This study challenges the commonly held view that the feline immunodeficiency virus (FIV) infection status of FIV-vaccinated cats cannot be determined using point-of-care antibody test kits due to indistinguishable antibody production in FIV-vaccinated and naturally FIV-infected cats. The performance of three commercially available point-of-care antibody test kits was compared in a mixed population of FIV-vaccinated (n=119) and FIV-unvaccinated (n=239) cats in Australia. FIV infection status was assigned by considering the results of all antibody kits in concert with results from a commercially available PCR assay (FIV RealPCR™). Two lateral flow immunochromatography test kits (Witness FeLV/FIV; Anigen Rapid FIV/FeLV) had excellent overall sensitivity (100%; 100%) and specificity (98%; 100%) and could discern the true FIV infection status of cats, irrespective of FIV vaccination history. The lateral flow ELISA test kit (SNAP FIV/FeLV Combo) could not determine if antibodies detected were due to previous FIV vaccination, natural FIV infection, or both. The sensitivity and specificity of FIV RealPCR™ for detection of viral and proviral nucleic acid was 92% and 99%, respectively. These results will potentially change the way veterinary practitioners screen for FIV in jurisdictions where FIV vaccination is practiced, especially in shelter scenarios where the feasibility of mass screening is impacted by the cost of testing.

| P a g e ObjectiveTo highlight the characteristics of persons convicted for offences related to animal hoarding in NSW Australia, document the outcomes of cases and compare these to overseas studies. DesignRetrospective case series. MethodsRecords of finalised prosecutions for offences relating to animal hoarding between 2005 and 2011 were examined. Data recorded included: the age of each subject at the first offence, gender, postcode, occupation, living conditions, number of charges, number of prosecutions, title of each charge, number and species of live animals, whether animals needed veterinary attention, the medical conditions that the animals suffered, whether dead animals were on the property, how animals were obtained, veterinary and legal costs accrued and case outcomes. The data were analysed to obtain frequencies and relative frequencies for categorical variables and summary statistics for quantitative variables. Observed frequencies were compared using Chi-square test with the expected frequencies calculated based on the Australian Bureau of Statistics for NSW. ResultsThe number of persons included was 29. Most were female (72.4%), 82% were 40-64 years of age at their first offence. Almost one third (31%) identified themselves as breeders, 27% were pensioners and 13.8% unemployed. Most resided in inner regional Australia (45%), 28% lived in major cities and 28% lived in outer regional Australia. Dogs were the species hoarded most frequently (79%). Animals requiring veterinary attention were identified in all cases. Dead animals were found on premises in 41.4% of cases. ConclusionsPersons prosecuted for charges relating to animal hoarding in NSW have similar

No abstract

ObjectivesOur aim was to: (i) determine the current seroprevalence of feline immunodeficiency virus (FIV) and feline leukaemia virus (FeLV) in three large cohorts of cats from Australia; and (ii) investigate potential risk factors for retroviral infection.MethodsCohort 1 (n = 2151 for FIV, n = 2241 for FeLV) consisted of cats surrendered to a shelter on the west coast of Australia (Perth, Western Australia [WA]). Cohort 2 (n = 2083 for FIV, n = 2032 for FeLV) consisted of client-owned cats with outdoor access recruited from around Australia through participating veterinary clinics. Cohort 3 (n = 169 for FIV, n = 166 for FeLV) consisted of cats presenting to Murdoch University Veterinary Hospital for a variety of reasons. Fresh whole blood was collected and tested using a commercially available point-of-care lateral flow ELISA kit that detects p27 FeLV antigen and antibodies to FIV antigens (p15 and p24) (cohorts 1 and 2), or one of two lateral flow immunochromatography kits that detect p27 antigen and antibodies to FIV antigen (p24 and/or gp40) (cohort 3). Data recorded for cats in cohort 2 included signalment, presenting complaint and postcode, allowing investigation of risk factors for FIV or FeLV infection, as well as potential geographical ‘hot spots’ for infection.ResultsThe seroprevalence of FIV was 6% (cohort 1), 15% (cohort 2) and 14% (cohort 3), while the seroprevalence of FeLV was 1%, 2% and 4% in the same respective cohorts. Risk factors for FIV infection among cats in cohort 2 included age (>3 years), sex (male), neutering status (entire males) and location (WA had a significantly higher FIV seroprevalence compared with the Australian Capital Territory, New South Wales and Victoria). Risk factors for FeLV infection among cats in cohort 2 included health status (‘sick’) and location (WA cats were approximately three times more likely to be FeLV-infected compared with the rest of Australia). No geographical hot spots of FIV infection were identified.Conclusions and relevanceBoth FIV and FeLV remain important infections among Australian cats. WA has a higher seroprevalence of both feline retroviruses compared with the rest of Australia, which has been noted in previous studies. A lower neutering rate for client-owned male cats is likely responsible for the higher seroprevalence of FIV infection in WA cats, while the reason for the higher seroprevalence of FeLV in WA cats is currently unknown.

The guidelines are a consensus report on current recommendations for vaccination of cats of any origin, authored by a Task Force of experts. The guidelines are published simultaneously in the Journal of Feline Medicine and Surgery (volume 22, issue 9, pages 813–830, DOI: 10.1177/1098612X20941784) and the Journal of the American Animal Hospital Association (volume 56, issue 4, pages 249–265, DOI: 10.5326/JAAHA-MS-7123). The guidelines assign approved feline vaccines to core (recommended for all cats) and non-core (recommended based on an individualized risk–benefit assessment) categories. Practitioners can develop individualized vaccination protocols consisting of core vaccines and non-core vaccines based on exposure and susceptibility risk as defined by the patient’s life stage, lifestyle, and place of origin and by environmental and epidemiologic factors. An update on feline injection-site sarcomas indicates that occurrence of this sequela remains infrequent and idiosyncratic. Staff education initiatives should enable the veterinary practice team to be proficient in advising clients on proper vaccination practices and compliance. Vaccination is a component of a preventive healthcare plan. The vaccination visit should always include a thorough physical exam and client education dialog that gives the pet owner an understanding of how clinical staff assess disease risk and propose recommendations that help ensure an enduring owner–pet relationship.

No abstract

A field study was undertaken to (i) measure the prevalence of feline leukaemia virus (FeLV) exposure and FeLV infection in a cross-section of healthy Australian pet cats; and (ii) investigate the outcomes following natural FeLV exposure in two Australian rescue facilities. Group 1 (n = 440) consisted of healthy client-owned cats with outdoor access, predominantly from eastern Australia. Groups 2 (n = 38) and 3 (n = 51) consisted of a mixture of healthy and sick cats, group-housed in two separate rescue facilities in Sydney, Australia, tested following identification of index cases of FeLV infection in cats sourced from these facilities. Diagnostic testing for FeLV exposure/infection included p27 antigen testing using three different point-of-care FeLV kits and a laboratory-based ELISA, real-time polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) testing to detect FeLV proviral DNA in leukocytes, real-time reverse-transcription PCR (qRT-PCR) testing to detect FeLV RNA in plasma, and neutralising antibody (NAb) testing. Cats were classified as FeLV-uninfected (FeLV-unexposed and presumptively FeLV-abortive infections) or FeLV-infected (presumptively regressive and presumptively progressive infections). In Group 1, 370 FeLV-unexposed cats (370/440, 84%), 47 abortive infections (47/440, 11%), nine regressive infections (9/440, 2%), and two progressive infections (2/440, 0.5%) were identified, and 12 FeLV-uninfected cats (12/440, 3%) were unclassifiable as FeLV-unexposed or abortive infections due to insufficient samples available for NAb testing. In Groups 2 and 3, 31 FeLV-unexposed cats (31/89, 35%), eight abortive infections (8/89, 9%), 22 regressive infections (22/89; 25%), and 19 progressive infections (19/89; 21%) were discovered, and nine FeLV-uninfected cats (9/89; 10%) were unclassifiable due to insufficient samples available for NAb testing. One of the presumptively progressively-infected cats in Group 3 was likely a focal FeLV infection. Two other presumptively progressively-infected cats in Group 3 may have been classified as regressive infections with repeated testing, highlighting the difficulties associated with FeLV diagnosis when sampling cats at a single time point, even with results from a panel of FeLV tests. These results serve as a reminder to Australian veterinarians that the threat of FeLV to the general pet cat population remains high, thus vigilant FeLV testing, separate housing for FeLV-infected cats, and FeLV vaccination of at-risk cats is important, particularly in group-housed cats in shelters and rescue facilities, where outbreaks of FeLV infection can occur.

No abstract