Comparison of Four Commercially Available Point-of-Care Tests to Detect Antibodies against Canine Parvovirus in Dogs.

Michèle Bergmann,Stephanie Speck,Mike Holzheu,Reinhard K. Straubinger,Yury Zablotski,Katrin Hartmann,Uwe Truyen

doi:10.3390/v13010018

Michèle Bergmann, Stephanie Speck + Show 5 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.3390/v13010018

Copy DOI

Abstract

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.

Highlights

Specificity was highest in the CanTiCheck® and the TiterCHEK®; no significant differences in specificity were observed between the ImmunoComb®, the TiterCHEK®, and the CanTiCheck®
Canine parvovirus-2 (CPV-2) is a highly pathogenic virus, and protection is essential for all dogs [1,2]
Specificity was highest in the CanTiCheck® and the TiterCHEK®; no significant differences in specificity were observed between the ImmunoComb®, the TiterCHEK®, and the CanTiCheck® when considering all dogs (Table 5)

Summary

Introduction

Canine parvovirus-2 (CPV-2) is a highly pathogenic virus, and protection is essential for all dogs [1,2]. Presence of antibodies against CPV in adult dogs suggests adequate immunity against disease [3,4]. Measurement of pre-vaccination antibodies against CPV is useful to determine the specific immune status of an adult dog. Unnecessary re-vaccinations, which potentially cause vaccine-associated adverse events, can be avoided [2,5]. The measurement of antibodies can be used to determine whether dogs responded to vaccination, as well as for the management of disease outbreaks, e.g., in animal shelters [2,6,7]. Virus neutralization (VN) detects antibodies that neutralize infectious particles and prevent infection [8]. Point-of-care (POC) tests would be a useful tool in practice, to assess whether a dog is potentially unprotected and requires re-vaccination

Objectives

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion