Peer-reviewed veterinary case report
Comparing blood tests to diagnose vector-borne diseases in dogs
By Maggi, Ricardo G et al.·Published in Parasites & vectors·2014·College of Veterinary Medicine, United States·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 We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above.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 serological and molecular panels for diagnosis of vector-borne diseases in dogs.
- Species:
- dog
Plain-English summary
A group of dogs suspected of having vector-borne diseases (like Lyme disease or ehrlichiosis) underwent testing to see which method—blood tests or molecular tests—was better for diagnosing these illnesses. The study found that using both types of tests together improved the chances of identifying infections by 4-58%. This means that if your dog shows symptoms like fever, lethargy, or joint pain, your vet might recommend both serological and molecular testing to get a clearer picture of what’s going on.
People also search for: dog fever symptoms · Lyme disease testing for dogs · vector-borne disease treatment in dogs
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Canine vector-borne diseases (CVBD) are caused by a diverse array of pathogens with varying biological behaviors that result in a wide spectrum of clinical presentations and laboratory abnormalities. For many reasons, the diagnosis of canine vector-borne infectious diseases can be challenging for clinicians. The aim of the present study was to compare CVBD serological and molecular testing as the two most common methodologies used for screening healthy dogs or diagnosing sick dogs in which a vector-borne disease is suspected. METHODS: We used serological (Anaplasma species, Babesia canis, Bartonella henselae, Bartonella vinsonii subspecies berkhoffii, Borrelia burgdorferi, Ehrlichia canis, and SFG Rickettsia) and molecular assays to assess for exposure to, or infection with, 10 genera of organisms that cause CVBDs (Anaplasma, Babesia, Bartonella, Borrelia, Ehrlichia, Francisella, hemotropic Mycoplasma, Neorickettsia, Rickettsia, and Dirofilaria). Paired serum and EDTA blood samples from 30 clinically healthy dogs (Group I) and from 69 sick dogs suspected of having one or more canine vector-borne diseases (Groups II-IV), were tested in parallel to establish exposure to or infection with the specific CVBDs targeted in this study. RESULTS: Among all dogs tested (Groups I-IV), the molecular prevalences for individual CVBD pathogens ranged between 23.3 and 39.1%. Similarly, pathogen-specific seroprevalences ranged from 43.3% to 59.4% among healthy and sick dogs (Groups I-IV). Among these representative sample groupings, a panel combining serological and molecular assays run in parallel resulted in a 4-58% increase in the recognition of exposure to or infection with CVBD. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that serological and PCR assays should be used in parallel to maximize CVBD diagnosis.
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/24670154/