Volume 119, Issue 3 , Pages 758-759, March 2007
Reply
Article Outline
To the Editor:
In reply to the comments of Dr Goetz,1 please note the following statements, which appear in a 1997 Journal article by Avner et al2: “The quantity of Fel d 1 varied widely from 1 μg/gm to more than 1770 μg/gm of hair. The mean levels of Fel d 1 extracted by using shampoo, water, or buffered saline solution were not significantly different (245, 191, and 102 μg/gm, respectively, n = 34).” This pretty clearly represents a “real-world shampooing.”
Perhaps the reader is aware of some as yet unpublished data to suggest the superiority of a different shampoo than the one used by Avner et al. I have been unable to identify any evidence-based suggestions to that end. We admit, in theory, that detergents may prove to be superior to water immersion in providing a sustained suppression of Fel d 1 shedding. We were unable to find scientific evidence that demonstrates such a benefit and agree that a well-done study using shampoo may be enlightening. However, our animal handlers suggest that for many cat-owners, the process of frequent shampooing may be challenging in animals that may be less cooperative than the well-behaved Boots and Zoe.
References
Disclosure of potential conflict of interest: C. G. Nageotte has consulting arrangements with MedPointe; is employed by the Henry Ford Health System; and is on the speakers' bureau for GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Genentech.
PII: S0091-6749(06)03026-0
doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2006.11.635
© 2007 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Volume 119, Issue 3 , Pages 758-759, March 2007
