BACKGROUND: Natural rubber latex allergy is a condition at high risk of anaphylaxis during surgery. However, latex contains several protein allergens and not all of them may show the same clinical relevance. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the clinical relevance of Hey b 8, the natural rubber latex profilin. METHODS: Seven patients without a clinical history of latex allergy but identified as being latex hypersensitive by positive SPT (3/7) and or positive latex-specific IgE during routine pre-surgery allergy investigations were studied. All patients were monosensitized to Hev b 8 (Hevea brasiliensis latex profilin) as shown by the detection of specific IgE to recombinant latex allergen components. Ten subjects with a history of latex allergy (urticaria, asthma, and/or rhinitis), sensitised to latex allergens other than profilin were enrolled as controls. Both patients and controls underwent a latex glove-wearing test; in case of a negative test, patients underwent surgery in a normal surgical setting. RESULTS: All 7 patients scored negative on latex glove wearing test and underwent major surgery (orthopaedic, Caesarean section, pilonidal sinus, vascular, tonsillectomy, uterine revision, and uretral surgery) in a normal (non-latex safe) surgical setting without any consequence. In contrast, 9/10 (90%) controls showed a positive latex glove-wearing test (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Latex profilin is either clinically irrelevant or is no longer present in latex products. This study highlights the importance of a component-resolved diagnosis of latex sensitisation as a tool to get a more precise assessment of the risk and to reduce the costs of healthcare.
BACKGROUND: Natural rubber latex allergy is a condition at high risk of anaphylaxis during surgery. However, latex contains several protein allergens and not all of them may show the same clinical relevance. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the clinical relevance of Hey b 8, the natural rubber latex profilin. METHODS: Seven patients without a clinical history of latexallergy but identified as being latexhypersensitive by positive SPT (3/7) and or positive latex-specific IgE during routine pre-surgery allergy investigations were studied. All patients were monosensitized to Hev b 8 (Hevea brasiliensislatex profilin) as shown by the detection of specific IgE to recombinant latex allergen components. Ten subjects with a history of latexallergy (urticaria, asthma, and/or rhinitis), sensitised to latex allergens other than profilin were enrolled as controls. Both patients and controls underwent a latex glove-wearing test; in case of a negative test, patients underwent surgery in a normal surgical setting. RESULTS: All 7 patients scored negative on latex glove wearing test and underwent major surgery (orthopaedic, Caesarean section, pilonidal sinus, vascular, tonsillectomy, uterine revision, and uretral surgery) in a normal (non-latex safe) surgical setting without any consequence. In contrast, 9/10 (90%) controls showed a positive latex glove-wearing test (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION:Latex profilin is either clinically irrelevant or is no longer present in latex products. This study highlights the importance of a component-resolved diagnosis of latex sensitisation as a tool to get a more precise assessment of the risk and to reduce the costs of healthcare.