Dog allergy: can a prevalent or exclusive sensitization to Can f 5 be considered a lucky or negative event in real life?

Modern Concept of Molecular Diagnostics of Allergy to Dogs

The number of people suffering from allergies is increasing worldwide every year. With the prevalence of domestic animals, especially dogs, allergens associated with them can be found ubiquitously, thereby increasing the risk of anaphylaxis in sensitized individuals. Currently, there are 8 known dog allergens, but not all of them have been thoroughly studied. The commonly used skin prick tests often fall short and fail to provide a comprehensive assessment of a patient's condition, thus making allergy diagnosis challenging. Fortunately, the introduction of new allergy diagnostic methods has made it possible to accurately identify clinically significant allergens for patients. These findings can then be used to prescribe appropriate therapy or provide specific recommendations to the patients. This review focuses on the most important dog allergens and modern allergy diagnostic techniques that are gradually being incorporated into medical practice, thus expanding the capabilities of allergists.

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.