Advertisement

Evaluation of a commercial enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for detection of Borrelia burgdorferi exposure in dogs

James T. SheetsVeterinary Medicine Division, United States Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases, Fort Detrick, MD 21702-5011.

Search for other papers by James T. Sheets in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 DVM, MPH, DACVPM
,
Cynthia A. RossiDiagnostic Systems Division, United States Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases, Fort Detrick, MD 21702-5011.

Search for other papers by Cynthia A. Rossi in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 MS
,
Brian J. KearneyGeo-Centers Inc, 1801 Rockville Pike, Suite 405, Rockville, MD 20852.

Search for other papers by Brian J. Kearney in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 MS
, and
George E. MooreDepartment of Defense Military Working Dog Veterinary Service, Lackland Air Force Base, San Antonio, TX 78236.

Search for other papers by George E. Moore in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 DVM, MS, DACVIM, DACVPM

Abstract

Objective—To evaluate the effectiveness of a commercially available ELISA kit for detecting antibodies against Borrelia burgdorferiin dogs.

Sample Population—Banked sera from 440 military working dogs were used for serologic analyses.

Procedure—Serum samples were analyzed for antibodies against B burgdorferi by use of a commercially available ELISA and subsequently by western blot analysis as a confirmatory test.

Results—Results from the ELISA indicated that 89 (20%) samples were positive for exposure to B burgdorferi or canine Lyme disease vaccine, and 351 (80%) were negative. Follow-up testing by western blot analysis indicated that results for 109 (25%) samples were positive and 331 (75%) were negative for exposure. All samples that had positive results on the ELISA also had positive results on western blot analysis (true positives). Of the 351 samples that had negative results on the ELISA, only 331 had negative results on western blot analysis (true negatives). The remaining 20 samples had positive results on western blot analysis. By use of a standard 2 X 2 table, it was determined that the ELISA had a sensitivity of 82%, specificity of 100%, positive predictive value of 100%, and negative predictive value of 94%.

Conclusion and Clinical Relevance—The commercial ELISA kit evaluated in this study appeared to lack adequate sensitivity for detecting all potential cases of borreliosis in dogs. The ELISA was also unable to discriminate natural exposure from exposure attributable to vaccination, which could complicate interpretation of positive results and treatment of dogs with clinical signs. (J Am Vet Med Assoc 2000;216:1418–1422)

Abstract

Objective—To evaluate the effectiveness of a commercially available ELISA kit for detecting antibodies against Borrelia burgdorferiin dogs.

Sample Population—Banked sera from 440 military working dogs were used for serologic analyses.

Procedure—Serum samples were analyzed for antibodies against B burgdorferi by use of a commercially available ELISA and subsequently by western blot analysis as a confirmatory test.

Results—Results from the ELISA indicated that 89 (20%) samples were positive for exposure to B burgdorferi or canine Lyme disease vaccine, and 351 (80%) were negative. Follow-up testing by western blot analysis indicated that results for 109 (25%) samples were positive and 331 (75%) were negative for exposure. All samples that had positive results on the ELISA also had positive results on western blot analysis (true positives). Of the 351 samples that had negative results on the ELISA, only 331 had negative results on western blot analysis (true negatives). The remaining 20 samples had positive results on western blot analysis. By use of a standard 2 X 2 table, it was determined that the ELISA had a sensitivity of 82%, specificity of 100%, positive predictive value of 100%, and negative predictive value of 94%.

Conclusion and Clinical Relevance—The commercial ELISA kit evaluated in this study appeared to lack adequate sensitivity for detecting all potential cases of borreliosis in dogs. The ELISA was also unable to discriminate natural exposure from exposure attributable to vaccination, which could complicate interpretation of positive results and treatment of dogs with clinical signs. (J Am Vet Med Assoc 2000;216:1418–1422)