Is cat-keeping the main determinant of new-onset adulthood cat sensitization?

Critical aspects in dog allergen immunotherapy (DAI). May Component Resolved Diagnosis (CRD) play a role in predicting the efficacy?

We hypothesize that a pivotal condition determining the efficacy of dog allergen immunotherapy (DAI) might be the mono-sensitization to dog lipocalins (Can f 1-2) in individuals not directly or indirectly exposed to other furry animals. In fact, the concomitant sensitization to lipocalins and/or albumins, especially in those patients directly exposed to furry animals, may potentially stimulate patient's airways by inducing persistent inflammation and, thus, clinical symptoms. In these conditions, it is likely that DAI alone could be inadequate to reduce airway inflammation mediated by inhalation of dog allergens in patients with simultaneous exposure to other furry animals. Can f 5 has been found as exclusive allergen in about one third of dog-sensitized individuals. Considering the presence of different allergenic materials in extract of mammalian origin, it is evident that a standard DAI is not likely to be effective in Can f 5 prevalent or mono-sensitized individuals. Moreover, we would underline the need of collecting detailed information on the possible exposures to furry animals (other than the common pets), an information that usually is neglected in clinical practice. Furthermore, a detailed clinical history exploring the real significance of dog sensitization (mono or poly-sensitization, induction of clinical symptoms after exposure etc.) should be performed before prescribing DAI. In some patients, with potential high susceptibility to animal allergens, the use of CRD is essential to verify the presence of concomitant allergic sensitization to lipocalins and/or albumins belonging to other furry animals. The availability of CRD introduced the possibility of a better targeted prescription of DAI because it might be useful for point out the primary allergens and for the exclusion of cross-reactive ones.

Allergic sensitization to common pets (cats/dogs) according to different possible modalities of exposure: an Italian Multicenter Study

Background

The query "are there animals at home?" is usually administered for collecting information on anamnesis. This modality to consider exposure to pet allergens constitutes a potential bias in epidemiological studies and in clinical practice. The aim of our study was to evaluate/quantify different modalities of exposure to cat/dog in inducing allergic sensitization.

Methods

Thirty Italian Allergy units participated in this study. Each centre was required to collect the data of at least 20 consecutive outpatients sensitized to cat/dog allergens. A standardized form reported all demographic data and a particular attention was paid in relieving possible modalities of exposure to cat/dog.

Results

A total 723 patients sensitized to cat/dog were recorded, 359 (49.65%) reported direct pet contact, 213 patients (29.46%) were pet owners, and 146 subjects (20.19%) were exposed to pets in other settings. Other patients were sensitized by previous pet ownership (150-20.75%) or indirect contact (103-14.25%), in 111 subjects (15.35%) any contact was reported.

Conclusions

Only 213 patients (29.46%) would be classified as "exposed to animals" and 510 (70.54%) as "not exposed" according to usual query. Our classification has shown that many "not-exposed" subjects (399-55.19%) were "really exposed". The magnitude of exposure to pet allergens at home is not related exclusively to pet ownership. These considerations should be taken into account during the planning of epidemiological studies and in clinical practice for the management of pet allergic individuals.

Allergic sensitization to common pets (cats/dogs) according to different possible modalities of exposure: an Italian Multicenter Study

Background

The query “are there animals at home?” is usually administered for collecting information on anamnesis. This modality to consider exposure to pet allergens constitutes a potential bias in epidemiological studies and in clinical practice. The aim of our study was to evaluate/quantify different modalities of exposure to cat/dog in inducing allergic sensitization.

Methods

Thirty Italian Allergy units participated in this study. Each centre was required to collect the data of at least 20 consecutive outpatients sensitized to cat/dog allergens. A standardized form reported all demographic data and a particular attention was paid in relieving possible modalities of exposure to cat/dog.

Results

A total 723 patients sensitized to cat/dog were recorded, 359 (49.65%) reported direct pet contact, 213 patients (29.46%) were pet owners, and 146 subjects (20.19%) were exposed to pets in other settings. Other patients were sensitized by previous pet ownership (150–20.75%) or indirect contact (103–14.25%), in 111 subjects (15.35%) any contact was reported.

Conclusions

Only 213 patients (29.46%) would be classified as “exposed to animals” and 510 (70.54%) as “not exposed” according to usual query. Our classification has shown that many “not-exposed” subjects (399–55.19%) were “really exposed”. The magnitude of exposure to pet allergens at home is not related exclusively to pet ownership. These considerations should be taken into account during the planning of epidemiological studies and in clinical practice for the management of pet allergic individuals.