First international collaborative study to evaluate rabies antibody detection method for use in monitoring the effectiveness of oral vaccination programmes in fox and raccoon dog in Europe.

The most effective and sustainable method to control and eliminate rabies in wildlife is the oral rabies vaccination (ORV) of target species, namely foxes and raccoon dogs in Europe. According to WHO and OIE, the effectiveness of oral vaccination campaigns should be regularly assessed via disease surveillance and ORV antibody monitoring. Rabies antibodies are generally screened for in field animal cadavers, whose body fluids are often of poor quality. Therefore, the use of alternative methods such as the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) has been proposed to improve reliability of serological results obtained on wildlife samples. We undertook an international collaborative study to determine if the commercial BioPro ELISA Rabies Ab kit is a reliable and reproducible tool for rabies serological testing. Our results reveal that the overall specificity evaluated on naive samples reached 96.7%, and the coefficients of concordance obtained for fox and raccoon dog samples were 97.2% and 97.5%, respectively. The overall agreement values obtained for the four marketed oral vaccines used in Europe were all equal to or greater than 95%. The coefficients of concordance obtained by laboratories ranged from 87.2% to 100%. The results of this collaborative study show good robustness and reproducibility of the BioPro ELISA Rabies Ab kit.

Comparative assay of fluorescent antibody test results among twelve European National Reference Laboratories using various anti-rabies conjugates.

Twelve National Reference Laboratories (NRLs) for rabies have undertaken a comparative assay to assess the comparison of fluorescent antibody test (FAT) results using five coded commercial anti-rabies conjugates (Biorad, Bioveta, Fujirebio, Millipore, and SIFIN conjugates). Homogenized positive brain tissues infected with various lyssavirus species as well as negative samples were analyzed blindly using a standardized FAT procedure. Conjugates B, C, D, and E were found to be significantly more effective than conjugate A for GS7 (French RABV) diluted samples (1/8 and 1/100) while the frequency of concordant results of conjugates C and D differ significantly from conjugates A, B and E for CVS 27. For detection of EBLV-1 strains, conjugates C and D also presented a significantly lower frequency of discordant results compared to conjugates A, B and E. Conjugates B, C and D were found to be significantly more effective than conjugates E and A for EBLV-2 and ABLV samples. In view of these results, conjugates C and D set themselves apart from the others and appeared as the most effective of this 5-panel conjugates. This study clearly demonstrates that the variability of conjugates used by National Reference Laboratories can potentially lead to discordant results and influence assay sensitivity. In case of false negative results this could have a dramatic impact if the animal under investigation is responsible for human exposure. To avoid such situations, confirmatory tests should be implemented.