Animal exposure, sensitization, and allergic symptoms in first-year veterinary medicine students

Eva Zahradnik,Christoph Nöllenheidt,Ingrid Sander,Alexandra Beine,Martin Lehnert,Frank Hoffmeyer,Monika Raulf

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5414/ALX02449E

2024-03-21

Abstract:The AllergoVet study longitudinally examines the influence of animal exposure on the development of sensitization and allergic diseases among veterinary medicine students. In this group, contact to animals usually existed long before the study began. Therefore, the aim of this analysis was to investigate lifelong animal species-specific exposure and the prevalence of sensitizations and allergic symptoms already existing before the start of the study. Questionnaire data, including exposure history, were summarized to determine the duration and intensity of animal-related exposure as well as the prevalence of allergic symptoms to animals. Serologically, specific IgE was determined against ubiquitous inhalant allergens (atopy screen sx1) and against animal allergens using ImmunoCAP. The association between animal-specific sensitization, allergic symptoms, and exposure was analyzed using Fisher's exact test or Cochran-Armitage trend test. All study participants (n = 313) had previous contact with animals, with dogs mentioned most frequently (91.1%) followed by cats (89.5%) and horses (72.2%). Sensitization to ubiquitous allergens (positive sx1 value) was detected in 38.4% of subjects. Approximately 11%, 7%, and 5% were sensitized to cats, dogs, and horses, respectively. Only a small proportion of these sensitizations were associated with self-reported symptoms (41% for cat, 9% for dog, and 13% for horse). While no significant association between animal-specific exposure and sensitization was found for cats and horses, a clear trend emerged for dogs. With increasing duration of exposure to dogs, the number of dog-specific sensitizations decreased significantly (p = 0.0069). Furthermore, a decreasing trend in sx1 sensitization was noted with increasing cat (p = 0.0288) and dog (p = 0.0107) exposure. None of the subjects who grew up on a farm (n = 40) had any sensitization to animals. The sensitization prevalence determined among first-year students in veterinary medicine roughly corresponds to that in the general population. Most animal sensitizations were not clinically relevant. In this collective, a protective effect of increasing exposure to animals in childhood and adolescence was found on sensitization, which was particularly pronounced during contact with dogs.