Abstract
Allergy to laboratory animals is common, with an estimated incidence of 11 to 44%. 1 For workers involved with animal research, laboratory animal allergy (LAA) can negatively affect health and careers. Although allergy can be prevented, it continues to be a significant challenge for personnel involved with research, including technicians, scientists, and veterinarians. National surveys have demonstrated that many workers are not adequately protected from developing LAA. 2 In an effort to encourage greater protection for workers, the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM) has recently published guidance for the prevention of LAA. 3 The guidance includes a recommendation for the establishment of a leadership group to tackle this challenge, which should include biosafety officers who can play a key role in ensuring that workers are educated about LAA and adequately protected.
Animal allergies are caused by protein allergens, many of which have been well characterized. The allergens associated with the most common research animals, mice (Mus m 1) and rats (Rat n 1), are members of the lipocalin family and have substantial sequence homology. 1 The similarity of these proteins increases the risk for cross-sensitization. 4 Lipocalin allergens are also associated with cats, dogs, guinea pigs, hamsters, and rabbits, although some animal allergens come from other protein families. 5 These allergens can be found in saliva, hair, dander, and urine as well as cages and bedding. Exposures to allergens from animal bites or husbandry procedures are well documented. In addition, allergens may be carried out of the animal facility if deposited on unprotected hair, clothing, shoes, or equipment that has not been decontaminated.
Workers with allergies can experience rhinoconjunctivitis (nose and eye symptoms), sinusitis, asthma, or anaphylaxis, with symptoms ranging from mild to life-threatening. Although asthma or anaphylaxis can be a first manifestation of allergy, most people progress from rhinoconjunctivitis. Workers with allergies to one species are at risk of developing allergies to additional species, even in environments that are protective for the development of a first allergy. 6
Preventing allergy or progression of symptoms requires preventing exposure since no safe level has been determined. This involves utilizing the same hierarchy of controls used to prevent other laboratory exposures (Table 1).
Approach to prevention of laboratory animal allergy
Source: Reprinted by permission from Wolters Kluwer: Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 2025: ACOEM Guidance Statement: Laboratory Animal Allergy, by Gregg M. Stave et al., Copyright © 2025. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0000000000003367.
For many organizations, current efforts do not appear to be successfully preventing LAA. There is a need for leadership to move forward from the status quo. Since prevention of LAA touches on every element of the research enterprise, there is a need for a broad-based leadership team, which may be an existing health and safety committee. This team should have representation from all groups that conduct and support research, including biosafety officers. Other members can include representatives from occupational health, environmental health and safety, the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC), facilities/engineering, senior laboratory staff, animal care management, and regulatory staff/risk management/compliance. 3 Since the leadership team members do not oversee daily animal work, it is important for the team to engage with front line workers for feedback on the prevention program.
The leadership team can support the use of best practices to reduce exposure through the use of controls and track the results of the prevention program. This team can also support efforts to centralize animal work and develop data that supports additional institutional investment when needed. Centralized facilities are more likely to be designed to control exposures compared with transporting animals to individual labs. Removal of animals to a laboratory should be justified, and IACUC approval is required to minimize the number of staff potentially exposed.
Prevention of animal allergy is also a component of accreditation by AAALAC International. Site visitors “evaluate occupational health and safety programs and the methods used to prevent LAA through evaluation of personnel training, risk assessment by qualified occupational health and safety personnel, preventive medicine, periodic health evaluations, engineering controls, and the appropriate use of PPE.” 7 The leadership team can develop documentation that supports accreditation.
As a component of their audit and compliance efforts, many organizations conduct self-audits. The ACOEM guidance recommends performing self-audits that address the prevention of LAA and includes a sample self-audit form that can be adapted by organizations. 3
There is also a need to improve medical surveillance. To understand whether medical surveillance is successfully detecting new cases of animal allergy, it’s important to track the prevalence and incidence of cases. In national surveys, only one in four programs track these data. 3 Although the background prevalence of allergy is likely to be at least 10% (the lowest prevalence reported in published studies), it is notable that many programs that report tracking data report a prevalence of 0%. 2 This suggests that the approach to surveillance may need to be revised. Changes to surveillance program administration should consider factors that may contribute to underreporting. This may include reluctance to report from fear that it may affect the ability to continue in a job. Workers should understand that most people with allergies are able to continue work with additional controls or changes in work practices, but that workers with continuing symptoms are at risk for progression to occupational asthma.
While medical surveillance is the responsibility of occupational health, Biosafety Officers should be aware of the overall results; the results are a key indicator of the success of the allergy prevention program and can also indicate the need for additional protective measures. The de-identified results of medical surveillance that should be shared with the leadership team include incidence, prevalence, number of new cases, animal species associated with new cases, and jobs/tasks associated with new cases.
Along with participating on a leadership team, Biosafety Officers can help ensure that IACUC deliberations address worker health along with animal welfare. They can identify key areas of concern during IACUC inspections and program reviews, protocol reviews, and facility design meetings. They can also participate in worksite investigations when workers develop allergies. In addition, they can participate in program and site audits. In all of these settings, Biosafety Officers can recommend controls, including work practices with the goal of creating an environment where no workers experience allergic symptoms. In addition, they can ensure that biosafety training for staff working with animals includes information on the prevention of LAA and access to occupational health resources. Institutional awareness may be heightened by adding the LAA surveillance and prevention program to Institutional Biosafety Committee minutes in the Occupational Health review section required by the NIH Office of Science Policy template. 8 Prevention of allergy supports personal health and retention of valuable staff. With a concerted effort, workers will be able to conduct their work without the risk of developing or progressing symptoms of allergy.
Authors’ Contributions
Both authors contributed to the conceptualization and writing.
Footnotes
Author Disclosure Statement
No competing financial interests exist.
Funding Information
No funding was received for this article.
Artificial Intelligence
The authors did not use artificial intelligence.