Accuracy of polymerase chain reaction assays for diagnosis of feline immunodeficiency virus infection in cats

Department of Small Animal Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32610, USA.
Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association (Impact Factor: 1.56). 06/2005; 226(9):1503-7. DOI: 10.2460/javma.2005.226.1503
Source: PubMed


To determine the sensitivity, specificity, and overall diagnostic accuracy of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assays offered by commercial diagnostic laboratories for diagnosis of FIV infection in cats.
Prospective clinical trial.
124 cats.
Blood was collected from cats that were neither infected with nor vaccinated against FIV, uninfected cats that were vaccinated with a licensed FIV vaccine, and cats experimentally and naturally infected with FIV representing subtypes A, B, and C. Coded blood samples were submitted to 3 laboratories in the United States and Canada offering PCR assays for diagnosis of FIV infection to veterinary practitioners. All laboratories tested fresh blood samples, and 1 laboratory also tested samples submitted as dried blood smears. The FIV infection status in all cats was confirmed by virus isolation. Sensitivity, specificity, and correct results were calculated for each PCR assay.
Sensitivity ranged from 41% to 93%. Specificity ranged from 81% to 100% in unvaccinated cats and 44% to 95% in cats vaccinated against FIV. Correct results were obtained in 58% to 90% of 124 cats tested. All tests misidentified both uninfected and infected cats. False-positive results by all laboratories were higher in cats vaccinated against FIV than in unvaccinated cats, suggesting that vaccination interferes with the performance or interpretation of PCR assays used for diagnosis of FIV infection.
PCR assays used for diagnosis of FIV infection presently marketed to veterinary practitioners in North America vary significantly in diagnostic accuracy and did not resolve the diagnostic dilemma resulting from vaccination of cats against FIV.

Download full-text


Available from: Patti Cynda Crawford,
  • Source
    • "CCoVs, TGEVs, FIVs, FeLVs, FPVs, CPVs, Giardia spp., and Trichomonas spp. were isolated from the blood or feces of animals (i.e., dogs, pigs, or cats) presenting with the corresponding disease and positive for each of the mentioned pathogen, as tested by the routine diagnostic procedures such as microscopic examination , ELISA (SNAP ® Parvo or Giardia test, IDEXX, Westbrook, ME, USA), and PCR (Pratelli et al., 1999; Kim et al., 2000; Pereira et al., 2000; Gookin et al., 2002; Crawford et al., 2005; Gomes-Keller et al., 2006; Garcia Rde et al., 2011). The identification of all isolates was confirmed by PCR and sequencing analyses. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Feline coronavirus (FCoV) is a pleomorphic, enveloped, positive-sense single-stranded RNA virus. Owing to the differences in its genotype, FCoV belongs to a separate clade along with other viruses, such as transmissible gastroenteritis virus (TGEV) and canine coronavirus (CCoV), which can be isolated from cats. In this study, a PCR assay was developed to differentiate these coronaviruses concurrently. Multiplex differential RT-PCR was performed with primers based on the highly conserved coronavirus membrane protein. Three primer sets were designed: a primer pair (S1 and S2) that can bind to conserved sequences in all target coronaviruses, a CCoV-specific primer (S3), and a TGEV-specific primer (S4). Because of the high sequence homology among FCoV, CCoV, and TGEV, a nucleotide preceding the last pair of dissimilar nucleotides in S3 and S4 was substituted with an inosine to allow primer binding. This assay could detect and differentiate FCoV (n=7), CCoV (n=4), and TGEV (n=8) precisely and did not show any cross-reactivity with other pathogens. These results suggest that this molecular approach provides a rapid and reliable way to detect FCoV, especially in feline clinical specimens.
    Journal of Virological Methods 07/2014; 208. DOI:10.1016/j.jviromet.2014.07.013 · 1.78 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Thus, a decision for treatment or for euthanasia should never be based solely on the presence of a retrovirus infection. FIV-and FeLV-infected cats are subject to the same diseases that befall cats free of those infections , and a disease diagnosed in a retrovirus-infected cat may not be related to the retrovirus infection (Levy 2000, Levy and Crawford 2005). However, in all cats, healthy or sick, FIV and FeLV status should be known because the presence of a retrovirus infection impacts their health status and long-term management. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Feline leukemia virus (FeLV) and feline immunodeficiency virus (FIV) are among the most common infectious diseases of cats. Although vaccines are available for both viruses, identification and segregation of infected cats form the cornerstone for preventing new infections. Guidelines in this report have been developed for diagnosis, prevention, treatment, and management of FeLV and FIV infections. All cats should be tested for FeLV and FIV infections at appropriate intervals based on individual risk assessments. This includes testing at the time of acquisition, following exposure to an infected cat or a cat of unknown infection status, prior to vaccination against FeLV or FIV, prior to entering group housing, and when cats become sick. No test is 100% accurate at all times under all conditions; results should be interpreted along with the patient's health and risk factors. Retroviral tests can diagnose only infection, not clinical disease, and cats infected with FeLV or FIV may live for many years. A decision for euthanasia should never be based solely on whether or not the cat is infected. Vaccination against FeLV is highly recommended in kittens. In adult cats, antiretroviral vaccines are considered non-core and should be administered only if a risk assessment indicates they are appropriate. Few large controlled studies have been performed using antiviral or immunomodulating drugs for the treatment of naturally infected cats. More research is needed to identify best practices to improve long-term outcomes following retroviral infections in cats.
    Journal of Feline Medicine & Surgery 07/2008; 10(3):300-16. DOI:10.1016/j.jfms.2008.03.002 · 1.16 Impact Factor
    • "There is a window of 4e8 weeks in which the cat is infected but does not test positive by ELISA (Barr 1996). Currently available PCR tests for FIV have been shown to vary significantly in diagnostic accuracy between different laboratories (Bienzle et al 2004, Crawford et al 2005). As a nested PCR inherently improves sensitivity and specificity (Kemp et al 1989), we believe that the novel PCR approach presented in this study may significantly enhance the performance of PCRbased diagnostic assays. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Laboratory diagnosis of feline leukemia virus (FeLV) and feline immunodeficiency virus (FIV) usually involves both viruses, as the clinical signs are similar and coinfection may occur. Serological methods may not represent an accurate diagnosis: maternal antibodies or cross-reactions may give false positive results to FIV, and false negative results may occur in latent FeLV status, or in certain FIV infection stages. A nested polymerase chain reaction (PCR) technique was designed to detect FeLV, FIV and feline endogenous retrovirus simultaneously. The detection of endogenous sequences was considered indicative of successful DNA extraction. The technique was used to diagnose FIV and FeLV in the blood cells of 179 cats. The kappa value with the serological data was 0.69 for FeLV and 0.87 for FIV. The joint detection of FeLV and FIV by this novel nested PCR is sensitive, specific, fast and convenient, and its applicability for clinical diagnosis is promising, as the direct evidence of the presence of the virus is more realistic than the indirect data provided by the serological detection.
    Journal of Feline Medicine & Surgery 03/2007; 9(1):14-22. DOI:10.1016/j.jfms.2006.05.009 · 1.16 Impact Factor
Show more