>3.0.co;2-w

✦ Synopsis

The prevalence oj and risk factors .for, laboratory animal allergy (LAA) umong university employees were evaluated in a cross-sectional university-based study. A stratified random satnple was drawn based on current or no laboratory animal exposure and smoking status. Participants receilled a modified ATS questionnaire; spirometn; methacholine challenge; and intrudermal allergen skin tests. One hundred three currently animal-exposed and I13 never-occupationally-exposed employees participated. Controlling for smoking, currently exposed workers were significantly more likely than controls to describe work-related cough, odds ratio (O.R.) = 6.87; wheeze, O.R. = 12.96; and chest tightness, O.R. = 2.89. Skin test reactivity to non-animal antigens was associcited in a dose-response fashion with both upper and lower respiratoty sytnptnms, O.R. = 1.45 and 1.65, respectively, for each additional positive skin test. Exposed workers were significantly more likely than controls to react to methocholine at either 10 or 25 mg/ml, while controlling for smoking status, prior allergy, or asthma. Multiple logistic regression analysis revealed history of hay .fever, family history of allergy, non-aninwl skin test positivity, anitnal bites, uge, and smoking status to each be asociuted with work-related respirator?, symptoms. These data suggest that atopy and smoking stCitus are risk factors for LAA symptoms. Smoking was associated with work-related respiratoty symptoms among unimal-exposed workers, but not with skin test positivity. It is therefore recommended that periodic screening evaluations be performed on labomtoty animal workers and that workers who are atopic, are smokers, or are symptomatic be placed in low exposure settings. These data further support the need for eficient exhaust ventilation, personal protective clothing and, among high risk workers, the use of eficient respirator?, protection. 0 19% Wile-Liss, h c .