Comparative performance analysis of different microfilaria testing methods for Dirofilaria immitis in canine blood.

IF 3 2区 医学 Q1 PARASITOLOGY
Rachel C Smith, Trey D Tomlinson, Joy V Bowles, Lindsay A Starkey
{"title":"Comparative performance analysis of different microfilaria testing methods for Dirofilaria immitis in canine blood.","authors":"Rachel C Smith, Trey D Tomlinson, Joy V Bowles, Lindsay A Starkey","doi":"10.1186/s13071-024-06537-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Microfilaria (MF) testing is an essential part of canine heartworm diagnostics, and it is recommended by the American Heartworm Society that a MF test be performed in tandem with antigen testing on every dog, every year, regardless of prevention status or history. There are a variety of methods that can be used to detect MF in canine whole blood; however, these methods widely vary in their sensitivities as well as practical factors, including time investment and cost. Additionally, some MF tests offer the advantage of being quantitative or allowing for morphological or molecular species identification, while other tests should only be used qualitatively.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The purpose of this study is to evaluate the quantitative and qualitative performance of MF tests, including the 20 μL count, wet mount, 9 μL and 40 μL hematocrit tubes, thin smear, thick smear, modified Knott test (MKT), and conventional polymerase chain reaction (PCR).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Qualitatively, there was little difference in the performance of the 20 μL count, wet mount, MKT, and PCR. The MKT and PCR are the optimal MF tests, as these perform most reliably for detecting positives even when the MF per milliliter is relatively low, and in most cases, these two methods also allow for species-level confirmation of the identity. However, PCR tends to be a very costly test, and both PCR and MKT require a greater degree of expertise and time investment to perform than other tests. Even the lowest performance tests, including the thin smear and hematocrit tube methods, can reliably detect MF at very high burdens; although, caution should be advised when using low reliability methods, since there is a greater likelihood of failing to identify MF-positive dogs.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Microfilaria (MF) testing is an essential part of heartworm diagnosis and screening in dogs, and test selection should balance practical factors such as cost and time investment with the patient's risk of infection based on prevention status and history, clinical signs, and antigen testing results. This approach to MF testing will help minimize cost while avoiding failure to detect MF in infected dogs, especially when MF burden is low.</p>","PeriodicalId":19793,"journal":{"name":"Parasites & Vectors","volume":"17 1","pages":"460"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11555853/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Parasites & Vectors","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13071-024-06537-6","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PARASITOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Microfilaria (MF) testing is an essential part of canine heartworm diagnostics, and it is recommended by the American Heartworm Society that a MF test be performed in tandem with antigen testing on every dog, every year, regardless of prevention status or history. There are a variety of methods that can be used to detect MF in canine whole blood; however, these methods widely vary in their sensitivities as well as practical factors, including time investment and cost. Additionally, some MF tests offer the advantage of being quantitative or allowing for morphological or molecular species identification, while other tests should only be used qualitatively.

Methods: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the quantitative and qualitative performance of MF tests, including the 20 μL count, wet mount, 9 μL and 40 μL hematocrit tubes, thin smear, thick smear, modified Knott test (MKT), and conventional polymerase chain reaction (PCR).

Results: Qualitatively, there was little difference in the performance of the 20 μL count, wet mount, MKT, and PCR. The MKT and PCR are the optimal MF tests, as these perform most reliably for detecting positives even when the MF per milliliter is relatively low, and in most cases, these two methods also allow for species-level confirmation of the identity. However, PCR tends to be a very costly test, and both PCR and MKT require a greater degree of expertise and time investment to perform than other tests. Even the lowest performance tests, including the thin smear and hematocrit tube methods, can reliably detect MF at very high burdens; although, caution should be advised when using low reliability methods, since there is a greater likelihood of failing to identify MF-positive dogs.

Conclusions: Microfilaria (MF) testing is an essential part of heartworm diagnosis and screening in dogs, and test selection should balance practical factors such as cost and time investment with the patient's risk of infection based on prevention status and history, clinical signs, and antigen testing results. This approach to MF testing will help minimize cost while avoiding failure to detect MF in infected dogs, especially when MF burden is low.

犬血中双鞭毛虫不同微丝蚴检测方法的性能比较分析
背景:微丝蚴(MF)检测是犬心丝虫诊断的重要组成部分,美国心丝虫协会建议每年对每只犬进行微丝蚴检测和抗原检测,无论犬的预防状况或病史如何。有多种方法可用于检测犬全血中的 MF,但这些方法的灵敏度以及时间投入和成本等实际因素存在很大差异。此外,有些 MF 检测方法具有定量或可进行形态学或分子物种鉴定的优势,而其他检测方法则只能定性使用:本研究的目的是评估 MF 检验的定量和定性性能,包括 20 μL 计数、湿装片、9 μL 和 40 μL 血细胞比容管、薄涂片、厚涂片、改良诺特检验(MKT)和传统聚合酶链反应(PCR):从质量上看,20 μL 计数、湿装片、MKT 和 PCR 的性能差别不大。MKT 和 PCR 是最佳的 MF 检测方法,因为这两种方法即使在每毫升 MF 相对较低的情况下也能最可靠地检测出阳性结果,而且在大多数情况下,这两种方法还能在物种水平上确认身份。不过,PCR 检测的成本往往很高,而且与其他检测方法相比,PCR 和 MKT 检测需要更多的专业知识和时间投入。即使是性能最低的检测方法,包括薄涂片法和血细胞比容管法,也能可靠地检测出极高负担的 MF;不过,在使用可靠性低的方法时应谨慎,因为有更大的可能无法识别出 MF 阳性的狗:微丝蚴(MF)检测是犬心丝虫诊断和筛查的重要组成部分,选择检测方法时应根据预防状况和病史、临床症状和抗原检测结果,在成本和时间投入等实际因素与患者感染风险之间取得平衡。这种心丝虫检测方法将有助于最大限度地降低成本,同时避免无法检测出受感染犬的心丝虫,尤其是在心丝虫负担较低的情况下。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Parasites & Vectors
Parasites & Vectors 医学-寄生虫学
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
9.40%
发文量
433
审稿时长
1.4 months
期刊介绍: Parasites & Vectors is an open access, peer-reviewed online journal dealing with the biology of parasites, parasitic diseases, intermediate hosts, vectors and vector-borne pathogens. Manuscripts published in this journal will be available to all worldwide, with no barriers to access, immediately following acceptance. However, authors retain the copyright of their material and may use it, or distribute it, as they wish. Manuscripts on all aspects of the basic and applied biology of parasites, intermediate hosts, vectors and vector-borne pathogens will be considered. In addition to the traditional and well-established areas of science in these fields, we also aim to provide a vehicle for publication of the rapidly developing resources and technology in parasite, intermediate host and vector genomics and their impacts on biological research. We are able to publish large datasets and extensive results, frequently associated with genomic and post-genomic technologies, which are not readily accommodated in traditional journals. Manuscripts addressing broader issues, for example economics, social sciences and global climate change in relation to parasites, vectors and disease control, are also welcomed.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信