Evaluation and comparison of performances of six commercial NSP ELISA assays for foot and mouth disease virus in Thailand

ELISA kits that detect antibodies to the non-structural protein (NSP) of the foot-and-mouth disease virus (FMDV), commonly referred to as NSP-ELISA, can distinguish between vaccinated and naturally infected animals. They can play an essential role in demonstrating 'proof-of-freedom' during the control of FMD. Although various NSP-ELISA kits are available in Thailand, information regarding their performance is lacking. To select the most appropriate NSP-ELISA kit for our specific purpose, we must compare their performance using carefully characterized sera. This will ensure that we maximize the benefits of our testing. In this study, six NSP-ELISA kits sold in Thailand-Biovet, ID Screen, VDPro, IDEXX, PrioCHECK, and KUcheck-F-were evaluated and compared. A total of 800 serum samples were examined, including samples from 357 cattle and 29 buffaloes in outbreak areas, as well as 14 swine serum samples from the Vaccine Quality Control Unit of the Bureau of Veterinary Biologics, Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperation, Thailand. Four hundred samples were confirmed to originate from animals infected with FMDV through ELISA typing (n = 11, tested as representative samples in each farm) and/or RT-PCR (n = 400, all samples), serving as positive control sera. Additionally, 400 negative control sera were obtained from Japan (97 cattle and 300 pigs) and Australia (3 goats), certified by the World Organisation for Animal Health as 'free of FMD'. The sensitivity and specificity of the six tests were determined based on the results obtained from two-by-two tables. Cohen's kappa statistics were calculated for the six tests to assess their concordance, and the diagnostic accuracy of the assays was also determined. For all six NSP-ELISA kits, the sensitivity ranged from 97.75 to 99.50%, and the specificity ranged from 97.25 to 100%. Cohen's kappa statistics ranged from 0.96 to 1.00, and diagnostic accuracy ranged from 98.13 to 99.75%. The study results indicated that the test kits have statistically similar sensitivity, specificity, concordance, and diagnostic accuracy, suggesting they can be used interchangeably. However, ID Screen demonstrated the highest sensitivity and specificity among all kits tested. Therefore, if a single kit were to be selected from the six evaluated, ID Screen would be the most appropriate choice. These findings can aid in selecting the most suitable test kit. Therefore, it is recommended to consider purchasing a diverse range of effective test kits. Furthermore, these findings can provide guidance for expanding the use of test kits, particularly with the growing availability of NSP-ELISA kits in the market.