Peer-reviewed veterinary case report
New VetScan VS2 test for detecting heartworm in dogs
By Lee, Alice C Y et al.·Published in Veterinary parasitology·2011·Department of Microbiology & Immunology, 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 We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above.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: Evaluation of a new in-clinic method for the detection of canine heartworm antigen.
- Species:
- dog
Plain-English summary
A study looked at a new heartworm test for dogs, the VetScan VS2, to see how well it detects heartworm infection compared to the more established SNAP test. The VetScan VS2 missed detecting heartworm in many dogs that had low levels of the infection, while the SNAP test was much more accurate. This is important because catching heartworm early can lead to better treatment outcomes. If you're concerned about heartworm in your dog, especially if they are on preventive medication, it might be worth discussing the SNAP test with your veterinarian for more reliable results.
People also search for: dog heartworm test accuracy · heartworm prevention for dogs · VetScan VS2 vs SNAP test
Abstract
Canine heartworm is endemic in many parts of the world, and veterinarians rely on rapid in-clinic antigen tests to screen for this infection. Recently, an in-clinic, instrument-based rotor employing a colloidal gold agglutination immunoassay was launched in the marketplace (VetScan VS2(®) Canine Heartworm (HW) Antigen Test Kit; Abaxis, Inc.). Because of the widespread use of heartworm prevention and possible false negative test results in dogs with low heartworm burdens, the performance of the VetScan VS2(®) HW test and a commercially available in-clinic, membrane-based ELISA test (SNAP(®) Heartworm RT Test; IDEXX Laboratories) was compared using samples from dogs with low heartworm burdens and/or low levels of circulating antigen. Ninety serum samples were evaluated using the two methods. Testing was performed according to the manufacturer's product insert by personnel blinded to sample status. The samples were derived from two populations: dogs with necropsy-confirmed heartworm status (40 with 1-4 female worms, 30 with no worms), and field dogs (20) confirmed positive for antigen by microtiter plate ELISA (PetChek(®) Heartworm PF Antigen Test; IDEXX Laboratories). All 40 dogs with heartworms on necropsy were also confirmed to have circulating antigen by the PetChek HW ELISA. In necropsy-negative dogs (n=30), neither the VetScan VS2 HW nor SNAP HW tests detected heartworm antigen. Of the samples testing positive for antigen by PetChek HW (n=60), the VetScan VS2 HW and SNAP HW tests detected antigen in 15 and 56 samples, respectively. Percent agreement (plus 95% confidence interval) for each test relative to the PetChek HW qualitative result was 50% (40-60%) for VetScan VS2 HW and 96% (89-98%) for SNAP HW. Relative to the presence or absence of female worms at necropsy, agreement was 61% (50-72%) for VetScan VS2 HW and 99% (92-99.6%) for SNAP HW tests. It is clinically important that dogs with low heartworm burdens and/or low levels of circulating heartworm antigen be correctly identified by veterinarians in order to ensure prompt treatment, and the VetScan(®) VS2 HW test does not appear to be as accurate as the SNAP HW or PetChek HW tests when performed on this subset of patients.
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/21211910/