Evaluation of a Point-of-Care Test for Pre-Vaccination Testing to Detect Antibodies against Canine Adenoviruses in Dogs.

(1) Background: Antibody testing is commonly used to assess a dog's immune status. For detection of antibodies against canine adenoviruses (CAVs), one point-of-care (POC) test is available. This study assessed the POC test´s performance. (2) Methods: Sera of 198 privately owned dogs and 40 specific pathogen-free (SPF) dogs were included. The reference standard for detection of anti-CAV antibodies was virus neutralization (VN) using CAV-1 and CAV-2 antigens. Specificity, sensitivity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and overall accuracy (OA) of the POC test were assessed. Specificity was considered most important. (3) Results: Prevalence of CAV-1 neutralizing antibodies (≥10) was 76% (182/238) in all dogs, 92% (182/198) in the subgroup of privately owned dogs, and 0% (0/40) in SPF dogs. Prevalence of CAV-2 neutralizing antibodies (≥10) was 76% (181/238) in all dogs, 91% (181/198) in privately owned dogs, and 0% (0/40) in SPF dogs. Specificity for detection of CAV-1 antibodies was lower (overall dogs, 88%; privately owned dogs, 56%; SPF dogs, 100%) compared with specificity for detection of CAV-2 antibodies (overall dogs, 90%; privately owned dogs, 65%; SPF dogs, 100%). (4) Conclusions: Since false positive results will lead to potentially unprotected dogs not being vaccinated, specificity should be improved to reliably detect anti-CAV antibodies that prevent infectious canine hepatitis in dogs.

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

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.