Peer-reviewed veterinary case report
Accuracy of quick heartworm tests to confirm infection in dogs
By Atkinson, P J et al.·Published in Preventive veterinary medicine·2026·School of Animal and Veterinary Sciences, Australia·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 We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above.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: Relative accuracy of point-of-care tests to rule-in heartworm infection in clinically suspected dogs using Bayesian latent class modelling.
- Species:
- dog
Plain-English summary
A group of dogs in Western Fiji showing signs of heartworm infection were tested using different diagnostic methods to see which was most effective. The modified Knott's test and several antigen tests, including the Anigen Rapid and SNAP tests, were evaluated for their ability to confirm heartworm infection. Results showed that the Anigen Rapid and SNAP tests provided the strongest evidence for diagnosing heartworm, while the WITNESS test was less reliable. Veterinarians can confidently use these tests to rule in heartworm infection in dogs that show clinical signs.
People also search for: dog heartworm symptoms · heartworm test accuracy · best heartworm test for dogs
Abstract
Our prospective cross-sectional survey of dogs from Western Fiji aimed to evaluate the fitness of common diagnostic test modalities to rule-in Dirofilaria immitis infection in patients with suggestive clinical history or signs. In the absence of a perfect reference standard, we used latent class modelling to evaluate the relative diagnostic accuracy of two point-of-care (POC) detection modalities - the modified Knott's test (MKT) to detect circulating microfilaria and four antigen lateral flow immunoassays (LFI): Anigen Rapid Canine HW Ag Test® (Bionote Co.), SNAP® Heartworm RT Test (IDEXX Laboratories), trūRapid Heartworm (Heska), WITNESS Dirofilaria® (Zoetis Inc.). The tests' fitness for ruling-in infection were compared using the likelihood ratios of a positive result (LR). The performances of the MKT and the Anigen Rapid LFI to rule-in infection on fresh blood of clinically suspected dogs were moderate to strong (LR=13.4, 95 %PCI: 6.7-114.6; LR=20.2, 95 %PCI: 5.4-138.2; respectively) but not consistently different from each other. The Anigen Rapid, SNAP and truRapid tests consistently provided the strongest evidence to rule-in infection. The LRof the WITNESS test was approximately twelve times, nine times and two times lower than the SNAP, truRapid and Anigen Rapid LFIs respectively (Bayesian p-value 0.002, 0.004 and 0.02 respectively). Overall, a positive result from MKT or LFIs is suitable to rule-in infection in dogs raising clinical suspicion and would increase the post-test probability of infection similarly. If veterinarians are choosing between LFIs, they should favour either Anigen Rapid, SNAP and truRapid over WITNESS.
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/41520422/