4.6 Article

Heat treatment prior to testing allows detection of antigen of Dirofilaria immitis in feline serum

Journal

PARASITES & VECTORS
Volume 7, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

BIOMED CENTRAL LTD
DOI: 10.1186/1756-3305-7-1

Keywords

Antigen test; Cat; Dirofilaria immitis; Heartworm; Heat treatment

Funding

  1. Bayer HealthCare, Animal Health
  2. Krull-Ewing Endowment at Oklahoma State University
  3. National Center for Veterinary Parasitology
  4. Novartis Animal Health
  5. Merial, Limited, a Sanofi Company

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Diagnosis of Dirofilaria immitis infection in cats is complicated by the difficulty associated with reliable detection of antigen in feline blood and serum samples. Methods: To determine if antigen-antibody complex formation may interfere with detection of antigen in feline samples, we evaluated the performance of four different commercially available heartworm tests using serum samples from six cats experimentally infected with D. immitis and confirmed to harbor a low number of adult worms (mean = 2.0). Sera collected 168 (n = 6), 196 (n = 6), and 224 (n = 6) days post infection were tested both directly and following heat treatment. Results: Antigen was detected in serum samples from 0 or 1 of 6 infected cats using the assays according to manufacturer's directions, but after heat treatment of serum samples, as many as 5 of 6 cats had detectable antigen 6-8 months post infection. Antibodies to D. immitis were detected in all six infected cats by commercial in-clinic assay and at a reference laboratory. Conclusions: These results indicate that heat treatment of samples prior to testing can improve the sensitivity of antigen assays in feline patients, supporting more accurate diagnosis of this infection in cats. Surveys conducted by antigen testing without prior heat treatment of samples likely underestimate the true prevalence of infection in cats.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available