Peer-reviewed veterinary case report
Canine visceral leishmaniasis diagnosis in non-endemic Brazil area
By Sevá, Anaiá da Paixão et al.·Published in Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical·2021·Universidade de Sã·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 We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above.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: 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 looked at dogs in a non-endemic area of Brazil for visceral leishmaniasis, a serious disease that can affect both dogs and humans. Over three years, researchers tested 1,051 dogs using different blood tests to check for the disease. They found that while some tests showed positive results, a more accurate molecular test (PCR) came back negative for all seropositive samples, suggesting that the initial tests may not be reliable. This highlights the importance of careful testing in areas where the disease is not commonly found to avoid unnecessary worry or action.
People also search for: dog leishmaniasis symptoms · testing for leishmaniasis in dogs · treatment for dog leishmaniasis
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 PubMed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34495256/