Safety evaluation of a buffer used in the lyophilization of canine platelets: type I hypersensitivity reaction in dogs caused by bovine serum albumin

Introduction

The present study was designed to evaluate the safety of substances generally used in the preparation of lyophilized platelet products (LPPs) because the possibility of an immune response to bovine serum albumin (BSA) was considered high when using previously described technology.

Methods

An intradermal skin test, followed by a drug provocation test, was conducted to observe adverse events and identify the substances responsible for an immune response. Five male beagles (2 years old) weighing 12-14 kg were used. The dogs were clinically healthy and had no history of medication use. An intradermal skin test was conducted with each substance [i.e., 4-(2-hydroxyethyl)-1-piperazine ethanesulfonic acid, sodium chloride, potassium chloride, sodium bicarbonate, theophylline, trehalose, and BSA] used in the conventional freeze-dry method.

Results

In the intradermal skin test, three dogs tested positive at the BSA injection site and showed clinical signs after the intradermal injection, including nausea and vomiting. For the drug provocation test, all dogs received two intravenous injections of an LPP buffer solution. The initial injection was devoid of BSA, whereas the subsequent injection contained BSA. The three dogs that had reacted to BSA in the intradermal skin test exhibited adverse events such as lethargy, vomiting, and nausea immediately after intravenous injection of the LPP buffer containing BSA. All dogs recovered uneventfully after symptomatic treatment in both tests.

Discussion

The high incidence and severity of type I hypersensitivity reactions observed in this study suggested that BSA is unsuitable as a component of canine LPP.

A review of cutaneous hypersensitivity reactions in dogs: A diagnostician's guide to allergy

Allergic dermatoses are common in people and domestic animals. Resultant lesions are routinely biopsied and submitted for histological examination to confirm a diagnosis or rule out diseases with overlapping or atypical clinical features. Diagnostic pathologists and clinicians are often faced with the difficult task of determining whether an allergic reaction pattern is present on both the microscopic and macroscopic levels and correlating histopathologic findings with clinical and historical data to achieve a precise clinical diagnosis. The bulk of the current veterinary literature on allergic dermatoses focuses on atopic dermatitis in dogs, distantly followed by cats, horses, and other animals. The objectives of this review are to demonstrate the key histopathologic and clinical diagnostic features of the various allergy-mediated reaction patterns, and to provide diagnosticians with a practical guide for clinicopathological correlations. Current concepts in the pathophysiology of immediate hypersensitivity reactions, with a focus on atopic dermatitis, are discussed. Points of potential histopathologic overlap between the "classic" allergic reaction pattern and less common inflammatory, predominately eosinophilic, conditions that may mimic this pattern will be discussed with the goal of highlighting the critical need for collaboration between pathologists and clinicians in furthering patient care.

A case of atypical multifocal nodular eosinophilic dermatosis in a Labrador retriever dog

BACKGROUND

A dog with gastrointestinal signs and a history of administration of multiple drugs developed acute multifocal to coalescing ulcerative nodules and a large plaque.

OBJECTIVE

To describe abnormal nodular clinical lesions with an unexpected superficial and deep severe eosinophilic perivascular to interstitial inflammation.

ANIMAL

A 7-year-old spayed female Labrador retriever METHODS AND MATERIALS: Blood tests, faecal and urinalysis, and abdominal radiographs were performed; skin biopsy samples were taken for cytological, culture and histopathological analyses.

RESULTS

The blood tests, faecal, urinalysis and radiographs were within normal limits. Cytological results revealed inflammatory cells and cultures had no growth. Histopathological evaluation revealed dermal and subcutaneous oedema, mucin deposition and perivascular to interstitial inflammation predominated by eosinophils with occasional very small intralesional dense aggregates of eosinophils centred on collagen bundles, eosinophilic exocytosis and small eosinophilic pustules. Focal subepidermal fibrin exudation and haemorrhage resulted in epidermal detachment and ulceration. Clinical resolution of the dermatological and gastrointestinal signs was seen with the withdrawal of prior medications and administration of a tapering course of anti-inflammatory doses of prednisolone.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE

To the best of the authors' knowledge, this is a novel nodular clinical and eosinophilic histopathological pattern combination. This case offers evidence of a spectrum of sterile eosinophilic dermatoses rather than multiple different disease processes.

Discriminatory features of acute eosinophilic dermatitis with oedema (Wells-like syndrome) and sterile neutrophilic dermatosis (Sweet's-like syndrome) in dogs

BACKGROUND

Canine acute eosinophilic dermatitis with oedema (CAEDE) and sterile neutrophilic dermatosis have overlapping clinical and histopathological features.

HYPOTHESIS/OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to identify features that differentiate these entities.

ANIMALS

Forty dogs.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Retrospective case series. Forty cases with diagnoses of either CAEDE and/or sterile neutrophilic dermatosis were included based on histopathological review. Medical records (29 of 40 dogs) were reviewed for clinical findings and historical data. Commercially available immunohistochemical stains for granulocytes and a Luna stain were performed (40 of 40 dogs) to assess the granulocytic infiltrate.

RESULTS

Nineteen cases had been previously diagnosed as CAEDE, seven cases had been designated as sterile neutrophilic dermatosis and 14 cases had overlapping features. Based on review and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis, 30 cases with >12% eosinophils, enumerated by Luna staining, were diagnosed as eosinophilic dermatitis and oedema. Ten cases were diagnosed as sterile neutrophilic dermatosis. Dogs with CAEDE frequently had gastrointestinal signs (24 of 30;80%) and pruritus (11 of 30;33%). In dogs with sterile neutrophilic dermatosis, five of 10 (50%) had diagnoses of or histories compatible with immune-mediated polyarthropathy.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE

In this case series, CAEDE was encountered more frequently than neutrophilic dermatosis and could be distinguished by the eosinophilic infiltrate, aided by a Luna stain. Concurrent arthralgia was more frequently identified with neutrophilic dermatosis. It remains unclear whether CAEDE and sterile neutrophilic dermatosis are separate disease entities or varied manifestations of the same disease.

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

BACKGROUND

Many 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.

RESULTS

We 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.

CONCLUSIONS

An 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.