Displaying publications 21 - 24 of 24 in total

Abstract:
Sort:
  1. Chaubal TV, Bapat RA, Patil PG, Shetty A
    Contact Derm., 2016 Oct;75(4):256-7.
    PMID: 27620128 DOI: 10.1111/cod.12625
    Matched MeSH terms: Gloves, Protective/adverse effects*
  2. Hamilton RG, Adkinson NF
    J Allergy Clin Immunol, 1996 Nov;98(5 Pt 1):872-83.
    PMID: 8939150
    BACKGROUND: Nonammoniated latex, ammoniated latex, and rubber glove extracts are the only sources of natural rubber (Hevea brasiliensis) latex that have potential for use as skin testing reagents in the diagnosis of latex allergy. Their diagnostic sensitivity and specificity as skin test reagents are unknown.

    OBJECTIVE: We conducted a phase 1/2 clinical study to examine the safety and diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity and specificity) of nonammoniated latex, ammoniated latex, and rubber glove extracts as skin test extracts to identify the most efficacious source material for future skin test reagent development.

    METHODS: Twenty-four adults not allergic to latex, 19 adults with hand dermatitis or pruritus, and 59 adults with a latex allergy were identified by clinical history. All provided blood and then received puncture skin tests and intradermal skin tests with nonammoniated latex, ammoniated latex, and rubber glove extracts from Malaysian H. brasiliensis latex by use of sequential titration. A glove provocation test and IgE anti-latex RAST were used to clarify positive history-negative skin test response and negative history-positive skin test response mismatches.

    RESULTS: All three extracts were biologically safe and sterile. After normalization to 1 mg/ml of total protein, all three extracts produced equivalent diagnostic sensitivity and specificity in puncture skin tests and intradermal skin tests at various extract concentrations. Optimal diagnostic accuracy was safely achieved at 100 micrograms/ml for intradermal skin tests (e.g., nonammoniated latex: puncture skin test sensitivity 96%, specificity 100%; intradermal skin test sensitivity 93%, specificity 96%). The presence of IgE antibody in skin was highly correlated with IgE anti-latex in serum (nonammoniated latex: r = 0.98, p < 0.001; ammoniated latex: r = 0.94, p < 0.001; rubber glove extract: r = 0.96, p < 0.001). All five available subjects with a positive history, negative skin test response, and absence of IgE antibody in serum had a negative glove provocation test response, indicating no clinical evidence of latex allergy. No systemic or large local allergic reactions were observed with puncture skin tests or intradermal skin tests.

    CONCLUSIONS: Equivalent diagnostic sensitivity and specificity were observed with the nonammoniated latex, ammoniated latex, and rubber glove extract skin test reagents after normalization for total protein; nonammoniated latex may be considered the reagent of choice on the basis of practical quality control and reproducibility considerations.

    Matched MeSH terms: Gloves, Protective*
  3. Yeang HY, Chow KS, Yusof F, Arif SA, Chew NP, Loke YH
    J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol, 2000 Jul-Aug;10(4):215-22.
    PMID: 11039838
    Six Hevea brasiliensis latex protein allergens, Hevb 1, Hev b 2, Hev b 3, Hev b 4, and two variants of Hev b 7 (7b and 7c), were purified from Hevea latex, while a seventh protein, Hev b 5, was prepared in recombinant form. The presence of these proteins in glove extracts was indicated by their respective antibodies in the serum of rabbits immunized against the extracts. The relative propensities of IgE binding to the individual latex allergens were compared using sera from latex-allergic patients. IgE recognition of Hev b 4, Hev b 7b, Hev b 5 and Hev b 2 was most frequently encountered, with 75, 61, 31 and 28%, respectively, of the patient sera reacting. Sensitivity to multiple latex proteins was common, and out of the 31 seropositive patients, 23 (74%/ ) had IgE against at least two latex allergens, while 12 (39%) had IgE specific for at least three allergens. Statistical analysis of the data suggested that many patients might have acquired sensitivity to Hev b 2, Hev b 4 and Hev b 7b from a common source. (e.g., from latex products). On the other hand, sensitivity to Hev b 5 and to Hev b 7c were interrelated. It is plausible that sensitivity to these two proteins might have been acquired from sources other than latex products (e.g., from certain foods).
    Matched MeSH terms: Gloves, Protective
  4. Boyle DK, Forsyth A, Bagg J, Stroubou K, Griffiths CE, Burke FJ
    J Dent, 2002 Jul-Aug;30(5-6):233-41.
    PMID: 12450714
    Glove wearing during patient treatment has been central to dental surgery infection control for over 15 years. However, little is known about the cutaneous effects of glove wearing on the hands of dental healthcare workers (DHCWs). The objective of this project was to assess the hand skin health of DHCWs before and after wearing gloves of two types and to compare this with a control group of non-DHCWs.
    Matched MeSH terms: Gloves, Protective
Filters
Contact Us

Please provide feedback to Administrator (afdal@afpm.org.my)

External Links