Comparison of Eight Commercially Available Faecal Point-of-Care Tests for Detection of Canine Parvovirus Antigen
A real-time polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) is considered the gold standard for the laboratory diagnosis of canine parvovirus (CPV) infection but can only be performed in specialized laboratories. Several point-of-care tests (POCT), detecting CPV antigens in faeces within minutes, are commercially...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
MDPI AG
2021-10-01
|
| Series: | Viruses |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4915/13/10/2080 |
| _version_ | 1797512902757842944 |
|---|---|
| author | Julia Walter-Weingärtner Michèle Bergmann Karin Weber Uwe Truyen Cosmin Muresan Katrin Hartmann |
| author_facet | Julia Walter-Weingärtner Michèle Bergmann Karin Weber Uwe Truyen Cosmin Muresan Katrin Hartmann |
| author_sort | Julia Walter-Weingärtner |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | A real-time polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) is considered the gold standard for the laboratory diagnosis of canine parvovirus (CPV) infection but can only be performed in specialized laboratories. Several point-of-care tests (POCT), detecting CPV antigens in faeces within minutes, are commercially available. The aim of this study was to evaluate eight POCT in comparison with qPCR. Faecal samples of 150 dogs from three groups (H: 50 client-owned, healthy dogs, not vaccinated within the last four weeks; S: 50 shelter dogs, healthy, not vaccinated within the last four weeks; <i>p</i> = 50 dogs with clinical signs of CPV infection) were tested with eight POCT and qPCR. Practicability, sensitivity, specificity, positive (PPV) and negative predictive values (NPV), as well as overall accuracy were determined. To assess the differences between and agreement among POCT, McNemar’s test and Cohen’s Kappa statistic were performed. Specificity and PPV were 100.0% in all POCT. Sensitivity varied from 22.9–34.3% overall and from 32.7–49.0% in group P. VetexpertRapidTestCPVAg<sup>®</sup> had the highest sensitivity (34.3% overall, 49.0% group P) and differed significantly from the 3 POCT with the lowest sensitivities (Fassisi<sup>®</sup>Parvo (27.7% overall, 36.7% group P), Primagnost<sup>®</sup>ParvoH+K (24.3% overall, 34.7% group P), FASTest<sup>®</sup>PARVOCard (22.9% overall, 32.7% group P)). The agreement among all POCT was at least substantial (kappa >0.80). A positive POCT result confirmed the infection with CPV in unvaccinated dogs, whereas a negative POCT result did not definitely exclude CPV infection due to the low sensitivity of all POCT. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-10T06:08:11Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-1b671730322443b789d177bb76287500 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1999-4915 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-10T06:08:11Z |
| publishDate | 2021-10-01 |
| publisher | MDPI AG |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Viruses |
| spelling | doaj.art-1b671730322443b789d177bb762875002023-11-22T20:20:32ZengMDPI AGViruses1999-49152021-10-011310208010.3390/v13102080Comparison of Eight Commercially Available Faecal Point-of-Care Tests for Detection of Canine Parvovirus AntigenJulia Walter-Weingärtner0Michèle Bergmann1Karin Weber2Uwe Truyen3Cosmin Muresan4Katrin Hartmann5Clinic of Small Animal Medicine, Centre for Clinical Veterinary Medicine, LMU Munich, Veterinaerstrasse 13, 80539 Munich, GermanyClinic of Small Animal Medicine, Centre for Clinical Veterinary Medicine, LMU Munich, Veterinaerstrasse 13, 80539 Munich, GermanyClinic of Small Animal Medicine, Centre for Clinical Veterinary Medicine, LMU Munich, Veterinaerstrasse 13, 80539 Munich, GermanyInstitute of Animal Hygiene and Veterinary Public Health, University of Leipzig, An den Tierkliniken 1, 04103 Leipzig, GermanyFaculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine, Str. Calea Manastur 3–5, 400372 Cluj Napoca, RomaniaClinic of Small Animal Medicine, Centre for Clinical Veterinary Medicine, LMU Munich, Veterinaerstrasse 13, 80539 Munich, GermanyA real-time polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) is considered the gold standard for the laboratory diagnosis of canine parvovirus (CPV) infection but can only be performed in specialized laboratories. Several point-of-care tests (POCT), detecting CPV antigens in faeces within minutes, are commercially available. The aim of this study was to evaluate eight POCT in comparison with qPCR. Faecal samples of 150 dogs from three groups (H: 50 client-owned, healthy dogs, not vaccinated within the last four weeks; S: 50 shelter dogs, healthy, not vaccinated within the last four weeks; <i>p</i> = 50 dogs with clinical signs of CPV infection) were tested with eight POCT and qPCR. Practicability, sensitivity, specificity, positive (PPV) and negative predictive values (NPV), as well as overall accuracy were determined. To assess the differences between and agreement among POCT, McNemar’s test and Cohen’s Kappa statistic were performed. Specificity and PPV were 100.0% in all POCT. Sensitivity varied from 22.9–34.3% overall and from 32.7–49.0% in group P. VetexpertRapidTestCPVAg<sup>®</sup> had the highest sensitivity (34.3% overall, 49.0% group P) and differed significantly from the 3 POCT with the lowest sensitivities (Fassisi<sup>®</sup>Parvo (27.7% overall, 36.7% group P), Primagnost<sup>®</sup>ParvoH+K (24.3% overall, 34.7% group P), FASTest<sup>®</sup>PARVOCard (22.9% overall, 32.7% group P)). The agreement among all POCT was at least substantial (kappa >0.80). A positive POCT result confirmed the infection with CPV in unvaccinated dogs, whereas a negative POCT result did not definitely exclude CPV infection due to the low sensitivity of all POCT.https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4915/13/10/2080CPVparvovirosisdiagnosisPOCTin-house testsensitivity |
| spellingShingle | Julia Walter-Weingärtner Michèle Bergmann Karin Weber Uwe Truyen Cosmin Muresan Katrin Hartmann Comparison of Eight Commercially Available Faecal Point-of-Care Tests for Detection of Canine Parvovirus Antigen Viruses CPV parvovirosis diagnosis POCT in-house test sensitivity |
| title | Comparison of Eight Commercially Available Faecal Point-of-Care Tests for Detection of Canine Parvovirus Antigen |
| title_full | Comparison of Eight Commercially Available Faecal Point-of-Care Tests for Detection of Canine Parvovirus Antigen |
| title_fullStr | Comparison of Eight Commercially Available Faecal Point-of-Care Tests for Detection of Canine Parvovirus Antigen |
| title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of Eight Commercially Available Faecal Point-of-Care Tests for Detection of Canine Parvovirus Antigen |
| title_short | Comparison of Eight Commercially Available Faecal Point-of-Care Tests for Detection of Canine Parvovirus Antigen |
| title_sort | comparison of eight commercially available faecal point of care tests for detection of canine parvovirus antigen |
| topic | CPV parvovirosis diagnosis POCT in-house test sensitivity |
| url | https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4915/13/10/2080 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT juliawalterweingartner comparisonofeightcommerciallyavailablefaecalpointofcaretestsfordetectionofcanineparvovirusantigen AT michelebergmann comparisonofeightcommerciallyavailablefaecalpointofcaretestsfordetectionofcanineparvovirusantigen AT karinweber comparisonofeightcommerciallyavailablefaecalpointofcaretestsfordetectionofcanineparvovirusantigen AT uwetruyen comparisonofeightcommerciallyavailablefaecalpointofcaretestsfordetectionofcanineparvovirusantigen AT cosminmuresan comparisonofeightcommerciallyavailablefaecalpointofcaretestsfordetectionofcanineparvovirusantigen AT katrinhartmann comparisonofeightcommerciallyavailablefaecalpointofcaretestsfordetectionofcanineparvovirusantigen |