Efficacy of feline anti-parvovirus antibodies in the treatment of canine parvovirus infection.

OBJECTIVE: This prospective, randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blinded study aimed to evaluate efficacy of commercially available feline anti-parvovirus antibodies in dogs with canine parvovirus infection. METHODS: First, cross-protection of feline panleukopenia virus antibodies against canine parvovirus was evaluated in vitro. In the subsequent prospective clinical trial, 31 dogs with clinical signs of canine parvovirus infection and a positive faecal canine parvovirus polymerase chain reaction were randomly assigned to a group receiving feline panleukopenia virus antibodies (n=15) or placebo (n=16). All dogs received additional routine treatment. Clinical signs, blood parameters, time to clinical recovery and mortality were compared between the groups. Serum antibody titres and quantitative faecal polymerase chain reaction were compared on days 0, 3, 7, and 14. RESULTS: In vitro, canine parvovirus was fully neutralised by feline panleukopenia virus antibodies. There were no detected significant differences in clinical signs, time to clinical recovery, blood parameters, mortality, faecal virus load, or viral shedding between groups. Dogs in the placebo group showed a significant increase of serum antibody titres and a significant decrease of faecal virus load between day 14 and day 0, which was not detectable in dogs treated with feline panleukopenia virus antibodies. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: No significant beneficial effect of passively transferred feline anti-parvovirus antibodies in the used dosage regimen on the treatment of canine parvovirus infection was demonstrated.

Role of canine circovirus in dogs with acute haemorrhagic diarrhoea.

Canine circovirus (CanineCV) has been detected in some dogs with severe haemorrhagic diarrhoea, but its pathogenic role is unclear. This study evaluated a suspected association between the presence of CanineCV and acute haemorrhagic diarrhoea syndrome (AHDS) in dogs. The prevalence of CanineCV in dogs with AHDS was compared with that in healthy dogs and those infected with canine parvovirus (CPV). Additionally, time to recovery and mortality rate were compared between CanineCV-positive and CanineCV-negative dogs. Faecal samples of dogs with AHDS (n=55), healthy dogs (n=66) and dogs infected with CPV (n=54) were examined by two real-time TaqMan PCR assays targeting the replicase and capsid genes of CanineCV. CanineCV was detected in faecal samples of two dogs with AHDS, three healthy controls and seven dogs infected with CPV. Among the three groups, there was no significant difference in prevalence of CanineCV. CPV-infected animals that were coinfected with CanineCV had a significantly higher mortality rate compared with those negative for CanineCV. CanineCV does not appear to be the primary causative agent of AHDS in dogs, but might play a role as a negative co-factor in disease outcome in dogs with CPV infection.

Faecal shedding of canine parvovirus after modified-live vaccination in healthy adult dogs.

Since little is known about the persistence and faecal shedding of canine parvovirus (CPV) in dogs after modified-live vaccination, diagnostic tests for CPV can be difficult to interpret in the post-vaccination period. The primary aim of this study was to determine the incidence, duration and extent of CPV vaccine virus shedding in adult dogs and to investigate related factors, including the presence of protective antibodies, increase in anti-CPV antibody titres and development of any gastrointestinal side-effects. A secondary objective was to assess prevalence of CPV field virus shedding in clinically healthy dogs due to subclinical infections. One hundred adult, healthy privately owned dogs were vaccinated with a commercial CPV-2 modified-live vaccine (MLV). Faeces were tested for the presence of CPV DNA on days 0 (prior to vaccination), 3, 7, 14, 21 and 28 by quantitative real-time PCR. Pre- and post-vaccination serum titres were determined by haemagglutination inhibition on days 0, 7 and 28. Transient excretion of CPV DNA was detected in 2.0% of dogs before vaccination. About one quarter of dogs (23.0%) shed CPV DNA during the post-vaccination period, but field and vaccine virus differentiation by VP2 gene sequencing was only successful in few samples. Faecal CPV excretion occurred despite protective serum antibody titres. Post-vaccination CPV shedding was not related to adequate antibody response after vaccination or to the occurrence of gastrointestinal side-effects. Despite individual differences, CPV DNA was detectable for up to 28 days after vaccination, although the faecal CPV DNA load in these clinically healthy dogs was very low.

[Application of paramunity inducers in small animal practice]. / Einsatz von Paramunitätsinducern in der Kleintiermedizin.

Paramunity inducers have been used to treat small animals for decades. Paramunity inducers are based on attenuated and inactivated poxviruses (avipox virus and parapox virus). Their applications include both therapeutic and prophylactic use in various diseases. Despite their wide and variable use, only a very small number of placebo-controlled studies has been published. Positive effects in preventing kitten mortality and in treating feline stomatitis have been reported, however, no statistically significant effect of their therapeutic use in canine parvovirus infection, feline leukemia infection virus infection or canine papillomavirus infection could be demonstrated. For these infectious diseases, paramunity inducers do not appear to be effective.

[Diagnostic tools for canine parvovirus infection]. / Diagnose der kaninen Parvovirus-Infektion.

Canine parvovirus (CPV) infection is one of the most important and common infectious diseases in dogs, in particular affecting young puppies when maternal antibodies have waned and vaccine-induced antibodies have not yet developed. The mortality rate remains high. Therefore, a rapid and safe diagnostic tool is essential to diagnose the disease to 1) provide intensive care treatment and 2) to identify virus-shedding animals and thus prevent virus spread. Whilst the detection of antibodies against CPV is considered unsuitable to diagnose the disease, there are several different methods to directly detect complete virus, virus antigen or DNA. Additionally, to test in commercial laboratories, rapid in-house tests based on ELISA are available worldwide. The specificity of the ELISA rapid in-house tests is reported to be excellent. However, results on sensitivity vary and high numbers of false-negative results are commonly reported, which potentially leads to misdiagnosis. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is a very sensitive and specific diagnostic tool. It also provides the opportunity to differentiate vaccine strains from natural infection when sequencing is performed after PCR.

Influence of clinical and laboratory variables on faecal antigen ELISA results in dogs with canine parvovirus infection.

False negative faecal canine parvovirus (CPV) antigen ELISA results in dogs with CPV infection are common, but the factors that lead to these false negative results are still unknown. The aim of this study was to investigate whether dogs with a false negative faecal CPV antigen ELISA result have milder clinical signs and laboratory changes, a lower faecal virus load, higher faecal and serum CPV antibody titres and a faster recovery than dogs with a positive result. Eighty dogs with CPV infection, confirmed by the presence of clinical signs and a positive faecal CPV polymerase chain reaction (PCR), were assigned to two groups according to their faecal antigen ELISA result. Time until presentation, severity of symptoms, laboratory parameters, faecal virus load, faecal and serum antibody titres, and CPV sequencing data were compared between both groups. In 38/80 dogs that were hospitalised until recovery, the time to recovery, mortality, and the course of the disease were compared between dogs with positive and negative faecal antigen ELISA results. Of the 80 dogs included, 41 (51.3%) had a false negative faecal antigen ELISA result. ELISA-negative dogs had a significantly shorter time until presentation, lower frequency of defaecation, lower faecal virus load, and higher serum antibody concentrations than ELISA-positive dogs. Laboratory changes, CPV shedding, and outcomes were not associated with faecal antigen ELISA results. In conclusion, low faecal CPV load and antibodies binding to CPV antigen in faeces are likely to be important reasons for false negative faecal antigen ELISA results. Dogs with clinical signs of CPV infection should be retested by faecal PCR.

Efficacy of the paramunity inducer PIND-ORF in the treatment of canine parvovirus infection.

Canine parvovirus (CPV) infection is a common and severe disease particularly affecting young dogs. The paramunity inducer PIND-ORF is reported to stimulate the innate immune system and, if used as a supplementary medication, might lead to a more rapid improvement in clinical signs in dogs with CPV infection. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of PIND-ORF in dogs with CPV infection in a prospective, placebo-controlled, double-blinded trial using 38 dogs randomly assigned to two groups. Inclusion criteria were clinical signs consistent with CPV infection and a positive faecal CPV PCR. Dogs received either PIND-ORF (n = 20) or placebo (n = 18) and additional symptomatic treatment. Time to recovery and mortality rate were compared between the two groups. Clinical signs, complete blood counts (CBC), and serum protein and albumin concentrations were evaluated daily during hospitalisation and on day 14. Viral shedding and antibody titres were measured by faecal CPV PCR and serum neutralisation assay. There was no significant difference in time to recovery, clinical signs, blood parameters, duration of virus shedding, and antibody titres between the two groups. The only significant difference was an increase in lymphocyte counts and antibody titres observed in the PIND-ORF group only. Three dogs receiving placebo did not survive, but the mortality rate was not significantly different between groups (P = 0.097). No significant effect of PIND-ORF on recovery and outcome could be demonstrated.