Peer-reviewed veterinary case report
Accuracy of three FeLV test kits using cat blood and saliva samples
By Westman, Mark E et al.·Published in Comparative immunology, microbiology and infectious diseases·2017·Sydney School of Veterinary Science, Australia·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 We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above.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: Comparison of three feline leukaemia virus (FeLV) point-of-care antigen test kits using blood and saliva.
- Species:
- cat
Plain-English summary
A group of cats was tested for feline leukemia virus (FeLV) using three different test kits that check for the virus in blood and saliva. The tests showed varying accuracy, with the blood tests having a sensitivity (ability to correctly identify infected cats) ranging from 57% to 63% and high specificity (ability to correctly identify uninfected cats) between 94% and 98%. However, all tests had some false-positive results, meaning they incorrectly indicated some healthy cats were infected. The researchers recommend confirming any positive test results with a more reliable PCR test, especially for cats that may have been exposed to FeLV.
People also search for: cat leukemia test accuracy · feline leukemia virus symptoms · how to test cat for FeLV · FeLV positive cat treatment · cat saliva test for leukemia
Abstract
Feline leukaemia virus (FeLV) can be a challenging infection to diagnose due to a complex feline host-pathogen relationship and occasionally unreliable test results. This study compared the accuracy of three point-of-care (PoC) FeLV p27 antigen test kits commonly used in Australia and available commercially worldwide (SNAP FIV/FeLV Combo, Witness FeLV/FIV and Anigen Rapid FIV/FeLV), using detection of FeLV provirus by an in-house real-time polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) assay as the diagnostic gold standard. Blood (n=563) and saliva (n=419) specimens were collected from a population of cats determined to include 491 FeLV-uninfected and 72 FeLV-infected individuals (45 progressive infections [p27 and qPCR positive], 27 regressive infections [p27 negative, qPCR positive]). Sensitivity and specificity using whole blood was 63% and 94% for SNAP Combo, 57% and 98% for Witness, and 57% and 98% for Anigen Rapid, respectively. SNAP Combo had a significantly lower specificity using blood compared to the other two kits (P=0.004 compared to Witness, P=0.007 compared to Anigen Rapid). False-positive test results occurred with all three kits using blood, and although using any two kits in parallel increased specificity, no combination of kits completely eliminated the occurrence of false-positive results. We therefore recommend FeLV proviral PCR testing for any cat that tests positive with a PoC FeLV antigen kit, as well as for any cat that has been potentially exposed to FeLV but tests negative with a FeLV antigen kit, before final assignment of FeLV status can be made with confidence. For saliva testing, sensitivity and specificity was 54% and 100%, respectively, for all three test kits. The reduced sensitivity of saliva testing compared to blood testing, although not statistically significant, suggests saliva testing with the current generation of PoC FeLV antigen kits is unsuitable for screening large populations of cats, such as in shelters.
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/28131385/