Evaluation of a rapid immunochromatographic test for the detection of low burden Dirofilaria immitis (heartworm) in dogs and cats.

The performance of a rapid immunochromatographic test for the detection of Dirofilaria immitis antigens (Speed Diro™; BVT-Virbac, France) was assessed in 49 experimentally infected dogs and in 244 naturally infected animals; 142 dogs and 102 cats. In experimentally infected dogs, Speed Diro™ showed a sensitivity of 90.9% in dogs infected with one adult female worm and 100% in dogs infected with more than one female worm. Specificity was 100%. For naturally infected dogs, the Knott test and PetChek® HTWM PF served as reference methods for microfilaremia and antigenemia, respectively. All microfilaemic dogs (55/142) were positive with Speed Diro™. Importantly, none of the 21 dogs infected with D. repens were positive. The results of Speed Diro™ for the detection of antigenemia were compared with two in-house tests, SNAP® HTWM and Witness® Dirofilaria, and all three tests were 100% specific and sensitive in comparison to PetChek® HTWM PF. For the evaluation of feline samples, 102 cats were examined by echocardiography. Sera from 87 heartworm-infected cats were tested by Speed Diro™ and SNAP® HTWM. The results of Speed Diro™ were equivalent to SNAP® HTWM, with a sensitivity of 98.9% and a specificity of 100%.

Systematic Review of Lesser Known Parasitoses: Maxillofacial Dirofilariasis.

BACKGROUND: Dirofilariasis is an endemic disease in tropical and subtropical countries caused by about 40 different species of dirofilari. Dirofilariasis of the oral cavity is extremely rare and is usually seen as mucosal or submucosal nodules. We also present a case of dirofilariasis of the mandibular third molar region submucosally in a 26 year old male patient. PURPOSE: To identify, enlist and analyze the cases of dirofilariasis in maxillofacial region reported worldwide so as to understand the clinical presentation and encourage the consideration of helminthic infections as a possible differential diagnosis in maxillofacial swellings. METHODS: Two authors KC and SK independently searched the electronic database of PUBMED, OVID, Google Scholar and manual search from other sources. A general search strategy was planned and anatomic areas of interest identified. The search was made within a bracket of 1 month by the independent authors KC and SK who assessed titles, abstracts and full texts of articles based on the decided keywords. The final selection of articles was screened for the cases that were reported in the maxillofacial region including the age, gender, site of occurrence and region of the world reported in. A geographic distribution of the reported cases was tabulated. RESULTS: A total number of 265, 97, 1327, 3 articles were identified by PubMed, Ovid, GoogleScholar and manual search respectively. The final articles were manually searched for duplicates and filtered according to the inclusion/exclusion criteria which led to a final list of 58 unique articles that were included in the study. In total 99 cases were identified. CONCLUSION: Although intraoral dirofilarial infections are extremely uncommon, it should be considered in the differential diagnosis of an intraoral or facial swelling that does not completely respond to routine therapy especially in patients from endemic areas.