Peer-reviewed veterinary case report
Does maropitant affect allergy skin tests in dogs with atopic
By Gould, Aubrey G et al.·Published in Veterinary dermatology·2026·Animal Dermatology Clinic, United States·View original on PubMed →
PetCaseFinder translated the abstract of this peer-reviewed paper into plain English so pet owners can read it. We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above. How we work →
Original publication title: Influence of Maropitant Citrate on Pollen and Control Intradermal Test Reactivity in Atopic Dogs: A Randomised, Controlled, Blinded Trial.
- Species:
- dog
Plain-English summary
A group of 20 dogs with atopic dermatitis (a skin allergy condition) underwent skin tests to check for pollen allergies. After receiving maropitant citrate, a medication usually used to prevent vomiting, the size of the allergic reactions (wheals) increased, indicating a change in how the dogs reacted to the allergens. However, the overall results did not significantly alter which allergens were identified as problematic. No side effects were noted from the treatment. This suggests that while maropitant can affect test results, it may not change the allergens that need to be treated.
People also search for: dog skin allergy treatment · maropitant for dog allergies · atopic dermatitis in dogs
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Maropitant citrate (Cerenia; Zoetis) is a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist that inhibits binding of substance P, and is approved to prevent acute emesis and motion sickness in dogs. Maropitant is often administered before sedation with α2-agonists to reduce the risk of vomiting. Many medications interfere with intradermal test (IDT) results and it is unknown if maropitant citrate alters IDT reactivity. OBJECTIVE: To assess the influence of maropitant citrate on IDT reactivity in dogs with canine atopic dermatitis (cAD). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty client-owned dogs with cAD were enrolled in a randomised, controlled, blinded, comparative trial. Each IDT was read independently by a dermatology resident and a referral clinician. Subjective (0-4) and objective (mm diameter) wheal scores were measured 15 min after intradermal injections. Four positive pollen allergens with established irritancy threshold concentrations (ITC) were selected for assessment in the next phase. Following completion of the initial IDT, maropitant citrate (1 mg/kg) was administered intravenously. A second, randomised, blinded IDT was performed using the four positive allergens injected in triplicate, with controls injected in duplicate. RESULTS: Histamine (objective mean difference [MD] = 1.1 mm, p = 0.01) and positive allergen (objective MD = 0.4 mm, p = 0.007; subjective MD = 0.2 mm, p < 0.001) wheal sizes were statistically larger post-maropitant citrate. The proportions of positive allergen scores were not significantly different pre- and post-maropitant citrate (objective: 48 of 80 pre- vs. 56 of 80 post-, p = 0.09; subjective: 80 of 80 pre- vs. 77 of 80 post-, p = 0.25). No adverse events were observed. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Intravascular maropitant citrate increases wheal size, yet the effect on allergen selection for clinical treatment remains equivocal.
Find similar cases for your pet
PetCaseFinder finds other peer-reviewed reports of pets with the same symptoms, plus a plain-English summary of what was tried across them.
Search related cases →Original publication on PubMed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41449861/