Next Article in Journal
Cutaneous and Respiratory Lesions in Bushfire-Affected Koalas
Next Article in Special Issue
Microarray Gene Expression Analysis of Lesional Skin in Canine Pemphigus Foliaceus
Previous Article in Journal
Intestine Health and Barrier Function in Fattening Rabbits Fed Bovine Colostrum
Previous Article in Special Issue
Unveiling Oxidative Stress-Induced Genotoxicity and Its Alleviation through Selenium and Vitamin E Therapy in Naturally Infected Cattle with Lumpy Skin Disease
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:

Primary Prevention of Canine Atopic Dermatitis: Breaking the Cycle—A Narrative Review

CIISA—Centre for Interdisciplinary Research in Animal Health, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Lisbon, 1649-004 Lisbon, Portugal
Associate Laboratory for Animal and Veterinary Sciences (AL4AnimalS), 1300-477 Lisbon, Portugal
Research Institute for Medicine (iMed.ULisboa), Faculty of Pharmacy, Universidade de Lisboa, 1600-277 Lisbon, Portugal
School of Veterinary Science, University of Liverpool, Liverpool L69 3GH, UK
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Vet. Sci. 2023, 10(11), 659;
Submission received: 20 September 2023 / Revised: 24 October 2023 / Accepted: 14 November 2023 / Published: 16 November 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Veterinary Dermatology: Challenges and Advances)



Simple Summary

This paper addresses the pressing issue of canine atopic dermatitis, a common and distressing skin condition in dogs. It affects up to 30% of dogs, causing severe itching and skin problems. Additionally, it leads to secondary infections, further complicating treatment. This condition significantly reduces the quality of life for both dogs and their owners, causing emotional and financial strain. This paper emphasizes the need for prevention strategies for this disease, rather than just treating the symptoms. While treatments exist, they often come with limitations and can be expensive. It also emphasizes the importance of understanding the skin barrier’s role in canine atopic dermatitis development. This paper suggests that focusing on preventing this condition in the first place would be more effective and cost-efficient. Drawing parallels between canine atopic dermatitis and its human counterpart, this paper highlights the potential for shared prevention strategies. The authors propose that restoring the skin barrier before the disease’s mechanisms can lead to a vicious cycle of further damage could be a key approach to prevention. Overall, research regarding the primary prevention of canine atopic dermatitis has the potential to greatly improve the well-being of dogs and their owners by offering effective and accessible preventive measures.


Canine atopic dermatitis (cAD) is a common and distressing skin condition in dogs, affecting up to 30% of the canine population. It not only impacts their quality of life but also that of their owners. Like human atopic dermatitis (hAD), cAD has a complex pathogenesis, including genetic and environmental factors. Current treatments focus on managing clinical signs, but they can be costly and have limitations. This article emphasizes the importance of preventing cAD from developing in the first place. Understanding the role of the skin’s protective barrier is crucial, as its dysfunction plays a vital role in both hAD and cAD. hAD prevention studies have shown promising results in enhancing the skin barrier, but more research is needed to support more robust conclusions. While hAD primary prevention is currently a focal point of intensive investigation in human medicine, research on cAD primary prevention remains under-researched and almost non-existent. Pioneering effective prevention strategies for cAD holds immense potential to enhance the quality of life for both dogs and their owners. Additionally, it bears the promise of a translational impact on human research. Hence, further exploration of this crucial topic is not only relevant but also timely and imperative, warranting support and encouragement.

1. Introduction

Canine atopic dermatitis (cAD) is one of the most prevalent, distressing, chronic, and allergic skin diseases, affecting approximately 20–30% of dogs [1,2]. The most common and clinically significant feature of cAD is moderate to severe pruritus, often accompanied by dermatological lesions, such as erythema, self-induced alopecia, excoriations, hyperpigmentation, and lichenification [3,4,5]. These lesions can vary in body location, extension, and severity [3,4,5]. Furthermore, the affected dogs’ skin is frequently affected by secondary infections, exacerbating both pruritus and lesion severity, leading to an unpleasant skin odour and complicating clinical management [6,7]. cAD is the most common primary cause of otitis externa [8], a highly prevalent condition in atopic dogs, with reported incidences ranging from 17 to 80% of cAD cases [9,10]. Around 60% of atopic dogs also suffer from concomitant allergic conjunctivitis, with the severity of ocular signs being significantly correlated with eye pruritus and skin lesion scores in the head region [11]. More recently, a study found that pruritus severity was associated with a higher frequency of undesired behaviours [12]. These included mounting, chewing unsuitable objects, hyperactivity/restlessness, coprophagia, begging for and stealing food, attention seeking, excitability, excessive grooming, reduced trainability, and touch sensitivity [12]. These behaviours are undesirable and often considered by behaviour biologists as indicative of stress, suggesting that atopic dogs may be experiencing pruritus-induced low-level chronic psychological stress [12].
cAD’s incurable and relentless nature, associated with its wax and wane behaviour (periods of flares intertwined with periods of improvement), leads to significant quality of life (QoL) loss for both dogs and their owners [2,13,14]. The QoL of these animals exhibits a negative correlation with their pruritus scores, meaning that as pruritus intensifies, their QoL scores diminish [15,16]. Among the aspects of the dogs’ lives that are most affected by cAD are alterations in behaviour or mood, limitations in play or work activities, the added burden of treatment administration [16], and sleep disturbance [15]. In the case of the owners, the areas of their lives that are most impacted include increased financial expenditure, loss of time, and heightened emotional and physical distress [15,16]. A recent study further highlighted that managing cAD can result in caregiver burden [17], a psychological phenomenon characterised by the level of distress experienced while providing care for patients, which encompasses various aspects of caregivers’ physical, emotional, social, financial, and daily life domains” [18]. This phenomenon has also been identified in individuals caring for relatives with dementia [19] or cancer [20].
Also, cAD affects many dogs from an early age, and although all efforts are made to prevent crises [21], these are still common and frustrating for all. The expensive diagnostic process, frequent crises, and lifelong treatment pose a significant challenge for owners, pets, and veterinarians [22]. Additionally, the prevalence of hypersensitivities seems to be increasing [22], which suggests that this frustrating disease may become an even more common problem in the future.
cAD is also very similar to its human counterpart (hAD), particularly regarding its spontaneous development, the type and distribution of skin lesions, the presence of immune dysfunction, skin barrier defects, and frequent complications caused by secondary infections. Additionally, for many centuries, dogs have shared both man’s environment and lifestyle and, consequently, share some exposome risk factors for atopic dermatitis [23,24]. Thus, both cAD and hAD can be used as a model for the other regarding this disease’s management and prevention strategies [23,25,26].

2. cAD Clinical Management

cAD clinical management is a new two-phased treatment strategy [27]. In phase I, the “reactive therapy”, an atopic dog with existing skin lesions and itch (flare) is treated with quick-acting and broad-targeting drugs, such as glucocorticoids or oclacitinib, to induce clinical remission [27]. Phase II, the “proactive therapy”, aims to prevent the occurrence of new flares or at least reduce their frequency and severity [27]. More directed and specific tools such as allergen immunotherapy (AIT) and other pharmacological interventions, such as cyclosporin, injectable biologicals (lokivetmab), or topical product application, can be used for this purpose [27].
However, all management choices present various relevant limitations. The systemic anti-inflammatory and antipruritic treatments that are available are only symptomatic; in other words, they “hide” cAD clinical manifestations and are all associated with potentially adverse effects [28]. Moreover, this symptomatic approach usually requires a multimodal strategy [28], frequently demanding the administration of two or more costly medications with varying frequencies and dosages over time [28,29]. Thus, this approach is not only complex for both veterinarians and owners but, unfortunately, it is also often prohibitively expensive. For example, a recent study conducted in the Teaching Hospital’s Dermatology Service of the University of Lisbon’s Faculty of Veterinary Medicine concluded that, despite 92.5% of owners being satisfied with the use of oclacitinib as a treatment tool, 75% presented worry regarding the cost and 42.5% admitted that they had to limit other expenses to pay for it. Despite an alternative protocol that successfully halved the costs for 71% of dogs on oclacitinib, this treatment often remains unaffordable [30].
Allergen immunotherapy is the only treatment that can effectively change the pathogenic mechanisms of cAD and is commonly available in subcutaneous and sublingual protocols [31]. Its limitations include the need to improve efficacy and safety, decrease the time to efficacy onset, and, most importantly, improve patient compliance [31], the most predominant factor in therapy failure [32]. New non-invasive, safe, effective, painless, and easy-to-use, at-home vaccine delivery routes that promote compliance are needed. Epicutaneous immunotherapy (EPIT) is a promising alternative that takes advantage of the skin’s unique immunological features and high accessibility. Recently, a pilot study emphasised EPIT’s great potential as an effective, well-tolerated, and safe cAD treatment [33].
The primary objective of this paper is to concentrate on primary prevention strategies for atopic dermatitis, as opposed to providing an extensive examination of the current understanding and clinical management of cAD. This latter aspect has been comprehensively addressed in recent and engaging papers [7,34,35,36].

3. What Is Prevention?

Despite advances in atopic dermatitis (AD) treatments in both species, research prevention has been slow in human research [37] and almost absent in canine research. This article attempts to critically review the current state of science in the prevention of cAD, comparing it with hAD.
Firstly, some key concepts will be defined. In hAD, primary prevention (PP) usually refers to intervening before the disease occurs. Secondary prevention (SP) refers to acting when the disease has been recognised but is not causing suffering yet, whereas tertiary prevention (TP) involves reducing symptoms or improving the quality of life to prevent further deterioration [38].
Comparatively, in cAD, TP corresponds to the treatment of flares, or “reactive therapy”; SP corresponds to the prevention of flares, or “proactive therapy”; and PP corresponds to strategies or interventions that are implemented to avoid the development of the disease altogether. However, while there is extensive research to develop and improve existing treatments [7,27,28,30,33,35,39,40,41,42,43] and even to develop proactive strategies [21,44], cAD primary prevention is entirely neglected. Despite Marsella (2013) suggesting that skin barrier repair interventions could prove beneficial when initiated in early life in cAD’s predisposed breeds [45], research on these strategies has not been pursued. However, it is reasonable to assume that AD prevention is a more logical and cost-effective way to manage its burden than focusing research entirely on its treatment [37]. The logic of this approach is intuitive: it is better to prevent diseases than to concentrate resources on treating them when treatment may be too late to be effective [46]. Such is the case of cAD, for it is an incurable disease, and its treatment only aids already suffering patients after a long chain of irrevocable pathological events. In fact, a cost-effective analysis has concluded that using emollients as a preventive therapy for hAD is attractive from both medical and economic perspectives [47]. Additionally, disease prevention can modulate the disease’s prevalence and severity [46], which is also a desirable goal in conditions with a significant impact on patients’ and caregivers’ QoL.

3.1. Knowledge of AD Pathogenesis: Is It Important?

An essential step in preventing any disease is a thorough understanding of the risk factors that can be manipulated. The pathogenesis of cAD is not fully understood, but it is believed to involve complex interactions between genetic and environmental factors that lead to epidermal barrier dysfunction, immune dysregulation, and cutaneous dysbiosis [7]. Recent hAD studies suggest that skin barrier impairment, cutaneous dysbiosis, and immunological dysfunction are indeed the main factors involved in AD pathogenesis [48,49], with the first possibly being the etiological factor that triggers the disease [50,51].
Indeed, in human medicine, there has been a slow shift from the classic AD paradigm, which gives greater weight to immunological dysregulation (inside–outside), to a new paradigm where more relevance is given to the possible primary skin barrier defects, which are then further aggravated by inflammation (outside–inside–outside) [52,53,54]. Defects in the protein and lipid content of the stratum corneum (SC) contribute to the skin barrier’s impairment [49]. These defects allow the skin microbiome and environmental exposome to penetrate the skin barrier, inducing immune dysregulation (imbalance towards a type 2 immune response, with the overexpression of Th2 and Th22 cytokines), which further exacerbate skin barrier defects, worsening its barrier function, leading to a vicious cycle [49]. Regarding veterinary medicine, a few studies have also suggested that this skin barrier dysfunction is a critical aspect of cAD and that further research should focus on developing skin barrier restoration strategies that are specifically tailored to this disease [14,55].
Like in hAD [49], early cutaneous barrier dysfunction in dogs leads to an increased transepidermal water loss (TEWL) [56], promotes cutaneous dysbiosis [14,35,55], and allows the penetration of allergens and pathogens with the consequent initiation of abnormal inflammatory and allergic responses in the skin [14].
The significance of the cutaneous barrier’s dysfunction to the development of AD is heightened if we consider that atopic children’s skin barrier dysfunction is already detectable soon after birth, preceding AD development [57,58,59,60], and that allergen sensitisation can occur via epicutaneous exposure in both species [61,62], even in non-genetically predisposed dogs [63].
The skin barrier is localised on the uppermost layer of the epidermis, the cornified layer, SC, which is composed of keratinocytes and an intercellular lipidic mantle composed of cholesterol, free fatty acids, and ceramides, among others [49,64,65].
Several cAD studies have established abnormalities in the SC lipids [50,51,56,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74]. The deposition of the intercellular lipid mantle is altered, presenting high lipidic disorganisation, discontinuities and a reduced number of lipids relative to the skin of healthy dogs [56,66,67,69]. These abnormalities are present in lesional and nonlesional skin of atopic dogs and are also exacerbated by allergen challenges [69].
Besides the amount of both total lipids and fatty acids being altered, ceramides have also been found to be significantly reduced in comparison to healthy dogs, with lesional skin usually being more affected than nonlesional skin [56,68,71,72,73,74,75]. Regarding ceramides, which represent the largest group of intercellular lipids in the SC [76], canine studies have shown mixed results, from global decreases in all classes of ceramides to reductions only in specific subclasses [50,68,71,73,74,75].
In fact, solid conclusions are yet to be established, since SC lipid research is highly complex [77,78]. These mixed results can have various causes, from individual variations due to age, gender, body sites, disease status, or breeds, as suggested in some studies [70,73,74,79,80,81], to technical differences or limitations. Given that the methods for both the collection and analysis of SC lipids vary significantly between studies, it would not be unreasonable to partially attribute these mixed results to the latter [73,74,77].
Perhaps it can be expected that this limitation will be shortly overcome due to the increasingly expeditious evolution of technology and the development of more sophisticated methods. Furthermore, it would undoubtedly be beneficial to establish a consensus on a defined process of measuring SC lipids, similar to the established outcome measurements in therapeutic clinical trials enrolling atopic dogs [82].
All pathogenic theoretical knowledge should be translated into therapeutic practice [48], and thus, these recent pathogenic findings of the cutaneous barrier present an unmissable opportunity to explore AD primary prevention strategies. Much-needed, desirable, and promising research is already in progress in hAD, with cAD severely lagging behind.

3.2. Primary Prevention Strategies in Humans

The number of hAD prevention studies has increased over the last decade [37]. These studies can be divided into three categories: interventions that are ingested by mothers or infants, which include exclusive breastfeeding, the delayed or early introduction of foods other than milk, dietary restrictions, and dietary supplements; interventions directed at the external skin surface, which include attempts to reduce airborne allergens such as house dust mites at the time of birth, increasing exposure to environmental protector factors, and measures to enhance the skin barrier; and, finally, combined approaches [37].
The most investigated strategies are probiotics and interventions to enhance the skin barrier [37]. The ingestion of probiotics, prebiotics, or synbiotics is an hAD prevention strategy with increasingly supporting evidence [37,83]. This strategy has been steadily showing moderate benefits and good safety, leading the World Allergy Organisation guideline panel to suggest using probiotics in women, either pregnant with or breastfeeding infants at high risk of developing allergies, and infants at high risk of developing allergies [37].
The mounting scientific evidence regarding AD pathogenesis establishes a solid rationale for implementing strategies that are dedicated to restoring barrier function. Emollients are already essential in AD management [84], serving as a first-line therapy and having a potential steroid-sparing effect [85,86,87]. Given their potential to improve skin barrier integrity and possibly block the consequent exposure and inflammatory cascade of AD, skin barrier enhancement interventions have also undergone intensive research. After the results of some small, pilot, randomised, controlled trials suggested that the preventive application of emollients can be an effective strategy for hAD primary prevention [88,89,90], larger randomised and controlled trials on prevention have been coordinated to test if this strategy can prevent AD [58,59,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100], some of which are still currently underway [59,95,99]. While some of these studies found no significant preventive efficacy [58,91,93,94,97], a recent systematic review and meta-analysis concluded that the continual prophylactic use of emollients in early infancy may prevent or delay hAD, especially in high-risk populations [101]. Another review has found that the continuous use of prophylactic emollients, starting within a critical window of the first six weeks of life, reduces the probability of early-onset hAD [102]. More recently, a randomised, blinded, parallel, three-group, phase II trial showed that group B (once-daily application of a specific emollient) infants tended to maintain intact skin for a longer period, and the risk of AD tended to be lower [100].
However, the heterogeneity of these studies does not allow the overall generalisation of any conclusions [102]. The wide variation in emollients used, ranging from simple oil- or lipid-based [58,93] to gels or creams [91], emulsions [89], and ceramide-containing emollients [92], may have contributed to the variation in results [103]. Chalmers et al. (2020) suggest that a more sophisticated and complex emollient formulation, including bioactive ingredients, might potentially have a protective effect [58]. It is also reasonable to assume that the different product formulations could have contributed to the controversial results [104]. Furthermore, considering the diversity of barrier dysfunction mechanisms, these conflicting results also indicate that, similarly to hAD treatment, there is no “one-size fits all” in its prevention, and further research on pathophysiology and biomarkers to develop more specifically tailored products is desired [102]. In conclusion, several uncertainties remain, namely which type of formulation should be used (simple versus complex), which ingredients should be included (or excluded) and their respective concentration, the optimal quantity for application (a standardised amount versus an individual approach), the recommended frequency of application (twice daily, daily, every other day, or others), the timing of application (pre- or post-bathing), the ideal age range to initiate the protocol, and the minimal duration of these protocols.
The novel knowledge of AD’s multifactorial aetiology offers a variety of points to pursue [48] for the potential development of more complex emollient products with bioactive ingredients, including anti-inflammatory agents and microbiome and immunological modulating effects [105], opening a new realm of possible therapeutic options. It is also important to note that a significant challenge of these studies was defining the application quantities and achieving parents’ compliance with the rigorous and lengthy protocol [58,91]. Therefore, further research should not only consider the emollient’s formulation but also optimise the protocol to maximise compliance.

3.3. Primary Prevention Strategies in Dogs

Conversely to our human counterpart, cAD primary prevention research is severely lacking. To the author’s knowledge, only two such studies have been performed on the subject, both falling in the category of interventions ingested by bitches and puppies [106,107,108].
Marsella (2009) proposed to evaluate the efficacy of the probiotic Lactobacillus strain GG (LGG) for alleviating or preventing cAD clinical signs [109]. The study used two adult Beagle dogs with severe disease and 16 of their puppies. These were kept in the same controlled environment (consistent temperature and humidity), with controlled allergen exposure and the same diet. Two litters were produced at a 1-year interval, the first forming the control group and the second the intervention group. The probiotic was administered to the bitch during the second pregnancy and to the second litter of puppies from 3 weeks to 6 months of age. Both litters were epicutaneously sensitised to a species of dust mite, Dermatophagoides farinae (DF), and the 6-month puppies underwent intradermal allergen testing and were challenged (exposed) to DF to evaluate clinical signs. In the control group, 7/7 puppies were strongly seropositive for IgE against DF, 6/7 had a positive reaction to intradermal testing, and 7/7 developed severe clinical signs. In the intervention group, 7/9 puppies were seropositive, 3/9 had a positive reaction to intradermal testing and 6/9 developed clinical signs. While LGG administration did not appear to decrease cAD clinical signs or prevent the disease’s development, it was associated with a reduced mean serum titre of IgE and reduced skin reactivity to intradermal injection of the allergen, therefore seeming capable of altering the cAD immune response.
Interestingly, a follow-up study was conducted three years after the discontinuation of LGG [107], where allergen-specific IgE, IL-10, and TFG-β were measured before allergen exposure and clinical signs were evaluated before and after allergen exposure. In this follow-up, the probiotic group developed lower clinical scores and had significantly less IL-10 for all allergens measured than the control group. The allergen-specific IgE and TGF-β did not differ between litters. It was concluded that early exposure to probiotics had long-term and sustained clinical and immunological beneficial effects in these dogs, and that additional studies with spontaneously atopic dogs are needed to better assess the protective effects of probiotics against cAD development.
In 2015, Beeck et al. investigated the effect of feeding pregnant Labrador Retriever bitches and their litters diets that were enriched in essential fatty acids, pantothenate, choline, nicotinamide, histidine, and inositol on owner-assessed cAD incidence [108]. Two owner questionnaires were used to assess the occurrence of cAD-associated clinical signs between the ages of 22 and 36 months and 36 and 48 months. The circulating IgE levels to two common dust mites, Dermatophagoides farina (DF) and Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus (DP), were measured when the puppies were 6 and 12 months old. During the first year of life, higher levels of circulating dust mite IgE were significantly higher in the control group than in the intervention group. Furthermore, at the time of the second questionnaire, the owner-assessed incidence of cAD was significantly lower in the intervention group when compared with the control group (2/24 (8.3%) dogs v. 10/33 (30.3%) dogs). The two positive dogs of the intervention group came from the same litter, while the ten positive dogs of the control group came from five different litters of the six enrolled. Furthermore, the rates of pruritus were significantly different between the groups, with more symptomatic animals in the control group. Although objective skin barrier parameters were not measured, the authors hypothesised that this benefit might be linked to improved barrier function and a consequent decreased percutaneous absorption of irritants, allergens, and microbes, preventing allergic sensitisation and inflammation.
Similarly to hAD, the reparation of the defective epidermal barrier is considered an important therapeutic goal in cAD’s management, and the use of lipid-containing products is recommended [7,14]. Furthermore, a previous study showed that an essential fatty acid supplementation had a steroid-sparing effect in atopic dogs, which could be explained by a possible skin barrier improvement [110]. Although extensive research exists on strategies directed at the external skin surface to improve skin barrier function in cAD management [1,14,28,39,67,111,112,113,114,115,116,117,118,119,120,121,122,123,124], there are, as yet, no studies on cAD prevention to the authors’ knowledge.
In 2011, Marsella et al. stated that “if future studies confirm that impaired skin barrier function in canine AD leads to increased allergen penetration and increased risk for allergic sensitisation, it is tempting to speculate that proactive restoration of the skin barrier could alter the course of the disease and minimise the development of an allergic response” [125]. Since then, Olivry et al. (2011) proved that SC removal facilitates experimental sensitisation to mite allergens in atopic dogs [126]. Therefore, skin barrier impairment has significant consequences on the cAD process as it increases the risk for sensitisation [126], leading to vicious cycles of sensitisation and additional inflammation, trauma, and skin damage [45]. A 2015 review [55] also concluded that there is considerable evidence associating abnormalities in SC lipids and proteins with impaired epidermal barrier function and clinical canine AD, and that future studies should focus on developing drugs that are able to restore the skin barrier. Another recent review [14] also asserts a great need for effective, easy-to-apply, and well-tolerated lipid-based topical products that are formulated explicitly for atopic dogs. Moreover, it claims that “the ability to prevent disease (cAD) in dogs through topical skin barrier repair has not been assessed but should be studied”. Therefore, cAD prevention through topical skin barrier repair is a needed, promising, and severely lacking research area in veterinary dermatology/medicine.
Additionally, cAD is a very heterogenous clinical syndrome [6,7,35], with ongoing research to characterise each subtype based on either epidermal barrier defects or endotypes [74,81,127,128,129,130]. Further characterisation of the various specific clinical phenotypes of cAD may optimise clinical outcomes by establishing what preventative and therapeutic strategies work best for each dog [7]. In doing so, veterinarians may start to move away from “one size fits all” or “trial by error” cAD management, and also potentially a prevention framework, to one defined by personalised, precision medicine [7].

4. Conclusions and Future Perspectives

In summary, cAD primary prevention is a much-needed, desirable, and promising research area. The development of effective and safe cAD primary prevention strategies would be of invaluable interest and the utmost importance, primarily for the QoL of dogs and their caregivers. It could represent a turning point in how many canine patients and their families unavoidably suffer a life-long and very distressing disease. Furthermore, considering that cAD is an excellent model for hAD [1,23,25,26,106,131,132] and given the shorter lifespan of dogs when compared to humans, and especially the time lapse from birth to adulthood (1–2 years versus 18 years, respectively), this type of study can also contribute to a faster production of evidence-based scientific output, applicable in human research, especially in paediatrics. Also, in addition to improving health and well-being, it could also benefit economic and sustainability resources, from the research field to the diagnostic and treatment areas.
Any research on this exciting area would be welcome and valuable, especially in a clinical, pragmatic context, for although the comprehension of the mechanisms through which the effects of prevention are mediated is interesting, it is not, at this point, essential [37].

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.M.L., J.M. and B.F.; writing—original draft preparation, B.F.; writing—review and editing, S.A., V.S., A.F.B., M.P., H.P., J.M. and A.M.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.


This work was supported by the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT), through grants UIDB/00276/2020 (CIISA) and LA/P/0059/2020 (AL4AnimalS).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analysed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.


  1. Marsella, R.; Benedetto, A.D. Atopic Dermatitis in Animals and People: An Update and Comparative Review. Vet. Sci. 2017, 4, 37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Nuttall, T. Topical therapy in canine atopic dermatitis: New products. Companion Anim. 2020, 25, 76–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Favrot, C.; Steffan, J.; Seewald, W.; Picco, F. A prospective study on the clinical features of chronic canine atopic dermatitis and its diagnosis. Vet. Dermatol. 2010, 21, 23–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Bizikova, P.; Santoro, D.; Marsella, R.; Nuttall, T.; Eisenschenk, M.N.C. Review: Clinical and histological manifestations of canine atopic dermatitis. Vet. Dermatol. 2015, 26, 79-e24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Hensel, P.; Santoro, D.; Favrot, C.; Hill, P.; Griffin, C. Canine atopic dermatitis: Detailed guidelines for diagnosis and allergen identification. BMC Vet. Res. 2015, 11, 196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Eisenschenk, M. Phenotypes of Canine Atopic Dermatitis. Curr. Dermatol. Rep. 2020, 9, 175–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Outerbridge, C.A.; Jordan, T.J.M. Current Knowledge on Canine Atopic Dermatitis Pathogenesis and Treatment. Adv. Small Anim. Care 2021, 2, 101–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Saridomichelakis, M.N.; Farmaki, R.; Leontides, L.S.; Koutinas, A.F. Aetiology of canine otitis externa: A retrospective study of 100 cases. Vet. Dermatol. 2007, 18, 341–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Jaeger, K.; Linek, M.; Power, H.T.; Bettenay, S.V.; Zabel, S. Breed and site predispositions of dogs with atopic dermatitis: A comparison of five locations in three continents. Vet. Dermatol. 2010, 21, 119–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Wilhem, S.; Kovalik, M.; Favrot, C. Breed-associated phenotypes in canine atopic dermatitis. Vet. Dermatol. 2010, 22, 143–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Lourenço-Martins, A.M.; Delgado, E.; Neto, I.; Peleteiro, M.C.; Morais-Almeida, M. Allergic conjunctivitis and conjunctival provocation tests in atopic dogs. Vet. Ophthalmol. 2011, 14, 248–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Harvey, N.; Craigon, P.; Shaw, S.; Blott, S.; England, G. Behavioural Differences in Dogs with Atopic Dermatitis Suggest Stress Could Be a Significant Problem Associated with Chronic Pruritus. Animals 2019, 9, 813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Noli, C. Assessing Quality of Life for Pets with Dermatologic Disease and Their Owners. Vet. Clin. N. Am. Small Anim. Pract. 2018, 49, 83–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Nuttall, T.J.; Marsella, R.; Rosenbaum, M.R.; Michele, R.; Gonzales, A.J.; Fadok, V.A. Update on pathogenesis, diagnosis, and treatment of atopic dermatitis in dogs. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 2019, 254, 1291–1300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Linek, M.; Favrot, C. Impact of canine atopic dermatitis on the health-related quality of life of affected dogs and quality of life of their owners. Vet. Dermatol. 2010, 21, 456–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Noli, C.; Colombo, S.; Cornegliani, L.; Ghibaudo, G.; Persico, P.; Vercelli, A.; Galzerano, M. Quality of life of dogs with skin disease and of their owners. Part 2: Administration of a questionnaire in various skin diseases and correlation to efficacy of therapy. Vet. Dermatol. 2011, 22, 344–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Spitznagel, M.B.; Solc, M.; Chapman, K.R.; Ghibaudo, G.; Persico, P.; Vercelli, A.; Galzerano, M. Caregiver burden in the veterinary dermatology client: Comparison to healthy controls and relationship to quality of life. Vet. Dermatol. 2019, 30, 3-e2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Novak, M.; Guest, C. Application of a Multidimensional Caregiver Burden Inventory. Gerontologist 1989, 29, 798–803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Etters, L.; Goodall, D.; Harrison, B.E. Caregiver burden among dementia patient caregivers: A review of the literature. J. Am. Acad. Nurse Pract. 2008, 20, 423–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Bevans, M.; Sternberg, E.M. Caregiving Burden, Stress, and Health Effects Among Family Caregivers of Adult Cancer Patients. JAMA 2012, 307, 398–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Lourenço, A.M.; Schmidt, V.; Braz, B.S.; Nóbrega, D.; Nunes, T.; Duarte-Correia, J.H.; Matias, D.; Maruhashi, E.; Rème, C.A.; Nuttall, T. Efficacy of proactive long-term maintenance therapy of canine atopic dermatitis with 0.0584% hydrocortisone aceponate spray: A double-blind placebo controlled pilot study. Vet. Dermatol. 2016, 27, 88-e25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Gedon, N.K.Y.; Mueller, R.S. Atopic dermatitis in cats and dogs: A difficult disease for animals and owners. Clin. Transl. Allergy 2018, 8, 41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Lourenço, A.M.; Peleteiro, M.d.C.; Correia, J.H.D.; Morais-Almeida, M. Can dog really be the atopic’s best friend? Rev. Port. Imunoalergologia 2010, 5, 405–418. [Google Scholar]
  24. Lehtimäki, J.; Sinkko, H.; Hielm-Björkman, A.; Laatikainen, T.; Ruokolainen, L.; Lohi, H. Simultaneous allergic traits in dogs and their owners are associated with living environment, lifestyle and microbial exposures. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 21954. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Santoro, D.; Marsella, R. Animal Models of Allergic Diseases. Vet. Sci. 2014, 1, 192–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Labib, A.; Yosipovitch, G.; Olivry, T. What can we learn from treating atopic itch in dogs? J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 2022, 150, 284–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Olivry, T.; Banovic, F. Treatment of canine atopic dermatitis: Time to revise our strategy? Vet. Dermatol. 2019, 30, 87–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Olivry, T.; DeBoer, D.J.; Favrot, C.; Jackson, H.A.; Mueller, R.S.; Nuttall, T.; Prélaud, P. Treatment of canine atopic dermatitis: 2015 updated guidelines from the International Committee on Allergic Diseases of Animals (ICADA). BMC Vet. Res. 2015, 11, 210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Ribas, M.; Lourenço, A.M.; Cavaco, A. Exploring Medication Adherence Using M-Health: A Study from Veterinary Medicine. Pharm. Basel Switz. 2020, 8, 38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Bizarro, A.; Martins, A.; Pinto, M.; Fernandes, B.; Pereira, H.; Braz, B.; Lourenço, A. Protocolo alternativo com oclacitinib para dermatite atópica canina: Uma solução capaz de reduzir custos? Rev. Port. Imunoalergologia 2022, 30, 31–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Mueller, R.S.; Jensen-Jarolim, E.; Roth-Walter, F.; Marti, E.; Janda, J.; Seida, A.A.; DeBoer, D. Allergen immunotherapy in people, dogs, cats and horses—Differences, similarities and research needs. Allergy 2018, 73, 1989–1999. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Ramió-Lluch, L.; Brazís, P.; Ferrer, L.; Puigdemont, A. Allergen-specific immunotherapy in dogs with atopic dermatitis: Is owner compliance the main success-limiting factor? Vet. Rec. 2020, 187, 493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Pinto, M.; Marto, J.; Ramino-Lluch, L.; Fernandes, B.; Bizarro, A.; Pereira, H.; Schmidt, V.; Morais-Almeida, M.; Braz, B.; Lourenço, A. Epicutaneous immunotherapy as a novel route of allergen administration in dogs with atopic dermatitis: A proof-of-concept study. In Proceedings of the 32nd European Veterinary Dermatology Congress, online, 16 September 2021; Veterinary Dermatology. p. 427. [Google Scholar]
  34. Marsella, R. Atopic Dermatitis in Domestic Animals: What Our Current Understanding Is and How This Applies to Clinical Practice. Vet. Sci. 2021, 8, 124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Marsella, R. Advances in our understanding of canine atopic dermatitis. Vet. Dermatol. 2021, 32, 547-e151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Bruet, V.; Mosca, M.; Briand, A.; Bourdeau, P.; Pin, D.; Cochet-Faivre, N.; Cadiergues, M.-C. Clinical Guidelines for the Use of Antipruritic Drugs in the Control of the Most Frequent Pruritic Skin Diseases in Dogs. Vet. Sci. 2022, 9, 149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Williams, H.; Chalmers, J. Prevention of Atopic Dermatitis. Acta Derm. Venereol. 2020, 100, 380–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Gordon, R.S. An operational classification of disease prevention. Public Health Rep. 1983, 98, 107–109. [Google Scholar]
  39. Panzuti, P.; Vidémont, E.; Fantini, O.; Fardouet, L.; Noël, G.; Cappelle, J.; Pin, D. A moisturizer formulated with glycerol and propylene glycol accelerates the recovery of skin barrier function after experimental disruption in dogs. Vet. Dermatol. 2020, 31, 344-e89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Santoro, D.; Fagman, L.; Zhang, Y.; Fahong, Y. Clinical efficacy of spray-based heat-treated lactobacilli in canine atopic dermatitis: A preliminary, open-label, uncontrolled study. Vet. Dermatol. 2021, 32, 114-e23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Watson, A.; Rostaher, A.; Fischer, N.M.; Favrot, C. A novel therapeutic diet can significantly reduce the medication score and pruritus of dogs with atopic dermatitis during a nine month controlled study. Vet. Dermatol. 2022, 33, 55-e18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Reis, A.R.B. Topical Treatment with a Serotoninergic Drug for Canine Atopic Dermatitis. Master’s Thesis, Faculdade de Medicina Veterinária, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  43. Bensignor, E.; Videmont, E. Weekly topical therapy based on plant extracts combined with lokivetmab in canine atopic dermatitis. Vet. Dermatol. 2021, 33, 68-e22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Tang, T.S.; Bieber, T.; Williams, H.C. Are the concepts of induction of remission and treatment of subclinical inflammation in atopic dermatitis clinically useful? J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 2014, 133, 1615–1625.e1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Marsella, R. Fixing the skin barrier: Past, present and future--man and dog compared. Vet. Dermatol. 2013, 24, 73.e18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Woolf, S.H. The Power of Prevention and What It Requires. JAMA 2008, 299, 2437–2439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Xu, S.; Immaneni, S.; Hazen, G.B.; Silverberg, J.I.; Paller, A.S.; Lio, P.A. Cost-effectiveness of Prophylactic Moisturization for Atopic Dermatitis. JAMA Pediatr. 2016, 171, e163909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Galli, E.; Cinicola, B.; Carello, R.; Caimmi, S.; Brindisi, G.; Castro, G.D.; Zicari, A.M.; Tosca, M.A.; Manti, S.; Martelli, A.; et al. Atopic dermatitis. Acta Bio-Medica Atenei Parm. 2020, 91, e2020011. [Google Scholar]
  49. Magnifico, I.; Petronio, G.P.; Venditti, N.; Cutuli, M.A.; Pietrangelo, L.; Vergalito, F.; Mangano, K.; Zella, D.; Marco, R.D. Atopic Dermatitis as a Multifactorial Skin Disorder. Can the Analysis of Pathophysiological Targets Represent the Winning Therapeutic Strategy? Pharmaceuticals 2020, 13, 411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Chermprapai, S.; Broere, F.; Gooris, G.; Schlotter, Y.M.; Rutten, V.P.M.G.; Bouwstra, J.A. Altered lipid properties of the stratum corneum in Canine Atopic Dermatitis. Biochim. Biophys. Acta BBA–Biomembr. 2018, 1860, 526–533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Combarros, D.; Goudounèche, D.; Cadiergues, M.; Simon, M. The upper epidermis of atopic dogs is altered at the functional and structural levels. Vet. Dermatol. 2021, 32, 620-e165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Elias, P.M.; Steinhoff, M. “Outside-to-Inside” (and Now Back to “Outside”) Pathogenic Mechanisms in Atopic Dermatitis. J. Investig. Dermatol. 2008, 128, 1067–1070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Elias, P.M.; Williams, M.L.; Feingold, K.R. Abnormal barrier function in the pathogenesis of ichthyosis: Therapeutic implications for lipid metabolic disorders. Clin. Dermatol. 2012, 30, 311–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Akdis, C.A. Does the epithelial barrier hypothesis explain the increase in allergy, autoimmunity and other chronic conditions? Nat. Rev. Immunol. 2021, 21, 739–751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Santoro, D.; Marsella, R.; Pucheu-Haston, C.M.; Eisenschenk, M.N.C.; Nuttall, T.; Bizikova, P. Review: Pathogenesis of canine atopic dermatitis: Skin barrier and host–micro-organism interaction. Vet. Dermatol. 2015, 26, 84-e25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Shimada, K.; Yoon, J.; Yoshihara, T.; Iwasaki, T.; Nishifuji, K. Increased transepidermal water loss and decreased ceramide content in lesional and non-lesional skin of dogs with atopic dermatitis. Vet. Dermatol. 2009, 20, 541–546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Goleva, E.; Berdyshev, E.; Leung, D.Y.M. Epithelial barrier repair and prevention of allergy. J. Clin. Investig. 2019, 129, 1463–1474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Chalmers, J.R.; Haines, R.H.; Bradshaw, L.E.; Montgomery, A.A.; Thomas, K.S.; Brown, S.J.; Ridd, M.J.; Lawton, S.; Simpson, E.L.; Cork, M.J.; et al. Daily emollient during infancy for prevention of eczema: The BEEP randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2020, 395, 962–972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Eichner, B.; Michaels, L.A.C.; Branca, K.; Ramsey, K.; Mitchell, J.; Morris, C.D.; Fagnan, L.J.; Dolor, R.J.; Elder, N.; Hahn, D.L.; et al. A Community-based Assessment of Skin Care, Allergies, and Eczema (CASCADE): An atopic dermatitis primary prevention study using emollients—Protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials 2020, 21, 243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Gerdin, S.W.; Lie, A.; Asarnoj, A.; Borres, M.P.; Carlsen, K.C.L.; Färdig, M.; Konradsen, J.R.; Jonassen, C.M.; Mägi, C.O.; Rehbinder, E.M.; et al. Impaired skin barrier and allergic sensitization in early infancy. Allergy 2022, 77, 1464–1476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Marsella, R.; Ahrens, K. A pilot study on the effect of oclacitinib on epicutaneous sensitization and transepidermal water loss in a colony of atopic beagle dogs. Vet. Dermatol. 2018, 29, 439-e146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Tham, E.H.; Rajakulendran, M.; Lee, B.W.; Bever, H.P.S.V. Epicutaneous sensitization to food allergens in atopic dermatitis: What do we know? Pediatr. Allergy Immunol. 2020, 31, 7–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Jeong, Y.; Yun, T.; Kim, H.; Koo, Y.; Kang, J.; Yang, M.; Kang, B. Induction of atopic dermatitis by epicutaneous sensitisation with Dermatophagoides farinae in nongenetically predisposed Beagle dogs. Veterinární Medicína 2021, 66, 413–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Downing, D. Lipid and protein structures in the permeability barrier of mammalian epidermis. J. Lipid Res. 1992, 33, 301–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Madison, K.C. Barrier Function of the Skin: “La Raison d’Être” of the Epidermis. J. Invest. Dermatol. 2003, 121, 231–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Inman, A.O.; Olivry, T.; Dunston, S.M.; Monteiro-Riviere, N.A.; Gatto, H. Electron Microscopic Observations of Stratum Corneum Intercellular Lipids in Normal and Atopic Dogs. Vet. Pathol. 2001, 38, 720–723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Piekutowska, A.; Pin, D.; Rème, C.A.; Gatto, H.; Haftek, M. Effects of a Topically Applied Preparation of Epidermal Lipids on the Stratum Corneum Barrier of Atopic Dogs. J. Comp. Pathol. 2008, 138, 197–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Reiter, L.V.; Torres, S.M.F.; Wertz, P.W. Characterization and quantification of ceramides in the nonlesional skin of canine patients with atopic dermatitis compared with controls. Vet. Dermatol. 2009, 20, 260–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Marsella, R.; Samuelson, D.; Doerr, K. Transmission electron microscopy studies in an experimental model of canine atopic dermatitis. Vet. Dermatol. 2010, 21, 81–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Popa, I.; Thuy, L.H.; Colsch, B.; Pin, D.; Gatto, H.; Haftek, M.; Portoukalian, J. Analysis of free and protein-bound ceramides by tape stripping of stratum corneum from dogs. Arch. Dermatol. Res. 2010, 302, 639–644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Popa, I.; Remoue, N.; Hoang, L.T.; Pin, D.; Gatto, H.; Haftek, M.; Portoukalian, J. Atopic dermatitis in dogs is associated with a high heterogeneity in the distribution of protein-bound lipids within the stratum corneum. Arch. Dermatol. Res. 2011, 303, 433–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Popa, I.; Pin, D.; Remoué, N.; Osta, B.; Callejon, S.; Videmont, E.; Gatto, H.; Portoukalian, J.; Haftek, M. Analysis of epidermal lipids in normal and atopic dogs, before and after administration of an oral omega-6/omega-3 fatty acid feed supplement. A pilot study. Vet. Res. Commun. 2011, 35, 501–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Angelbeck-Schulze, M.; Mischke, R.; Rohn, K.; Hewicker-Trautwein, M.; Naim, H.Y.; Bäumer, W. Canine epidermal lipid sampling by skin scrub revealed variations between different body sites and normal and atopic dogs. BMC Vet. Res. 2014, 10, 152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Franco, J.; Rajwa, B.; Gomes, P.; HogenEsch, H. Local and Systemic Changes in Lipid Profile as Potential Biomarkers for Canine Atopic Dermatitis. Metabolites 2021, 11, 670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Yoon, J.; Nishifuji, K.; Sasaki, A.; Ide, K.; Ishikawa, J.; Yoshihara, T.; Iwasaki, T. Alteration of stratum corneum ceramide profiles in spontaneous canine model of atopic dermatitis. Exp. Dermatol. 2011, 20, 732–736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Coderch, L.; López, O.; de la Maza, A.; Parra, J.L. Ceramides and Skin Function. Am. J. Clin. Dermatol. 2003, 4, 107–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Angelbeck-Schulze, M.; Stahl, J.; Brodesser, S.; Rohn, K.; Naim, H.; Hewicker-Trautwein, M.; Kietzmann, M.; Bäumer, W.; Mischke, R. Comparison of three different sampling methods for canine skin lipids. Vet. Dermatol. 2013, 24, 233-e51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Giles, C.; Takechi, R.; Lam, V.; Dhaliwal, S.S.; Mamo, J.C.L. Contemporary lipidomic analytics: Opportunities and pitfalls. Prog. Lipid Res. 2018, 71, 86–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Yoon, J.; Nishifuji, K.; Ishioroshi, S.; Ide, K.; Iwasaki, T. Skin lipid profiling in normal and seborrhoeic shih tzu dogs. Vet. Dermatol. 2013, 24, 84-e22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Yoon, J.-S.; Sasaki, A.; Shimada, K.; Ide, K.; Iwasaki, T.; Nishifuji, K. Effects of age, sex, and breed on the composition of free extractable ceramides in the stratum corneum of healthy dogs. Vet. Res. Commun. 2022, 46, 121–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Orbell, H.L.; Cave, N.J.; Parry, K.; Griffin, C.E. An explorative study comparing skin surface lipids in the West Highland white terrier dog with and without atopic dermatitis. Vet. Quart. 2022, 42, 12–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Olivry, T.; Bensignor, E.; Favrot, C.; Griffin, C.E.; Hill, P.B.; Mueller, R.S.; Plant, J.D.; Williams, H.C.; ICADA. Development of a core outcome set for therapeutic clinical trials enrolling dogs with atopic dermatitis (COSCAD’18). BMC Vet. Res. 2018, 14, 238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Szari, S.; Quinn, J.A. Supporting a Healthy Microbiome for the Primary Prevention of Eczema. Clin. Rev. Allergy Immunol. 2019, 57, 286–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Hülpüsch, C.; Weins, A.B.; Traidl-Hoffmann, C.; Reiger, M. A new era of atopic eczema research: Advances and highlights. Allergy 2021, 76, 3408–3421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Lucky, A.W.; Leach, A.D.; Laskarzewski, P.; Wenck, H. Use of an Emollient As a Steroid-Sparing Agent in the Treatment of Mild to Moderate Atopic Dermatitis in Children. Pediatr. Dermatol. 1997, 14, 321–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Grimalt, R.; Mengeaud, V.; Cambazard, F.; Group, S.I. The Steroid-Sparing Effect of an Emollient Therapy in Infants with Atopic Dermatitis: A Randomized Controlled Study. Dermatology 2006, 214, 61–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Harcharik, S.; Emer, J. Steroid-sparing properties of emollients in dermatology. Skin Ther. Lett. 2014, 19, 5–10. [Google Scholar]
  88. Simpson, E.L. Atopic dermatitis: A review of topical treatment options. Curr. Med. Res. Opin. 2010, 26, 633–640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Horimukai, K.; Morita, K.; Narita, M.; Kondo, M.; Kitazawa, H.; Nozaki, M.; Shigematsu, Y.; Yoshida, K.; Niizeki, H.; Motomura, K.; et al. Application of moisturizer to neonates prevents development of atopic dermatitis. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 2014, 134, 824–830.e6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Simpson, E.L.; Chalmers, J.R.; Hanifin, J.M.; Thomas, K.S.; Cork, M.J.; McLean, W.H.I.; Brown, S.J.; Chen, Z.; Chen, Y.; Williams, H.C. Emollient enhancement of the skin barrier from birth offers effective atopic dermatitis prevention. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 2014, 134, 818–823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Chalmers, J.R.; Haines, R.H.; Mitchell, E.J.; Thomas, K.S.; Brown, S.J.; Ridd, M.; Lawton, S.; Simpson, E.L.; Cork, M.J.; Sach, T.H.; et al. Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of daily all-over-body application of emollient during the first year of life for preventing atopic eczema in high-risk children (The BEEP trial): Protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Trials 2017, 18, 343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Lowe, A.J.; Su, J.C.; Allen, K.J.; Abramson, M.J.; Cranswick, N.; Robertson, C.F.; Forster, D.; Varigos, G.; Hamilton, S.; Kennedy, R.; et al. A randomized trial of a barrier lipid replacement strategy for the prevention of atopic dermatitis and allergic sensitization: The PEBBLES pilot study. Br. J. Dermatol. 2017, 178, e19–e21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Carlsen, K.C.L.; Rehbinder, E.M.; Skjerven, H.O.; Carlsen, M.H.; Fatnes, T.A.; Fugelli, P.; Granum, B.; Haugen, G.; Hedlin, G.; Jonassen, C.M.; et al. Preventing Atopic Dermatitis and ALLergies in Chilren—The PreventADALL study. Allergy 2018, 73, 2063–2070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Dissanayake, E.; Tani, Y.; Nagai, K.; Sahara, M.; Mitsuishi, C.; Togawa, Y.; Suzuki, Y.; Nakano, T.; Yamaide, F.; Ohno, H.; et al. Skin Care and Synbiotics for Prevention of Atopic Dermatitis or Food Allergy in Newborn Infants: A 2 × 2 Factorial, Randomized, Non-Treatment Controlled Trial. Int. Arch. Allergy Immunol. 2019, 180, 202–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. Lowe, A.; Su, J.; Tang, M.; Lodge, C.J.; Matheson, M.; Allen, K.J.; Varigos, G.; Sasi, A.; Cranswick, N.; Hamilton, S.; et al. PEBBLES study protocol: A randomised controlled trial to prevent atopic dermatitis, food allergy and sensitisation in infants with a family history of allergic disease using a skin barrier improvement strategy. BMJ Open 2019, 9, e024594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  96. McClanahan, D.; Wong, A.; Kezic, S.; Samrao, A.; Hajar, T.; Hill, E.; Simpson, E.L. A randomized controlled trial of an emollient with ceramide and filaggrin-associated amino acids for the primary prevention of atopic dermatitis in high-risk infants. J. Eur. Acad. Dermatol. 2019, 33, 2087–2094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  97. Skjerven, H.O.; Rehbinder, E.M.; Vettukattil, R.; LeBlanc, M.; Granum, B.; Haugen, G.; Hedlin, G.; Landrø, L.; Marsland, B.J.; Rudi, K.; et al. Skin emollient and early complementary feeding to prevent infant atopic dermatitis (PreventADALL): A factorial, multicentre, cluster-randomised trial. Lancet 2020, 395, 951–961. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Thitthiwong, P.; Koopitakkajorn, T. The Good Skin Care Practices and Emollient Use since Early Infancy as the Primary Prevention of Infantile Atopic Dermatitis among Infants at Risk: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Siriraj Med. J. 2019, 72, 41–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Inuzuka, Y.; Yamamoto-Hanada, K.; Pak, K.; Miyoshi, T.; Kobayashi, T.; Ohya, Y. Effective Primary Prevention of Atopic Dermatitis in High-Risk Neonates via Moisturizer Application: Protocol for a Randomized, Blinded, Parallel, Three-Group, Phase II Trial (PAF Study). Front. Allergy 2022, 3, 862620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Inuzuka, Y.; Yamamoto-Hanada, K.; Kobayashi, T.; Pak, K.; Toyokuni, K.; Ogita, H.; Miyoshi, T.; Ogawa, K.; Sago, H.; Ohya, Y. Prevention of Atopic Dermatitis in High-risk Neonates via Different Types of Moisturizer Application: A Randomized, Blinded, Parallel, Three-group, Phase II Trial (PAF study). J. Eur. Acad. Dermatol. Venereol. 2023; Epub ahead of print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Zhong, Y.; Samuel, M.; Bever, H.; Tham, E.H. Emollients in infancy to prevent atopic dermatitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Allergy. 2022, 77, 1685–1699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Maintz, L.; Bieber, T.; Simpson, H.D.; Demessant-Flavigny, A.-L. From Skin Barrier Dysfunction to Systemic Impact of Atopic Dermatitis: Implications for a Precision Approach in Dermocosmetics and Medicine. J. Pers. Med. 2022, 12, 893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Bawany, F.; Beck, L.A.; Järvinen, K.M. Halting the March: Primary Prevention of Atopic Dermatitis and Food Allergies. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. Pract. 2020, 8, 860–875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Sguizzato, M.; Esposito, E.; Cortesi, R. Lipid-Based Nanosystems as a Tool to Overcome Skin Barrier. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22, 8319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  105. Chandan, N.; Rajkumar, J.R.; Shi, V.Y.; Lio, P.A. A New Era of Moisturizers. J. Cosmet. Dermatol. 2021, 20, 2425–2430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  106. Marsella, R.; Girolomoni, G. Canine Models of Atopic Dermatitis: A Useful Tool with Untapped Potential. J. Investig. Dermatol. 2009, 129, 2351–2357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  107. Marsella, R.; Santoro, D.; Ahrens, K. Early exposure to probiotics in a canine model of atopic dermatitis has long-term clinical and immunological effects. Vet. Immunol. Immunopathol. 2012, 146, 185–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  108. van Beeck, F.L.; Watson, A.; Bos, M.; Biourge, V.; Willemse, T. The effect of long-term feeding of skin barrier-fortified diets on the owner-assessed incidence of atopic dermatitis symptoms in Labrador retrievers. J. Nutr. Sci. 2015, 4, e5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Marsella, R. Evaluation of Lactobacillus rhamnosus strain GG for the prevention of atopic dermatitis in dogs. Am. J. Vet. Res. 2009, 70, 735–740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Saevik, B.K.; Bergvall, K.; Holm, B.R.; Saijonmaa-koulumies, L.E.; Hedhammar, Å.; Larsen, S.; Kristensen, F. A randomized, controlled study to evaluate the steroid sparing effect of essential fatty acid supplementation in the treatment of canine atopic dermatitis. Vet. Dermatol. 2004, 15, 137–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. DeBoer, D.J. Canine atopic dermatitis: New targets, new therapies. J. Nutr. 2004, 134, 2056S–2061S. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Fujimura, M.; Nakatsuji, Y.; Fujiwara, S.; Rème, C.; Gatto, H. Spot-On Skin Lipid Complex as an Adjunct Therapy in Dogs with Atopic Dermatitis: An Open Pilot Study. Vet. Med. Int. 2011, 2011, 281846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Tretter, S.; Mueller, R.S. The Influence of Topical Unsaturated Fatty Acids and Essential Oils on Normal and Atopic Dogs. J. Am. Anim. Hosp. Assoc. 2011, 47, 236–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Blaskovic, M.; Rosenkrantz, W.; Neuber, A.; Sauter-Louis, C.; Mueller, R.S. The effect of a spot-on formulation containing polyunsaturated fatty acids and essential oils on dogs with atopic dermatitis. Vet. J. 2014, 199, 39–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  115. Popa, I.; Remoue, N.; Osta, B.; Pin, D.; Gatto, H.; Haftek, M.; Portoukalian, J. The lipid alterations in the stratum corneum of dogs with atopic dermatitis are alleviated by topical application of a sphingolipid-containing emulsion. Clin. Exp. Dermatol. 2012, 37, 665–671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  116. Cerrato, S.; Ramió-Lluch, L.; Fondevila, D.; Rodes, D.; Brazis, P.; Puigdemont, A. Effects of Essential Oils and Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids on Canine Skin Equivalents: Skin Lipid Assessment and Morphological Evaluation. J. Vet. Med. 2013, 2013, 231526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  117. Jung, J.; Nam, E.; Park, S.; Han, S.; Hwang, C. Clinical use of a ceramide-based moisturizer for treating dogs with atopic dermatitis. J. Vet. Sci. 2013, 14, 199–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Pellicoro, C.; Marsella, R.; Ahrens, K. Pilot Study to Evaluate the Effect of Topical Dimethicone on Clinical Signs and Skin Barrier Function in Dogs with Naturally Occurring Atopic Dermatitis. Vet. Med. Int. 2013, 2013, 239186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  119. Marsella, R.; Genovese, D.; Gilmer, L.; Ahrens, K.; Gatto, H.; Navarro, C. Investigations on the Effects of a Topical Ceramides-Containing Emulsion (Allerderm Spot on) on Clinical Signs and Skin Barrier Function in Dogs with Topic Dermatitis: A Double-Blinded, Randomized, Controlled Study. Intern. J. Appl. Res. Vet. Med. 2013, 11, 110–116. [Google Scholar]
  120. Pin, D.; Bekrich, M.; Fantini, O.; Noel, G.; Vidémont, E. An Emulsion Restores the Skin Barrier by Decreasing the Skin pH and Inflammation in a Canine Experimental Model. J. Comp. Pathol. 2014, 151, 244–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Cerrato, S.; Ramió-Lluch, L.; Brazís, P.; Fondevila, D.; Segarra, S.; Puigdemont, A. Effects of sphingolipid extracts on the morphological structure and lipid profile in an in vitro model of canine skin. Vet. J. 2016, 212, 58–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Hobi, S.; Klinger, C.; Classen, J.; Mueller, R.S. The effects of a topical lipid complex therapy on dogs with atopic dermatitis: A double blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study. Vet. Dermatol. 2017, 28, 369-e84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Marsella, R.; Segarra, S.; Ahrens, K.; Alonso, C.; Ferrer, L. Topical treatment with SPHINGOLIPIDS and GLYCOSAMINOGLYCANS for canine atopic dermatitis. BMC Vet. Res. 2020, 16, 92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Idée, A.; Mosca, M.; Pin, D. Skin Barrier Reinforcement Effect Assessment of a Spot-on Based on Natural Ingredients in a Dog Model of Tape Stripping. Vet. Sci. 2022, 9, 390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  125. Marsella, R.; Olivry, T.; Carlotti, D. Current evidence of skin barrier dysfunction in human and canine atopic dermatitis. Vet. Dermatol. 2011, 22, 239–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  126. Olivry, T.; Wofford, J.; Paps, J.S.; Dunston, S.M. Stratum corneum removal facilitates experimental sensitization to mite allergens in atopic dogs. Vet. Dermatol. 2011, 22, 188–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Majewska, A.; Gajewska, M.; Dembele, K.; Maciejewski, H.; Prostek, A.; Jank, M. Lymphocytic, cytokine and transcriptomic profiles in peripheral blood of dogs with atopic dermatitis. BMC Vet. Res. 2016, 12, 174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  128. Koury, J.; Ramirez, A.; Xie, C.; Harb, J.; Dong, C.; Maki, C.; Ramos, T.; Izadyar, F.; Clark, D.; Drechsler, Y.; et al. Phosphodiesterase 4D, miR-203 and selected cytokines in the peripheral blood are associated with canine atopic dermatitis. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0218670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Mazrier, H.; Vogelnest, L.J.; Taylor, R.M.; Williamson, P. Altered plasma cytokines in dogs with atopic dermatitis. Vet. Dermatol. 2022, 33, 131-e38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Verde, M.T.; Villanueva-Saz, S.; Loste, A.; Marteles, D.; Pereboom, D.; Conde, T.; Fernández, A. Comparison of circulating CD4+, CD8+ lymphocytes and cytokine profiles between dogs with atopic dermatitis and healthy dogs. Res. Vet. Sci. 2022, 145, 13–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Olivry, T. What Can Dogs Bring to Atopic Dermatitis Research? Chem. Immunol. Allergy 2012, 96, 61–72. [Google Scholar]
  132. Arcique, M.A.; Bajwa, J. Atopic dermatitis in humans and dogs. Can. Vet. J. La Rev. Vet. Can. 2020, 61, 82–84. [Google Scholar]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Fernandes, B.; Alves, S.; Schmidt, V.; Bizarro, A.F.; Pinto, M.; Pereira, H.; Marto, J.; Lourenço, A.M. Primary Prevention of Canine Atopic Dermatitis: Breaking the Cycle—A Narrative Review. Vet. Sci. 2023, 10, 659.

AMA Style

Fernandes B, Alves S, Schmidt V, Bizarro AF, Pinto M, Pereira H, Marto J, Lourenço AM. Primary Prevention of Canine Atopic Dermatitis: Breaking the Cycle—A Narrative Review. Veterinary Sciences. 2023; 10(11):659.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Fernandes, Beatriz, Susana Alves, Vanessa Schmidt, Ana Filipa Bizarro, Marta Pinto, Hugo Pereira, Joana Marto, and Ana Mafalda Lourenço. 2023. "Primary Prevention of Canine Atopic Dermatitis: Breaking the Cycle—A Narrative Review" Veterinary Sciences 10, no. 11: 659.

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop