The usefulness of a hydrolysed fish and rice starch elimination diet for the diagnosis of adverse food reactions in cats: an open clinical trial

Abstract

Background -Diagnosis of adverse food reaction (AFR) is based on an eight week elimination diet (ED) and is confirmed by relapse upon re-challenge with the previously fed diet. Hydrolysed EDs are commonly used for this purpose.Objective -To evaluate the commercially available hydrolysed fish protein and rice starch ED Farmina UltraHypo (FUH) for the diagnosis of feline AFR.Animals -Thirty-two nonseasonally pruritic cats.Methods and materials -Pruritus was assessed with a new dual Visual Analog Scale, lesions with the Scoring Feline Allergic Dermatitis scale and Quality of Life with a validated questionnaire on days 0 and 56. Short-acting corticosteroids or oclacitinib were permitted during the first six weeks. Cats showing 50% pruritus and/or lesional improvement were separately challenged with their prior diet, fish and rice. Cats not responding to the study diet were fed another hydrolysed diet for two months.Results -Twenty-five cats completed the ED: four dropped out due to vomiting and/or diarrhoea, one owing to low palatability and two were lost to follow-up. In 17 cats, pruritus improved by >50% and these underwent dietary challenges. Of these, nine reacted to their prior diet and/or fish and/or rice and were diagnosed with AFR, while eight did not relapse (and a diagnosis of AFR was considered to be doubtful). Of the eight cats in which pruritus did not improve, four underwent a second ED with no improvement.Conclusion and clinical importance -FUH may be a useful ED for the diagnosis of feline AFR, even in cats reacting to fish or rice.

Comparison of intradermal and serum testing for environmental allergen‐specific immunoglobulin E determination in a laboratory colony of cats with naturally acquired atopic syndrome

“…The prevalence of FA in this FAS colony was lower than the incidence reported previously in studies involving client‐owned cats 21–26 . According to a literature review, the prevalence of FA in cats with allergic skin disease is approximately 10% 27 .…”

“…The prevalence of FA in this FAS colony was lower than the incidence reported previously in studies involving client-owned cats. [21][22][23][24][25][26] According to a literature review, the prevalence of FA in cats with allergic skin disease is approximately 10%. 27 A recent study reported an adverse food reaction prevalence of 36% in cats fed with a hydrolysed diet.…”

“…27 A recent study reported an adverse food reaction prevalence of 36% in cats fed with a hydrolysed diet. 26 Inconsistencies between study results are likely to be the consequence of differences in study design (duration of the elimination diet trial, type of diet, way that FA is diagnosed) and how the results are presented. Moreover, some of these studies did not report whether or not these cats had concomitant environmental allergies.…”

“…According to a literature review, the prevalence of FA in cats with allergic skin disease is approximately 10% 27 . A recent study reported an adverse food reaction prevalence of 36% in cats fed with a hydrolysed diet 26 . Inconsistencies between study results are likely to be the consequence of differences in study design (duration of the elimination diet trial, type of diet, way that FA is diagnosed) and how the results are presented.…”