The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology
Volume 113, Issue 2, Supplement , Page S142, February 2004

Specific IgE response in children with cat contact is different between social groups

  • U. Krämer

      Affiliations

    • Epidemiology, Institut für Umweltmedizinische Forschung, Düsseldorf, Germany
  • ,
  • C. Apfelbacher

      Affiliations

    • Klinische Kooperationsgruppe Umweltdermatologie TUM/GSF, München, Germany
  • ,
  • J. Ring

      Affiliations

    • Klinik und Poliklinik für Dermatologie und Allergologie am Biederstein, München, Germany
  • ,
  • H. Behrendt

      Affiliations

    • Klinische Kooperationsgruppe Umweltdermatologie TUM/GSF, München, Germany

Abstract 

Rationale

Epidemiological studies done in populations with different social structures found conflicting evidence whether contact with cats leads to more or less sensitization against cat allergens in children. We therefore investigated whether the association between contact with cats and specific sensitization against cat allergens is homogeneous in different social groups in GERMANY.

Methods

We investigated six year old children living in East and West Germany between 1991 and 2000. For 3241 children information about the education of parents, cat contact, and specific sensitization against cat allergen (specific IgE; RAST) was available. Logistic regression was used to adjust for confounding.

Results

The effect of cat-contact was different between social groups (interaction after adjustment for confounding significant p<0.001). In families where both parents had an education with less than 10 years of schooling 2.5% of the children with cat contact (n=81) but 4.5% of the children without (n=245) were sensitized against cat allergen. In families with an academic education of the parents this relation was reversed. 6% of the children with cat contact (n=220) were sensitized and 2.6% of the children without cat contact (n=1266).

Conclusion

Behavioral differences concerning contact with cats might lead to these differences. These should be investigated further.

No full text is available. To read the body of this article, please view the PDF online.

 

 Funding: Ministries of Environment and Social Affairs in States of Ge

PII: S0091-6749(03)03325-6

doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2003.12.511

The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology
Volume 113, Issue 2, Supplement , Page S142, February 2004