Surplus urine from animals presented to the Small Animal Teaching Hospital at Texas A&M University was used in this study. Samples and data were analyzed at the Texas A&M University College of Veterinary Medicine.
Evaluation of a Catalase-Based Urine Test for the Detection of Urinary Tract Infection in Dogs and Cats
Article first published online: 20 SEP 2013
Copyright © 2013 by the American College of Veterinary Internal Medicine
Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine
Volume 27, Issue 6, pages 1379–1384, November/December 2013
How to Cite
Kvitko-White, H.L., Cook, A.K., Nabity, M.B., Zhang, S. and Lawhon, S.D. (2013), Evaluation of a Catalase-Based Urine Test for the Detection of Urinary Tract Infection in Dogs and Cats. Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine, 27: 1379–1384. doi: 10.1111/jvim.12196
Presented as an oral abstract at the 2013 ACVIM Forum, Seattle, WA
- Issue published online: 13 NOV 2013
- Article first published online: 20 SEP 2013
- Manuscript Accepted: 8 AUG 2013
- Manuscript Revised: 29 JUN 2013
- Manuscript Received: 5 MAR 2013
- Ginn Foundation
- Texas A&M University
- Urinary tract infection;
- Urine catalase;
Bacterial infection of the urinary tract is a common disorder in dogs and cats. Although microscopic examination of urine sediment is routinely used to screen for infection, this test can lack sensitivity or require expertise. A reliable in-clinic screening test would be a useful adjunct for the identification of dogs and cats with bacterial urinary tract infection (UTI).
That a catalase-based urine test (Accutest Uriscreen™) is a more sensitive screening test for UTI in dogs and cats than urine microscopic sediment examination.
One hundred and sixty client-owned dogs and cats.
Surplus urine from animals presented to a veterinary teaching hospital was used in this prospective observational study. A routine urinalysis, aerobic bacterial culture, and the Uriscreen test were performed on cystocentesis samples. Sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals and positive and negative likelihood ratios were calculated for Uriscreen and microscopic sediment examination using culture results as the gold standard.
Bacterial culture was positive in 27/165 (16.4%) samples. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratios for the Uriscreen were 89%, 71%, 3.0, and 0.15, respectively. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratios for urine sediment microscopic examination were 78%, 90%, 7.8, and 0.24, respectively.
Conclusions and Clinical Importance
The Uriscreen is a more sensitive screening test for UTI in dogs and cats than sediment examination; however, the urine sediment examination was more specific. A negative Uriscreen result helps exclude UTI; however, urine bacterial culture is still necessary to exclude or confirm UTI in all cases.