Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 3 de 3
Filtrar
Mais filtros













Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Top Companion Anim Med ; 33(4): 114-118, 2018 Dec.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30502860

RESUMO

Vector-borne agents comprise medically important infections affecting dogs throughout much of the world. Sensitive detection of antibodies directed at tick-borne disease-causing organisms in dogs is diagnostically important for veterinarians, pets and their owners, and epidemiologically important for public health surveillance. The SNAP 4Dx Plus Test (IDEXX Laboratories, Inc., Westbrook, ME) identifies antibodies to or infection with multiple tick-borne pathogens and canine heartworm antigen in a single assay. Recently, VetScan FLEX4 Rapid Test (Abaxis, Inc., Union City, CA) was launched as a new assay to detect tick-borne pathogen antibodies and heartworm antigen. In the present study, we evaluated the comparative performance of SNAP 4Dx Plus (SNAP) and FLEX4 Rapid Test (FLEX4) using samples selected based on geographic distributions for canine vector borne diseases, including Borrelia burgdorferi (n = 105), Anaplasma phagocytophilum (160), Anaplasma platys (115), Ehrlichia canis (154), Ehrlichia ewingii (163), Ehrlichia chaffeensis (151) and Dirofilaria immitis (105). Canine vector borne diseases infection status was established for each sample by a combination of reference methods that included necropsy (D. immitis, heartworm disease), Western immunoblotting (B. burgdorferi), immunofluorescence assays (A. phagocytophilum and E. canis) and species-specific ELISAs (A. platys, E. canis, E. ewingii and E. chaffeensis). For comparisons among the 2 assays, samples were evaluated per the manufacturers' instructions for each test kit. By testing each same sample set compared to the defined reference results, sensitivities differed substantially between SNAP and FLEX4, at 95.5 vs. 40.9%, respectively for B. burgdorferi, 97.1% vs. 61.4% for E. canis, 98.2% vs. 59.3% for E. ewingii, 64.3% vs. 35.7% for E. chaffeensis, 84.5% vs. 12.7% for A. phagocytophilum, 83.3% vs. 33.3% for A. platys, and 94.1% vs. 88.2% for D. immitis. Specificities for both rapid assay tests ranged from 98% to 100%. Based upon the comparative results derived from this study, the SNAP test was more sensitive than the FLEX4 test for detection of antibodies to all tick-borne pathogens and heartworm disease (Dirofilaria immitis) antigen in dogs.


Assuntos
Dirofilariose/diagnóstico , Doenças do Cão/diagnóstico , Ensaio de Imunoadsorção Enzimática/veterinária , Doenças Transmitidas por Carrapatos/veterinária , Anaplasma/imunologia , Anaplasmose/sangue , Anaplasmose/diagnóstico , Animais , Anticorpos Antibacterianos/sangue , Anticorpos Anti-Helmínticos/sangue , Borrelia burgdorferi/imunologia , Dirofilaria immitis/imunologia , Doenças do Cão/sangue , Cães , Ehrlichia/imunologia , Ehrlichiose/sangue , Ehrlichiose/diagnóstico , Ehrlichiose/veterinária , Ensaio de Imunoadsorção Enzimática/métodos , Doença de Lyme/sangue , Doença de Lyme/diagnóstico , Doença de Lyme/veterinária , Sensibilidade e Especificidade , Doenças Transmitidas por Carrapatos/diagnóstico
3.
Parasit Vectors ; 5: 29, 2012 Feb 08.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-22316160

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: This study evaluated the exposure of dogs to three different Ehrlichia spp. in the south and central regions of the United States where vector-borne disease prevalence has been previously difficult to ascertain, particularly beyond the metropolitan areas. METHODS: Dog blood samples (n = 8,662) were submitted from 14 veterinary colleges, 6 private veterinary practices and 4 diagnostic laboratories across this region. Samples were tested for E. canis, E. chaffeensis and E. ewingii specific antibodies using peptide microtiter ELISAs. RESULTS: Overall, E. canis, E. chaffeensis and E. ewingii seroprevalence was 0.8%, 2.8%, and 5.1%, respectively. The highest E. canis seroprevalence (2.3%) was found in a region encompassing Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Texas. E. chaffeensis seroreactivity was 6.6% in the central region (Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma) and 4.6% in the southeast region (Georgia, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia). Seroreactivity to E. ewingii was also highest in the central region (14.6%) followed by the southeast region (5.9%). The geospatial pattern derived from E. chaffeensis and E. ewingii seropositive samples was similar to previous reports based on E. chaffeensis seroreactivity in white-tailed deer and the distribution of human monocytic ehrlichiosis (HME) cases reported by the CDC. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study provide the first large scale regional documentation of exposure to E. canis, E. chaffeensis and E. ewingii in pet dogs, highlighting regional differences in seroprevalence and providing the basis for heightened awareness of these emerging vector-borne pathogens by veterinarians and public health agencies.


Assuntos
Anticorpos Antibacterianos/sangue , Doenças do Cão/epidemiologia , Ehrlichia canis/imunologia , Ehrlichia chaffeensis/imunologia , Ehrlichia/imunologia , Ehrlichiose/veterinária , Animais , Vetores Aracnídeos/microbiologia , Doenças do Cão/diagnóstico , Cães , Ehrlichiose/diagnóstico , Ehrlichiose/epidemiologia , Humanos , Antígenos O , Peptídeos , Saúde Pública , Estudos Soroepidemiológicos , Especificidade da Espécie , Carrapatos/microbiologia , Estados Unidos/epidemiologia
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA