Racial differences in pet ownership in families of children with asthma

A modest protective association between pet ownership and cardiovascular diseases: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Purpose

Investigate the relationship between pet ownership and cardiovascular (CV) outcomes.

Methods

We searched the PubMed, Ovid EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases up to August 2018. Eligible publications examining the association between pet ownership and all-cause and CV mortality (primary outcomes) and risks of cardiovascular disease (CVD), myocardial infarction (MI), and stroke (secondary outcomes) were included. We used the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale to assess the quality of the articles.

Results

We included 12 studies, involving 488,986 participants (52.3% female, mean age 56.1 years), in our systematic review. The mean follow-up duration was 8.7 ± 6.3 years. Pet ownership had no association with adjusted all-cause mortality (odds ratio, OR = 1.01, 95% confidence interval, CI [0.94, 1.08], I² = 76%), adjusted CV mortality (OR = 0.87, 95% CI [0.75, 1.00], I² = 72%), or risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) (OR = 0.87, 95% CI [0.72, 1.05], I² = 73%), myocardial infarction (MI) (OR = 0.99, 95% CI [0.97, 1.01], I² = 0%), or stroke (OR = 0.99, 95% CI [0.98, 1.01], I² = 0%). However, subgroup analysis showed that pet ownership was associated with a lower adjusted CV mortality in the general population (OR = 0.93, 95% CI [0.86, 0.99], I² = 27%) than in CVD patients. In patients with established CVD, pet ownership was associated with a lower adjusted CVD risk (OR = 0.71, 95% CI [0.60, 0.84], I² = 0%).

Conclusion

Pet ownership is not associated with adjusted all-cause or CV mortality, or risk of CVD, MI, or stroke, but it is associated with a lower adjusted CV mortality in the general population and a lower CVD risk in patients with established CVD.

Allergic sensitization to common pets (cats/dogs) according to different possible modalities of exposure: an Italian Multicenter Study

Background

The query "are there animals at home?" is usually administered for collecting information on anamnesis. This modality to consider exposure to pet allergens constitutes a potential bias in epidemiological studies and in clinical practice. The aim of our study was to evaluate/quantify different modalities of exposure to cat/dog in inducing allergic sensitization.

Methods

Thirty Italian Allergy units participated in this study. Each centre was required to collect the data of at least 20 consecutive outpatients sensitized to cat/dog allergens. A standardized form reported all demographic data and a particular attention was paid in relieving possible modalities of exposure to cat/dog.

Results

A total 723 patients sensitized to cat/dog were recorded, 359 (49.65%) reported direct pet contact, 213 patients (29.46%) were pet owners, and 146 subjects (20.19%) were exposed to pets in other settings. Other patients were sensitized by previous pet ownership (150-20.75%) or indirect contact (103-14.25%), in 111 subjects (15.35%) any contact was reported.

Conclusions

Only 213 patients (29.46%) would be classified as "exposed to animals" and 510 (70.54%) as "not exposed" according to usual query. Our classification has shown that many "not-exposed" subjects (399-55.19%) were "really exposed". The magnitude of exposure to pet allergens at home is not related exclusively to pet ownership. These considerations should be taken into account during the planning of epidemiological studies and in clinical practice for the management of pet allergic individuals.

Allergic sensitization to common pets (cats/dogs) according to different possible modalities of exposure: an Italian Multicenter Study

Background

The query “are there animals at home?” is usually administered for collecting information on anamnesis. This modality to consider exposure to pet allergens constitutes a potential bias in epidemiological studies and in clinical practice. The aim of our study was to evaluate/quantify different modalities of exposure to cat/dog in inducing allergic sensitization.

Methods

Thirty Italian Allergy units participated in this study. Each centre was required to collect the data of at least 20 consecutive outpatients sensitized to cat/dog allergens. A standardized form reported all demographic data and a particular attention was paid in relieving possible modalities of exposure to cat/dog.

Results

A total 723 patients sensitized to cat/dog were recorded, 359 (49.65%) reported direct pet contact, 213 patients (29.46%) were pet owners, and 146 subjects (20.19%) were exposed to pets in other settings. Other patients were sensitized by previous pet ownership (150–20.75%) or indirect contact (103–14.25%), in 111 subjects (15.35%) any contact was reported.

Conclusions

Only 213 patients (29.46%) would be classified as “exposed to animals” and 510 (70.54%) as “not exposed” according to usual query. Our classification has shown that many “not-exposed” subjects (399–55.19%) were “really exposed”. The magnitude of exposure to pet allergens at home is not related exclusively to pet ownership. These considerations should be taken into account during the planning of epidemiological studies and in clinical practice for the management of pet allergic individuals.