Peer-reviewed veterinary case report
How to test dogs for Lyme disease antibodies compared
By Barth, Charlotte et al.·Published in Veterinary clinical pathology·2014·Clinic of Small Animal Medicine, Germany·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 We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above.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: Comparison of different diagnostic assays for the detection of Borrelia burgdorferi-specific antibodies in dogs.
- Species:
- dog
Plain-English summary
A study tested different blood tests for Lyme disease in dogs, specifically looking for antibodies against the bacteria Borrelia burgdorferi. The KELA test was found to be very accurate, while the SNAP4Dx test also performed well, making it a good option for diagnosing Lyme disease without needing more complicated tests. However, the traditional immunofluorescence tests were not reliable enough for screening. This means that if your dog shows signs of Lyme disease, like fever or joint pain, your vet might recommend the KELA or SNAP4Dx tests for a more accurate diagnosis.
People also search for: dog Lyme disease symptoms · Lyme disease test for dogs · best test for dog Lyme disease
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Antibody tests are frequently used in the diagnosis of canine Lyme borreliosis, including immunofluorescence assay (IFA) for immunoglobulin G (IgG) and M (IgM) antibodies, kinetic enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (KELA), and Western blotting (WB). Recently, the SNAP4Dx, an in-house test using C6 technology has become available. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare IFA, KELA, and SNAP4Dx assay results, and to determine their sensitivity and specificity when compared with the WB, used as gold standard in this study. METHODS: Two hundred canine sera were tested for the presence of specific antibodies against Borrelia spp. using the above-mentioned tests. RESULTS: The sensitivity and specificity of IFA-IgG was 76.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 46.87-86.72) and 87.1% (95% CI 80.06-91.90), and 26.3% (95% CI 11.81-48.79) and 81.0% (95% CI 73.64-86.71) for IFA-IgM, respectively. KELA was 100% (95% CI 83.18-100) sensitive and 75.4% (95% CI 67.02-82.09) specific, and the SNAP4Dx was 84.2% (95% CI 62.43-94.48) sensitive and 98.5% (95% CI 94.83-99.60) specific. CONCLUSIONS: Both IFAs had very low sensitivity and specificity and cannot be recommended for screening purposes. In contrast, KELA showed excellent sensitivity, but positive results always need to be confirmed by WB to differentiate the source of antibody formation. The SNAP4Dx had a high sensitivity and specificity, and thus can potentially replace the more labor-intensive WB, at least in untreated dogs.
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/25366257/