Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28100257›Full record

Trial reportBMC veterinary research2017

Food-specific sublingual immunotherapy is well tolerated and safe in healthy dogs: a blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study.

E Maina, M Pelst, M Hesta, E Cox

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC veterinary research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 32% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Outstanding animal studies in allergy I. From asthma to food allergy and anaphylaxis.Current opinion in allergy and clinical immunology · 2017
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

E MainaLaboratory of Immunology, Ghent University, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Merelbeke, Belgium. elisa.maina@ugent.be.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9499-5146
M PelstLaboratory of Immunology, Ghent University, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Merelbeke, Belgium.
M HestaLaboratory of Animal Nutrition, Department of Animal Nutrition, Genetics, Breeding and Ethology., Ghent University, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Merelbeke, Belgium.
E CoxLaboratory of Immunology, Ghent University, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Merelbeke, Belgium.
Ghent University · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFood allergies are increasing in prevalence but no treatment strategies are currently available to cure dogs with food allergy. Over the past decade, experimental food allergen-specific sublingual immunotherapy (FA-SLIT) has emerged as a potential treatment for food allergies in human medicine. However, FA-SLIT has not been investigated in dogs. Therefore, the objective of this study was to prospectively evaluate the safety, tolerability and dispenser sterility of FA-SLIT in healthy dogs before testing it in food allergic dogs. Eight experimental healthy beagle dogs, never orally exposed to peanut, were randomized in two groups to receive SLIT with peanut or placebo for 4 months. Subjects were monitored daily for local and systemic adverse effects. Blood samples for complete blood count and serum biochemistry, and urine for urinalysis were collected and the dogs' body weight was recorded at day 0, 35 and 119 of the SLIT treatment. Sera for the determination of peanut-specific IgG and IgE were collected at day 0, 35, 49, 70, 91, 105 and 119. Intradermal tests were performed before (day 0) and after (day 119) the experiment. The content of each dispenser used to administer treatment or placebo was tested for sterility after usage. In order to assess the presence or absence of sensitization, dogs were challenged 6 months after the end of the study with 2000 μg of peanut extract daily for 7 to 14 days.

resultsAll dogs completed the study. The treatment did not provoke either local or systemic side-effects. Peanut-specific IgG significantly increased in treatment group. Even though a significant increase in peanut-specific IgE was also seen, intradermal tests were negative in all dogs before and after the experiment, and the challenge test did not trigger any adverse reactions in the treated dogs, which shows the protocol did not cause sensitization to peanut, but nevertheless primed the immune system as indicated by the humoral immune response. All dispenser solutions were sterile.

conclusionsOur results demonstrate that the used peanut-SLIT protocol is well tolerated and safe in healthy dogs. Further studies should evaluate tolerability, safety and efficacy in dogs with food allergy.

Indexed as

Administration, SublingualAnimalsArachisDesensitization, ImmunologicDog DiseasesDogsFemaleImmunoglobulin EImmunoglobulin GInjections, IntradermalMalePeanut HypersensitivityPlant ExtractsSkin TestsImmunoglobulin EImmunoglobulin GPlant ExtractsDogsFood allergyPeanutSLITSublingual immunotherapy

Identifiers

PMID28100257
PMCPMC5241990
OpenAlexW2576745207

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.