Prevention of Laboratory Animal Allergy and Impact of COVID-19 on Prevention Programs in the United States: a national survey 10-year update
Martin, William E. MD, MBA, MPH; Darcey, Dennis J. MD, MPH, MSPH; Stave, Gregg M. MD, JD, MPH
Background
A national survey of institutional officials of laboratory animal facilities was undertaken to provide a 10-year update on current laboratory animal allergy prevention effects and the impact of COVID-19 on PPE and organizational safety behaviors. Laboratory animal allergy is an important occupational disease, because of its ability to effect its high prevalance and potential to effect both the health and livelihoods of laboratory animal workers. Cross-sectional studies have reported a wide spectrum of prevalence, 11% to 44%.1 Of those workers who become symptomatic, approximately 4-22% will develop occupational asthma.1 Laboratory animal allergy is caused by exposure to animal aeroallergens and the eventual sensitization of workers. Sensitized workers may develop signs of respiratory allergy, dermal allergy, occupational asthma, or anaphylaxis. Challengingly, there is no known safe level of exposure animal allergen exposure and levels as low as 1ng/m3 have been shown to induce symptoms.2 Fortunately, laboratory animal allergy can be prevented through implementing a comprehensive prevention program.
Findings
The survey found wide variations in prevention practices including – engineering controls, work practice controls, administrative controls, PPE use, and medical surveillance. Only a select few controls and practice use rates increased. The majority of controls and practices showed no changes when compared to the original survey’s findings ten years prior. Most organizations performed some from of medical surveillance, but only 5% of institutions reviewed their findings on a group basis. Reviewing of findings on a group basis and tracking epidemiologic figures (e.g., prevalence and incidence rates) are crucial to detecting emerging workplace hazards and assessing effectiveness of workplace controls and prevention practices. Additionally, only a quarter knew their incidence and prevalance figures and those that did mostly reported rates of 0%. This is unexpected given the wide prevalance of laboratory animal allergy and even with a comprehensive program, workers may have developed the disease prior to employment. Finally, programs that did report rates of 0%, did not differ in their use of PPE compared to institutions that did not know their rates.
Conclusion
There continues to exist a wide variation and no consistent approach in the prevention of laboratory animal allergy. Given the reported prevalence rates in combination with PPE use and group surveillance findings, programs may be overestimating the effectiveness of their programs. As there is no OSHA or credentialing national standards, such a survey provides value for quantifying current practices and highlighting the need for the development of national evidence based standards.
References:
[1] Bush RK, Stave GM. Laboratory animal allergy: an update. ILAR J. 2003;44(1):28–51. https://doi.org/10.1093/ilar.44.1.28.
[2] Gordon S, Preece R. Prevention of laboratory animal allergy. Occup Med (Lond). 2003;53(6):371-377. doi:10.1093/occmed/kqg117
