CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 30Parasitic Diseases Research and TreatmentHelminth infection and controlResearch on Leishmaniasis Studies

Evaluation of a new in-clinic method for the detection of canine heartworm antigen

Lee, Alice C.Y., Bowman, Dwight D., Lucio-Forster, Araceli, Beall, Melissa J., Liotta, Janice L., Dillon, Ray·2011·Veterinary Parasitology
DOI 10.1016/j.vetpar.2010.11.050
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Canine heartworm is endemic in many parts of the world, and veterinarians rely on rapid in-clinic antigen tests to screen for this infection. Recently, an in-clinic, instrument-based rotor employing a colloidal gold agglutination immunoassay was launched in the marketplace (VetScan VS2(®) Canine Heartworm (HW) Antigen Test Kit; Abaxis, Inc.). Because of the widespread use of heartworm prevention and possible false negative test results in dogs with low heartworm burdens, the performance of the VetScan VS2(®) HW test and a commercially available in-clinic, membrane-based ELISA test (SNAP(®) Heartworm RT Test; IDEXX Laboratories) was compared using samples from dogs with low heartworm burdens and/or low levels of circulating antigen. Ninety serum samples were evaluated using the two methods. Testing was performed according to the manufacturer's product insert by personnel blinded to sample status. The samples were derived from two populations: dogs with necropsy-confirmed heartworm status (40 with 1-4 female worms, 30 with no worms), and field dogs (20) confirmed positive for antigen by microtiter plate ELISA (PetChek(®) Heartworm PF Antigen Test; IDEXX Laboratories). All 40 dogs with heartworms on necropsy were also confirmed to have circulating antigen by the PetChek HW ELISA. In necropsy-negative dogs (n=30), neither the VetScan VS2 HW nor SNAP HW tests detected heartworm antigen. Of the samples testing positive for antigen by PetChek HW (n=60), the VetScan VS2 HW and SNAP HW tests detected antigen in 15 and 56 samples, respectively. Percent agreement (plus 95% confidence interval) for each test relative to the PetChek HW qualitative result was 50% (40-60%) for VetScan VS2 HW and 96% (89-98%) for SNAP HW. Relative to the presence or absence of female worms at necropsy, agreement was 61% (50-72%) for VetScan VS2 HW and 99% (92-99.6%) for SNAP HW tests. It is clinically important that dogs with low heartworm burdens and/or low levels of circulating heartworm antigen be correctly identified by veterinarians in order to ensure prompt treatment, and the VetScan(®) VS2 HW test does not appear to be as accurate as the SNAP HW or PetChek HW tests when performed on this subset of patients.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.vetpar.2010.11.050

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The prevalence of D. immitis found in this study may be underestimated because the methods used may fail to identify some infected dogs, especially those with low D. immitis burdens.

    “Importantly, both methods used in this study to evaluate the prevalence of D. immitis may fail in the identification of some infected dogs, especially those with low D. immitis burdens and it is possible that the prevalence found in this study is underestimated.”

    From <i>Leishmania infantum</i>, <i>Dirofilaria</i> spp. and other endoparasite infections in kennel dogs in central Italy (2018) · cites this paper as [19]

  • The frequent use of in-house antigen-ELISA tests is likely due to their direct availability in clinical practice and their comparatively high sensitivity and specificity, even in dogs with a low worm burden.

    “The frequent use of in-house antigen-ELISA tests is likely to be due to their direct availability in clinical practice and the comparatively high sensitivity and specificity of the results obtained within minutes, even in dogs with a low worm burden (Courtney and Zeng 2001; Atkins 2003; Lee et al. 2011).”

    From Current trends in canine dirofilariosis in Austria-do we face a pre-endemic status? (2020) · cites this paper as Lee et al. 2011

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Lee, A. C. Y., Bowman, D. D., Lucio-Forster, A., Beall, M. J., Liotta, J. L., & Dillon, R.
Affiliations
  • Cornell University (US)
  • IDEXX Laboratories (United States) (US)
  • Auburn University (US)
Corresponding author
Bowman, Dwight D.
ORCID
Venue
Veterinary Parasitology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-05
Volume
177
Issue
3-4
Pages
387-391
ISSN
0304-4017 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.vetpar.2010.11.050
OpenAlex
W2035437015
Cited by
30
References
6
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 3 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
0.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Veterinary Parasitology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › Parasitic Diseases Research and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Helminth infection and control
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Research on Leishmaniasis Studies
Keywords
canine heartworm disease, colloidal gold immunoassay, ELISA, diagnostic accuracy, false-negative results, dogs, diagnostic test comparison, heartworm prevention
MeSH terms
Animals, Antigens, Helminth, Dirofilaria immitis, Dirofilariasis, Dog Diseases, Dogs, Female, Random Allocation, Statistics, Nonparametric

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review