Latex Allergy and Natural Rubber Sensitization

Table of Contents

1. What Natural Rubber Latex Is
2. Three Different Reactions From the Same Glove
3. Signs Hospitals Treat as Urgent
4. Health Care Workers
5. Children With Spina Bifida and Many Operations
6. The Rise and Fall of an Epidemic
7. The 2016 FDA Ban on Powdered Medical Gloves
8. Latex Reactions During Surgery
9. Latex-Fruit Syndrome
10. How Latex Allergy Is Diagnosed
11. What Latex-Free Care Means, as Reported
12. Desensitization Research
13. What Is Not Known
14. Key Research Papers
15. Connections
16. Featured Videos

What Natural Rubber Latex Is

Raw latex is collected from rubber trees and treated with ammonia so that it does not clot before it reaches the factory. A 2000 review by United States government researchers describes what happens next: the ammonia breaks the natural latex proteins into smaller pieces, and the manufacturer then adds a long list of chemicals to turn the liquid into a finished rubber product. A person who touches a latex glove is therefore exposed to two different things at once: leftover plant proteins, and leftover manufacturing chemicals. The two cause different kinds of reaction.

The same review lists at least ten separate latex proteins that sensitized people make antibodies against, named Hev b 1 through Hev b 10 (from Hevea brasiliensis). Each differs in size and structure. Some of their building blocks also occur in other plant proteins, which helps explain why some people with latex allergy also react to certain fruits (see Latex-Fruit Syndrome below).

The review also points to the condition of the skin. In laboratory skin-penetration studies and in mice, latex proteins passed through scraped skin more easily, and mice with scraped skin started making latex antibodies sooner. The review concludes that skin condition matters in how latex allergy develops, while noting that much less is known about how sensitization starts than about the reactions that follow.

Three Different Reactions From the Same Glove

"Latex allergy" is used loosely for three quite different problems. Reviews of the subject separate them clearly, and the difference matters because only one of them can be life-threatening.

1. Irritant contact dermatitis

This is not an allergy. It is direct irritation of the skin from wearing gloves for long periods, sweating inside them, frequent hand washing, and the powders or chemicals on the glove. The skin becomes dry, red, rough and cracked where the glove sits. It does not involve the allergy antibodies described below, and it is easily mistaken for a true allergy. In a 2000 British study of health care workers, 43.6 percent reported symptoms consistent with either this irritant reaction or the delayed allergy described next. Irritated, broken skin is discussed on the Contact Dermatitis page.

2. Delayed allergic contact dermatitis (type IV)

This is a true allergy, but usually not to latex itself. It is a delayed reaction by immune cells in the skin to the chemicals added during rubber manufacture, mainly the "accelerators" that speed up the curing of rubber. The rash appears later rather than within minutes, is itchy and eczema-like, and can spread beyond the area the glove touched; the 2010 report below describes some patients with widespread dermatitis. It is diagnosed with patch testing rather than with blood tests for latex antibodies.

Because the trigger is the added chemical rather than the plant protein, switching to a synthetic glove does not always help. A 2010 report from a United States dermatology clinic described 23 patients with allergic contact dermatitis from rubber accelerators in gloves, seen over 2 years. Sixteen were health care workers from one institution whose rash began around the time it switched to "latex-safe" synthetic gloves. Their patch tests were positive to accelerator chemicals including carbamates, thiurams, 2-mercaptobenzothiazole and 1,3-diphenylguanidine, and chemical analysis found 2-mercaptobenzothiazole in 4 of 6 glove samples tested. The rash cleared in each of the 9 patients with follow-up who were given alternative gloves chosen from published information on glove composition. Three of the 23 also had an immediate latex allergy.

3. Immediate latex allergy (type I, IgE-mediated)

This is the dangerous form. The body makes allergy antibodies, called immunoglobulin E (IgE), against the latex proteins themselves. On later contact, those antibodies trigger an immediate reaction. A 2000 review lists the range: hives where the glove touched (contact urticaria), hives spreading over the body, swelling of the lips, eyes or throat (angioedema), runny nose, itchy red eyes, wheezing and narrowing of the airways, and anaphylaxis. A 2009 family-medicine review describes the full span of latex reactions as running from type IV contact dermatitis to type I reactions such as hives, airway narrowing and anaphylaxis.

The route of contact matters. The FDA's 2016 rule on powdered gloves describes significant risks when latex allergens are inhaled or reach internal tissue during surgery or during oral, vaginal, gynecological and rectal examinations. Airborne latex protein, carried on glove powder, reaches people who never touch the glove themselves (see The Rise and Fall of an Epidemic).

Signs Hospitals Treat as Urgent

The type I reactions listed above can progress to anaphylaxis. Emergency services and hospitals treat these signs after latex contact as an emergency: swelling of the lips, tongue or throat; trouble breathing or wheezing; hoarseness or a tight throat; widespread hives; dizziness, fainting or a sudden drop in blood pressure. During an operation the patient is asleep and cannot report symptoms. In a 2018 United Kingdom audit of severe allergic reactions during anesthesia from all causes, the most common first signs were low blood pressure (46 percent) and narrowing of the airways (18 percent), and every patient had low blood pressure during the episode. The general picture of anaphylaxis is covered on the Anaphylaxis page.

Health Care Workers

People who wear latex gloves all day for work have been the main adult group affected. Reviews also name rubber industry workers as a high-risk group.

• Prevalence compared with the general population. A 2006 systematic review and meta-analysis carried out for the French national regulatory authority found latex allergy in 4.32 percent of health care workers and 1.37 percent of the general population. Positive skin prick tests to latex ranged from 2.1 to 3.7 percent in the general population and from 6.9 to 7.8 percent in health care workers.
• Symptoms linked to latex exposure at work. In the same analysis, health care workers exposed to latex had a higher risk of hand dermatitis (odds ratio 2.46), asthma or wheezing (odds ratio 1.55) and rhinoconjunctivitis, the combination of runny nose and itchy eyes (odds ratio 2.73). Latex sensitization was linked to asthma and rhinoconjunctivitis. Exposure to latex was not, on its own, linked to a statistically significant rise in positive skin prick tests (odds ratio 1.47, with a confidence interval that crossed 1).
• An earlier estimate. The 2000 review cited above quoted the United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration estimate that 8 to 12 percent of health care workers were sensitized to latex, against less than 1 percent of the general population.
• A dissenting analysis. A 2002 review of 48 epidemiologic studies reported that sensitization among health care workers ranged from 0 to 30 percent across studies, without a clear explanation for the spread. Its authors concluded that the studies did not show a clearly higher risk in health care workers than in other occupations, and that the role of gloves remained poorly defined. The 2006 meta-analysis was carried out partly in response to this conclusion and reached the opposite result.

The occupational side of latex allergy also includes asthma. The Asthma page covers asthma more broadly.

Children With Spina Bifida and Many Operations

The second group with very high rates of latex allergy is children who have many operations and procedures from early life. Children with spina bifida are the best-studied example, because many have operations from early life and repeated procedures afterwards. Reviews also list children with urinary tract and genital malformations, children who need repeated urinary catheterization, and children who have had multiple operations of any kind. A 2009 review notes that the risk appears greatest when surgeries or procedures happen within the first year of life.

Two studies show how much the picture changed once care became latex-free:

• Germany, 2010. Researchers compared 120 children with spina bifida who were born after latex-free care was introduced and had all their operations under latex-free conditions with 87 children of similar age from the earlier era. Latex sensitization was 55 percent in the earlier group and 5 percent in the latex-free group. Latex allergy was 37 percent in the earlier group and 0.8 percent in the latex-free group. The latex-free group also had less sensitization to airborne allergens (41.4 percent versus 20.8 percent) and fewer allergic diseases overall (35 percent versus 15 percent), with rates similar to children in the general population. The authors suggested that keeping latex away may also slow the spread of sensitization to other allergens.
• Meta-analysis, 2026. A review that pooled 19 studies of children with spinal dysraphism (the medical term covering spina bifida and related conditions) found latex sensitization in 20 percent on blood IgE testing and 21 percent on skin prick testing, and latex allergy in 6 percent. Rates appeared to be falling over time, but the trend did not reach statistical significance. The authors described the prevalence as still high and noted that few recent studies exist.

A 2023 review of latex allergy in children describes the condition as still a major health problem, especially in developing countries, where latex-free products may be less available. The Spina Bifida page covers the condition itself.

The Rise and Fall of an Epidemic

A 2017 review describes latex allergy as emerging "as an epidemic of anaphylaxis, occupational asthma, and clinical dilemmas in the 1980s". It credits a combination of research, government agencies, manufacturers and health policy with what it calls the "near elimination of a global epidemic".

The key change was the move away from powdered latex gloves. Glove powder, such as cornstarch-based powder, made gloves easier to pull on, but latex proteins stick to the powder. When gloves were snapped on and off, the powder carried latex protein into the air, where people breathed it in. Several studies tracked what happened when powdered gloves were removed:

• One German hospital, 1998. Before the change, 7 of 90 staff members examined (8 percent) had positive skin and blood tests for latex, and all 7 reported glove-related symptoms. Airborne latex allergen levels of up to 49.9 nanograms per cubic metre were measured. Within 24 hours of replacing powdered latex gloves with powder-free latex or synthetic gloves, airborne latex fell below the detection limit. Six of the 7 sensitized workers had a significant fall in their latex antibody levels at follow-up, and 2 workers with breathing symptoms were able to stop their asthma and allergy medicines.
• Germany nationwide, 2002. In a health care accident-insurance system covering about 3 million workers, hospitals were educated about latex allergy and required to buy only low-protein, powder-free latex gloves. Purchases of powder-free examination gloves first exceeded powdered ones in 1998, and powder-free sterile gloves followed in 2000. Reported suspected cases of occupational latex allergy rose until 1998 and declined steadily after that, with a 2-year lag between the fall in powdered glove purchases and the fall in suspected occupational asthma cases.
• A United States medical centre, 2011. Among 805 health care workers followed with yearly skin prick tests, sensitization before the change tracked the amount of latex measured in the air ducts of their work areas: 2 percent at low exposure, 8 percent at intermediate exposure and 16 percent at high exposure. After the switch to powder-free latex gloves, new cases of sensitization fell 16-fold, and 25 percent of workers who had been sensitized reverted to negative skin tests.
• Workers' compensation claims, 2008. At a United States institution that moved to powder-free latex gloves in 2001, claims for latex-related illness between 1997 and 2005 were significantly lower after the switch. The authors reported that higher glove costs were partly offset by lower compensation payments and operating room expenses.
• Japan, 1999 and 2014. Two surveys of hospitals in a national latex allergy society found that latex allergy cases among people in their twenties fell significantly, and cases caused by medical rubber gloves decreased. By 2014 the largest share of cases was in children under 10. The share of cases with latex-fruit syndrome rose from 15 percent to 40 percent.

A 2011 review argued that this decline had gone far enough that blanket hospital bans on all latex devices deserved a second look. It reported that low-protein, powder-free latex gloves are associated with a significant fall in type I latex reactions among health care workers, and that latex gloves tend to be stronger, more flexible and better accepted by clinicians than synthetic gloves.

The 2016 FDA Ban on Powdered Medical Gloves

In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) published a final rule on December 19, 2016 (81 FR 91722), effective January 18, 2017, banning powdered surgeon's gloves, powdered patient examination gloves, and absorbable powder for lubricating a surgeon's glove.

According to the rule's text:

• The FDA found that these devices present "an unreasonable and substantial risk of illness or injury" that labeling could not correct.
• The risks it listed include sensitization of health care workers and patients to natural rubber latex allergens, because powder on latex gloves can carry latex allergens into the air, as well as severe airway inflammation, allergic reactions including asthma, and granulomas and adhesions (scar tissue) when the powder reaches internal tissue during surgery.
• The ban covers all powdered patient examination and surgical gloves, whatever they are made of, including synthetic ones. Powdered radiographic protection gloves were the stated exception.
• The FDA declined requests to ban non-powdered latex gloves. It stated that the allergy risk from those gloves, which affects mainly the wearer and patients in direct contact, is addressed by the labeling already required for natural rubber latex products (21 CFR 801.437), and cited studies showing that powder-free latex gloves reduce sensitization and reactions.
• Gloves used for food preparation and food service were outside the rule, because they are not medical devices.

The FDA and Regulation section reports other FDA actions from their primary documents.

Latex Reactions During Surgery

The operating room was where latex allergy was most dangerous. Surgical gloves touch internal tissue, latex was present in many devices, and an anesthetized patient cannot report early symptoms. Surveys of allergic reactions during anesthesia show both how large a cause latex once was and how much it has faded.

• France, 2005 to 2007. The ninth national French survey of reactions during anesthesia identified 786 reactions with a diagnosed cause. Latex accounted for 158 of them (20 percent), behind neuromuscular blocking agents (muscle relaxants used in anesthesia, 47.4 percent) and ahead of antibiotics (18.1 percent).
• International review, 2016. A review of perioperative anaphylaxis across countries reported that reactions to latex were "rapidly decreasing as a result of primary and secondary prevention policy", while reactions to antibiotics, dyes and chlorhexidine were reported with high and sometimes increasing frequency.
• United Kingdom, 2018. The 6th National Audit Project collected 266 reports of severe perioperative anaphylaxis from all National Health Service hospitals over one year. There were no reports of latex-induced anaphylaxis.
• French children, 2026. An analysis of 461 reactions in children, pooled from French national network surveys and records between 1997 and 2024, reported that latex-related reactions disappeared after 2017.
• Japan, 2015 to 2021. A university hospital screened surgical patients with a standard latex questionnaire. Of 467 patients flagged by the questionnaire, 105 had a positive skin prick test, and 10 were diagnosed with latex allergy based on a glove-wearing test. Eight of the 10 reported allergic symptoms after eating fruits or vegetables. No reactions to latex occurred during surgery in the study period.

Latex-Fruit Syndrome

Some people with latex allergy also react to certain plant foods, most often fresh fruits. This is called latex-fruit syndrome. It happens because some latex proteins and some fruit proteins have similar shapes, so antibodies made against latex also recognize the fruit.

• The fruits involved. A 1997 German study of 136 patients with immediate latex allergy showed cross-reacting antibodies to papaya, avocado, banana, chestnut, passion fruit, fig, melon, mango, kiwi, pineapple, peach and tomato. A 2024 literature review found that the fruits most often involved are banana, avocado, kiwifruit and papaya.
• How common it is. Reported rates vary enormously. The 2024 review found figures from 4 to 88 percent of latex-allergic patients across studies, depending on the tests used, the region and the size of the study. An Italian report on 22 children and adolescents with latex allergy found latex-fruit syndrome in 36 percent, and in 78 percent of those with more severe latex reactions compared with 8 percent of those with only contact symptoms.
• How severe it is. In the 2024 review, 73 percent of the fruit reactions described in latex-fruit syndrome were systemic (affecting the body beyond the mouth), and 27 percent were local.
• Blood tests are a poor guide. In the 1997 study, 69.1 percent of patients had antibodies to at least one fruit, and 42.5 percent reported symptoms after eating the fruits. But fruit antibodies were found in only 32.1 percent of the patients who did report fruit symptoms. The authors concluded that blood tests have low value for predicting fruit allergy in latex-allergic people.
• The protein behind it. A 1999 Spanish study of 18 latex-allergic patients who were also allergic to chestnut, avocado or both found that purified class I chitinases from chestnut and avocado, plant defense enzymes carrying a "hevein-like" section that resembles the main latex allergen hevein, gave positive skin tests in 13 of 18 (72 percent) and 12 of 18 (67 percent) respectively. Related enzymes without the hevein-like section did not. The authors proposed these chitinases as the shared allergens behind the syndrome.

The fruit side of this link is also noted on the Bananas, Avocado and Kiwifruit pages. Food allergy in general is covered on the Food Allergy page.

How Latex Allergy Is Diagnosed

Reviews describe diagnosis as starting with the history and then using tests to confirm it.

• History. A 2000 review states that an accurate history, including questions on other allergies, food allergy and possible reactions to latex devices, makes the diagnosis of type I latex allergy possible.
• Skin prick test. A drop of latex extract is placed on the skin, which is then lightly pricked. A raised itchy bump within minutes points to IgE sensitization. The 2000 review regarded it as the main confirming test, but noted that the lack of an FDA-licensed latex extract had, at the time, restricted its use in the United States.
• Blood test for latex-specific IgE. This measures allergy antibodies against latex in a blood sample. The 2000 review noted that the commercial tests can disagree with one another on the same blood sample, possibly because they detect antibodies to different latex proteins. Newer tests measure antibodies to individual latex proteins such as Hev b 6.02.
• Glove use or provocation test. A 2009 review lists glove provocation, in which the person wears a latex glove under observation, as one of the ways the diagnosis is made. In the 2026 Japanese surgical series, the final diagnosis rested on this wearing test.
• Patch test. This is the test for the delayed type IV reaction to rubber chemicals, not for immediate latex allergy.

A positive test is not the same as an allergy. A 2000 British study tested the same group of health care workers with four blood tests and three skin prick preparations. Blood tests were positive in anywhere from 3.6 to 43.6 percent of the group, depending on the test, and skin prick tests in 2.9 to 14.3 percent. Of those tested, 9.1 percent reported symptoms that could fit type I allergy, and 43.6 percent reported symptoms consistent with type IV or irritant reactions. Most methods did not agree with each other, and none matched the reported type I symptoms. The authors concluded that the clinical history is essential and that relying on laboratory results alone could seriously overestimate how many people are sensitized.

The difference between sensitization (a positive test) and allergy (a positive test plus real reactions) runs through the whole subject. In the 2026 Japanese series, 105 patients had positive skin prick tests but only 10 were diagnosed with latex allergy.

What Latex-Free Care Means, as Reported

"Latex-free" or "latex-safe" care is the main measure reported in the studies above. As described in those studies and reviews, it includes:

• From birth for high-risk children. The German spina bifida study describes operating on children under latex-free conditions from their first surgery. A 2009 review states that using non-latex products from birth may prevent serious allergic reactions.
• Glove choice for staff. In the German hospital study, powdered latex gloves were replaced with powder-free latex or synthetic gloves, and staff already sensitized were given latex-free material. The nationwide German program required low-protein, powder-free gloves.
• Screening before surgery. The Japanese hospital series used a standard questionnaire before every operation, with skin and wearing tests for those flagged.
• Labeling. In the United States, natural rubber latex medical products carry a required statement alerting users to the risk of allergic reactions, under 21 CFR 801.437, as noted in the FDA's 2016 rule.

"Latex-free" does not mean "allergen-free". The 2010 report on synthetic gloves showed that rubber accelerator chemicals in non-latex gloves still cause delayed contact dermatitis. A 2020 review describes prevention measures as the gold-standard approach for people with latex allergy.

Desensitization Research

A 2020 review states that the only treatment able to change the natural course of latex allergy, rather than just treat reactions, is specific desensitization (allergen immunotherapy), in which small, gradually increasing amounts of latex allergen are given to retrain the immune response.

The evidence for the under-the-tongue (sublingual) form is limited. A 2017 meta-analysis found 152 records but only 4 randomized controlled trials that could be pooled. Sublingual immunotherapy reduced the skin reaction to a glove provocation test (standardized mean difference −0.9, from 2 trials). It did not significantly improve symptom scores, antibody levels, skin prick results or medication use. The authors called for larger and more randomized trials.

What Is Not Known

• How many people are affected today. The 2026 spina bifida meta-analysis points to a lack of recent studies, and its authors proposed a dedicated registry to find current rates. The falling trend it found did not reach statistical significance.
• How much of the risk came from work. A 2002 review and a 2006 meta-analysis reached opposite conclusions on whether health care workers are at clearly higher risk than other workers. The later intervention studies, which showed sensitization falling after powdered gloves were removed, support a link to airborne glove powder, but the size of the risk from powder-free latex gloves is less clear.
• How to define and measure latex-fruit syndrome. Reported rates span 4 to 88 percent, and the 2024 review calls for standardized diagnostic criteria and severity grading. The 1997 study found that blood tests often missed patients who did react to fruit.
• Which tests to trust. Commercial blood tests and skin prick extracts have disagreed with each other and with symptoms in studies of the same people.
• Whether desensitization helps. The trials are few and small.
• Where latex gloves fit in hospitals today. A 2011 review argued for reappraising hospital policies that restrict or ban latex devices, now that low-protein, powder-free latex gloves are available. The 2026 meta-analysis still found latex sensitization in 20 percent of children with spinal dysraphism on blood testing. The research does not settle where the balance lies.

What is well established, across many studies, is the main picture: latex proteins can cause a dangerous IgE allergy; health care workers and children with many early operations were most affected; airborne powder from latex gloves was a major source of sensitization; and removing powdered gloves and keeping high-risk children's care latex-free was followed by large falls in new cases. Questions about a specific reaction belong with a clinician who can take the full history.

Key Research Papers

1. Bousquet J, Flahault A, Vandenplas O, Ameille J, Duron JJ, Pecquet C, et al. Natural rubber latex allergy among health care workers: a systematic review of the evidence. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2006;118(2):447-54. PubMed PMID: 16890771
2. Blumchen K, Bayer P, Buck D, Michael T, Cremer R, Fricke C, et al. Effects of latex avoidance on latex sensitization, atopy and allergic diseases in patients with spina bifida. Allergy. 2010;65(12):1585-93. PubMed PMID: 20659078
3. Chung I, Manoj N, Ahmad K, Çinar EN, Perkin MR, Bridgens A, et al. Latex sensitization and allergy in children with spinal dysraphism: A meta-analysis. J Spinal Cord Med. 2026:1-12. PubMed PMID: 42831677
4. Toraason M, Sussman G, Biagini R, Meade J, Beezhold D, Germolec D. Latex allergy in the workplace. Toxicol Sci. 2000;58(1):5-14. PubMed PMID: 11053535
5. Pollart SM, Warniment C, Mori T. Latex allergy. Am Fam Physician. 2009;80(12):1413-8. PubMed PMID: 20000303
6. Cao LY, Taylor JS, Sood A, Murray D, Siegel PD. Allergic contact dermatitis to synthetic rubber gloves: changing trends in patch test reactions to accelerators. Arch Dermatol. 2010;146(9):1001-7. PubMed PMID: 20855699
7. Garabrant DH, Schweitzer S. Epidemiology of latex sensitization and allergies in health care workers. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2002;110(2 Suppl):S82-95. PubMed PMID: 12170248
8. Bernardini R, Catania P, Caffarelli C, Cardinale F, Franceschini F, Pelosi U, et al. Perioperative latex allergy. Int J Immunopathol Pharmacol. 2011;24(3 Suppl):S55-60. PubMed PMID: 22014926
9. Arasi S, Barni S, Caminiti L, Castagnoli R, Giovannini M, Liotti L, et al. Latex Allergy in Children. J Clin Med. 2023;13(1):124. PubMed PMID: 38202131
10. Kelly KJ, Sussman G. Latex Allergy: Where Are We Now and How Did We Get There? J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2017;5(5):1212-1216. PubMed PMID: 28888250
11. Allmers H, Brehler R, Chen Z, Raulf-Heimsoth M, Fels H, Baur X. Reduction of latex aeroallergens and latex-specific IgE antibodies in sensitized workers after removal of powdered natural rubber latex gloves in a hospital. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1998;102(5):841-6. PubMed PMID: 9819303
12. Allmers H, Schmengler J, Skudlik C. Primary prevention of natural rubber latex allergy in the German health care system through education and intervention. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2002;110(2):318-23. PubMed PMID: 12170275
13. Kelly KJ, Wang ML, Klancnik M, Petsonk EL. Prevention of IgE Sensitization to Latex in Health Care Workers After Reduction of Antigen Exposures. J Occup Environ Med. 2011;53(8):934-40. PubMed PMID: 21775898
14. Malerich PG, Wilson ML, Mowad CM. The effect of a transition to powder-free latex gloves on workers' compensation claims for latex-related illness. Dermatitis. 2008;19(6):316-8. PubMed PMID: 19134434
15. Kawai M, Kondo Y, Nakajima Y, Tsuge I, Yoshikawa T, Yagami A, et al. Changes in the characteristics of patients with latex allergy from 1999 to 2014. Fujita Med J. 2020;6(3):67-72. PubMed PMID: 35111524
16. Palosuo T, Antoniadou I, Gottrup F, Phillips P. Latex medical gloves: time for a reappraisal. Int Arch Allergy Immunol. 2011;156(3):234-46. PubMed PMID: 21720169
17. Dong SW, Mertes PM, Petitpain N, Hasdenteufel F, Malinovsky JM. Hypersensitivity reactions during anesthesia. Results from the ninth French survey (2005-2007). Minerva Anestesiol. 2012;78(8):868-78. PubMed PMID: 22441362
18. Mertes PM, Volcheck GW, Garvey LH, Takazawa T, Platt PR, Guttormsen AB, et al. Epidemiology of perioperative anaphylaxis. Presse Med. 2016;45(9):758-67. PubMed PMID: 27181074
19. Harper NJN, Cook TM, Garcez T, Farmer L, Floss K, Marinho S, et al. Anaesthesia, surgery, and life-threatening allergic reactions: epidemiology and clinical features of perioperative anaphylaxis in the 6th National Audit Project (NAP6). Br J Anaesth. 2018;121(1):159-171. PubMed PMID: 29935567
20. Michel MP, Guillaume P, Aurélie G, Chantal K, Corinne LB, Sébastien F, et al. Paediatric perioperative hypersensitivity reactions: Analysis of the French GERAP network database. Pediatr Allergy Immunol. 2026;37(9):e70474. PubMed PMID: 42747994
21. Kawasaki-Nagano M, Tamagawa-Mineoka R, Masuda K, Katoh N, Fukumoto T. Preoperative Questionnaire Evaluation and Testing for Latex Allergy: A Retrospective Study From 2015 to 2021. J Dermatol. 2026;53(8):1184-1188. PubMed PMID: 42210452
22. Brehler R, Theissen U, Mohr C, Luger T. "Latex-fruit syndrome": frequency of cross-reacting IgE antibodies. Allergy. 1997;52(4):404-10. PubMed PMID: 9188921
23. Gromek W, Kołdej N, Świtała S, Majsiak E, Kurowski M. Revisiting Latex-Fruit Syndrome after 30 Years of Research: A Comprehensive Literature Review and Description of Two Cases. J Clin Med. 2024;13(14):4222. PubMed PMID: 39064262
24. Ricci G, Piccinno V, Calamelli E, Giannetti A, Pession A. Latex-fruit syndrome in Italian children and adolescents with natural rubber latex allergy. Int J Immunopathol Pharmacol. 2013;26(1):263-8. PubMed PMID: 23527732
25. Blanco C, Diaz-Perales A, Collada C, Sánchez-Monge R, Aragoncillo C, Castillo R, et al. Class I chitinases as potential panallergens involved in the latex-fruit syndrome. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1999;103(3 Pt 1):507-13. PubMed PMID: 10069887
26. Pridgeon C, Wild G, Ashworth F, Egner W, Ward AM. Assessment of latex allergy in a healthcare population: are the available tests valid? Clin Exp Allergy. 2000;30(10):1444-9. PubMed PMID: 10998022
27. Nucera E, Aruanno A, Rizzi A, Centrone M. Latex Allergy: Current Status and Future Perspectives. J Asthma Allergy. 2020;13:385-398. PubMed PMID: 33061465
28. Sridharan K, Sivaramakrishnan G. Sublingual immunotherapy in patients with latex allergy: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Dermatolog Treat. 2017;28(7):600-605. PubMed PMID: 28320227
29. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Banned Devices; Powdered Surgeon's Gloves, Powdered Patient Examination Gloves, and Absorbable Powder for Lubricating a Surgeon's Glove. Final rule. Federal Register. 2016;81:91722. Federal Register 2016-30382

PubMed Topic Searches

1. Natural rubber latex allergy
2. Latex-fruit syndrome
3. Powder-free gloves and health care workers
4. Latex allergy and spina bifida
5. Latex and perioperative anaphylaxis
6. Rubber accelerators and glove dermatitis

Connections

• Dermatology
• Contact Dermatitis
• Spina Bifida
• Anaphylaxis
• Urticaria (Hives)
• Food Allergy
• Asthma
• Avocado
• Bananas

Featured Videos