allergy skin testing vs blood testing?

ORIGINAL: guinnsmom

Anyone care to throw out the pros and cons here?

I know that the skin testing is more thourogh but do you think the blood test is effective or am I just going to throw away the money? The veet tech made the comment that if your dog is not allergic enough, the tests could come back negative.

Guinness still has red itchy feet, sore ears and is losing hair from above her eyes. She has been tested for yeast and bacterial infection. The freeze happened long ago so I think it is time to try something else.

Will the blood tests indicate if it is a food allergy or only environmental things?

Apparently the closest vet to us who does allergy skin testing is 3 hours away.

The Vet Dermatologist that I went to , who wrotes publications on the subject, said that there are too many false indications from the blood test.  She said the skin test is much more accurate. I think the only way you can determine a food allergy is to switch foods and see what happens.  They usually recommend fish and potato, so you might try feeding your dog Natural Balance Sweet Potato and fish and see what happens after a couple of months. 

[linkhttp://www.naturalbalanceinc.com/dogformulas/SPFish.html]http://www.naturalbalanceinc.com/dogformulas/SPFish.html[/link]

Ollie was blood tested by a veterinarian skin specialist. We were told that the blood test would tell us if he was allergic to food or environmental things, and that most dogs are NOT allergic to food.  Also made mention that if he were to be allergic to food then he would probably have to go get skin tested to see which foods.    They said it was a lot less expensive to go this was. Ollie was blood tested and found to be NOT allergic to food...but rather dust and grass. HE was put on allergen shots and is now fine. Thank God!!

we had Bogey go the blood test route. It was under $300.00 and well worth it. It tested for both food and environmental allergies and found that she is terribly allergic to both.  Trees, grasses, fleas, flies, shrubs, ragweed and beef, lamb, turkey, milk corn and (something else). But pretty much everything we were feeding her she's allergic to.  We are giving her the shots and it's well worth it. We've been giving her a shot every other day for about a month and then we go to 1 every 10 days and then 1 every 3 weeks, etc.  And, I thought I could NEVER give her a shot, and it's not been too bad. 

I take Jessie to a veterinary dermatologist that's also an associate clinical professor at a prominent veterinary teaching hospital and she basically agrees with Bobsk8 concerning the blood test and skin test. She particularly thinks that paying for a blood test for food allergies is a waste of money. You may get good results for environmental allergies from the blood test but there may be some false negatives.

Ollie was blood tested by a veterinarian skin specialist. We were told that the blood test would tell us if he was allergic to food or environmental things, and that most dogs are NOT allergic to food. Also made mention that if he were to be allergic to food then he would probably have to go get skin tested to see which foods. They said it was a lot less expensive to go this was. Ollie was blood tested and found to be NOT allergic to food...but rather dust and grass. HE was put on allergen shots and is now fine. Thank God!!

 
Dyan, as you were giving Ollie the shots, how long did it take for you to see even a small improvement and are you still giving them? How often?  It's been about a month now and today for the first time, she really hasn't been itching much at all tonight. Our blood was sent to a place in Pasadena, CA and it boasts that it's never had any false positives and is using newer testing and techniques.  I am so glad we paid the money to find out both food and environmental because she's got a lot of both!

All I can say is HURRAY for Vet Dermatologists! []I have a great derm. and I had Trudy skin tested with him. Didn't take long and the serum was made up right there. First shot was given after the test. I give her a shot each week, has been  about two years and a few months.  He knew the best meds for the skin infections,etc. I keep a good watch on her skin and ears etc. I smell her ears every day! They should smell nice or there may be a problem.
 
WHAT a drastic and miraculous change in Trudy. She is all better! It took a few weeks to see a change with the shot and months to really see a great difference. The derm. suggested Natural Balance Fish for her. It was the answer to a food that worked for her. No grains. He takes Hydroxysine antihistamine also. She was a hard allergy case and the vets are THRILLED! Trudy is the most happy I am sure!
 
I agree with several of the above posts. Skin testing is really the best test. My testing was VERY expensive, and all of the serum, pills etc are expensive, but it is all worth every dime. I do everything possible for a long and happy life for Trudy.

Even though some have the skin testing and some have the blood (what we did) I think whatever works for your dog is the best. And like Sally said, it's all very expensive, but if it works, to me, it's totally worth every penny. When we got the results back we got a list of about 10 foods we could try - all having NOTHING that she's allergic to (she's allergic to most meats). So, we tried a couple, finally ending up giving her the Nutro Nature's Choice Sr. (she's since it's only meat is Chicken and we mix in a little of Nature's Recipe canned Vegetarian and she lovesit. 

Dyan, as you were giving Ollie the shots, how long did it take for you to see even a small improvement and are you still giving them? How often?  It's been about a month now and today for the first time, she really hasn't been itching much at all tonight. 

 
Ollie showed improvement in about 6 weeks after starting allergen shots. He finished them out and has not had any trouble since. No he is not on any shots now at all. BUT since we feel that his immune system was compromised because of vaccines..he gets none. And he doesn't get HW prevention either.  He is not out with other dogs...so hopefully he doesn't pick anything up. Ollie is supposed to be getting tested for HW every 6 months rather then taking preventative (he used to get sick and vomit and not eat for weeks after taking Heartguard) not sure my son is taking him like he should though. 
We were told that if he were to test positive for food we would then be better off getting him skin tested to see which foods. Saying that skin testing is more expensive and if done properly.  And since the vet doesn't believe that too many dogs even have allergy towords foods,,,why not just get the blood test? 

She particularly thinks that paying for a blood test for food allergies is a waste of money.

I bet there are so many new ways to do things now,,,that this might not be true anymore.  Our vet said we couldn't even blood test for food back when Ollie had his.

We had the blood testing done in June, and either food testing wasn't a possibility or my vet chose not to run that part, but nothing came back on the results regarding food allergies.  As for false negatives, I sort of don't get that part.  On our results, it only showed the things she tested positive to, so I guess everything else was negative, and some of those might be false negatives???  Doesn't make sense in our case.  Now, false postives I could see, and I wouldn't doubt the possibility of that.

As for false negatives, I sort of don't get that part. On our results, it only showed the things she tested positive to, so I guess everything else was negative, and some of those might be false negatives??? Doesn't make sense in our case. Now, false postives I could see, and I wouldn't doubt the possibility of that.

 
   This explains why skin testing is better and why blood testing can give false negatives;    [linkhttp://www.hillary.net/school/dermatology/derm.lec.11.09.98]http://www.hillary.net/school/dermatology/derm.lec.11.09.98[/link] ;      
 
   "  the problem for many years with these
tests was that we didn't have just patient IgE binding allergens. there
is a lot of crossreactivity with IgG, and non-allergic patients looked
allergic on these tests. IgG doesn't cause mast cell degranulation and
Tcell reactivity to allergens. So tests could look positive on
everything, and that isn't useful at all. but, we didn't need to sedate
dogs, clip them, or use drug withdrawal. skin tests are expensive to do
and you have to do a lot of animals to recoup startup costs, and so
people used these blood tests a lot.

currently, we get a lot of false
negatives during the off season. when testing how much IgE is in the
blood, if the allergen has not been around for 6 mos, the level of Ab
will be low in the serum - but it stays high in the skin (and pulmonary
tissues). "
 
    I agree though that labs are working to make the blood tests more accurate.