Today's Veterinary Practice provides comprehensive information to keep every small animal practitioner up to date on companion animal medicine and surgery as well as practice building and management.
Issue link: http://todaysveterinarypractice.epubxp.com/i/815220
To read this issue online, visit tvpjournal.com 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS COLUMNS 8 16 22 60 GUEST EDITORIAL Now Is Not the Time Julie Stafford, DVM VET REPORT VITALS How Often Does Treatment Follow the Guidelines? Nathaniel Spofford, BA, MPH, and Molly McAllister, DVM, MPH AHS HEARTWORM HOTLINE Heartworm Education: It Takes a Team Chris Duke, DVM, and Kathleen Williston DERMATOLOGY DETAILS The Challenge of Chronic Otitis in Dogs— From Diagnosis to Treatment Sandra Koch, DVM, MS, DACVD 85 90 96 106 EDITOR'S NOTE The Doctor Will See You Now! Simon R. Platt, BVM&S;, MRCVS, DACVIM (Neurology), DECVN 7 PRACTICAL TOXICOLOGY Tremorgenic Mycotoxin Intoxication in Dogs Kirsten Waratuke, DVM, DABT PRACTICAL PARASITOLOGY The Flea-Infested Pet: Overview of Current Products Cherie M. Pucheu-Haston, DVM, PhD, DACVD FOCUS ON PHARMACOLOGY Behavior Medications: Which Medication, Which Patient? Karen L. Overall, MA, VMD, PhD, DACVB HOW I TREAT… Mammary Carcinoma An Interview With Dr. Annette Smith Erratum Atkins CE. Heartworm disease: the science, the practice and the future. Today's Veterinary Practice 2017;7(1):87-92. The author regrets that there were errors in Figure 1 in the January/February 2017 AHS Heartworm Hotline. Below, please find a corrected version of the table and its legend. Figure 1. Data for heartworm test results are shown for 10 field samples, submitted to Auburn University, as part of a larger group of 150 plasma samples. All were tested with DiroCHEK (zoetisus.com), Witness HW (zoetisus.com), and SNAP RT (idexx.com) commercial heartworm tests, following the manufacturer's directions or the laboratory protocol. These 10 samples demonstrated discordant results between the 3 diagnostic tests. All were tested again, using the same 3 tests, after heat treatment of the plasma. This was done to break down antigen–antibody complexes, which have been associated with false-negative results. The results shown represent findings after heat treatment of plasma and are considered to be the true test result. Heat treatment of samples yielded complete concordance* among all three assays. Each assay had a small number of false-positive and false- negative results. Nevertheless, compared to the DiroCHEK, both tests performed well with overall (n = 150 samples) sensitivity/ specificity of 91%/99% for SNAP RT and 97/96% for Witness HW. Test results from 10 dogs with discordant results and retested (result in parentheses) after heat treating plasma. Results in red (+ or -) indicate a false- positive or -negative result. Dog Initial test result DiroCHEK Witness HW SNAP RT 1 BL + (+) + (+) − (*vol) 2 BL + (+) + (+) − (+) 3 BL + (−) ** − (−) − (−) 4 BL + (+) + (+) − (+) 5 BL + (+) + (+) − (+) 6 BL + (+) − (+) − (+) 7 Neg − (−) + (−) − (−) 8 BL − (+) + (+) − (+) 9 BL − (+) + (+) − (*vol) 10 BL − (−) − (−) + (−) *Insufficient volume postheating precluded the testing of 2 samples on the SNAP RT [displayed as *vol in the table], however, postheating results are displayed for the DiroCHEK and Witness HW. **This sample tested positive prior to heat treatment and is considered a false-positive, as all 3 assays tested negative following heat treatment of this sample.