Evaluation of Latex-Specific IgE and Skin Test Results in Patients with Suspected Latex Allergy
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to evaluate latex sensitization in patients referred for suspected latex allergy.
Methods: This retrospective study included 177 patients with suspected latex allergy who were evaluated for latex sensitization. Patients were categorized according to the indication for latex-specific IgE testing, and latex-specific IgE results were compared across groups, with a separate evaluation performed in the subgroup of healthcare workers.
Results: In this study, 177 patients underwent latex-specific IgE testing, with a mean age of 39.18 ± 13.10 years (range, 19–81 years); 134 patients (75.7%) were female, and latex-specific IgE positivity was detected in 33 patients (18.6%). Latex skin prick test was performed in 53 patients, and positive results were observed in 9 (16.9%). Latex patch test was performed in 10 patients, and all latex patch test results were negative. The indications for latex-specific IgE testing were evaluation for latex–fruit syndrome in 82 patients (46.3%), latex-related symptoms following direct contact with latex-containing products in 53 patients (29.9%), and occupational or environmental exposure to latex-containing products in 42 patients (23.7%). The indication for testing was significantly associated with latex-specific IgE status (p=0.007). Symptoms following direct latex contact were more common with positive latex-specific IgE results. Healthcare workers comprised 29.4% of the study population (n=52). Latex-specific IgE positivity was detected in 17.3% of healthcare workers (n=9).
Conclusions: Reactions following direct contact with latex-containing products were associated with latex-specific IgE positivity and may help identify patients more likely to have latex sensitization.
Keywords
Ethical Statement
References
- Parisi CAS, Kelly KJ, Ansotegui IJ, Gonzalez-Díaz SN, Bilò MB, Cardona V, et al. Update on latex allergy: new insights into an old problem. World Allergy Organ J. 2021 Aug;14(8):100569. doi:10.1016/j.waojou.2021.100569.
- Kelly KJ, Sussman G. Latex allergy: where are we now and how did we get there? J allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2017;5(5):1212–6. doi:10.1016/j.jaip.2017.05.029.
- Pesonen M, Koskela K, Aalto-Korte K. Contact urticaria and protein contact dermatitis in the finnish register of occupational diseases in a period of 12 years. Contact Dermatitis. 2020 Jul;83(1):1–7. doi:10.1111/cod.13547.
- Cabañes N, Igea JM, de la Hoz B, Agustín P, Blanco C, Domínguez J, et al. Latex allergy: position paper. J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol. 2012;22(5):313–30; quiz follow 330. PMID: 23101306.
- Dejonckheere G, Herman A, Baeck M. Allergic contact dermatitis caused by synthetic rubber gloves in healthcare workers: sensitization to 1,3-diphenylguanidine is common. Contact Dermatitis. 2019 Sep;81(3):167–73. doi:10.1111/cod.13269.
- Vandenplas O, Froidure A, Meurer U, Rihs H-P, Rifflart C, Soetaert S, et al. The role of allergen components for the diagnosis of latex-induced occupational asthma. Allergy. 2016 Jun;71(6):840–9. doi:10.1111/all.12872.
- Poley GEJ, Slater JE. Latex allergy. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2000 Jun;105(6 Pt 1):1054–62. doi:10.1067/mai.2000.106925.
- Raulf M. Current state of occupational latex allergy. Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol. 2020 Apr;20(2):112–6. doi:10.1097/ACI.0000000000000611.
Details
Primary Language
English
Subjects
Dermatology
Journal Section
Research Article
Early Pub Date
September 25, 2026
Publication Date
September 30, 2026
Submission Date
June 9, 2026
Acceptance Date
August 17, 2026
Published in Issue
Year 2026 Volume: 16 Number: 3