3.8 Article Proceedings Paper

Use of serologic tests to predict resistance to feline herpesvirus 1, feline calicivirus, and feline parvovirus infection in cats

Journal

Publisher

AMER VETERINARY MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.2460/javma.2002.220.38

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective-To determine whether detection of virus-specific serum antibodies correlates with resistance to challenge with virulent feline herpesvirus I (FHV-1), feline calicivirus (FCV), and feline parvovirus (FPV) in cats and to determine percentages of client-owned cats with serum antibodies to FHV-1, FCV, and FPV. Design-Prospective experimental study. Animals-72 laboratory-reared cats and 276 client-owned cats. Procedures-Laboratory-reared cats were vaccinated against FHV-1, FCV, and FPV, using 1 of 3 commercial vaccines, or maintained as unvaccinated controls. Between 9 and 36 months after vaccination, cats were challenged with virulent virus. Recombinant-antigen ELISA for detection of FHV-1-, FCV-, and FPV-specific antibodies were developed, and results were compared with results of hemagglutination inhibition (FPV) and virus neutralization (FHV-1 and FCV) assays and with resistance to viral challenge. Results-For vaccinated laboratory-reared cats, predictive values of positive results were 100% for the FPV and FCV ELISA and 90% for the FHV-1 ELISA. Results of the FHV-1, FCV, and FPV ELISA were positive for 195 (70.7%), 255 (92.4%), and 189 (68.5%), respectively, of the 276 client-owned cats. Conclusions and Clinical Relevance-Results suggest that for cats that have been vaccinated, detection of FHV-1-, FCV-, and FPV-specific antibodies is predictive of whether cats are susceptible to disease, regardless of vaccine type or vaccination interval. Because most client-owned cats had detectable serum antibodies suggestive of resistance to infection, use of arbitrary booster vaccination intervals is likely to lead to unnecessary vaccination of some cats.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available