Peer-reviewed veterinary case report
Heartworm prevention failure in dogs in the Mississippi delta
By Atkins, Clarke E et al.·Published in Veterinary parasitology·2014·Department of Clinical Sciences, 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 We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above.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: Heartworm 'lack of effectiveness' claims in the Mississippi delta: computerized analysis of owner compliance--2004-2011.
- Species:
- dog
Plain-English summary
A study looked at 271 dogs that tested positive for heartworm while on preventive medication in the Mississippi Delta region. It found that in about 81% of cases, the owners had not purchased enough heartworm preventive for their dogs, leaving gaps in protection during critical times when infection could occur. Many of these dogs came from households with multiple pets, where owners often shared the medication, which can lead to underdosing. The findings suggest that better education and practices from veterinarians could help ensure pets receive the proper heartworm prevention they need to stay healthy.
People also search for: dog heartworm prevention · why is my dog positive for heartworm · heartworm medication for multiple dogs
Abstract
A retrospective medical record review was conducted to identify factors from veterinary clinic medical records that may have contributed to suspected ineffectiveness of a heartworm preventive product. Patient records of 271 dogs, comprising 301 instances of positive heartworm antigen test results while the dogs were receiving heartworm preventive were evaluated. Nineteen veterinary practices in 17 counties and parishes in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Tennessee participated in the study. Records were selected by the veterinary clinics as representative of cases of suspected lack of effectiveness for a heartworm preventive, and for which an owner satisfaction claim had been filed with the manufacturer. Medical record data were entered into a software program, and a graphic representation was created to facilitate analysis of whether pet owners had purchased sufficient heartworm preventive for the dog to be compliant during the period when infection with Dirofilaria immitis could have led to the positive heartworm antigen test result for that patient ("window of infection"). In 243 (80.7%) cases, there was insufficient heartworm preventive purchased, leading to a gap in protection during the "window of infection". In only five cases (1.7%) there were no purchase lapses or extenuating circumstances (underdosing of medication, multiple purchase gaps outside the established window of infection, or dogs have been diagnosed with heartworm infection more than once during the period studied). Half the cases were from multiple-dog households, and in many of these households, sharing of product between pets was acknowledged. In another 28% of the cases from multiple-dog households, more product was purchased than was needed for one dog, suggesting that the product was being shared between more than one pet. In most cases, there was at least one reason that a dog did not receive sufficient heartworm preventive product, placing the dog at risk of developing an infection with mature heartworms. Several actions were identified that veterinary clinics can take to improve heartworm disease prevention in their 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/25440944/