Gaertner Raniere, Gmyterco Vanessa Cunningham, Severo Júlia Só, Alcalá Camilla, Paulo Maicon Roberto, Daros Ruan, de Farias Marconi Rodrigues
Postgraduate Program in Animal Science, School of Medicine and Life Sciences, Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Paraná, 1155 Imaculada Conceição Street, Curitiba 80215-901, Brazil.
EthoLab-Applied Ethology and Animal Welfare Lab, Graduate Program in Animal Science, School of Medicine and Life Sciences, Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Paraná, Curitiba 80215-901, Brazil.
Vet Sci. 2025 Apr 18;12(4):383. doi: 10.3390/vetsci12040383.
(1): Background: This study aimed to evaluate the concentrations of four proteins for allergic patch testing (APT) in dogs, assessing sensitivity (SE), specificity (SP), negative predictive value (NPV), positive predictive value (PPV), reactions to adhesives/containers, and the safety of APT with food proteins in dogs. (2) Methods: For evaluation, 43 dogs were screened and divided into two groups: Group 1 consisted of 20 healthy dogs, and Group 2 included 23 dogs with canine atopic dermatitis (AD). Group 1 underwent allergic patch testing (APT) with beef, pork, chicken, and soy proteins at four different concentrations (100 mg, 250 mg, 500 mg, 1000 mg/0.2 mL). Of the 23 dogs included in Group 2, four did not undergo the elimination diet and were excluded, leaving 17 dogs in the study. They underwent an elimination diet (ED) and were evaluated using the pruritus visual analog scale (pVAS) and lesion scores (CADESI-4) before and after the ED (days 0 and 45). After the ED, Group 2 was subjected to APT (using the same proteins and concentrations as Group 1) and an oral provocation test (OPT) with the proteins used in the APT. The results of the OPT were used to assess the accuracy of the APT. (3) Results: In Group 1, one dog reacted to the APT. In Group 2, after 45 days of ED, of the 17 dogs included, 13 showed a reduction in pVAS and CADESI-4 scores ( < 0.05) and nine an improvement considered good to excellent. Of these, two showed irritant contact reactions to the APT chambers and were excluded, leaving 11 dogs that were reactive to APT, and the OPT increased pruritus ( < 0.05). Accuracy: Beef and chicken proteins at concentrations of 500 and 1000 mg/0.2 mL, and soy protein at 1000 mg/0.2 mL, achieved 100% SE, SP, PPV, and NPV. Pork protein at 1000 mg/0.2 mL achieved 100% SE, 83% SP, 83% PPV, and 100% NPV. (4) Conclusions: APT with beef and chicken proteins at 500 mg and 1000 mg/0.2 mL and soy protein at 1000 mg/0.2 mL, based on the results of this study, can be recommended for diagnosing adverse food reactions in dogs with AD.
(1) 背景：本研究旨在评估犬类过敏性斑贴试验（APT）中四种蛋白质的浓度，评估其敏感性（SE）、特异性（SP）、阴性预测值（NPV）、阳性预测值（PPV）、对粘合剂/容器的反应以及犬类食物蛋白APT的安全性。(2) 方法：为进行评估，筛选了43只犬并分为两组：第1组由20只健康犬组成，第2组包括23只患有犬特应性皮炎（AD）的犬。第1组用牛肉、猪肉、鸡肉和大豆蛋白在四种不同浓度（100毫克、250毫克、500毫克、1000毫克/0.2毫升）下进行过敏性斑贴试验（APT）。在第2组纳入的23只犬中，4只未进行排除饮食而被排除，研究中剩下17只犬。它们进行了排除饮食（ED），并在ED前后（第0天和第45天）使用瘙痒视觉模拟量表（pVAS）和皮损评分（CADESI - 4）进行评估。ED后，第2组接受APT（使用与第1组相同的蛋白质和浓度）以及用APT中使用的蛋白质进行口服激发试验（OPT）。OPT的结果用于评估APT的准确性。(3) 结果：在第1组中，1只犬对APT有反应。在第2组中，ED 45天后，纳入的17只犬中，13只pVAS和CADESI - 4评分降低（<0.05），9只改善程度为良好至优秀。其中，2只对APT试验盒有刺激性接触反应而被排除，剩下11只对APT有反应，且OPT使瘙痒加剧（<0.05）。准确性：浓度为500毫克和1000毫克/0.2毫升的牛肉和鸡肉蛋白，以及浓度为1000毫克/0.2毫升的大豆蛋白，SE、SP、PPV和NPV均达到100%。浓度为1000毫克/0.2毫升的猪肉蛋白，SE为100%，SP为83%，PPV为83%，NPV为100%。(4) 结论：基于本研究结果，对于诊断患有AD的犬的食物不良反应，可推荐使用浓度为500毫克和1000毫克/0.2毫升的牛肉和鸡肉蛋白以及浓度为1000毫克/0.2毫升的大豆蛋白进行APT。
