Megan: The Idexx site is much more explanatory. And yes, it is very important to be wary of false negatives, but the good thing about it is if you should have "positives", that definitely warrants indepth look at sediment!

That is really my mode of thinking. Since uti's almost always contain both red & white blood cells--you know you are dealing with an issue. In TCC, you most always have microscopic rbc's long before the visual.

And the chemstrips do attempt to distinguish intact rbcs from free hemoglobin via a spotty or solid coloration.

Hey, this helps the pet-owner, since they cannot always afford multiple $35-50 samples. I can't tell you how many "negative urines" my full-blown TCC Scottie had in '98-'99, to actually see the TCC cells in the sediment, but always had different quantitative of rbcs.

The average pet-owner is about as likely to run out and buy a can of chemstrips as they are to order the tests above. But someone with multiples and savvy OR having dealt with a chronic issue may.

Specific Gravity? Well that is definitely one of my Pocket Pet Peeves

Barbara- happy to help :) I suspect the answer to why the pad works for humans and doesn't for animals is quite technical and not clinically relevant, which is why Cornell doesn't talk about it. Idexx mentions it more thoroughly here, although still doesn't specifically explain why the chemical reaction used to get the color change on the leukocyte pad works for people but not animals, and works for dogs slightly better than for cats. What is clinically relevant is that you often get false negatives for animals- so, the leukocyte pad shows no color change, but if you look microscopically you find leukocytes (white blood cells) present in the urine.

Megan, You are most kind and thorough to answer my inquiry. Just wish Cornell had explained further their reasons for differences in animal & human urine.

Sad that this has also become "dumbed down" with auto/machine interpretations, don't you think?

Sort of like no one can do anything without visuals & machinery?

Barbara- Cat did not say that UA dipsticks need to be performed on a centrifuged sample, but that the dipstick needs to be analyzed in conjunction with a cytologic examination of urine. That is, you perform a dipstick on a urine sample, then spin it down to look at a concentrated sample of cells present in the urine. One example of why both analyses are useful would be in the case of a patient with red urine. Say your dipstick shows positive on the "blood" pad... Well, the dipstick can't tell the difference between blood, hemoglobin, or myoglobin, all of which could make urine red but would have different causes. You need to spin the urine down and look microscopically to see if there are red blood cells present (which could be caused by one list of problems, like infection or bleeding within the urinary tract) or not (which would indicate a hemolytic process like IMHA). Seeing red blood cells alone would be more indicative of bleeding, whereas seeing red blood cells plus white blood cells plus bacteria would point you towards a urinary tract infection, and red blood cells plus a large number of crystals might indicate a urinary stone. A dipstick is a good initial screen, but a full urinalysis requires microscopic examination in addition to a dipstick, since microscopic cytology will get you much more specific data.

Megan: Thanks, it does clear up the "misnomer" of the spun down urine---article states "NO" .

Does not even address the answer of the leukocyte pad or a couple of others.

Wonder why?

Barbara- Cornell has a nice review of urine dipstick tests for veterinary patients (a little technical, but good):

http://diaglab.vet.cornell.edu/clinpath/modules/ua-rout/ua-rout.htm

Amanda: That is real cute to suggest a 'lawsuit' over bleeding toenails, call me in about 5 years ;)

Cat: I am really interested in your clarification that the leukocyte 'pad' is useless in animal urine & why. And also why the urine is supposed to be "spun down" before utilizing the test strip.

I am hugely curious! 

This has got to be the most ridiculous money grab I have ever heard of and anyone stupid enough to try to use these DIY kits should not be allowed to have pets. Disgusting and so cruel to cause unnecessary pain and anxiety in a pet. A few $$ spent at a trained professional's office is the only way to go. If folks can't afford vet fees, again they should not be allowed to own an animal.

I had a guy in my office once, with his Yorkie. I was doing the nail trim and he was telling me about his phobia of trimming dogs' nails. I was just about to go into my little spiel about how it's important to trim them often and to only trim the curved ends so you don't hit the quick. But before I got started, he showed me what was left of one of his fingers (about half was missing, obviously amputated) and said that 15 years ago he was cutting his Doberman's nails and hit the quick. Dobie responded by biting his finger off. Zoinks! I suddenly understood his phobia.

LOL. It's like a home pregnancy test. Whoo hoo! I'm pregnant--now I'm off to the doctor to do a uh, pregnancy test again ;-) and then get follow up care and ultrasounds and prenatal vitamins.

Hmmmm save money by testing at home in a painful manner and then when positive go to the vet to repeat the test to confirm the diagnosis, pay for exam and treatment. hmmm doesn't sound so cost effective. I'm not treating on a home test kit that's for sure. Are these tests even put through any sort of efficacy trials?? Ack scary. Now I'm off to pick up my home cancer test kit. Ta.

</a>

Yikes! I can see this going wrong so many ways in my mind. Being that I work in a vet clinic... I can totally see how much easier it is to just nick the quick in the dogs toenail and collect a handy blood sample than to do it the correct way. *eye roll*

This could cause a lawsuit when they have to take their dog to the vet when they nick it too much and it won't quit bleeding. This is just amazing to me. Not to mention the fact that non-professionals shouldn't even be allowed to handle a test like this. And like you said - what happens when you get a positive result? The vet you go to is still going to want to recheck a heartworm test before administering treatment, simply due to the nature of said treatment, so you haven't saved any money. And also like you said - who would sell prescription meds to an owner with this type of result??

Insanity!

I'm with LorriM, as I've done FeLV/FIV tests on my kitchen table, in the past. However, a question for Dr. K., and anyone else who is knowledgeable: One of my boys has horrendously long nails, and while I can get them cut at the groomer, they're so long the quicks don't recede.  (His nails, along with the rest of him, were a wreck when he found us.) When he gets his teeth done in a few months, would it be really painful for him if I had the vet bring his nails back to a reasonable length? He'd be out, but I'm sure that when he woke up they might be sore and I don't want him to have undue uncomfortableness, but I also don't want him to have wretched nails for the rest of his life either that might harm the way he walks, etc. He can walk fine on them now, and we can get them short enough to not be a huge issue, but I'd feel better if the quicks were in a more normal length.

I did once work for a vet who did this for a dog, used silver nitrate, etc., while the dog was out, but I don't know how the dog felt afterwards, and this is *my* baby I'm talking about. Thanks!

I would hope that people who truly love their pets, would recognize and value the services provided by their vet. Just because I am able to run a test at home, does not mean that I am able to interperet the results and come up with treatment options. THAT IS WHY I PAY MY VET FOR HER EXPERTISE.

If I put 3 people in a room and have them putting things in a bowl for a cake, I doubt we would want to eat the cake.  Medical practice and records get very confused with multiple providers and multiple records.  My clients understand this and why I add fees for the record correlation, prescription service etc.  I have told clients and prospective clients to decide on a provider and stay with one so things aren't lost during record transfers and visits to alternate providers...

Barbara: In what case are you recommending urine strips be used? To assess for urinary tract infection? I ask this because there are several things that the general populace probably doesn't understand about the urine strip. A big point is that the leukocyte pad on this is useless. You are supposed to completely disregard it when looking at animal samples.

Further, a urine strip is useless if not examined in light of a urine sample that has been collected and spun down for cytological analysis (bacteria, cells, crystals, etc). On the other hand, if you recommend it for people attempting to monitor urine glucose and urine ketones, that is another thing altogether.

Actually, an at-home ELISA test for Aleutians in ferrets has been available for years, and quicking is the recommended way to get the blood for that test (I suspect because their tiny little veins are probably very hard to draw blood from?) And I know some of the ferret shelters and rescues use them as it's SO much cheaper, especially when you need them in bulk.

I'm of two minds for this. I'd hate to see it used for people to avoid ANY vet care, but I also kind of hope it'd put some downward pressure on prices for HW testing. (My parents' vet? Now charges $85 for the SNAP test for HW. Does not include the office visit or blood draw. OUCH. They're paying for the beautiful new office (fantastically appointed, lovely cat kenneling area, does not have an in-house lab or digital x-ray, and I love the vet but I really feel like the clients are paying for the pretty office and not better diagnostic services, which is why I switched to a new vet) And it might also help with people still testing pets when they buy the stuff off label.

Horrifying and disgusting!  Miss K has light colored nails.  After a few years, we have gotten her accustomed to a process of being blunted at home by her Dad taking off the pointy tips with a nail clipper.  Her stress associated with the restraint and handling has gradually decreased over time, but this is because we do NOT cut the quick.  I know all of the progress would be destroyed in an instant if she bled.  We don't mess with a system that has the cat relatively happy and the humans not hurting when she jumps on us or climbs on us.

I stopped using a particular groomer because they cut my little one's quick a time too many.  I am horrified by the suggestion of the procedure. 

Unreal.  I am suspending my disbelief long enough to imagine that someone has actually purchased these tests and "tested" their pet for the various parasites and diseases with these at home test. 

Okay, the frugal pet owner has interpreted  positive results.  And has turned to the Internet for help with a treatment plan. (Maybe they turned to the Internet for a diagnosis initially and discovered these nifty, affordable at home tests.)

Is this going to foster an entirely new set of folk-remedies, at-home protocols, and carefully home-compounded "medicines"? Will the pet owner deduce, on their own, that the pet has an illness that is too expensive to treat, or will result in a terrible/terminal illness, and make a decision to do an at home euthanasia?

I shudder  thinking about the "big picture."  Working in an animal hospital, I encounter the DIY mindset frequently.  Usually, when the condition has progressed too far or the home remedy has proved fatal or near-fatal.

As far as savings is concerned, surely anyone can understand that testing and prevention is far less expensive (and dangerous) than treatment.

Still shuddering.

Rather than condemning these out of hand, perhaps they are not a bad thing at all for rescuers and others with multiple pets, although I'd prefer Idexx and testing at home and not shipping any blood off. But, it might be that some heartworm positive dogs get help thanks to these tests.  I know some of those "good old boys" who aren't going to waste time taking their dog to the vet if they don't have to but who do, in some strange way, care for their dog and, if they learn it is heartworm positive, will find a way to get it treated.

I personally wouldn't partake, but I could foresee and understand if a person with a large group of pets do/does.

Terriers already have foot fetishes, so quicking nails would be foolish, some dogs could careless and are oblivious. As Lorri mentions, some may have "training", particularly with constant testing of diabetic pets.

What do you save? A 40-50 dollar office visit and the difference in the test price. You could keep your "negatives" at home and bring your positives for confirmatory test & treatment.

Lots have done their own stool samples for years, and quite frankly, I have recommended buying the exact same urine chem strips test for those who would like to know on a frequent basis where their pets are with that department, at a price of $1 versus $50.

ruh roh     friggen spammer gremlin is back,.... when's the new site and new name gonna be up?

what IDIOT came up with this idea?  I can only shake my head in disgust.....

I use FELV snap tests at home all the time. It allows me to open my home to a stray with little risk to my own cats. And taking blood from a nail trim is assinine, I just pull blood the same way my vet would. Difference is the tests cost me about $13.00 and allows for an instant decision.

It's not for everyone, but it's hardly rocket science and saves me about $37.00 at the vet. Since I already have a sharps container and "biohazard" training, it's not a big deal there, but that isn't beyond the average person's skill either.

Personally I think as vet's rates increase and there are more specialty higher priced services, more people are going to either look to save money by doing it themselves, or simply skip the tests entirely.

Absolutely crazy -  Nope - leave the testing and analysis to the veterinarians and trusted labs please.  This isn't a pregnancy test kit.   I'm with you doc.

To me this is just as barbaric as neutering cats without any sedative. (which you know there are still some good ole' boys who are doing this at home)  Why give people another excuse to bring pain to their animals.  Especially since people who DO cut their dogs own nails at home DO NOT want to quick them. This is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.  It makes you wonder if they are selling immiticide without an RX or giving people instructions on how to cure heartworms with ivomec. 

OMG! That is horrifying! I would NEVER do such a thing. I won't even buy Heartgard from PetMeds or whatever b/c I'm paranoid that if my dog did get worms, they wouldn't pay for treatment citing that the guarantee is void by not purchasing from a vet!

2 bloodlettings for the "price" of one.  Some from the person cutting the nail/quick and some from the poor dog.  Customers should be advised that the right blood gets into the kit! 

A bit of something to consider.  Because of various reasons not to be discussed here, our mentality in this country now is that service is something we should not pay for.   But really, when it's 10 degrees outside, how many of us wouldn't pay a few bucks extra for someone else to pump our gas?  Remember the old TV shop?  They would come in, install your TV, and all you did was pay a little bit of money? 

Nowadays we have people that are more and more "Penny wise and pound foolish."  This is what I see here.  I pay the Honda dealership to do the work on my car, work that I can easily do myself.  Why?  Because I transfer the responsibilty and risk to them.  If they screw it up, they pay.  It's peace of mind.

I see the vet service the same way.  Can I draw blood, put in an envelope, and mail off?  Sure, but I prefer paying a few extra bucks to an expert and, more importantly, transfering the risk and the responsibility.  All I have to do is pay for the service.  It's more, but to me, it's worth it.

BTW, last night it was 15 degrees with a 30MPH wind.  And I had to pump my own gas.  That sux.

My take?  Horrifying.  On so many levels.

1. I don't trust some random lab to give me proper information.  I want these sorts of things done in an official-like way with a good lab that my vet approves of.  As a dog who has lyme disease and who I've spent some $250 getting tests done for it ($80 each time to check her levels plus the very cheap antibiotics), I would never go this cheap route.  I will only go to my vet to ensure proper diganosis and treatment of my girl.

2. I want blood drawn in a proper way by someone who knows what they're doing with a sterilzed syringe, someone who is going to try to cause my dog the least amount of stress and pain to get that blood.  My dog will cry out if you so much as step on a tail hair but I've never heard her make a noise in the back room at the vets when they drew her blood.  That makes me feel good.  She's not scared to go to the vet's office because they know what they're doing.  I don't.

3. Quicking a dog?  Seriously?  They want you to purposely cause your dog pain and fear, make it harder to clip their nails, all for a little bit of blood to send to some random lab you know nothing about?  My dog was quicked by an impatient groomer at Petsmart once.  She is terrified to go in the back of the store now.  Why would I want to make her terrified of ME?

4. Contamination?  Wouldn't blood from a quicked nail be contaminated as it hits the nail, which probably has all sorts of dirt and other things on it?  Blood is drawn from within the body with a syringe for a reason.  Otherwise you'd think they'd just prick a finger for a blood test. 

So no.  I would not do this for my dog.  I would not advise anyone else to do it either.  I want my dog to get proper care.

Direct-to-consumer (DTC) laboratory testing is legal in about half of U.S. states for people.  I considered using it myself on one occasion when I didn't want to involve a physician.

I don't really care if pet owners utilize DTC testing.  As Dr. Khuly points out, they'll find out soon enough the laboratories won't write prescriptions.  Because of the enormous potential for liability, these laboratories also tell consumers to contact a licensed veterinarian/physician for explanation of any abnormal results rather than doing so themselves.  In my personal situation, I felt perfectly comfortable interpreting the results.  I also would have contacted a physician (and accepted re-testing by an "official" laboratory) had the test revealed any abnormalities.

Because I recommend testing with restraint and attempt to charge both appropriately and fairly (based on cost of supplies, labor, and outside laboratory costs), I am confident my established clients will continue to come to me for their testing needs.  As for pet owners who aren't and may never become clients - have fun.  Like the laboratory, I won't spend time on the phone with these people clarifying their misconceptions obtained via self-education on the internet and I certainly won't write a prescription for an animal I haven't examined.

I will, however, answer questions from any sharp ER docs who want to know the quarantine protocol when an animal whose rabies vaccine is not current bites an owner attempting to "quick" it to obtain a blood sample.

Any company that would recommend collecting "a small blood sample (... during a nail trim)" should be loudly and thoroughly criticized, in as many media sources as possible, by trainers and shelter workers, for helping create bigger problems in dog's behavior than necessary.  (If vets say anything in the media, they'll just get criticized by those claiming the vets are being protectionists.)  It should be pointed out that the testing company is not trying to help dogs or their people, but are only trying to make a fast buck.  And anyone who gets bit during a nail trim to get a blood sample, should sue the company's ass off, since there are no warnings about the possible dangers involved in such a brutal collection. 

Oh, and is there any wording about not doing this collecting in less than clean conditions.  Even someone ignorant enough to think, "Hey, this sounds like a good idea" is probably smart enough to not want blood on their couch, so how many of the attempts will be made outside.  You know, where it's likely the dog will snatch the paw back after being quicked, and put it on the ground, probably getting dirt mixed in with the blood.  

There are a few places I've seen that are encouraging parents to send in urine samples to find out if their kids are on drugs (now that's a great way to ruin the relationship with your kid - stand over them while they pee in a cup).  Next thing you know, it'll be "Just collect a blood sample with a quick  needle punch (recommended when sleeping)" to get blood from kids.  Hey, it works for dog owners, maybe some  parents won't think this is an egregious wrong either.

Augh!

I have an interesting scar on my arm dating to a visit with someone who asked me to trim their poor untrained, inconsistently handled, bouncy, overgrown puppy's claws.  They didn't mention that they'd tried it themselves before and quicked him, and after that he wouldn't let them get near his feet.  Nor did they tell me that I kept trying to start with the claw that they quicked.  Eventually I turned to them and said, "Look, there's something wrong; he's not just untrained and uncooperative, he's really terrified"--and they confessed.

Quicking a dog can be a really horrible experience for the poor thing.

Wow what will they think of next ? This really does surprise me. For some people its hard enough to clip your pets nails at home, after doing this they can forget it.