Abstract
Eight different tests for antibodies to feline coronavirus (FCoV) were evaluated for attributes that are important in situations in veterinary practice. We compared four indirect immunofluorescent antibody tests (IFAT), one enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) (FCoV Immunocomb; Biogal) and three rapid immunochromatographic (RIM) tests against a panel of samples designated by consensus as positive or negative. Specificity was 100% for all but the two IFATs based on transmissible gastroenteritis virus (TGEV), at 83.3% and 97.5%. The IFAT and ELISA tests were best for obtaining an antibody titre and for working in the presence of virus. The RIM tests were the best for obtaining a result quickly (10-15 mins); of these, the Speed F-Corona was the most sensitive, at 92.4%, followed by FASTest feline infectious peritonitis (FIP; 84.6%) and Anigen Rapid FCoV antibody test (64.1%). Sensitivity was 100% for the ELISA, one FCoV IFAT and one TGEV IFAT; and 98.2% for a second TGEV IFA and 96.1% for a second FCoV IFAT. All tests worked with effusions, even when only blood products were stipulated in the instruction manual. The ELISA and Anigen RIM tests were best for small quantities of sample. The most appropriate FCoV antibody test to use depends on the reason for testing: in excluding a diagnosis of FIP, sensitivity, specificity, small sample quantity, rapidity and ability to work in the presence of virus all matter. For FCoV screening, speed and sensitivity are important, and for FCoV elimination antibody titre is essential.
Addie, Diane D