Measurement of allergen-specific IgG in serum is of limited value for the management of dogs diagnosed with cutaneous adverse food reactions

Hagen-Plantinga, E.A.; Leistra, Mieke H. G.; Sinke, Jacqueline D.; Vroom, M W; Savelkoul, H.F.J.; Hendriks, W.H.

doi:10.1016/j.tvjl.2017.01.009

Cited by 3 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The published literature and clinical experience documents that cats, like dogs, can suffer from AFR, including chronic GI enteropathies and a variety of other clinical signs [4,8]. The difficulty, however, arises in attempting to accurately determine which food or foods are to blame [1,2,4,6,14]. While AFR have classically been diagnosed by skin patch or prick testing, food elimination trials, and measurement of serum IgD, IgE or IgG, published studies have shown that food elimination trials are fraught with discrepancies and failure of animal owners to comply, whereas skin patch or prick testing is unsightly [2,4].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While AFR have classically been diagnosed by skin patch or prick testing, food elimination trials, and measurement of serum IgD, IgE or IgG, published studies have shown that food elimination trials are fraught with discrepancies and failure of animal owners to comply, whereas skin patch or prick testing is unsightly [2,4]. Further, serum testing of IgG, IgA and IgM levels in companion animals to identify AFR is poorly predictive of manifested clinical issues [14,15,16]. These diagnostic dilemmas consequently raise the question of the accuracy and validity of the saliva-based test methodology used in the present paper.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Diagnosis of Feline Food Sensitivity and Intolerance Using Saliva: 1000 Cases

Wj¹

2019

Animals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This prospective study assessed the efficacy of a novel saliva-based immunoassay of IgA- and IgM-antibodies in predicting feline food sensitivities and intolerances. Clinical samples were obtained from 1000 cats proven or suspected to have food intolerances. Most were of domestic shorthair breed type, over 10 years of age, and weighed around 5 kg; they were equally distributed between spayed females and neutered males. Saliva was collected after at least an 8-h fast with a dental cotton rope, placed in a double-sleeved saliva collection tube, and sent to the laboratory. Salivary antibodies elicited by 24 common foods were measured with goat anti-canine IgA and IgM. Low reacting foods were lamb, cow milk, pork, turkey, wheat (lowest) and white-colored fish, whereas high reacting foods were millet, white potato, rice (highest) and salmon. Thus, the novel salivary-based food sensitivity and intolerance test, described previously for canines, also provided a reliable and clinically predictive alternative to food elimination trials, serum-based food allergy testing, and skin patch testing in cats. Manufacturers of commercial cat foods and treats, as well as those making homemade diets and treats for cats, should consider avoiding the more highly reactive foods as determined by the present study.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diagnosis of Feline Food Sensitivity and Intolerance Using Saliva: 1000 Cases

Wj¹

2019

Animals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As a further control, dog IgE binding to individual bands was considered “real” when measured as more intense than that exhibited by the no‐serum control or the healthy dog immunoblots. Because food‐specific serum IgG levels may be more reflective of exposure (rather than sensitization) to an item, only binding to the no‐serum control was used to evaluate the relevance of IgG binding to specific bands …”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Because food-specific serum IgG levels may be more reflective of exposure (rather than sensitization) to an item, only binding to the no-serum control was used to evaluate the relevance of IgG binding to specific bands. 19…”

Section: Immunoblotting Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Serum IgE and IgG responses to dietary antigens in dogs with and without cutaneous adverse food reactions

Pucheu‐Haston

Mougeot²

2019

Veterinary Dermatology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background It is suspected that many canine cutaneous adverse food reactions (CAFR) are true immunological hypersensitivities; however, few specific dietary allergens have been identified. Objective To compare serum immunoglobulin (Ig)E and IgG reactivity to specific food antigens in privately owned dogs with and without CAFR. Animals Eighteen adult dogs with nonseasonal pruritus recruited from a hospital population. Methods and materials Dogs were fed an extensively hydrolysed poultry‐based diet exclusively for 12 weeks. Serum was collected at the beginning of the trial. Canine atopic dermatitis extent and severity index and pruritus Visual Analog Scale scoring were performed at the beginning and end of the trial. Immunoblotting was performed to identify IgE and/or IgG binding to specific proteins in beef, egg, milk, chicken, pork, soy and wheat extracts. Results A CAFR (defined as an unequivocal relapse of pruritus after dietary challenge) was diagnosed in 10 dogs, with 60% relapsing when fed chicken‐based diets. Binding of subjects’ IgG to almost all proteins in all extracts was seen regardless of reported dietary history. Few proteins were exclusively or predominantly bound by IgE in CAFR dogs. Exceptions included a 42 kDa band (chicken), a 52 kDa band (beef), a 46 kDa band (beef and milk) and a poorly defined high molecular weight protein or proteins (beef and milk). Conclusion This study demonstrated three protein bands and a poorly defined band predominantly recognized by sera from dogs with CAFR relative to non‐CAFR dog sera. Almost all proteins were bound by IgG in all dogs, suggesting prior exposure to unreported foods.

show abstract

Critically appraised topic on adverse food reactions of companion animals (6): prevalence of noncutaneous manifestations of adverse food reactions in dogs and cats

Mueller¹,

Olivry

2018

BMC Vet Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundMany reports describe the cutaneous signs of adverse food reactions (AFR) in the dog and cat. However, various non-cutaneous clinical signs are less well described. Our objective was to systematically evaluate these non-cutaneous signs of AFR in small animals.ResultsWe searched two databases (MEDLINE and Web of Science) for pertinent references on non-cutaneous signs of adverse food reactions. Among 117 and 764 articles found in the MEDLINE and Web of Science databases, respectively, we selected 47 articles that reported data related to non-cutaneous clinical signs of AFR. Gastrointestinal signs, symmetrical lupoid onychitis, conjunctivitis, sneezing, and anaphylaxis were reported to be associated with AFR in dogs and gastrointestinal and respiratory signs, conjunctivitis, and hyperactive behaviour in cats. In Border terriers with paroxysmal gluten-sensitive dyskinesia, an underlying AFR should be considered. Of these clinical signs diarrhoea and frequent defecation were most frequently reported to be diet-responsive in dogs; in the cat, these were vomiting and diarrhoea.ConclusionsAn elimination diet should be considered early in the work-up of dogs and cats with chronic vomiting and diarrhoea. Other non-cutaneous signs occur less commonly because of AFRs.

show abstract

Measurement of allergen-specific IgG in serum is of limited value for the management of dogs diagnosed with cutaneous adverse food reactions

Cited by 3 publications

References 19 publications

Diagnosis of Feline Food Sensitivity and Intolerance Using Saliva: 1000 Cases

Diagnosis of Feline Food Sensitivity and Intolerance Using Saliva: 1000 Cases

Serum IgE and IgG responses to dietary antigens in dogs with and without cutaneous adverse food reactions

Critically appraised topic on adverse food reactions of companion animals (6): prevalence of noncutaneous manifestations of adverse food reactions in dogs and cats

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About