Association of fecal sample collection technique and treatment history with Tritrichomonas foetus polymerase chain reaction test results in 1717 cats.
Animals
Antiprotozoal Agents
/ therapeutic use
Cat Diseases
/ diagnosis
Cats
Feces
/ parasitology
Female
Male
Polymerase Chain Reaction
/ veterinary
Protozoan Infections, Animal
/ diagnosis
Retrospective Studies
Ronidazole
/ therapeutic use
Specimen Handling
/ veterinary
Tritrichomonas foetus
/ isolation & purification
United States
diarrhea
retrospective
risk factors
ronidazole
Journal
Journal of veterinary internal medicine
ISSN: 1939-1676
Titre abrégé: J Vet Intern Med
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8708660
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Mar 2020
Mar 2020
Historique:
received:
24
07
2019
accepted:
31
01
2020
pubmed:
11
2
2020
medline:
15
12
2020
entrez:
11
2
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Fecal polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing for Tritrichomonas foetus is considered the most sensitive means for diagnosis of infection but results could be influenced by fecal collection technique and prior use of antimicrobial drugs. To establish any association between fecal collection technique or treatment history and results of fecal PCR testing for T. foetus. Fecal samples from 1717 cats submitted by veterinarians between January 2012 and December 2017. This study used a retrospective analysis. T. foetus PCR test results from 1808 fecal samples submitted for diagnostic testing were examined for their association with method of fecal collection and prior antimicrobial treatments. Data were collected from sample submission form. Positive T. foetus PCR test results were obtained for 274 (16%) cats. Fecal samples collected via fecal loop had increased probability of positive PCR test results (odds ratio [OR] 2.04, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.31-3.17, P = .002) compared to samples collected by colonic flush. There was no association between PCR test results and treatment history, treatment type, or prior treatment with ronidazole. After an initial positive PCR test, 4/19 (21%; 95% CI 2.7%-39.4%) cats treated with ronidazole had a second positive test result. Results of this study support that fecal samples collected by loop might be better for PCR diagnosis of T. foetus infection. Lack of association of ronidazole with PCR test results and a 21% all-potential-causes failure rate of ronidazole in cats with preconfirmed infection are important limitations to use of this drug.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Fecal polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing for Tritrichomonas foetus is considered the most sensitive means for diagnosis of infection but results could be influenced by fecal collection technique and prior use of antimicrobial drugs.
OBJECTIVES
OBJECTIVE
To establish any association between fecal collection technique or treatment history and results of fecal PCR testing for T. foetus.
ANIMALS
METHODS
Fecal samples from 1717 cats submitted by veterinarians between January 2012 and December 2017.
METHODS
METHODS
This study used a retrospective analysis. T. foetus PCR test results from 1808 fecal samples submitted for diagnostic testing were examined for their association with method of fecal collection and prior antimicrobial treatments. Data were collected from sample submission form.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Positive T. foetus PCR test results were obtained for 274 (16%) cats. Fecal samples collected via fecal loop had increased probability of positive PCR test results (odds ratio [OR] 2.04, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.31-3.17, P = .002) compared to samples collected by colonic flush. There was no association between PCR test results and treatment history, treatment type, or prior treatment with ronidazole. After an initial positive PCR test, 4/19 (21%; 95% CI 2.7%-39.4%) cats treated with ronidazole had a second positive test result.
CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE
CONCLUSIONS
Results of this study support that fecal samples collected by loop might be better for PCR diagnosis of T. foetus infection. Lack of association of ronidazole with PCR test results and a 21% all-potential-causes failure rate of ronidazole in cats with preconfirmed infection are important limitations to use of this drug.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32039505
doi: 10.1111/jvim.15727
pmc: PMC7096610
doi:
Substances chimiques
Antiprotozoal Agents
0
Ronidazole
E01R4M1063
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
734-741Subventions
Organisme : NIH HHS
ID : T32 OD011130
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
© 2020 The Authors. Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of the American College of Veterinary Internal Medicine.
Références
J Feline Med Surg. 2017 Mar;19(3):261-274
pubmed: 28245739
Microbes Infect. 2012 Dec;14(15):1411-27
pubmed: 23022315
J Feline Med Surg. 2011 Apr;13(4):251-8
pubmed: 21288749
Exp Parasitol. 1998 Jun;89(2):241-50
pubmed: 9635448
JFMS Open Rep. 2015 Dec 28;1(2):2055116915623561
pubmed: 28491403
Vet Parasitol. 2013 Feb 18;192(1-3):75-82
pubmed: 23182300
J Feline Med Surg. 2013 Dec;15(12):1098-103
pubmed: 23838083
J Feline Med Surg. 2013 Aug;15(8):706-11
pubmed: 23362340
J Feline Med Surg. 2017 Feb;19(2):177-184
pubmed: 26662037
Infect Immun. 2014 Jul;82(7):2851-9
pubmed: 24752513
Biol Cell. 2007 Feb;99(2):87-101
pubmed: 17029588
Vet Parasitol. 2016 May 15;221:118-22
pubmed: 27084482
Am J Vet Res. 2001 Nov;62(11):1690-7
pubmed: 11703009
J Am Anim Hosp Assoc. 2010 Jan-Feb;46(1):70-85
pubmed: 20045841
J Vet Intern Med. 2016 Mar-Apr;30(2):516-26
pubmed: 26946069
J Vet Intern Med. 2010 Jul-Aug;24(4):1003-7
pubmed: 20492492
Am J Vet Res. 2010 Jan;71(1):76-81
pubmed: 20043785
J Clin Microbiol. 2004 Jun;42(6):2707-10
pubmed: 15184456
Parasitology. 2010 Jan;137(1):65-76
pubmed: 19723359
J Vet Intern Med. 2020 Mar;34(2):734-741
pubmed: 32039505
J Vet Intern Med. 2006 May-Jun;20(3):536-43
pubmed: 16734086
J Infect Dis. 1983 Jan;147(1):87-94
pubmed: 6401789
J Feline Med Surg. 2009 Feb;11(2):131-4
pubmed: 18774326
J Am Vet Med Assoc. 1999 Nov 15;215(10):1450-4
pubmed: 10579040
J Vet Intern Med. 2012 Jan-Feb;26(1):54-60
pubmed: 22182203
Vet Res. 2015 Mar 19;46:35
pubmed: 25880025
Acta Cytol. 2001 Nov-Dec;45(6):1088-9
pubmed: 11726111
J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2004 Sep 15;225(6):888-92
pubmed: 15485048
J Clin Microbiol. 2002 Nov;40(11):4126-30
pubmed: 12409385
J Vet Diagn Invest. 2008 Sep;20(5):639-41
pubmed: 18776100
J Feline Med Surg. 2007 Jun;9(3):214-8
pubmed: 17446107
J Feline Med Surg. 2010 Dec;12(12):889-98
pubmed: 20817588