Search

The epidemiological role of domestic animals in the spread and transmission of SARS-CoV-2 to humans has been investigated in recent reports, but some aspects need to be further clarified. To date, only in rare cases have dogs and cats living with COVID-19 patients been found to harbour SARS-CoV-2, with no evidence of pet-to-human transmission. The aim of the present study was to verify whether dogs and cats act as passive mechanical carriers of SARS-CoV-2 when they live in close contact with COVID-19 patients. Cutaneous and interdigital swabs collected from 48 dogs and 15 cats owned by COVID-19 patients were tested for SARS-CoV-2 by qRT-PCR. The time elapsed between owner swab positivity and sample collection from pets ranged from 1 to 72 days, with a median time of 23 days for dogs and 39 days for cats. All samples tested negative, suggesting that pets do not passively carry SARS-CoV-2 on their hair and pads, and thus they likely do not play an important role in the virus transmission to humans. This data may contribute to confirming that the direct contact with the hair and pads of pets does not represent a route for the transmission of SARS-CoV-2.

Serosurveillance among animals, including pets, plays an important role in the current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic, because severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) infections in animal populations could result in the establishment of new virus reservoirs. Serological assays that offer the required sensitivity and specificity are essential. In this study, we evaluated the diagnostic performance of three different commercially available immunoassays for the detection of SARS‐CoV‐2 antibodies in pets, namely two ELISA tests for the detection of antibodies against SARS‐CoV‐2 nucleocapsid [ID Screen SARS CoV‐2 double antigen multispecies (Double antigen) and ID Screen® SARS‐CoV‐2‐N IgG indirect ELISA (Indirect)] and one test for the detection of neutralizing antibodies against SARS‐CoV‐2 receptor‐binding‐domain [surrogate virus neutralization test (sVNT)]. The obtained results were compared with those of conventional virus neutralization test (VNT), which was regarded as reference method. A total of 191 serum samples were analysed. Thirteen (6.8%) samples showed VNT‐positive results. The overall sensitivity was higher for sVNT (100%) compared to nucleocapsid‐based ELISA assays (23% for Double antigen and 60% for Indirect). The specificity was 100% for Indirect ELISA and sVNT, when a higher cut‐off (>30%) was used compared to the one previously defined by the manufacturer (>20%), whereas the other test showed lower value (99%). The sVNT test showed the highest accuracy and agreement with VNT, with a perfect agreement when the higher cut‐off was applied. The agreement between each nucleocapsid‐based ELISA test and VNT was 96% for Indirect and 94% for Double antigen. Our findings showed that some commercially available serological tests may lead to a high rate of false‐negative results, highlighting the importance of assays validation for the detection of SARS‐CoV‐2 antibodies in domestic animals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We monitored the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 antibody response in seven dogs and two cats by using two multispecies ELISA tests, plaque reduction neutralisation test and virus neutralization. SARS‐CoV‐2 neutralizing antibodies in pets persisted up to 10 months since the first positive testing, thus replicating observations in COVID‐19 human patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

SARS‐CoV‐2 positive or seropositive owned cats have been reported worldwide. The detection of seropositive stray cats in the proximity of farms of infected minks, coupled with the demonstration of cat‐to‐cat transmission in experimental settings, raise the question whether stray cats may have an epidemiological role in the COVID‐19 pandemic and may act as sentinel for the circulation of SARS‐CoV‐2. The aim of this study was to evaluate the presence of SARS‐CoV‐2 RNA and anti‐SARS‐CoV‐2 antibodies in free roaming cats belonging to colonies located in an area highly affected by the COVID‐19 pandemic and to correlate the results with the positivity rate in people sharing the same area. Interdigital, cutaneous, oropharyngeal, nasal and rectal swabs, as well as blood samples, were collected from 99 cats living in colonies and admitted to our hospital for neutering. This caseload corresponds to the 24.2% of the feline population living in the 25 sampled colonies and to the 5.6% of all the free‐roaming registered cats. The presence of SARS‐CoV‐2 RNA in swabs was assessed using real time RT‐PCR. Anti‐SARS‐CoV‐2 serum antibodies were assessed using commercially available ELISA kits and confirmed by serum virus neutralization. In people, the SARS‐CoV‐2 positivity rate ranged from 3.0% to 5.1% (mean rate: 4.1%) and the seropositive rate from 12.1% to 16.3% (mean rate: 14.2%). Most of the colonies were in urban areas and resident cats had frequent contacts with external cats or people. A COVID‐19 positive caretaker was found, whereas all the cats were negative for SARS‐CoV‐2 RNA and seronegative. Although the negative results cannot exclude previous infections followed by decrease of antibodies, this study suggests that colony cats do not have an important epidemiological role in SARS‐CoV‐2 transmission dynamics. Further studies on larger caseloads are warranted, also in the light of the emerging new viral variants, on a One Health perspective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

SARS‐CoV‐2 has radically changed our lives causing hundreds of thousands of victims worldwide and influencing our lifestyle and habits. Feline infectious peritonitis (FIP) is a disease of felids caused by the feline coronaviruses (FCoV). FIP has been considered irremediably deadly until the last few years. Being one of the numerous coronaviruses that are well known in veterinary medicine, information on FCoV could be of interest and might give suggestions on pathogenic aspects of SARS‐CoV‐2 that are still unclear. The authors of this paper describe the most important aspects of FIP and COVID‐19 and the similarities and differences between these important diseases. SARS‐CoV‐2 and FCoV are taxonomically distant viruses, and recombination events with other coronaviruses have been reported for FCoV and have been suggested for SARS‐CoV‐2. SARS‐CoV‐2 and FCoV differ in terms of some pathogenic, clinical and pathological features. However, some of the pathogenic and immunopathogenic events that are well known in cats FIP seem to be present also in people with COVID‐19. Moreover, preventive measures currently recommended to prevent SARS‐CoV‐2 spreading have been shown to allow eradication of FIP in feline households. Finally, one of the most promising therapeutic compounds against FIP, GS‐441524, is the active form of Remdesivir, which is being used as one therapeutic option for COVID‐19. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There have been previous reports of the human-to-cat transmission of SARS-CoV-2, but there are only a few molecular studies that have compared the whole genome of the virus in cats and their owners. We here describe a case of domestic SARS-CoV-2 transmission from a healthcare worker to his cat for which nasopharyngeal swabs of both the cat and its owner were used for full-genome analysis. The results indicate that quarantine measures should be extended to pets living in SARS-CoV-2-infected households. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]