Peer-reviewed veterinary case report
Comparing two tests for cryptococcosis diagnosis in cats dogs
By Krockenberger, Mark B et al.·Published in Medical mycology·2020·Sydney School of Veterinary Science, Australia·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 We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above.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: Comparing immunochromatography with latex antigen agglutination testing for the diagnosis of cryptococcosis in cats, dogs and koalas.
Plain-English summary
A study tested a new quick test for cryptococcosis, a fungal infection, in cats and dogs. The test showed a high success rate in identifying the infection, with 92% sensitivity in cats and 100% in dogs, meaning it was effective at ruling out the disease. However, the test was not perfect, as it had lower specificity, which means it could give false positives. Because of this, any positive results from the quick test should be confirmed with a more established method. This new test could be useful for vets to quickly assess pets suspected of having cryptococcosis.
People also search for: cat cryptococcosis symptoms · dog fungal infection test · quick test for cryptococcosis in pets
Abstract
Although the point-of-care cryptococcal antigen lateral flow assay (LFA) has revolutionized the diagnosis of cryptococcosis in human patients, to date there has been no large-scale examination of this test in animals. We therefore assessed the LFA in cats, dogs and koalas suspected of having cryptococcosis. In sum, 528 serum specimens (129 from cats, 108 from dogs, 291 from koalas) were tested using the LFA and one of two commercially available latex cryptococcal antigen agglutination test (LCAT) kits. The LCAT is a proven and well-accepted method in veterinary patients and therefore taken as the "gold standard" against which the LFA was compared. The LFA achieved a sensitivity of 92%, 100%, and 98% in cats, dogs, and koalas, respectively, with corresponding negative predictive values of 94%, 100%, and 98%. The specificity of the LFA was 81%, 84%, and 62% for cats, dogs, and koalas, respectively, with corresponding positive predictive values of 76%, 48%, and 69%. These findings suggest the most appropriate role for the LFA is as a screening test to rule out a diagnosis of cryptococcosis in cats, dogs, and koalas. Point-of-care accessibility makes it equally suited for use in the field and as a cage-side test in veterinary hospitals. The suboptimal specificity of the LFA makes it less suited to definitive confirmation of cryptococcosis in animals; therefore, all LFA-positive test results should be confirmed by LCAT testing. The discrepancy between these observations and the high specificity of the LFA in humans may reflect differences in the host-pathogen interactions amongst the species.
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/31220311/