Immune responses in dogs with cutaneous adverse food reactions

Veenhof, Eveline Z.; Knol, Edward F.; Willemse, Ton; Rutten, Victor P.M.G.

doi:10.1080/01652176.2012.713170

Cited by 2 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 140 publications

(145 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is generally accepted that, although the pathomechanisms underlying CAFR in dogs remain to be determined accurately, it is likely that hypersensitivity or intolerance processes are involved. 5,[17][18][19]30,31 The presence of serum IgE antibodies in some affected dogs, as reported in the present and previous studies, supports the concept of allergic sensitization and immediate hypersensitivity in at least a proportion of dogs with CAFR. 32,33 Unfortunately, serological tests are not likely to yield useful results in cases of food intolerance because such responses are thought not to be mediated by serum antibodies.…”

Section: Food-specific Serum Ige Antibodiessupporting

confidence: 86%

“…Antigen-specific IgE antibodies are of potential pathogenic significance in allergic disorders in view of their potential to mediate activation and degranulation of mast cells and basophils upon allergen exposure, and to facilitate allergen capture by dendritic cells that express highaffinity IgE receptors. 5 Unfortunately, the comparable frequency of positive IgE reactivity across groups indicates that the presence of food-specific IgE is widespread amongst dogs of differing disease status, including healthy dogs, and is not exclusive to dogs with CAFR. This phenomenon of 'asymptomatic hypersensitivity' 34 has been observed in multiple previous studies.…”

Section: Food-specific Serum Ige Antibodiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Adverse food reactions encompass nonimmune‐mediated, intolerant reactions and immune‐mediated, allergic responses, commonly mediated by IgE . In dogs, the mechanisms of AFR are not well defined, although it has been suggested that they may reflect hypersensitivity responses of types one, three or four or intolerance associated with enzyme deficiencies, abnormal absorption or naturally occurring chemicals in food . An AFR principally manifesting with dermatological clinical signs is termed ‘cutaneous adverse food reaction’ (CAFR), but dogs may also present with gastrointestinal signs, with or without concurrent skin disease .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[1][2][3] In dogs, the mechanisms of AFR are not well defined, although it has been suggested that they may reflect hypersensitivity responses of types one, three or four 4 or intolerance associated with enzyme deficiencies, abnormal absorption or naturally occurring chemicals in food. 5 An AFR principally manifesting with dermatological clinical signs is termed 'cutaneous adverse food reaction' (CAFR), but dogs may also present with gastrointestinal signs, with or without concurrent skin disease. [6][7][8] Cutaneous adverse food reaction may develop between the ages of 7 weeks and 13 years, often presenting with nonseasonal pruritus affecting the ears, feet, face, ventrum, limbs or perineal regions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Food‐specific serumIgEandIgGreactivity in dogs with and without skin disease: lack of correlation between laboratories

Hardy

Hendricks

Loeffler

et al. 2014

Veterinary Dermatology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Despite conflicting data on their utility and no reports on interlaboratory reproducibility, serum food‐specific antibodies are commonly assayed in first‐opinion canine practice. Hypothesis/Objectives To determine both the variability of test results between two laboratories and the frequencies and magnitudes of food reactivity in dogs of different disease status. Animals Sera were obtained from eight dogs with cutaneous adverse food reaction (Group A), 22 with nonfood‐induced atopic dermatitis (Group B), 30 with an allergic/inflammatory phenotype (Group C), 12 with miscellaneous skin diseases (Group D) and nine healthy dogs (Group E). Methods Paired sera were submitted to two laboratories (A and B) for assays of food‐specific IgE and IgG antibodies. Results Numbers of positive IgE and IgG tests determined by each laboratory in Groups A, B, D and E were comparable (Group C not included). Significant differences in the magnitude of IgE reactivity between groups for each allergen were seen only for lamb (Laboratory A, P = 0.003); lamb reactivity in Group D exceeded Group E (P = 0.004) but was comparable between all other groups. Agreement (kappa statistic) between the two laboratories’ tests was ‘moderate’ for one antigen (potato IgE), ‘fair’ for four (corn IgE, rice IgE and IgG and soya bean IgG), ‘slight’ for eight (six IgE and two IgG) and ‘less than chance’ for the remaining six antigens (three IgE and three IgG). Conclusions and clinical importance These laboratories’ tests appear to have dubious predictive clinical utility because they neither correlate nor distinguish between dogs of different disease status.

show abstract

Section: Food-specific Serum Ige Antibodiessupporting

confidence: 86%

Section: Food-specific Serum Ige Antibodiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Food‐specific serumIgEandIgGreactivity in dogs with and without skin disease: lack of correlation between laboratories

Hardy

Hendricks

Loeffler

et al. 2014

Veterinary Dermatology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Use of the Health Belief Model to identify factors associated with owner adherence to elimination diet trial recommendations in dogs

Painter¹,

Tapp²,

Painter

2019

javma

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

OBJECTIVE To use the Health Belief Model to identify factors associated with owner adherence to elimination diet trial (EDT) recommendations by veterinarians for dogs with suspected cutaneous adverse food reactions (CAFRs). SAMPLE 192 owners of dogs prescribed an EDT between April 1, 2012, and April 1, 2017. PROCEDURES Owners of dogs prescribed an EDT to diagnose CAFRs were identified through review of medical records from a single veterinary dermatology specialty practice. Identified owners were invited to participate in an anonymous online survey that was developed on the basis of the Health Belief Model. Multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate associations between potential predictor variables and 100% adherence to EDT recommendations. RESULTS 665 owners were invited to participate, and 192 (28.9%) completed the survey. Of the 192 respondents, 77 (40.1%) reported 100% adherence to EDT recommendations, and 115 (59.9%) reported < 100% adherence. Results indicated that the odds of owners reporting 100% adherence to EDT recommendations were significantly decreased by owner perception of barriers (adjusted OR [ORa] = 0.86) and were significantly increased by owner knowledge regarding diets and CAFRs in dogs (ORa = 1.30) and by self-efficacy or confidence in performing an EDT as directed (ORa = 1.18). CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE Findings indicated that most prescribed EDTs were not followed strictly. Interventions to help owners reduce perceived barriers, increase self-efficacy, and improve related knowledge could improve adherence to EDT recommendations and, thereby, increase the diagnostic utility of EDTs.

show abstract

Immune responses in dogs with cutaneous adverse food reactions

Cited by 2 publications

References 140 publications

Food‐specific serumIgEandIgGreactivity in dogs with and without skin disease: lack of correlation between laboratories

Food‐specific serumIgEandIgGreactivity in dogs with and without skin disease: lack of correlation between laboratories

Use of the Health Belief Model to identify factors associated with owner adherence to elimination diet trial recommendations in dogs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About