S'abonner

Specific immunotherapy with a standardized latex extract versus placebo in allergic healthcare workers - 04/09/11

Doi : 10.1067/mai.2000.109173 
Francisque Leynadier, MDa, Denis Herman, MDb, Daniel Vervloet, MDc, Claude Andre, MD, PhD, MFPMd
Paris, Marseille, and Antony, France 
From aHôpital Rothschild and bHôpital Bichat, Service de Médecine Interne, Centre d’Allergie, Paris; cHôpital Sainte-Marguerite, Département des Maladies Respiratoires, Marseille; and dScientific and Medical Department, Stallergènes SA, Antony 

Abstract

Background: The prevalence of allergy to natural rubber latex proteins has increased over recent years among healthcare professionals but also in children undergoing multiple operations. Exposure to the antigen mainly occurs through the respiratory mucosa and the percutaneous route. Clinical manifestations range from urticaria to angioedema, rhinoconjunctivitis, bronchial asthma, or anaphylactic shock. Preventive measures have been proposed to reduce the risk of sensitization by using only powder-free or synthetic gloves and latex-free material in operating units, but this is not always possible. Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of specific immunotherapy in sensitized workers. Methods: Seventeen patients with latex skin allergy and rhinitis (9 of whom also had asthma) were included in this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (9 in the active group and 8 in the placebo group) for 1 year. Treatment started with a 2-day course of rush immunotherapy in hospital. Treatment efficacy was assessed after 6 and 12 months by means of symptom and medication scores recorded on diary cards. Conjunctival provocation tests were also performed. Results: Patients in the active treatment group had a significantly lower total rhinitis score after 6 (P < .04) and 12 months (P < .05), conjunctivitis score after 6 months (P < .02), and cutaneous score after 12 months (P < .03) than in the placebo group. Asthma symptoms after 6 or 12 months of treatment were not significantly different between the two groups after adjustment for baseline values. The global medication score was markedly decreased in the latex-treated group. A significant difference in conjunctival reactivity was observed in favor of the active group: the number of patients for whom the threshold dose was increased after 12 months of treatment was significantly greater in the active group than in the placebo group (P < .02). Most injections were well tolerated, but several adverse effects, including hypotension, urticaria, wheezing, and pharyngeal edema, were observed. Conclusion: The clinical benefits observed during the present study included a significant improvement of rhinitis, conjunctivitis, and cutaneous symptoms. Immunotherapy also decreased allergen-specific conjunctival reactivity. Latex-specific immunotherapy may allow sensitized personnel to remain at work, but further trials need to be conducted in a larger number of patients. (J Allergy Clin Immunol 2000;106:585-90.)

Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.

Keywords : Latex, urticaria, rhinoconjunctivitis, asthma, anaphylactic shock, specific immunotherapy

Abbreviations : CPT:, IR:, NRL:


Plan


 Supported by Stallergènes SA, France.
 Reprint requests: Claude André, MD, PhD, MFPM, Stallergènes SA, 6 rue Alexis de Tocqueville, 92183 Antony, France.


© 2000  Mosby, Inc. Tous droits réservés.
Ajouter à ma bibliothèque Retirer de ma bibliothèque Imprimer
Export

    Export citations

  • Fichier

  • Contenu

Vol 106 - N° 3

P. 585-590 - septembre 2000 Retour au numéro
Article précédent Article précédent
  • IgE antibody to fish gelatin (type I collagen) in patients with fish allergy
  • Masahiro Sakaguchi, Masako Toda, Testuya Ebihara, Shinkichi Irie, Hisae Hori, Atsushi Imai, Makoto Yanagida, Hiroshi Miyazawa, Hiroyuki Ohsuna, Zenro Ikezawa, Sakae Inouye
| Article suivant Article suivant
  • Change in gelatin content of vaccines associated with reduction in reports of allergic reactions
  • Tetsuo Nakayama, Chikara Aizawa

Bienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
L’accès au texte intégral de cet article nécessite un abonnement.

Déjà abonné à cette revue ?

Mon compte


Plateformes Elsevier Masson

Déclaration CNIL

EM-CONSULTE.COM est déclaré à la CNIL, déclaration n° 1286925.

En application de la loi nº78-17 du 6 janvier 1978 relative à l'informatique, aux fichiers et aux libertés, vous disposez des droits d'opposition (art.26 de la loi), d'accès (art.34 à 38 de la loi), et de rectification (art.36 de la loi) des données vous concernant. Ainsi, vous pouvez exiger que soient rectifiées, complétées, clarifiées, mises à jour ou effacées les informations vous concernant qui sont inexactes, incomplètes, équivoques, périmées ou dont la collecte ou l'utilisation ou la conservation est interdite.
Les informations personnelles concernant les visiteurs de notre site, y compris leur identité, sont confidentielles.
Le responsable du site s'engage sur l'honneur à respecter les conditions légales de confidentialité applicables en France et à ne pas divulguer ces informations à des tiers.


Tout le contenu de ce site: Copyright © 2024 Elsevier, ses concédants de licence et ses contributeurs. Tout les droits sont réservés, y compris ceux relatifs à l'exploration de textes et de données, a la formation en IA et aux technologies similaires. Pour tout contenu en libre accès, les conditions de licence Creative Commons s'appliquent.