Antech Accuplex showed higher Ehrlichia sensitivity than IDEXX SNAP 4Dx Plus in a JAVMA study

Antech published a peer-reviewed study in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association comparing its Accuplex reference laboratory test to the IDEXX SNAP 4Dx Plus point-of-care test for canine tick-borne disease screening.

The sensitivity gap the JAVMA study measured

The research, co-authored by investigators from Colorado State University, the University of Texas Medical Branch, and Antech Diagnostics, provided a direct performance comparison between the two platforms. According to Antech, the study found Accuplex showed higher sensitivity for Ehrlichia detection than SNAP 4Dx Plus.

The source does not report the sample size, the study design, or the magnitude of the sensitivity difference. Without those specifics, the finding is directional but incomplete.

Dr. Jimmy Barr, Antech's chief medical officer, said that as pathogens and their geographic reach evolve, "veterinarians need confidence that their screening tools are keeping pace."

JAVMA's peer review process requires methodological rigor, but the comparison involved one of the two companies whose products were tested. The peer-reviewed data is useful, and the framing that makes Accuplex the obvious choice is marketing.

The tradeoff the numbers do not solve

The study does not address turnaround time. Point-of-care tests deliver a result in the exam room, and reference laboratory tests require a send-out that adds time before the result comes back. For a dog that is symptomatic in front of the clinician, that delay changes the clinical decision tree.

Accuplex showed higher sensitivity in the study, and when that advantage justifies the wait depends on the case. The study gives a concrete comparison to bring into the exam room when a client asks why blood is being sent out after the in-clinic test already came back.

If your week runs on calls like this one, subscribe to VeterinaryPracticeNow.

What the finding changes for the protocol conversation

The study does not tell practices when to use which test. It tells them that one test caught more Ehrlichia infections than the other in the conditions the researchers tested, which is a data point rather than a protocol.

If a practice relies on SNAP 4Dx Plus as its primary screen and a case has high clinical suspicion, the study gives a reason to consider the send-out. But it does not tell the practice the send-out is required, and it does not define what high suspicion means in a given region or caseload.

The client-communication problem is real: explaining why the test just run was not enough, why the second test costs more, and why the answer will not come back immediately. Some clients hear that as the first test being worthless, and others hear it as upselling. Neither is true, but both are predictable, and the associate in the room is the one who has to manage it.

Our read

The study gives practices a peer-reviewed comparison to justify the send-out when they decide it is warranted, but the findings do not make point-of-care testing obsolete. For a significant portion of the caseload (wellness screens, low-suspicion presentations, clients who will not wait for a send-out result) the in-clinic test may be enough.

The study reframes the decision, but it does not make it. Treating either test as the single answer for every case is a mistake.

The research involved Antech, which means the framing will favor Accuplex in every press release and sales call that follows. The peer-reviewed data is still useful. We'd separate the number from the pitch and use the number where it applies.

← Back to the Newsdesk