• Open Access

Evaluation of a Catalase-Based Urine Test for the Detection of Urinary Tract Infection in Dogs and Cats

Authors

  • H.L. Kvitko-White,

    Corresponding author
    1. Department of Small Animal Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX
    • Corresponding author: Heather Kvitko-White, DVM, DACVIM, Department of Small Animal Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, 4474 TAMU, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-4474; e-mail: dr.heatherdvm@gmail.com.

    Search for more papers by this author
  • A.K. Cook,

    1. Department of Small Animal Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX
    Search for more papers by this author
  • M.B. Nabity,

    1. Department of Pathobiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX
    Search for more papers by this author
  • S. Zhang,

    1. Department of Pathobiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX
    Search for more papers by this author
  • S.D. Lawhon

    1. Department of Pathobiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX
    Search for more papers by this author

  • 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.
  • Presented as an oral abstract at the 2013 ACVIM Forum, Seattle, WA

Abstract

Background

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).

Hypothesis

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.

Animals

One hundred and sixty client-owned dogs and cats.

Methods

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.

Results

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.

Ancillary