Peer-reviewed veterinary case report
Canine visceral leishmaniasis diagnosis in non-endemic Brazil area
By Anaiá da Paixão Sevá et al.·Published in Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical·2021·View original on DOAJ →
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 We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above.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: Investigation of canine visceral leishmaniasis in a non-endemic area in Brazil and the comparison of serological and molecular diagnostic tests
- Species:
- dog
Plain-English summary
A study in Brazil looked at dogs for signs of visceral leishmaniasis, a disease that can also affect humans. Over three years, researchers tested 1,051 dogs using different methods, including a rapid test and a more detailed blood test. They found that only a small percentage of dogs tested positive, and when they used a more advanced test, none of the positive samples were confirmed. This suggests that in areas where the disease is not common, the tests may not be reliable, and pet owners should be cautious about false positives.
People also search for: dog leishmaniasis symptoms · how to test for leishmaniasis in dogs · dog disease prevention Brazil
Abstract
Abstract INTRODUCTION: Visceral leishmaniasis (VL) is an important zoonosis in Brazil. Previous identification of parasitized dogs can also help prevent the disease in humans, even in non-endemic areas of the country. The Brazilian Ministry of Health recommends diagnosis in dogs using a DPP® (rapid test) as a screening test and an immunoenzymatic assay (ELISA) as a confirmatory test (DPP®+ELISA), and culling infected dogs as a legal control measure. However, the accuracy of these serological tests has been questioned. METHODS: VL in dogs was investigated in a non-endemic area of the São Paulo state for three consecutive years, and the performances of different diagnostic tests were compared. RESULTS: A total of 331 dog samples were collected in 2015, 373 in 2016, and 347 in 2017. The seroprevalence by DPP®+ELISA was 3.3, 3.2, and 0.3%, respectively, and by indirect immunofluorescence assay (IFA), it was 3.0, 5.6, and 5.5%, respectively. ELISA confirmed 18.4% of DPP® positive samples. The concordance between the IFA and DPP® was 83.9%. The concordance between IFA and DPP®+ELISA was 92.9%. A molecular diagnostic test (PCR) was performed in 63.2% of the seropositive samples, all of which were negative. CONCLUSIONS: In non-endemic areas, diagnostic tests in dogs should be carefully evaluated to avoid false results.
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 DOAJ: https://doi.org/10.1590/0037-8682-0182-2021