Peer-reviewed veterinary case report
Accuracy of in-clinic tests for canine distemper virus antibodies
By Meazzi, Sara et al.·Published in Viruses·2022·Department of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Sciences, Italy·View original on PubMed →
PetCaseFinder translated the abstract of this peer-reviewed paper into plain English so pet owners can read it. We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above. How we work →
Original publication title: Agreement between In-Clinics and Virus Neutralization Tests in Detecting Antibodies against Canine Distemper Virus (CDV).
- Species:
- dog
Plain-English summary
A study looked at how well a quick in-clinic test called VacciCheck can detect antibodies against canine distemper virus (CDV) compared to the more complex virus neutralization test. The VacciCheck test showed a high accuracy rate, meaning it can reliably indicate whether a dog is protected from CDV. This is important because it can help vets decide if a dog needs a vaccine or if they are already protected, which can prevent unnecessary vaccinations and potential side effects. Overall, VacciCheck is a useful tool for vets to ensure dogs are properly vaccinated without overdoing it.
People also search for: dog distemper vaccine test · VacciCheck accuracy · canine distemper virus protection
Abstract
Core vaccinations and specific antibody titer evaluations are strongly recommended worldwide by all the vaccination guidelines. Virus neutralization (VN) is considered the gold standard for measuring antibody titer against canine distemper virus, but it is complex and time consuming, and the use of in-clinics tests would allow to obtain quicker results. The aim of this study was to evaluate the agreement of the commercial in-clinics VacciCheck test compared to VN. A total of 106 canine sera were analyzed using both methods. The best agreement was obtained using a protective threshold of ≥1:32. VacciCheck showed 95.5% sensitivity, 87.2% specificity, and 92.5% accuracy. The Cohen's kappa coefficient between methods was 0.84 (CI 95% 0.73 to 0.95), revealing an optimal agreement between the two methods (= 0.0073). The evaluation of discordant results reveal that most samples had less than 1.5 dilution difference, and that usually did not affect the classification as protected or non-protected. Results also suggest that, in dubious cases, especially when a protective result is expected, retesting is advisable. In conclusion, VacciCheck may be considered as a reliable instrument that may help the clinician in identifying the best vaccine protocol, avoiding unnecessary vaccination, and thus reducing the incidence of adverse effects.
Find similar cases for your pet
PetCaseFinder finds other peer-reviewed reports of pets with the same symptoms, plus a plain-English summary of what was tried across them.
Search related cases →Original publication on PubMed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35336924/