Immunoreactivity of canine, feline, and equine D-dimer with antibodies to human D-dimer.

BACKGROUND: Commercially available D-dimer assays use antibodies against human D-dimer, with limited sensitivity and specificity data in companion animals. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the immunoreactivity of D-dimer in plasma of dogs, horses, and cats with commercially available antibodies to human D-dimer. ANIMALS: Plasma samples were collected from healthy dogs and horses, and from surplus feline plasma submitted for diagnostic purposes. METHODS: Descriptive research study. A cross-linked fibrin lysate was prepared from plasma samples, and SDS-PAGE and immunoblotting were performed with a variety of commercially available antibodies to human D-dimer. RESULTS: The selected antibodies demonstrated variable reactivity with D-dimer of each species. The monoclonal antibody DD44 bound canine D-dimer with good specificity and sensitivity, but this antibody did not react with feline or equine D-dimer. The polyclonal antibody D2D bound putative D-dimer in dogs, cats, and horses with good specificity, and higher sensitivity compared to human D-dimer. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: The variable performance of commercially available human D-dimer assays between species is, in part, because of inter-species variation in D-dimer immunoreactivity. The use of these assays should follow validation studies. Monoclonal antibody DD44 could be a focus for the development of a canine-specific assay.

Analytical errors in nucleated red blood cell enumeration.

BACKGROUND: Enumeration of nucleated red blood cells (NRBCs) in peripheral blood of dogs and cats is performed by manual counting during blood film evaluation. Automated methods have increased precision and accuracy; however, most analyzers cannot distinguish leukocytes and NRBCs. The Sysmex XN-V Series may distinguish NRBCs and leukocytes; however, analytical errors occur. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to investigate cases with discrepant automated and manual NRBC counts, and to evaluate reasons for analytical errors. METHODS: Data from samples with increased NRBCs were collected retrospectively and compared with manual counts performed on blood films using Spearman's correlation, Passing-Bablok agreement analysis, and Bland-Altman comparisons. Precision of the automated method and interobserver agreement of manual counts were evaluated. Cases with discrepant results were investigated. RESULTS: Agreement between the methods was good at ≤1NRBC ×109 /L in dogs and cats, and inadequate at ≥1NRBC ×109 /L. The automated method demonstrated a negative proportional difference to the manual method. Precision was good for the automated method (overall CV 7.1%) and interobserver agreement for the manual method was poor overall (mean CV 27.3%, range 0%-106.1%). Inaccuracies in NRBC enumeration by the automated method occurred with high hematocrits, the mergence of the cell fragments and leukocyte clouds, and the presence of earlier erythroid precursors. CONCLUSIONS: NRBC enumeration by the WNR channel on the Sysmex XN-1000 V is precise and has good agreement with manual counts in canine and feline blood samples at ≤1NRBC ×109 /L. Manual film review is indicated for samples with ≥1NRBC ×109 /L, earlier erythroid precursors, samples from greyhounds and dehydrated patients, and if gating errors are noted.

Hypoglobulinemia in a dog with disseminated plasma cell neoplasia: Case report and review of the diagnostic criteria.

This is the first reported case of hypoglobulinemia in a dog with disseminated plasma cell neoplasia. A 6-year-old male intact Rottweiler was referred to the U-Vet Animal Hospital (Werribee, Vic, Australia) for weight loss, hyporexia, lethargy, vomiting, and soft stools. Examination of a buffy coat preparation and splenic and liver aspirates revealed a monomorphic population of plasmacytoid cells, and the same cells comprised approximately 90% of bone marrow samples submitted for cytologic and histologic evaluation. Biochemistry revealed a hypoglobulinemia, and the presence of an M-protein was not supported by serum and urine protein electrophoresis or serum immunofixation. Immunohistochemistry demonstrated strong nuclear labeling for MUM-1.