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

Bergmann, Michele; Holzheu, Mike; Zablotski, Yury; Speck, Stephanie; Truyen, Uwe; Straubinger, Reinhard K. und Hartmann, Katrin (2021): Comparison of Four Commercially Available Point-of-Care Tests to Detect Antibodies against Canine Parvovirus in Dogs. In: Viruses-Basel, Bd. 13, Nr. 1, 18

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(R) and CanTiCheck(R) were easiest to perform. Specificity was highest in the CanTiCheck(R) (overall dogs, 98%;client-owned dogs, 83%;SPF dogs, 100%) and the TiterCHEK(R) (overall dogs, 96%;client-owned dogs, 67%;SPF dogs, 100%);no significant differences in specificity were observed between the ImmunoComb(R), the TiterCHEK(R), and the CanTiCheck(R). Sensitivity was highest in the FASTest(R) (overall dogs, 95%;client-owned dogs, 95%) and the CanTiCheck(R) (overall dogs, 80%;client-owned dogs, 80%);sensitivity of the FASTest(R) was significantly higher compared to the one of the other three tests (McNemars p-value in each comparison: <0.001). CanTiCheck(R) would be the POC test of choice when considering specificity and practicability. However, differences in the number of false positive results between CanTiCheck(R), TiterCHEK(R), and ImmunoComb(R) were minimal.

• Dokumententyp: Zeitschriftenartikel
• Fakultät: Tiermedizin > Zentrum für Klinische Tiermedizin
• Themengebiete: 600 Technik, Medizin, angewandte Wissenschaften > 610 Medizin und Gesundheit
• Sprache: Englisch