Cited by 21Parasitic Diseases Research and TreatmentHelminth infection and controlResearch on Leishmaniasis Studies

Seroprevalence of heartworm infection, risk factors for seropositivity, and frequency of prescribing heartworm preventives for cats in the United States and Canada

Levy, Julie K., Burling, Amie N., Crandall, Michael M., Tucker, Sylvia J., Wood, Erin G., Foster, Jessie D.·2017·Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association

Abstract

OBJECTIVE To determine the seroprevalence of heartworm infection, risk factors for seropositivity, and frequency of prescribing heartworm preventives for cats. DESIGN Prospective cross-sectional study. ANIMALS 34,975 cats from 1,353 veterinary clinics (n = 26,707) and 125 animal shelters (8,268) in the United States and Canada. PROCEDURES Blood samples were collected from all cats and tested with a point-of-care ELISA for Dirofilaria immitis antigen, FeLV antigen, and FIV antibody. Results were compared among geographic regions and various cat groupings. RESULTS Seropositivity for heartworm antigen in cats was identified in 35 states but not in Canada; overall seroprevalence in the United States was 0.4%. Seroprevalence of heartworm infection was highest in the southern United States. A 3-fold increase in the proportion of seropositive cats was identified for those with (vs without) outdoor access, and a 2.5-fold increase was identified for cats that were unhealthy (vs healthy) when tested. Seroprevalence was 0.3% in healthy cats, 0.7% in cats with oral disease, 0.9% in cats with abscesses or bite wounds, and 1.0% in cats with respiratory disease. Coinfection with a retrovirus increased the risk of heartworm infection. Heartworm preventives were prescribed for only 12.6% of cats at testing, and prescribing was more common in regions with a higher seroprevalence. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE At an estimated prevalence of 0.4%, hundreds of thousands of cats in the United States are likely infected with heartworms. Given the difficulty in diagnosing infection at all clinically relevant parasite stages and lack of curative treatment options, efforts should be increased to ensure all cats receive heartworm preventives.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2460/javma.250.8.873

Cites

19 of 19 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 21 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Levy, J. K., Burling, A. N., Crandall, M. M., Tucker, S. J., Wood, E. G., & Foster, J. D.
Venue
Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association
Published
2017-04-15
Volume
250
Issue
8
Pages
873-880
ISSN
0003-1488 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2597515515
Cited by
21
References
21
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2
FWCI
2.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association (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
feline heartworm disease, Dirofilaria immitis, seroprevalence, cats, risk factors, outdoor access, FIV, animal shelters, regional variation
MeSH terms
Animals, Anthelmintics, Antibodies, Helminth, Canada, Cat Diseases, Cats, Cross-Sectional Studies, Dirofilaria immitis, Dirofilariasis, Female, Male, Practice Patterns, Physicians', Prospective Studies, Risk Factors, United States, Veterinary Medicine, Seroepidemiologic Studies

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