Search

The first point-of-care (PoC) test (v-RetroFel ® ; modified version 2021) determining the presence of FeLV p27 antigen and FeLV anti-p15E antibodies has become recently commercially available to identify different feline leukaemia virus (FeLV) infection outcomes. This study aimed to assess this PoC test's performance concerning FeLV p27 antigen and FeLV anti-p15E antibody detection. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values (PPV, NPV) were assessed after ten minutes (recommended) and 20 min (prolonged) incubation times. The test results were evaluated as either positive or negative. Serum samples from 934 cats were included, originating from Italy (n = 269), Portugal (n = 240), Germany (n = 318), and France (n = 107). FeLV p27 antigen and anti-p15E antibodies were measured by reference standard ELISAs and compared to the PoC test results. The PoC test was easy to perform and the results easy to interpret. Sensitivity and specificity for FeLV p27 antigen were 82.8% (PPV: 57.8%) and 96.0% (NPV: 98.8%) after both, ten and 20 minues of incubation time. Sensitivity and specificity for anti-p15E antibodies were 31.4% (PPV: 71.6%) and 96.9% (NPV: 85.1%) after ten minutes incubation time; sensitivity was improved by a prolonged incubation time (20 min) to 40.0% (PPV: 76.3%), while specificity remained the same (96.9%, NPV: 86.7%). Despite the improved sensitivity using the prolonged incubation time, lower than ideal sensitivities for both p27 antigen and especially anti-p15E antibodies were found, indicating that the PoC test in its current version needs further improvement prior to application in the field.

Pre-vaccination antibody testing to determine dogs' immunity against canine distemper virus (CDV) is increasingly used. Four point-of-care tests (POC A-D) are available in Europe, but their diagnostic accuracy has not been compared. The study evaluated the diagnostic accuracy and usability of these tests. Sera of client-owned dogs (n = 198; healthy n = 22; unhealthy dogs n = 176) and specific pathogen-free (SPF) dogs (n = 40) were included. Virus neutralisation (VN) was performed as the reference standard. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and overall accuracy (OA) were determined. McNemar's test was used to determine significant differences between specificity and sensitivity of the tests and Cohen's kappa was used to assess agreement. The prevalence of anti-CDV antibodies by VN was 80% in client-owned dogs overall, with 100% prevalence in healthy dogs, and 0% in SPF dogs. POC-C and POC-D were considered easiest to perform. Specificity of all tests was high using sera from SPF dogs (88-100%). In healthy dogs, sensitivity was variable (45-98%). Specificity was low in all four POC tests when using sera from acutely ill dogs (6-53%) and clinically healthy dogs with chronic disease (5-77%). In client-owned dogs, including healthy and unhealthy dogs, agreement was poor between tests. All POC tests had a low specificity when investigating sera from ill client-owned dogs and usefullness of these tests especially in dogs that are acutely ill or have chronic disease is not supported by this study., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

(1) Background: Antibody testing is commonly used to assess a dog's immune status. For detection of antibodies against canine adenoviruses (CAVs), one point-of-care (POC) test is available. This study assessed the POC test´s performance. (2) Methods: Sera of 198 privately owned dogs and 40 specific pathogen-free (SPF) dogs were included. The reference standard for detection of anti-CAV antibodies was virus neutralization (VN) using CAV-1 and CAV-2 antigens. Specificity, sensitivity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and overall accuracy (OA) of the POC test were assessed. Specificity was considered most important. (3) Results: Prevalence of CAV-1 neutralizing antibodies (≥10) was 76% (182/238) in all dogs, 92% (182/198) in the subgroup of privately owned dogs, and 0% (0/40) in SPF dogs. Prevalence of CAV-2 neutralizing antibodies (≥10) was 76% (181/238) in all dogs, 91% (181/198) in privately owned dogs, and 0% (0/40) in SPF dogs. Specificity for detection of CAV-1 antibodies was lower (overall dogs, 88%; privately owned dogs, 56%; SPF dogs, 100%) compared with specificity for detection of CAV-2 antibodies (overall dogs, 90%; privately owned dogs, 65%; SPF dogs, 100%). (4) Conclusions: Since false positive results will lead to potentially unprotected dogs not being vaccinated, specificity should be improved to reliably detect anti-CAV antibodies that prevent infectious canine hepatitis in dogs.

Measuring antibodies to evaluate dogs' immunity against canine parvovirus (CPV) is useful to avoid unnecessary re-vaccinations. The study aimed to evaluate the quality and practicability of four point-of-care (POC) tests for detection of anti-CPV antibodies. The sera of 198 client-owned and 43 specific pathogen-free (SPF) dogs were included; virus neutralization was the reference method. Specificity, sensitivity, positive and negative predictive value (PPV and NPV), and overall accuracy (OA) were calculated. Specificity was considered to be the most important indicator for POC test performance. Differences between specificity and sensitivity of POC tests in the sera of all dogs were determined by McNemar, agreement by Cohen's kappa. Prevalence of anti-CPV antibodies in all dogs was 80% (192/241); in the subgroup of client-owned dogs, it was 97% (192/198); and in the subgroup of SPF dogs, it was 0% (0/43). FASTest ® and CanTiCheck ® were easiest to perform. Specificity was highest in the CanTiCheck ® (overall dogs, 98%; client-owned dogs, 83%; SPF dogs, 100%) and the TiterCHEK ® (overall dogs, 96%; client-owned dogs, 67%; SPF dogs, 100%); no significant differences in specificity were observed between the ImmunoComb ® , the TiterCHEK ® , and the CanTiCheck ® . Sensitivity was highest in the FASTest ® (overall dogs, 95%; client-owned dogs, 95%) and the CanTiCheck ® (overall dogs, 80%; client-owned dogs, 80%); sensitivity of the FASTest ® was significantly higher compared to the one of the other three tests (McNemars p -value in each comparison: <0.001). CanTiCheck ® would be the POC test of choice when considering specificity and practicability. However, differences in the number of false positive results between CanTiCheck ® , TiterCHEK ® , and ImmunoComb ® were minimal., Competing Interests: Katrin Hartmann has given talks for MSD, Boehringer Ingelheim, and IDEXX. Katrin Hartmann and Michèle Bergmann participated in research funded by or using products from MSD, Merial, Boehringer, Zoetis, Megacor, Biogal, and Scil. There is no commercial conflict of interest, as the information generated here is solely for scientific dissemination.