CONCURRENT THERAPIES
Generally, atopic dogs receiving immunotherapy also should be bathed every one to two weeks and, in flea endemic areas, should
receive proper flea control. In a patient that is doing well, fleas will often cause or exacerbate atopic disease as well
as induce secondary infections. This may even occur in atopic dogs that are not flea-allergic. Essential fatty acid supplementation
or diets high in omega-3 fatty acids may also be beneficial.
Even in cases in which immunotherapy is considered beneficial, an occasional secondary infection may occur and exacerbate
pruritus. Clients need to learn about early signs of secondary infections and appropriate intervention with bathing or a recheck
examination. You can then prescribe antimicrobial therapy based on cytologic examination or possible culture and sensitivity
results if empiric therapy is not effective. This will prevent the secondary problem from aggravating the atopic disease and
making the client think the immunotherapy is ineffective or losing efficacy.
In dogs that do not respond to immunotherapy in the first month and in dogs with pruritus that the client cannot tolerate
or that the veterinarian feels is excessive based on the severity of skin lesions, concurrent therapies such as antihistamines,
glucocorticoids, or cyclosporine may be used. There is no evidence that these concurrent therapies decrease immunotherapy's
efficacy. But these adjunctive treatments need to be discontinued every four to six weeks to assess the response to immunotherapy
and to determine whether adjustments need to be made.
CONCLUSION
Allergen-specific immunotherapy is a useful tool in treating atopic dermatitis in dogs. Its use is facilitated by client
education and training. Although serious adverse reactions are rare, life-threatening reactions may occur and owners need
to be educated about them. Minor reactions and poor response are the basis often used for altering protocols and adjusting
the therapy. Using adjunctive therapies judiciously and monitoring responses as well as teaching owners to observe their dogs'
actions and skin are necessary for optimal management.
The recommendations in this paper are purely mine and are based on more than 25 years of experience managing many thousands
of dogs using allergen-specific immunotherapy.
Editors' note: Dr. Griffin is a consultant for Veterinary Allergy Reference Laboratories (VARL). The recommendations in this
article are not representative of or endorsed by VARL or any other business or company.
Craig E. Griffin, DVM, DACVD
Animal Dermatology Clinic and Animal Allergy Specialists
5610 Kearny Mesa Road
San Diego, CA 92111
REFERENCES
1. Willemse A, ven den Brom WE, Rijnberk A. Effect of hyposensitization on atopic dermatitis in dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1984;184:1277-1280.
2. Nuttall TJ, Thoday KL, van den Broek AH, et al. Retrospective survey of allergen immunotherapy in canine atopy. Vet Rec 1998;143:139-142.
3. Colombo S, Hill PB, Shaw DJ, et al. Efficacy of low dose immunotherapy in the treatment of canine atopic dermatitis: a prospective,
double-blinded, clinical study. Vet Dermatol 2005;16:162-170.
4. Scott DW. Observations on canine atopy. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc 1981;17:91-100.
5. Rosser EJ Jr. Advances in the diagnosis and treatment of atopy. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract 1999;29:1437-1447.
6. Hillier A, Kwochka KW. Allergen-specific immunotherapy in dogs with atopic dermatitis and house dust mite hypersensitivity:
use of symptom/medication scores. Vet Dermatol 2002;13:213.
7. Griffin C. Canine atopic disease. In: Current veterinary dermatology: the science and art of therapy. St. Louis, Mo: Mosby-Year Book, 1993;99-120.
8. Power HT. Why do owners discontinue immunotherapy? Vet Dermatol 2000;11(suppl 1):14.
9. Scott DW, Miller WH, Griffin CE. Canine atopic disease. In: Muller and Kirk's small animal dermatology. 6th Ed. Philadelphia, Pa: WB Saunders Co., 2001;574-601.
10. Rosenkrantz WS, Animal Dermatology Clinic, Tustin, Calif: Personal communication, 2004.
11. Zur G, White SD, Ihrke PJ, et al. Canine atopic dermatitis: a retrospective study of 169 cases examined at the University
of California, Davis, 1992-1998. Part II. Response to hyposensitization. Vet Dermatol 2002;13:103-111.
12. Rosser EJ. Aqueous hyposensitization in the treatment of canine atopic dermatitis: a retrospective study of 100 cases. In:
Kwochka KW, Willemse T, von Tscharner C, eds. Advances in veterinary dermatology. Vol 3. Boston: Butterworth Heinemann 1998;169-176.
|
Featuring Information from:
