Volume 118, Issue 6 , Pages 1249-1256, December 2006
Immunologic response to administration of standardized dog allergen extract at differing doses
Background
The immunologic response to immunotherapy with dog extract is not well characterized.
Objective
The purpose of this study was to examine the immunologic response to 3 doses of dog extract expressed as their Can f 1 content.
Methods
Cluster immunotherapy was administered to 28 patients with dog allergy who were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 treatment arms: placebo or acetone-precipitated extract containing 0.6 μg, 3.0 μg, or 15.0 μg Can f 1 per 0.5 mL maintenance dose. Studies included titrated skin prick tests, the late cutaneous response, titrated nasal challenge with dog extract, and serum allergen-specific IgE and IgG4. Dog allergen-stimulated lymphocyte proliferation was performed with measurement of secreted cytokines by ELISA and of intracellular cytokines by flow cytometry.
Results
There was a significant dose-dependent response in suppression of titrated skin prick tests and suppression of the late cutaneous response. There was a significant increase from baseline in dog-specific IgG4 in both the high-dose and low-dose groups and a dose-dependent suppression of secreted TNF-α and increase in secreted TGF-β. There was a dose-dependent trend in suppression of secreted IL-4 with a significant decrease from baseline in the high-dose group. There were no significant changes in symptom scores; lymphocyte proliferation; secreted IFN-γ, IL-10, or IL-5; or intracellular cytokine production.
Conclusion
The dose-response in immunologic parameters after immunotherapy with dog extract is similar to that previously demonstrated with cat extract.
Clinical implications
The greatest and most consistent response is seen with a dose containing 15 μg Can f 1.
Key words: Immunotherapy, acetone-precipitated dog extract, Can f 1, cytokine, allergen-specific IgE, allergen-specific IgG4, skin prick test, late cutaneous response
Abbreviations used: AP, Acetone-precipitated, cpm, Counts per minute, SPT, Skin prick test
Supported in part by a grant from the Hollister-Stier Laboratories, Spokane, Wash.Disclosure of potential conflict of interest: A. M. Lent has received grant support from Hollister-Stier Laboratories and is on the speakers' bureau for GlaxoSmithKline. H. S. Nelson has received grant support from Hollister-Stier Laboratories. The rest of the authors have declared that they have no conflict of interest.
PII: S0091-6749(06)01768-4
doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2006.07.055
© 2006 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Volume 118, Issue 6 , Pages 1249-1256, December 2006
