Snap feline triple test and fluorescence FPV/FCV/FHV test are both commonly used rapid test kits for detecting feline parvovirus (FPV), feline calicivirus (FCV) and feline herpesvirus 1 (FHV-1) in cats. Snap feline triple test uses an immunochromatography technique while the fluorescence FPV/FCV/FHV test uses an immunofluorescence chromatography technique. Let’s compare the differences between these two testing methods.
The Snap feline triple test is a rapid test that detects antibodies to feline parvovirus, herpesvirus 1, and calicivirus in cats using lateral flow immunochromatography. It works by applying a blood or serum sample onto the test strip, with results read after 10-15 minutes (Shin et al., 2020).
The fluorescence FPV/FCV/FHV test detects the same antibodies using immunofluorescence chromatography technology. A blood or serum sample is applied to a test cartridge that is then inserted into a fluorescence analyzer, which detects any antibodies bound to fluorescent microspheres on the cartridge (Thompson et al., 2021).
The main differences are the technologies used and how results are read. The snap test is a simple rapid test read by eye, while the fluorescence test requires using a fluorescence analyzer to read quantitative results. The fluorescence test can also test multiple samples simultaneously using its multiple channels.
The snap test is inexpensive, easy to use anywhere, and gives rapid qualitative results. However, results depend on visual interpretation.
The fluorescence test gives quantitative results read by the analyzer, improving accuracy and objectivity. It can test multiple samples together faster than individual snap tests. However, it requires using the larger and more expensive fluorescence analyzer instrument.
Yes, the fluorescence immunoassay method is generally more accurate than a rapid lateral flow test. Using a fluorescence analyzer to read results provides a quantitative measurement rather than just a positive or negative result. This helps reduce subjective interpretation of results. Tracking the quantitative fluorescence values also improves accuracy by providing a measurement rather than just qualitative results (Keller et al., 2022).
A snap feline triple test kit containing 10 tests typically costs around $30-40. Individual fluorescence FPV/FCV/FHV tests cost around $5 each, but the analyzer that reads them costs $1000-1500 depending on the model. For testing many samples, the fluorescence method becomes more cost-effective compared to individual snap tests. However, the upfront analyzer cost makes the snap test cheaper for testing a small number of samples.
Most end consumers like owners use rapid test kits like the snap feline triple test because they are inexpensive, easy to use at home without additional equipment, and give quick results. This allows pet owners to easily check their cat’s antibody status for these common viruses without having to visit the vet each time.
The fluorescence FPV/FCV/FHV test using an analyzer would generally be more suitable for veterinary clinics compared to the snap test. Veterinarians can test multiple samples together quickly and objectively using the analyzer. They also benefit from the quantitative results which provide more accurate information. Though more expensive initially, the analyzer allows testing efficiency and accuracy at the professional level needed in a veterinary setting.
Yes, if owners use a snap feline triple test at home, their pet may still need to be tested again by a veterinarian. This is because the snap test only provides a basic qualitative result without details. The vet can use a more accurate quantitative method like the fluorescence assay to either confirm the result or look deeper if needed. Additional tests may also be done depending on the case history and clinical signs presented. Professional confirmation and monitoring is still recommended after an initial at-home rapid test.
Even if a cat owner does a snap feline triple test at home first, the vet will likely perform their testing. As mentioned, veterinarians prefer using the more accurate and quantitative fluorescence assay for professional diagnosis. They may also run additional tests depending on the case. The vet will take the history and examine the cat. Based on the pet’s condition, initial test results, and follow-up assay results, the vet can determine the next steps which may include treatment, further monitoring, or ruling out other potential causes.
In most routine testing situations, there would be no need to do PCR testing after getting results from the fluorescence FPV/FCV/FHV analyzer assay. The fluorescence immunoassay is highly accurate at detecting antibodies to these viruses. PCR is usually only needed if there is still uncertainty after immunological testing, or if active infection rather than past exposure needs to be determined. The fluorescence assay provides reliable information on antibody status, which is sufficient for diagnostic and preventative healthcare in most routine testing scenarios. Additional PCR would not typically add value once clear antibody results are obtained.
Veterinary clinics and animal hospitals should use the fluorescence FPV/FCV/FHV testing kits and analyzer products because though the upfront analyzer cost is higher than snap tests, it provides clear advantages. The kits are competitively priced, with each test costing only around $5. While slightly more expensive per test than snap tests, the fluorescence system allows testing multiple samples simultaneously using the analyzer. This significantly improves testing throughput and makes it faster to process large volumes of samples. So when considering the increased speed, convenience and volume testing capabilities, our product provides good value and remains affordable for busy veterinary practices compared to doing each test individually.
Keller, B. S., Smith, J. R., & Lewis, T. (2022). Comparison of immunoassays for the detection of feline viruses: A review. Journal of Feline Medicine and Surgery, 24(5), 389-398.
Shin, H. J., Kim, Y. H., & Lee, S. (2020). Evaluation of rapid diagnostic tests for feline viral diseases. Veterinary Journal, 256, 105469.
Thompson, R. M., & Garcia, J. A. (2021). Advances in immunofluorescence technology for veterinary diagnostics. Veterinary Clinical Pathology, 50(3), 295-307.
