Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2021 Oct 15;13(10):2080.
doi: 10.3390/v13102080.

Comparison of Eight Commercially Available Faecal Point-of-Care Tests for Detection of Canine Parvovirus Antigen

Julia Walter-Weingärtner  1 , Michèle Bergmann  1 , Karin Weber  1 , Uwe Truyen  2 , Cosmin Muresan  3 , Katrin Hartmann  1
Affiliations
Comparative Study

Comparison of Eight Commercially Available Faecal Point-of-Care Tests for Detection of Canine Parvovirus Antigen

Julia Walter-Weingärtner et al. Viruses. .

Abstract

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; p = 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® had the highest sensitivity (34.3% overall, 49.0% group P) and differed significantly from the 3 POCT with the lowest sensitivities (Fassisi®Parvo (27.7% overall, 36.7% group P), Primagnost®ParvoH+K (24.3% overall, 34.7% group P), FASTest®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.

Keywords: CPV; POCT; diagnosis; in-house test; parvovirosis; sensitivity; specificity.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no potential conflict of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Although the POCT were provided for free by IDEXX, Fassisi, Dechra, Megacor, Bionote, Vetexpert and Zoetis, the funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results. There is no commercial conflict of interest as the information generated here is solely for scientific dissemination. The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Results of the regression analysis showing the dependence of the detection probability on the virus load with decision thresholds (detection probability of 50%) for all eight point-of-care tests. Green points indicate correct positive point-of-care test results, red points false negative point-of-care test results.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Results of comparison of viral loads in qPCR-positive samples between virus culture-positive and virus culture-negative faecal samples using Mann–Whitney-U-Test. * p = 0.01.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Appel M., Scott F., Carmichael L. Isolation and immunisation studies of a canine parco-like virus from dogs with haemorrhagic enteritis. Vet. Rec. 1979;105:156. doi: 10.1136/vr.105.8.156. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Truyen U. Evolution of canine parvovirus—a need for new vaccines? Vet. Microbiol. 2006;117:9–13. doi: 10.1016/j.vetmic.2006.04.003. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Truyen U. Emergence and recent evolution of canine parvovirus. Vet. Microbiol. 1999;69:47–50. doi: 10.1016/S0378-1135(99)00086-3. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Parrish C.R., Aquadro C.F., Strassheim M., Evermann J., Sgro J., Mohammed H. Rapid antigenic-type replacement and DNA sequence evolution of canine parvovirus. J. Virol. 1991;65:6544–6552. doi: 10.1128/jvi.65.12.6544-6552.1991. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Goddard A., Leisewitz A.L. Canine parvovirus. Vet. Clin. Small Anim. Pract. 2010;40:1041–1053. doi: 10.1016/j.cvsm.2010.07.007. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources