The safety of rush immunotherapy in the management of canine atopic dermatitis-230 cases.

BACKGROUND: The duration of the induction phase of allergen-specific immunotherapy conventionally is a period of several weeks, during which the volume of an allergen solution, administered by injection, is gradually increased until the maintenance dose is reached. In rush immunotherapy (RIT), the induction period is abbreviated to achieve a faster improvement in clinical signs of atopic dermatitis (AD) compared to conventional immunotherapy. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the safety of RIT in 230 dogs with AD and report any adverse effects (AE). ANIMALS: Two hundred thirty client-owned dogs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Medical records of dogs receiving RIT between 2012 and 2021 were analysed and observed AE were investigated. All dogs underwent RIT following a protocol of subcutaneous allergen extract injections, given hourly with an incrementally increasing volume from 0.1 to 1.0 mL. RESULTS: Adverse effects were documented in 6 of 230 (2.6%) dogs. Five of these dogs (2.2%) showed mild gastrointestinal signs (1 of 5 vomiting, 4 of 5 diarrhoea) and one patient an increase in body temperature by 1.5°C. These occurred at different stages of the RIT protocol. All AE were graded as mild and self-limiting. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Based on these data, supervised RIT in dogs appears to be a safe procedure to achieve the maintenance dose of allergen immunotherapy earlier with infrequent and mild AE.

A randomised, double-blinded comparison between subcutaneous rush and intralympathic allergen immunotherapy induction in atopic dogs.

BACKGROUND: Atopic dermatitis (AD) is one of the most common skin diseases in small animal practice. Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is the only curative treatment for the disease, and oral, subcutaneous and intralymphatic administration of allergens are commonly employed. OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy of AIT following an induction phase with intralymphatic injections (ILIT) or rush immunotherapy (RIT). ANIMALS: Fifty privately owned dogs with AD. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a double-blinded study, dogs were randomly assigned to either four monthly ILIT of allergen extract or RIT with five injections administered subcutaneously at hourly intervals on the first day. They were assessed by validated scores; Canine Atopic Dermatitis Lesion Index (CADLI) and pruritus Visual Analog Scale (PVAS) at the beginning of the study and after 1, 3, 6 and 12 months. The latter were performed daily for 7 days before each revisit. Medication scores and a total clinical score were calculated and compared between each group and time point. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in CADLI and PVAS scores, or CADLI and medication scores between groups at any of the time points. A significant improvement with both ILIT and RIT was seen in total and pruritus scores, respectively. An owner global assessment of good-to-excellent treatment efficacy was seen in 40% of the dogs; total scores improved by 27% and 35% in the RIT and ILIT group, respectively. Adverse effects were not seen. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Induction of AIT can be conducted either as RIT or ILIT with no loss in efficacy.

Reactions to environmental allergens in cats with feline lower airway disease.

Objectives: Aeroallergens have been discussed as potential triggers for feline asthma (FA), which can be induced experimentally by allergen sensitization. To date, only few studies have investigated reactions to environmental allergens in cats with naturally occurring feline lower airway disease (FLAD). The aim of the study was to compare results of intradermal testing (IDT) and serum allergen-specific immunoglobulin E-(IgE) testing (SAT) in cats with FLAD, and to investigate possible associations with allergen exposure. Material and methods: Eight cats with eosinophilic airway inflammation (EI), ten cats with mixed inflammation (MI), six with neutrophilic inflammation (NI), and 24 healthy cats (HC) were included. Cats diagnosed with FLAD were assigned to the different inflammatory groups based on bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BLAF) cytology. SAT was performed in all cats; IDT was only carried out in cats with FLAD. Information about the cats' environment and potential allergen exposure was obtained using an owner questionnaire. Results: In comparison to 83% of HC with positive reactions on SAT only 52% of cats with FLAD had positive responses (p = 0.051). Significantly more positive reactions per cat were detected on IDT than on SAT (p = 0.001). No significant difference was found for positive reactions per cat on SAT when compared between HC, NI, EI, and MI (p = 0.377). Only "slight" agreement was found for most allergens when reactions obtained in both tests in cats with FLAD were compared, except for "moderate" agreement for English plantain (k = 0.504) and Alternaria alternata (k = 0.488). Overall, no clear association between the cats' environment and allergen reactions were detected. Conclusions and clinical importance: Interpretation of allergy test results in cats with FLAD should be done in the context of clinical signs and individual factors.