Comparison of the diagnostic value of symmetric dimethylarginine, cystatin C, and creatinine for detection of decreased glomerular filtration rate in dogs

BACKGROUND: Early detection of decreased glomerular filtration rate (GFR) in dogs is challenging. Current methods are insensitive and new biomarkers are required. OBJECTIVE: To compare overall diagnostic performance of serum symmetric dimethylarginine (SDMA) and serum cystatin C to serum creatinine, for detection of decreased GFR in clinically stable dogs, with or without chronic kidney disease (CKD). ANIMALS: Ninety-seven client-owned dogs: 67 dogs with a diagnosis or suspicion of CKD and 30 healthy dogs were prospectively included. METHODS: Prospective diagnostic accuracy study. All dogs underwent physical examination, systemic arterial blood pressure measurement, urinalysis, hematology and blood biochemistry analysis, cardiac and urinary ultrasound examinations, and scintigraphy for estimation of glomerular filtration rate (mGFR). Frozen serum was used for batch analysis of SDMA and cystatin C. RESULTS: The area under the curve of creatinine, SDMA, and cystatin C for detection of an mGFR <30.8 mL/min/L was 0.98 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.93-1.0), 0.96 (95% CI, 0.91-0.99), and 0.87 (95% CI, 0.79-0.93), respectively. The sensitivity of both creatinine and SDMA at their prespecified cutoffs (115 μmol/L [1.3 mg/dL] and 14 μg/dL) for detection of an abnormal mGFR was 90%. The specificity was 90% for creatinine and 87% for SDMA. When adjusting the cutoff for cystatin C to correspond to a diagnostic sensitivity of 90% (0.49 mg/L), specificity was lower (72%) than that of creatinine and SDMA. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: Overall diagnostic performance of creatinine and SDMA for detection of decreased mGFR was similar. Overall diagnostic performance of cystatin C was inferior to both creatinine and SDMA

Informed consent in veterinary medicine: ethical implications for the profession and the animal 'patient'

Informed consent processes are a vital component of both human and veterinary medicine. Current practice encourages veterinarians to learn from insights in the human medical field about how best to achieve valid consent. However, drawing on published literature in veterinary and medical ethics, this paper identifies considerable differences between the purposes of veterinary and human medical consent. Crucially, it is argued that the legal status of animal patients as ‘property’ has implications for the ethical role of veterinary informed consent and the protection of the animal ‘patient’. It is suggested that veterinary informed consent should be viewed as an ethical pivot point where the multiple responsibilities of a veterinary professional converge. In practice, balancing these responsibilities creates considerable ethical challenges. As an example, the paper discusses the renewed call for UK veterinarians to make animal welfare their first priority; we predict that this imperative may increasingly cause veterinary informed consent to become an ethical pressure point due to tensions caused by the often conflicting interests of animals, owners and the veterinary profession. In conclusion, the paper argues that whilst gaining informed consent can often be presented as a robust ethical justification in human medicine, the same cannot be said in veterinary medicine. If the veterinary profession wish to prioritise animal welfare, there is an urgent need to re-evaluate the nature of authority gained through owner informed consent and to consider whether animal patients might need to be better protected outside the consent process in certain circumstances