Peer-reviewed veterinary case report
Best tests to detect Anaplasma phagocytophilum infection in dogs
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 We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above.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 tools for the detection of Anaplasma phagocytophilum in dogs.
- Species:
- dog
Plain-English summary
A study looked at how well different tests can detect Anaplasma phagocytophilum, a common infection in dogs. Researchers tested blood samples from 200 dogs using two antibody tests and a DNA test (PCR). While both antibody tests were very sensitive and could identify infected dogs, they also had low specificity, meaning they sometimes gave false positives. This suggests that while these antibody tests can be useful for screening, a positive result should be confirmed with the more accurate PCR test to ensure a correct diagnosis.
People also search for: dog Anaplasma infection symptoms · how to test for Anaplasma in dogs · dog blood test for Anaplasma
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Anaplasma phagocytophilum is common in dogs, but the best way to diagnose an infection is still not determined. Antibody detection assays are frequently used in veterinary practice. Additionally, polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is available for detection of A phagocytophilum DNA. It is still unknown, how well different diagnostic methods correlate. OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to compare 2 antibody detection assays, an immunofluorescence assay (IFA) and the ELISA SNAP4Dx, and to determine the correlation of these assays by evaluating the sensitivity and specificity compared with PCR as a direct detection method of the organism. METHODS: Sera of 200 prospectively included dogs were tested for antibodies to A phagocytophilum using IFA and SNAP4Dx. DNA of the organism was detected by PCR on whole blood. Sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values, including their 95% confidence intervals, were calculated for IFA and SNAP4Dx in relation to PCR. RESULTS: Four of 200 animals were PCR-positive. Sensitivity of IFA and SNAP4Dx was 100% (95% CI 51.01-100). Specificity of IFA was 52.9% (95% CI 50.42-64.17) and that of SNAP4Dx, 57.4% (95% CI 45.83-59.70). Agreement of the 2 antibody tests was fair (κ 0.334). CONCLUSIONS: Immunofluorescence assay and SNAP4Dx were very sensitive and therefore can be useful as screening tests for A phagocytophilum infection. However, the specificity was low, and agreement between both antibody tests was insufficient. This could be due to either false-positive antibody test results, or false-negative PCR results in dogs that were actually infected.
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/24597657/