Feline Infectious Peritonitis
Edited May, 2019a
The Feline Infectious Peritonitis guidelines were first published in the Journal of Feline Medicine and Surgery (2009) 11, 594-604; the present update was drafted by Diane D. Addie, Katrin Hartmann, Séverine Tasker, Regina Hofmann-Lehmann, Herman Egberink, Karin Möstl et al.
- Feline coronavirus (FCoV) is a ubiquitous virus of domestic and large cats.
- Most FCoV-infected cats either stay healthy or show only mild enteritis.
- Only a small proportion of FCoV-infected cats goes on to develop feline infectious peritonitis (FIP).
- FCoV transmission is faecal-oral via litter trays and fomites.
- FCoV infection of monocytes is the key event in FIP pathogenesis.
- The internal mutation theory (mutants with a switch of cell tropism arising in the individual cat) as the reason for the development of highly pathogenic FIPV is widely accepted.
- Coronaviral genomes possess a high level of genetic variation due to the error rate of RNA polymerase leading to different types of mutations.
- FIP disproportionately affects pedigree cats under two years old.
- Sampling the effusion, when present, is the most useful diagnostic step.
- The definitive diagnosis of FIP relies on consistent histopathological changes in affected tissues and this, together with FCoV antigen immunostaining, is considered the gold standard for diagnosis.
- Faecal RT-PCR is not useful for diagnosis of FIP but for identification of FCoV shedders within a cat colony.
- A positive FCoV antibody test is not confirmatory of FIP (no „FIP-test”) but absence of FCoV antibodies makes FIP less likely.
- Virtually every cat with FIP dies or is euthanized; the prognosis is extremely poor.
- Currently, no licensed drug has proved effective in curing FIP. However, there are some promising experimental approaches.
- The ABCD considers the FIP vaccine to be non-core and it is not recommended in FCoV antibody-positive cats. However, FCoV antibody-negative kittens could potentially benefit from vaccination.
Some key aspects of virus properties are shown in Figures 1 and 2. Feline Coronavirus (FCoV) is a large, spherical, enveloped virus particle and is classified in the order Nidovirales; family Coronaviridae; genus Alphacoronavirus; species Alphacoronavirus 1, which also includes canine coronavirus (CCoV), transmissible gastroenteritis virus (TGEV) and porcine respiratory coronavirus (PRCoV) (de Groot et al., 2012).
The 5’ two-thirds of the positive sense coronavirus (CoV) genome consists of two overlapping open reading frames (ORFs 1a and 1b) that encode non-structural polyproteins pp1a and pp1ab. The polyproteins are cleaved into individual non-structural proteins (nsps), including RNA-dependent RNA polymerase, that plays a role in viral replication. ORF 1a also encodes for viral proteases including the viral 3C-like protease being a potential target for antiviral therapy (see treatment section for further discussion). The other third of the genome consists of ORFs encoding structural proteins, spike [S], matrix [M], nucleocapsid [N] and envelope [E] (see Fig. 1) and some non-structural accessory proteins (nsp), 3a, 3b, 3c, 7a and 7b (see Fig. 2) (Terada et al., 2014). The non-structural proteins are involved in the replication of the virus, and modification of the host immune response, but are not incorporated into the mature virus particle.
Type I FCoV is purely feline (shown in pink), Type II FCoV strains arise from recombination with canine coronavirus (CCoV) (shown in blue), usually including spike of CCoV and varying amounts of adjacent ORF 3 genes (Herrewegh et al., 1998; Le Poder et al., 2013; Terada et al., 2014). The RNA-dependent RNA polymerase makes a full-length negative-strand RNA copy of the genome as well as a nested set of smaller subgenomic RNAs (RNAs) with a common 3’ end. These negative strand RNAs serve as templates for new positive sense genomes and positive sense subgenomic mRNAs. The subgenomic mRNAs have a nested-set structure with sequences starting at the 3’terminus and extending to various distances toward the 5’end. If a real-time reverse-transcriptase (RT)-PCR assay is designed to amplify 3’ subgenomic mRNAs, this can influence the quantitative results for apparent FCoV load (see RT-PCR section in diagnosis for further discussion). In general, only the 5’ most ORF of each subgenomic mRNA is used for encoding of the proteins even though the subgenomic mRNAs have more than one coding sequence (except of the smallest one).
Being an enveloped virus, FCoV is readily inactivated by most household detergents and disinfectants, steam and washing at 60°C. However, it can survive for up to seven weeks in a dry environment (Scott, 1988). FCoV is a contagious virus, and the main mode of transmission is indirect (e.g. via litter trays, scoops, brushes, vacuum cleaners, shoes, hands and clothes), such as handling at cat shows, shelters or in a veterinary practice.
Coronaviral genomes possess a high level of genetic variation due to the error rate of RNA polymerase leading to different types of mutations including insertions, deletions, and introduction of stop codons as well as recombinations.The hypothesis is that genetic variation and subsequent selection also facilitates switching of cell tropism within an FCoV-infected cat that develops feline infectious peritonitis (FIP).
FCoV are assigned to two pathotypes or biotypes generally referred to as feline enteric coronavirus (FECV), which mainly replicates in the enteric epithelium, and feline infectious peritonitis virus (FIPV) causing a mostly lethal infection with replication in the monocyte. Since it is known that all FCoV can be found and replicate systemically (Kipar et al., 2006; Fish et al., 2018) (in cats without FIP), it is preferred to call both biotypes FCoV; the “less virulent FCoV” and the “FIP-associated FCoV”. Therefore these terms were used in this guideline to underline the real differences in biological behavior between the FCoVs.
Although the genes involved in the FCoV virulence shift are still unknown, mutations in different genes have been postulated to be associated with the switch of less virulent FCoV (FECV pathotype) into virulent FIP-associated FCoV (FIP pathotype), including the spike gene, and accessory genes 3c and 7b (Pedersen et al., 2012) (see Fig. 3).The spike proteins are the main determinant of entry into host cells (Belouzard et al., 2012), as they possess both receptor binding and fusion functions (Millet and Whittaker, 2015). Two alternative amino acid differences in the putative fusion peptide of the S protein that together distinguished FIP-associated from less virulent FCoV in >95% of cases have been found (Chang et al., 2012).
Another mutation was detected in the cleavage site between the receptor binding (S1) and the fusion domain (S2) of the spike protein. While all less virulent FCoV had a conserved furin cleavage site, in most FIP-associated FCoV at least one substitution was found (Licitra et al., 2013).
The ORF 3 gene encodes for a protein of which the function is still unknown. Interestingly, mutations leading to a truncated protein were found in approximately two-thirds of the 3c genes of FCoV found in cats with FIP (Pedersen et al., 2009; Chang et al., 2010; Hsieh et al., 2013), while the ORF 3 gene was intact in all FCoV in faecal samples. This suggests that an intact 3c is an absolute requirement for infection of the gut epithelial cells (Chang et al., 2010; Pedersen at al., 2012), but is not necessary for replication in monocytes. FIP-associated FCoV with an intact 3c will replicate in the gut but this virus does not seem to be transmitted to other cats (Pedersen et al., 2012).
There is a general consensus that the less virulent FCoV converts to the FIP-associated FCoV in the individual cat by modifications that include a cell tropism change from enterocytes to macrophages (Pedersen et al., 2009; Chang et al., 2012; Barker et al., 2013). This so-called internal mutation theory is supported by several studies showing a close genetic relationship between the FIP-associated FCoV and FCoV from faecal samples of cats living in the same environment and a much closer relationship than to FCoV collected from cats of other environments. The internal mutation theory was questioned in earlier times based on the results of a single study indicating that “FECV” and “FIPV” are two distinct types of FCoV circulating independently in the population (Brown et al., 2009). However, in that study, samples were derived from a population of shelter cats, a population in which introduction of different genetically unrelated FCoV can be expected because of their different geographic origin (Pedersen, 2014). Thus, the internal mutation theory has now been widely accepted amongst researchers.
In addition to distinguishing the two pathotypes, the less virulent FCoV and the FIP-associated FCoV, there is another classification based on differences in antigenic and genomic properties in type I and type II FCoV. Both, type I and type II can occur as less virulent FCoV and the FIP-associated FCoV (Pedersen, 2014). Type I is most prevalent worldwide (Addie et al., 2003; Lin et al., 2009; Soma et al., 2013; Terada et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2014). Type II FCoV results from double recombination between type I FCoV and CCoV (Herrewegh et al., 1998; Terada et al., 2014) within the feline cell, which permits entry of both FCoV and CCoV (Tusell et al., 2007; Terada et al., 2014). Recombination events have occurred many times across the world, with individual type II FCoV containing CCoV spike genes and variable amounts of 3abc, and envelope genes, but not the nucleocapsid gene, which remains of FCoV origin (Herrewegh et al., 1998; Terada et al., 2014) (see Fig. 2). Most research has focused on type II FCoV strains since they can be readily propagated in vitro (Pedersen et al., 1984), facilitating experimental studies, despite most field infections being type I FCoV.
FCoV is highly contagious, and in households where it is present, prevalence of antibodies indicating exposure is often close to 100%. Cats who spent over 60 days in UK shelters were five times more likely to have antibodies (Cave et al., 2004).
In a Japanese study including 17,392 cats, the antibody prevalence was 66.7% in purebred cats, and 31.2% in domestic cats (Taharaguchi et al., 2012). Prevalence increased greatly in purebreds by three months of age, while it did not fluctuate greatly in random breeds with aging, indicating that cattery environments can contribute to FCoV epidemics. Purebred cats from northern regions of Japan were likely to be antibody-positive (76.6% in Hokkaido, 80.0% in Tohoku), indicating that cattery cats in cold climates might be more closely confined. Among purebreds in Japan, the American shorthair, Himalayan, Oriental, Persian, and Siamese showed low seroprevalence, while the American curl, Maine coon, Norwegian forest cat, ragdoll and Scottish fold showed high seroprevalence (Taharaguchi et al., 2012).
The prevalence of FCoV in various countries is given in the table below.
|Country||What detected||Number of cats||Prevalence||Reference|
|Australia (Sydney)||Antibodies||49 feral cats|
306 owned cats
|Bell et al., 2006|
|Falkland Islands||Antibodies||10 feral cats|
95 pet cats
|Addie et al., 2012|
|Japan||Antibodies||17,392||66.7 % in purebred cats|
31.2 % in domestic cats
|Taharaguchi et al., 2012|
107 pet cats
105 shelter cats
129 healthy cats
83 sick cats
|An et al., 2011|
|Korea||FCoV RNA in faeces||212||6.6 %||An et al., 2011|
|Malaysia||FCoV RNA in faeces||24 cats in a Persian cattery|
20 cats in a rescue cattery
|Sharif et al., 2009|
|Sweden||Antibodies||209||17 % domestic|
65 % pedigree
|Ström Holst et al., 2006|
|Switzerland||Antibodies||466 DHS and DLH cats|
143 purebred cats
|49 % |
|Fehr et al., 1997|
|Taiwan||Antibodies||760 healthy cats||28.2 %||Wang et al., 2014|
|Turkey (Bursa province)||Antibodies||100||21 %||Pratelli et al., 2009|
|Turkey (Istanbul)||Antibodies||169||31 %||Tekelioglu et al., 2015|
2207 shelter cats
|Cave et al., 2004|
The pattern of infection within a household with FCoV under natural as well as experimental conditions has been described in several studies (Foley et al., 1997; Herrewegh et al., 1997; Addie and Jarrett, 2001; Meli et al., 2004). Three different excretion types have been distinguished; persistent, self-limiting and re-infection (Addie et al., 2003; Pedersen et al., 2008; Vogel et al., 2010). Due to the short duration of immunity following infection, failure to separate non-shedding cats from virus shedders favours spread and persistence of FCoV in a household, which accounts for the high antibody prevalence in the multi-cat environment.
Although FCoV and CCoV are closely related, contact with dogs does not appear to be a major predisposing factor for CoV infection of cats (Le Poder et al., 2013). However, Benetka et al. (2006) found feline/canine CoV recombinant viruses in cats of a rescue shelter which housed both cats and dogs. In the M protein gene these strains were more closely related to FCoV-like CCoV than to FCoV, suggesting that infection with CCoV and subsequent recombinations with FCoV had occurred within this environment.
The prevalence of FIP within the cat population as a whole was 0.52% (60 of 11,535) of all the cats examined at the North Carolina State University College of Veterinary Medicine (1986 – 2002) which is high considering the fact that US university teaching hospitals are tertiary referral centres (Pesteanu-Somogyi et al., 2006). In multi-cat environments, such as at breeders and shelters, up to 12% of FCoV-infected cats can succumb to FIP [EBM grade III] (Addie et al., 1995). The incidence of FIP in a household or cattery increases with the number of cats (Kass and Dent, 1995).
While cats of any age or breed can develop FIP, FIP disproportionately affects pedigree cats under two years old (Norris et al., 2005; Pesteanu-Somogyi et al., 2006; Tsai et al., 2011; Worthing et al., 2012; Soma et al., 2013; Riemer et al., 2016). In Australia, 71% of cats with FIP were purebred and 55% less than two years old (Norris et al., 2005). In a North Carolina study, 67% of cats with FIP were <two years, and pedigree cats were also over-represented: FIP was present in nearly 1.4% of the pedigree cats, and breed predisposition was statistically significant in the Bengal, Birman, Ragdoll and Rex breeds (Rohrbach et al., 2001; Pesteanu-Somogyi et al., 2006). In a study in Australia, domestic crossbred, Persian and Himalayan cats were significantly under-represented in the FIP cohort, while several other breeds were over-represented, including British Shorthair, Devon Rex and Abyssinian (Worthing et al., 2012).
Percentage of effusions that were positive by FCoV RT-PCR varied with the cat’s breed and age in a study in Japan (Soma et al., 2013). In this study RT-PCR was used on effusions to indicate FIP although the diagnosis was not confirmed. In cats up to one year 95% of effusions of pedigree cats were RT-PCR positive, whereas FCoV RNA was only found in 79% of the effusions of domestic cats. Up to the age of five years, effusions from purebred cats were more likely to be FCoV RT-PCR-positive than were those from domestic cats.
Some authors have noted a predisposition for FIP in male over female cats (Rohrbach et al., 2001; Benetka et al., 2004; Norris et al., 2005; Worthing et al., 2012; Riemer et al., 2016), while others found no sex predisposition (Pedersen, 1976). Pedigrees of cats that die of FIP can often be traced back to the stud cat, rather than the queen (Foley and Pedersen, 1996).
Faeces are the main source of FCoV, with litter boxes representing the principal source of infection in groups of cats. Cats are most likely to be infected orally following contact with FCoV in faeces. Since virus is found only rarely in the saliva of healthy cats, close contact or sharing feeding bowls are not major routes of infection (Addie and Jarrett, 2001). Transplacental transmission has been described from a queen that developed FIP during pregnancy (Pastoret and Henroteaux, 1978), but this phenomenon is extremely rare (Addie and Jarrett, 1990). Transmission of FCoV via blood transfusion has not been reported.
In breeding catteries, kittens commonly become infected at a young age, mostly at five to six weeks, when maternally derived antibodies (MDA) had declined (see also “Pathogenesis and Immunity”).
After natural infection, cats begin to shed virus in the faeces within one week (Meli et al., 2004) and continue to shed for weeks, months, and a few even for life (also called carriers) (Addie and Jarrett, 2001; Addie et al., 2003; Pedersen et al., 2008). Faecal excretion reaches high levels (Addie and Jarrett 2001; Addie et al., 2003; Pedersen et al., 2008; Vogel et al., 2010). The higher the FCoV antibody titre, the greater is the chance of the cat shedding FCoV (Addie and Jarrett, 2001; Lutz et al., 2002; Pedersen et al., 2008; Addie et al., 2015).
Pathogenesis and Immunity
The major route of infection is faecal-oral. Following ingestion of the virus, such as by grooming paws contaminated during litter tray use or from eating fomite-contaminated food, the virus first enters, and replicates within the epithelial cells of the small intestinal villi. Type II FCoV uses the feline aminopeptidase-N receptor (fAPN) present on the intestinal villi and the monocyte (Tusell et al., 2007; Tekes et al., 2010). The receptor for type I FCoV remains unknown (Dye et al., 2007; Tekes et al., 2010).
FCoV shedding occurs in the faeces from two to three days post-infection (Meli et al., 2004; Kipar et al., 2010) and this infection is usually asymptomatic, but sometimes is accompanied by enteritis (Sabshin et al., 2012). Occasionally, very severe, indeed fatal, coronavirus enteritis has been reported (Kipar et al., 1998). Virus shedding of type I FCoV in faeces follows two patterns: most transiently infected cats shed virus for two to three months (Addie and Jarrett, 2001): immunity must be short-lived because these cats can be re-infected by the same, or a different strain of FCoV, within a few weeks (Addie et al., 2003). Around 13% of cats infected with type I FCoV become persistently infected carrier cats. In contrast, cats experimentally infected with type II FCoV shed virus for around two weeks (Stoddart et al., 1988) and no carrier cat has been reported. Only a small proportion of FCoV-infected cats goes on to develop FIP (Pedersen, 1987; Kipar et al., 2005).
From two weeks post infection, the virus is found in the colon (Kipar et al., 2010), and the ileo-caecocolic junction is the main site of viral replication in persistently infected asymptomatic carrier cats (Herrewegh et al., 1997).
Efficient FCoV replication in monocytes and macrophages is a key event in FIP pathogenesis: whether or not the cat will go on to make a successful immune response and eliminate the virus; whether the cat will mount a semi-successful immune response, remaining clinically well, but shedding FCoV in the faeces for months to years; or will mount a deleterious immune response, resulting in a widespread pyogranulomatous vasculitis and ultimately premature death. The outcome of infection of the monocytes is dependent on the monocyte itself, however virulent strains do replicate more efficiently within permissive monocytes (Dewerchin et al., 2005). Monocytes from an outbred population of cats varied in their ability to sustain FCoV replication regardless of whether the strain of FCoV was deemed very virulent or relatively avirulent, with the monocytes of some cats not sustaining replication of either FIP-associated FCoV or non-FIP-associated FCoV (Dewerchin et al., 2005).
What happens in the monocyte following FCoV infection is quite extraordinary: usually an infected cell will display viral antigens in association with feline leucocyte antigen (the feline version of the major histocompatibility complex) on its surface to enable antibody-mediated, or cell-mediated, lysis; but in FIP, infected macrophages lacked surface expression of viral antigens (Cornelissen et al., 2007).
FCoV viraemia, when it occurs, is short-lived, peaking about 7 days post-infection and declining thereafter (Kipar et al., 2010), thus by the time clinical signs of FIP appear viraemia will likely usually be over, so that performing RT-PCR on blood samples to detect FCoV RNA is not recommended in FIP diagnosis.
The virulence of the virus, viral load and the cat’s immune response determine whether or not FIP will develop. Resistance – i.e. the ability to fight off FCoV infection – increases between six and twelve months of age (Pedersen et al., 2014). Both viral genetics and host immunity are likely to play a role in the development of FIP (Addie and Jarrett, 1995; Dewerchin et al., 2005; Rottier et al., 2005; Hsieh and Chueh, 2014; Pedersen et al., 2014).
In those cats in which FCoV is able to replicate freely within the monocytes, infected monocytes attach to the walls of small and medium sized veins, releasing matrix metalloproteinase-9 (MMP-9) which destroys the collagen of the basal lamina of affected vessels. This event permits extravasation of the monocytes, where they differentiate into macrophages, and allows plasma to leak out of the vessels (Kipar et al., 2005). In more acute forms of FIP, many blood vessels are affected and this leakage becomes apparent clinically as an effusion. In more chronic forms of FIP, fewer blood vessels are affected, but the perivascular pyogranulomata can become quite large, even easy to mistake for a tumour on gross examination, at exploratory laparotomy or necropsy.The FCoV-infected macrophages release cytokines such as tumour necrosis factor alpha (TNF-alpha) (Takano et al., 2007a): TNF-alpha upregulates fAPN (Takano et al., 2007a), causes lymphopenia (Takano et al., 2007b) and inhibits neutrophil apoptosis (Takano et al., 2009). The role of TNF-alpha is important in the development of FIP, so that anti-TNF-alpha antibodies have been used as a possible therapy (Doki et al., 2013).
FIP is associated with severe suppression of natural killer cells and regulatory T cells, central players in the innate and adaptive cell-mediated immunity (CMI), respectively (Vermeulen et al., 2013)..Until the study on FCoV replication in monocytes by Dewerchin et al. (2005), the outcome of FCoV infection had been mainly attributed to virulence factors (mutations, deletions) in the virus (Pedersen, 2014) with little attention having been paid to host factors, but the view on that has changed in recent years. One of the most investigated cytokines important in FCoV infection has been interferon gamma (IFN-γ) which is an important modulator of CMI. The expression of IFN-γ mRNA by leucocytes in the circulation or in tissues has been investigated in many studies using RT-PCR and immunohistochemistry (Gunn-Moore et al., 1998; Dean et al., 2003; Kiss et al., 2004; Berg et al., 2005; Gelain et al., 2006). Some studies (Gunn-Moore et al., 1998; Kiss et al., 2004; Gelain et al., 2006) found high IFN-γ mRNA expression in peripheral blood leucocytes (PBLs) of clinically normal cats with FCoV infection, but low expression in cats with FIP. In contrast, IFN-γ mRNA is abundant within FIP lesions (Berg et al., 2005). Giordano and Paltrinieri (2009) concluded in their paper that although cats resistant to FCoV-infection have strong CMI as measured by serum IFN-γ production, CMI is also likely to be involved in the pathogenesis of FIP, albeit at a tissue level, as evidenced by the high IFN-γ concentration of the FIP effusions. These findings could be the basis of further studies into the mechanisms through which IFN-γ production prevents the onset of FIP.
Hsieh and Chueh (2014) investigated whether single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) in the feline IFN-γ gene (fIFNG) were associated with the outcome of FCoV infection. Some “FIP-resistant” and “FIP-susceptible” alleles have been suggested, but further work in this area is required before IFN-γ gene testing can be recommended.
The role of humoral immunity in protecting against FIP is ambiguous. Maternally derived antibodies can provide protection until about five to six weeks of age (Addie and Jarrett, 1992) and decline and become undetectable by six to eight weeks of age. However, infection at two weeks of age has also been detected (Lutz et al., 2002), questioning protection by maternally derived antibodies.
Antibody production to FCoV takes 10-28 days post-infection (Meli et al., 2004; Vogel et al., 2010). Clearance of natural infections has been associated with antibodies directed against the FCoV S protein (Gonon et al., 1999). Conversely, in experimental infections, antibodies directed against the S protein can be detrimental (Vennema et al., 1990). In cats with pre-existing antibodies, ‘antibody dependent enhancement’ (ADE) has been observed experimentally, resulting in a more rapid disease course and earlier death. This enhancement was observed irrespective of whether cats had acquired antibodies through passive or active immunization (Weiss and Scott, 1981; Vennema et al., 1990; De Groot and Horzinek, 1995). However, in field studies cats developed FIP on first exposure to FCoV and cats experienced repeated infections by FCoV without developing FIP, leading to the conclusion that ADE is a laboratory phenomenon which is not important in the real world (Addie et al., 1995, 2003).
The clinical picture of FIP varies considerably, reflecting the variability in the distribution of the vasculitis and granulomatous lesions. The vasculopathy can result in (‘wet’) effusions whilst the granuloma formation results in (‘dry’) mass lesions. The effusive form is regarded as being most common (Sparkes et al., 1991; Tsai et al., 2011; Riemer et al., 2016): 78% of 224 cases of FIP had effusions (Riemer et al., 2016). The distinction between effusive and non-effusive forms of FIP is important for diagnostic purposes and has some value in recognising the clinical presentations; however, there is considerable overlap between the two forms, and indeed FIP cases with effusions also have pyogranulomatous lesions visible at post-mortem examination and, similarly, many cats with a non-effusive form will eventually develop effusions. Clinical signs of FIP can change over time, therefore repeated clinical examinations are important to detect newly apparent clinical signs; for example, an effusion can develop or ocular changes can become visible on ophthalmoscopic examination.
Non-specific clinical signs can occur in both cats with effusion or without effusion and include lethargy, anorexia and weight loss (or failure to gain weight/stunted growth in kittens), although occasionally some cats remain bright and retain good body condition. A fever, that can be fluctuating and that is moderate and typically less than 40 °C (but sometimes can be higher) and that is refractory to many drugs including antibiotics, is commonly present. A recent publication describing referral cat cases with a history of fever found that FIP was the most common diagnosis made, highlighting its importance as a differential diagnosis for fever at referral level (Spencer et al., 2017). Another publication (Riemer et al., 2016), which described the clinical features of FIP, documented pyrexia in 55.8% of FIP cases. Fever was recently shown to be more common in cats with effusive FIP than non-effusive FIP (Riemer et al., 2016).
Effusive FIP is associated with effusion formation in one or more body cavities. Abdominal effusions leading to a clinical presentation of ascites, sometimes with abdominal distension, are the most common manifestations of effusive FIP (Fig. 5; Riemer et al., 2016).
A pleural effusion can be present concurrently. In some cats, the effusion is restricted to the thorax; cats with pleural effusion can present with dyspnoea (Pedersen, 2009; Beatty and Barrs, 2010; Riemer et al., 2016). Pericardial effusions (Fischer et al., 2012b; Baek et al., 2017), with or without effusions in other body cavities, are also occasionally reported. Rarely, effusion in the scrotum is present in intact male cats due to a serositis involving the tunica vaginalis of the testes, leading to scrotal enlargement. The effusive form of FIP is often quite acute in nature, progressing within a few days or weeks and severely limiting survival (Ritz et al., 2007).
Non-effusive FIP is often more difficult to diagnose, as fever, anorexia, lethargy and weight loss (or failure to gain weight in kittens) can be the only signs, particularly in the early stages of disease. It also tends to be more chronic than effusive FIP, progressing over a few weeks to months. Additional signs of non-effusive FIP depend on the organs affected by the granulomatous lesions and can include the central nervous system (CNS), eyes and/or abdominal organs (such as the liver, abdominal lymph nodes, kidney, pancreas, spleen and/or gastrointestinal tract) (Norris et al., 2005), but such signs can also be seen in cats with effusions, so they are not restricted to non-effusive FIP.
Renomegaly, but also occasionally a reduction in kidney size, can occur. A diffuse pyogranulomatous pneumonia is occasionally seen (Trulove et al., 1992). Abdominal lymphadenomegaly can be present. Jaundice can occur (Fig. 5), more commonly in cats with effusive FIP, but the degree of hyperbilirubinaemia is often not high enough to result in clinical jaundice (Pedersen, 2009; Riemer et al., 2016).
Hyperbilirubinaemia can occur because of liver involvement, but also can be a result of immune-mediated haemolytic anaemia, which can occur terminally in cats with FIP. Mild hyperbilirubinaemia can be the result of interference with bilirubin transporters caused by high TNF-alpha levels leading to reduced bilirubin transport into and out of liver cells. Rising bilirubin and falling red blood cell counts presaged imminent death in one study (Tsai et al., 2011).
FIP can also manifest in the intestinal tract and/or regional lymph nodes (sometimes called “focal FIP”) presenting typically as a palpable abdominal mass due to primary involvement of the mesenteric lymph nodes and/or intestinal tract. It can be particularly challenging to diagnose as the lesions can be hard to initially differentiate from neoplasia (Kipar et al., 1999), toxoplasmosis (Cohen et al., 2016) or mycobacterial infection (O'Halloran and Gunn-Moore, 2017). FIP involving the intestinal tract can manifest as a protein-losing enteropathy, leading to low total protein and globulin values, in contrast to the usual presentation of FIP. Often these cats present with mesenteric lymph node enlargement due to necrogranulomatous lymphadenitis (Kipar et al., 1999; Hugo and Heading, 2015), or solitary mural intestinal lesions of the colon or ileo-caecocolic junction with associated regional lymphadenopathy (Harvey et al., 1996). Cats with intestinal FIP usually have a history of vomiting and diarrhoea; or constipation.
Dermatological signs are occasionally reported in FIP and can manifest as multiple non-pruritic papules or nodules (Cannon et al., 2005; Declercq et al., 2008; Bauer et al., 2013), due to pyogranulomatous-necrotising dermal phlebitis/vasculitis. Skin fragility syndrome has also been reported (Trotman et al., 2007). Priapism has been reported as a result of granulomatous changes in tissues surrounding the penis (Rota et al., 2008).
Neurological FIP can result in clinical signs associated with focal, multifocal or diffuse changes in the brain, spinal cord and meninges. Up to 30% of cats with FIP show neurological signs (Kline et al., 1994; Foley et al., 1998; Foley and Leutenegger, 2001; Negrin et al., 2007, 2010; Kent, 2009; Ives et al., 2013; Doenges et al., 2016). Sometimes cats with FIP present with only neurological disease (Rissi, 2018). Recently three clinical syndromes were identified in a retrospective study of neurological FIP (Crawford et al., 2017); of 24 cats, three had a T3-L3 myelopathy, seven had central vestibular syndrome and 14 had multifocal CNS disease. Commonly reported signs include ataxia (with varying degrees of tetra- or paraparesis; Figs. 6 and 7), hyperaesthesia, nystagmus, seizures (Timmann et al., 2008), behavioural and mental state changes and cranial nerve deficits. Central vestibular clinical signs can include head tilt, vestibular ataxia, nystagmus, obtunded appearance and postural reaction deficits. Fever was shown to be less common in cats with neurological FIP compared to those without neurological clinical signs (Riemer et al., 2016).
FIP was the most commonly diagnosed cause of uveitis reported in a study of 120 cats with uveitis: 15.8% were diagnosed with FIP (Jinks et al., 2016). A recent study describing the ocular lesions in 15 cats with FIP included seven effusive form cats, two non-effusive form cats and six cats with so-called ‘mixed form’ FIP (Ziolkowska et al., 2017). Ocular manifestations of FIP comprise anterior and/or posterior uveitis (Foley et al., 1998; Norris et al., 2005; Jinks et al., 2016; Doenges et al., 2016) (Fig. 8). Clinical signs include changes in iris colour, dyscoria or anisocoria secondary to iritis, sudden loss of vision and hyphaema (Figures 9 and 10). Keratic precipitates can appear as ‘mutton fat’ deposits on the ventral corneal endothelium (Figure 11). The iris can show swelling and a nodular surface, and aqueous flare can be detected. On ophthalmoscopic examination, chorioretinitis, fluffy perivascular cuffing (representing retinal vasculitis), dull perivascular puffy areas of pyogranulomatous chorioretinitis, linear retinal detachment, vitreous flare and fluid blistering under the retina can be seen.
Courtesy of Maria Bonino and Erica Carter
Courtesy of Albert Lloret, Universitat Autònoma Barcelona
Courtesy of Eric Déan
Signalment and background
When approaching a case in which FIP is considered a differential diagnosis, one must remember that FIP is more common in young cats [especially under two years old (Riemer et al., 2016)] and that male cats are at slightly higher risk of disease (Norris et al., 2005; Rohrbach et al., 2001; Worthing et al., 2012; Riemer et al., 2016). Additionally, most cats that develop FIP have been housed in multi-cat households previously. Although certain breeds have been shown to be predisposed to FIP in certain countries (Pesteanu-Somogyi et al., 2006; Worthing et al., 2012), it is believed that this is due to genetic risk factors being present in those breeds in those countries rather than existing worldwide generalised breed predispositions (Riemer et al., 2016). A recent history of stress (e.g., adoption, being in a shelter, neutering, upper respiratory tract disease, vaccination etc.) is commonly apparent (Rohrer et al., 1993; Riemer et al., 2016) and can contribute to the development of FIP in a FCoV-infected cat.
Approach to the diagnosis
In cats with FIP that have an effusion, sampling the effusion is the single most useful diagnostic step in the diagnosis of effusive FIP; this is because tests on effusions often have a higher diagnostic value, in comparison to tests on blood (Hartmann et al., 2003) and samples are often relatively easy to obtain. If the effusion is not large in volume, imaging can be used (Pedersen, 2014) to confirm, identify and localize smaller volumes. Ultrasonography is generally regarded as being more sensitive than radiography for the detection of small volumes of fluid in the thorax and abdomen, but this depends on where pockets of fluid reside. Repeated ultrasonography to identify any small volume effusion is recommended and, similarly, ultrasonography can be used to guide sampling of small pockets of fluid (Tasker, 2018). Once an effusion is sampled, the first thing to do is to take note of its appearance: if it is frank blood, or if it can be discerned as urine, FIP is very unlikely. Additionally, purulent exudates are usually not caused by FIP. The presence of chyle will usually indicate other diseases, such as heart failure, lymphoma or a ruptured thoracic duct, but cats with FIP with pure chylous effusion have been reported (Savary et al., 2001). FIP effusions are usually clear, viscous/sticky and straw-yellow in colour (Fig. 11).
Diagnosing FIP if no effusion is present, however, can be very challenging due to the sheer number of possible clinical signs and the non-specificity of most of them (e.g., anorexia, lethargy, weight loss, pyrexia). Aetiological diagnosis of non-effusive FIP by biopsy collection ante-mortem can be very difficult due to, for example, problems accessing affected tissues, contra-indications (such as the need for general anaesthesia) for the invasiveness of taking biopsies from a sick cat and/or costs involved in tissue collection. Currently, there is no non-invasive, confirmatory test available for cats with non-effusive FIP although in some cases valuable information can be gained through analysis of fine needle aspirate (FNA) samples collected from affected organs, if accessible, as described later.
These guidelines on the diagnosis of FIP will consider the merits and drawbacks (and sometimes sensitivity and specificity) of tests available for the diagnosis of FCoV infection and FIP. Although each individual test will be described, it should be remembered that when a cat with suspected FIP is being investigated, a veterinarian will be interpreting several test results at the same time, as well as taking into account the signalment and background of the cat. Such interpretation is important in helping determine how likely FIP is as a diagnosis, in the absence of a definitive diagnosis. The advantage of integrating test results during interpretation has recently been shown in a published study on the diagnosis of FIP (Stranieri et al., 2018).
Routine imaging: Ultrasonographic and radiographic findings
Ultrasonography or radiography can be used to identify or confirm the presence of effusions and to assist in sample collection (Pedersen, 2014). A review of abdominal ultrasonographic findings in 16 cats with FIP (Lewis and O'Brien, 2010) showed the presence of peritoneal fluid in seven cases and retroperitoneal fluid was found in one cat. Abdominal lymphadenopathy was documented in nine cats. The liver was of normal echogenicity in eleven cats and variably hypoechoic or hyperechoic in the remainder. Five cats had hypoechoic subcapsular rims in one or both kidneys. The spleen was of normal echogenicity in most cats and hypoechoic in two. It is clear that there are no specific ultrasonographic or radiographic findings in FIP. Imaging can also be of use to direct sampling of abnormal tissues, e.g. FNA for cytology can be collected, to reveal non-septic pyogranulomatous inflammation, or ultrasound-guided needle core (e.g. Tru-Cut) biopsies (TCB) could be collected and submitted for histopathology. Pneumonia due to FIP is occasionally reported and can be associated with radiographic changes.
Advanced imaging: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computed tomography (CT)
When a cat is showing neurological clinical signs, imaging of the brain by MRI, if available, can be useful to demonstrate neurological abnormalities due to FIP. Obstructive hydrocephalus, syringomyelia, foramen magnum herniation and marked contrast enhancement of the meninges, third ventricle, mesencephalic aqueduct and brainstem have been reported in cats with FIP (Foley et al., 1998; Negrin et al., 2007; Penderis, 2009; Crawford et al., 2017). Some cats only show abnormalities after administration of contrast (Foley et al., 1998; Negrin et al., 2007), and some cats have normal MRI, even after contrast administration, despite the presence of meningoencephalitis (Negrin et al., 2007). A description of CT findings in cats with neurological FIP has not been published, and although hydrocephalus and/or syringohydromyelia can sometimes be detected by CT, MRI is likely to be more sensitive in the detection of subtle intraparenchymal lesions (Negrin et al., 2009).
Routine haematological changes are not specific for FIP but common abnormalities seen include lymphopenia (seen commonly but more in cats with effusions than in cats without), neutrophilia, a left shift and a mild to moderate normocytic, normochromic anaemia (Sparkes et al., 1991, 1994; Rohrer, 1992; Norris et al., 2005; Tsai et al., 2011; Riemer et al., 2016). An association between FIP and microcytosis (with or without anaemia) was recently reported (Riemer et al., 2016). Immune-mediated haemolytic anaemia occasionally occurs (Norris et al., 2005; Riemer et al., 2016). A decreasing red blood cell count is a poor prognostic sign (Tsai et al., 2011).
Serum biochemistry changes are also non-specific in cats with FIP but certain abnormalities can be helpful in making one consider FIP as a differential diagnosis.
Hyperglobulinaemia is often reported in FIP, and can be accompanied by hypoalbuminaemia or low to normal serum albumin (Rohrer, 1992; Riemer et al., 2016). The presence of hypoalbuminaemia alongside hyperglobulinaemia means that hyperproteinaemia does not always occur (Riemer et al., 2016). This combination of changes can cause the albumin to globulin (A:G) ratio to be low, and this ratio can be used to help evaluate how likely FIP is; the A:G ratio has a higher diagnostic value than either total serum protein or globulin concentration (Hartmann et al., 2003). Various A:G ratio cut offs have been suggested; e.g. an A:G ratio of <0.4 makes FIP very likely, whilst an A:G ratio of >0.8 makes FIP very unlikely (Sparkes et al., 1991; Norris et al., 2005; Tsai et al., 2011). One study (Jeffery et al., 2012) using a population of cats with a 4% prevalence of FIP, reported that a serum A:G ratio of >0.6 was useful in ruling out FIP, but that lower ratios were not helpful in ruling in FIP. Additionally, frequency and extent of hypoalbuminaemia, hyperglobulinaemia and low A:G ratio reported in cats with FIP have decreased in recent years (Riemer et al., 2016; Stranieri et al., 2017a), which could be due to veterinarians diagnosing FIP earlier, meaning that cases have not progressed to show these changes. Polyclonal and monoclonal elevated γ-globulins have been reported in cats with FIP (Taylor et al., 2010), although polyclonal elevations are far more common.
High bilirubin levels in the absence of both haemolysis and moderate elevations of liver enzyme activity should raise the suspicion of FIP. Hyperbilirubinaemia occurs in 22-63% of cats with FIP (Sparkes et al., 1991; Norris et al., 2005; Tsai et al., 2011; Riemer et al., 2016), and is especially seen in effusive FIP (Riemer et al., 2016), possibly due to the more severe vasculitis underlying development of effusions. High bilirubin values are not always correlated with elevated liver enzymes (Riemer et al., 2016), as hyperbilirubinaemia in cats with FIP is not necessarily a reflection of parenchymal liver disease but is thought to be due to excessive erythrocyte fragility leading to haemolysis with reduced clearing of haemoglobin breakdown products (Pedersen, 2014), or altered bilirubin metabolism due to high TNF-alpha levels. ALT, AST and ALP were normal in 86, 66 and 95%, respectively, of cats with FIP (Riemer et al., 2016). It has been found that the level of bilirubin can rise as FIP disease progresses, and rising bilirubin levels are a poor prognostic sign (Tsai et al., 2011).
Acute phase proteins (APPs) are produced in the liver in many inflammatory and non-inflammatory diseases in response to cytokines released from macrophages and monocytes. The major APP in cats is a1-acid glycoprotein (AGP), which has an immunomodulatory function, and assays are available for its measurement in some laboratories. The reference range for AGP serum concentrations is <0.48 mg/ml, and a moderately elevated serum AGP concentration of >1.5 mg/ml is frequently reported in cats with FIP (Stranieri et al., 2018); the magnitude of the increase in serum AGP might be helpful in the diagnosis of FIP (Duthie et al., 1997; Paltrinieri et al., 2007a; Giori et al., 2011; Hazuchova et al., 2016). One report (Paltrinieri et al., 2007a) found that markedly elevated serum AGP concentrations of >3 mg/ml could support a diagnosis of FIP in cats with a low pretest probability of disease (i.e. with a history and clinical findings not typical of FIP), whereas less marked elevations were supportive in cats with a higher pretest probability of disease. However, another, albeit very small, study of cats with FIP actually found that moderately elevated AGP concentrations of >1.5 mg/ml were still able to discriminate between cats with and without FIP (Giori et al., 2011); interestingly, this study comprised unusual cases of FIP in which some aspects of presentation were atypical although a diagnosis of FIP was confirmed in all cases. However, it must be emphasised that AGP is not specific for FIP and can be increased in other diseases. It has been suggested that an AGP of ≤1.5 mg/ml could be useful to rule out FIP (Stranieri et al., 2018). However, AGP concentrations have been found to increase moderately and transiently in all the cats in a household before the appearance of cases of FIP in an environment with endemic FCoV infection (Paltrinieri et al., 2007b). It has also been found that AGP is hyposialylated in cats with FIP but not usually in clinically healthy FCoV antibody-positive cats or cats with other diseases (Ceciliani et al., 2004; Rossi and Paltrinieri, 2009), but such testing is not available routinely.
Effusion laboratory analysis
FIP effusions are highly proteinaceous, with a total protein concentration that is usually >35 g/l, consistent with that of an exudate. An early study (Shelly et al., 1988) describing the characteristics of effusions of twelve cats with FIP reported total protein concentrations of 32-99 g/l (median 59 g/l). In contrast, the cell counts of effusions due to FIP are often relatively low, usually <5 x109/l cells (which would be more consistent with a modified transudate); sometimes cell counts are higher, for example up to 20 x109/l cells. Cytology is typically pyogranulomatous in nature with macrophages, non-degenerate neutrophils and few lymphocytes. Thick eosinophilic proteinaceous backgrounds are often described on cytology too. If cytology reveals a septic neutrophilia (typically with degenerate neutrophils containing bacteria), neoplastic cells or a marked lymphocyte population, FIP is highly unlikely (Paltrinieri et al., 1999).
Typical FIP effusions have low A:G ratios; an A:G ratio of <0.4, has a high positive predictive value, whereas a value of >0.8 has a high negative predictive value (Shelly et al., 1988; Riemer et al., 2016). One study found that elevated effusion AGP concentrations (of >1.55 mg/ml) were more useful (sensitivity and specificity of 93%) in differentiating effusions from cats with FIP from those in cats without FIP cases when compared with AGP levels in the serum or other acute phase proteins (Hazuchova et al., 2016); however, the ‘diagnosis’ of FIP in the cats in this study was not always confirmed.
Rivalta’s point-of-care test on effusions
Rivalta’s test is a crude point-of-care assay that was originally developed to differentiate a transudate from an exudate. However, it is important to note that a positive result is not specific for FIP, and positive results have been reported in cats without FIP but also in those with septic peritonitis and lymphoma (Fischer et al., 2012a). If positive, effusion cytology can be helpful to discriminate between these causes (Paltrinieri et al., 1999).The test had a high negative predictive value of 93.4% for FIP whilst the positive predictive value was 58.4% in a study of cats who presented with effusion, where the prevalence of FIP was 34.6% (Fischer et al., 2012a). So a negative Rivalta’s test is useful as it can be used to rule out FIP quickly and cheaply at point-of-care. A positive result needs confirmation of FIP with other tests.
To perform the Rivalta’s test, 8 ml of distilled water at room temperature and one drop of 98% acetic acid (white vinegar can be used) are mixed in a universal pot, and then one drop of effusion is carefully placed or layered onto the surface of the solution. A positive Rivalta’s test is indicated by the drop staying attached to the surface of the liquid, retaining its shape with a connection to the surface, or floating slowly to the bottom of the tube as a drop or jellyfish-like (Fig. 18). A negative test is indicated by the drop disappearing and the solution remaining clear. However, interpretation of results can be problematic due to subjectivity and difficulties in deciding whether a result is positive or negative (Fischer et al., 2013). A video showing how to perform the test can be accessed at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmOk2veunqA
Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) analysis
CSF is commonly collected from cats with neurological signs, although care should be taken with cisternal CSF sampling as the risk of brain herniation is high (Negrin et al., 2007; Penderis, 2009; Rissi, 2018); ideally advanced imaging should be performed beforehand to assess the potential risk of herniation.
CSF samples from cats with FIP can show elevated protein concentrations (of >0.3 g/l [>30 mg/dl] in cisternal samples, and >0.46 g/l [>46 mg/dl] in lumbar samples with reference ranges of ≤0.3 g/l and ≤0.46 g/l for cisternal and lumbar CSF samples, respectively); occasionally marked elevations of protein occur (>2 g/l [200 mg/dl]). Additionally, CSF samples of cats with FIP often have an increased cell count (>0.008 x 109/l [>8 cells/µl] in either lumbar and/or cisternal samples; reference range <0.008 x 109/l [<8 cells/µl]); occasionally this pleocytosis is very marked in cats with FIP (cell counts of >1x 109/l [>1000 cells/µl]). Cytological examination of the CSF can show the pleocytosis to be predominantly neutrophilic, mononuclear or mixed (Singh et al., 2005; Crawford et al., 2017). Some cats with neurological FIP have unremarkable CSF analysis results (Foley et al., 1998; Boettcher et al., 2007).
Tissue examination with FCoV antigen immunostaining
Histopathological changes on biopsies with immunostaining
The definitive diagnosis of FIP relies on consistent histopathological changes in affected tissues and this, together with FCoV antigen immunostaining, is considered the gold standard for diagnosis. Immunostaining exploits the binding of antibodies to host cell-associated FCoV antigens, which are subsequently visualised by enzymatic reactions producing a colour change in a process called immunohistochemistry (IHC). However, care must be taken to ensure that adequate controls are in place since non-specific staining can occur, leading to false positive results (see below).
The “classical” FIP histopathological lesion is a blood vessel surrounded by an inflammatory lesion dominated by monocytes/macrophages intermingled with a few neutrophils and lymphocytes (Kipar et al., 2005), which are mainly CD4+ (Paltrinieri et al., 1998). Occasionally, monocytes can be seen attached to endothelial cells or emigrating from the vessel (Kipar et al., 2005). Periventricular encephalitis and leptomeningitis are commonly seen in neurological FIP (Mesquita et al., 2016; Rissi, 2018). Histopathology alone is sometimes used to definitively diagnose FIP (Felten et al., 2017a). However, in addition to histopathological changes, a definitive diagnosis of FIP should rely on demonstration of positive immunostaining for FCoV antigen within appropriate cells (particularly macrophages) in histopathological lesions (in granulomas), as shown by IHC (Kipar et al., 1998; Kipar and Meli, 2014). Positive FCoV antigen IHC is highly specific and reliable (Tammer et al., 1995; Rissi, 2018) as long as it is performed with appropriate controls and reagents that prevent non-specific binding of the FCoV antibody to the tissues, as otherwise false positive results occur, although visualization of the pattern of FCoV antigen staining by a pathologist should discern non-specific staining. However, a negative result does not exclude FIP as FCoV antigens can be variably distributed within lesions (Giordano et al., 2005) and might not be detected in all histopathological sections prepared from FIP tissues (Kipar and Meli, 2014). If unexpected negative IHC results are obtained, it is worth requesting additional sections of biopsies to be cut and examined by the pathologist.
Samples of affected tissues (e.g., liver, kidney, spleen, mesenteric lymph nodes) can be collected in necropsy or in vivo by laparotomy, laparoscopy or ultrasound-guided TCB. The samples most likely to be useful are those that are affected by the disease process, and inference of this would hopefully be gained by the results of the diagnostic testing (e.g., imaging results, pyogranulomatous inflammation on FNA cytology) as well as clinical signs. A study evaluated the usefulness of hepatic and renal TCBs, and FNAs, collected from cats with FIP confirmed by histopathology and FCoV immunostaining (Giordano et al., 2005). The sensitivity of TCBs and FNAs from hepatic and renal tissues was poor (64% and 82% for hepatic TCB and FNAs respectively, and 39% and 42% for renal TCB and FNAs) although combining analysis of TCB and FNA results for each of the tissues increased sensitivity (to 86% for liver and 48% for kidney). In this study the cytological and histopathological findings of the FNAs and TCBs were classified according to whether they were consistent with FIP for calculation of specificity and sensitivity. However, specific lesions within the liver and kidneys were not targeted for sampling in this study, and targeted sampling under ultrasound-guidance might improve sensitivity.
If cats are euthanised due to suspected FIP, it is important to try to collect samples for immunohistochemical staining at post-mortem examination to confirm the disease if possible. Gross findings sometimes are suggestive of FIP (Tasker and Dowgray, 2018) (Figs. 23 and 24), but FIP lesions might not be obvious, and large pyogranulomatous lesions can be mistaken for tumours (Fig. 24). Histopathological examination, with FCoV antigen staining (see below) should ideally be performed to confirm the diagnosis of FIP.
Cytology with immunostaining on effusions, FNAs, CSF and aqueous humour
FCoV immunostaining can be performed on cytology samples using immunocytochemistry (ICC) or immunofluorescence (IF), where host cell-associated FCoV antigens are detected with FCoV specific antibodies conjugated with enzymes or fluorescent markers, respectively. The presence of FCoV antigens can then be demonstrated by either enzymatic reactions producing a colour change (see Figs 25 and 26) or by visualization of fluorescence using a UV microscope. ICC can be a useful test to be performed on effusions, FNAs and CSF samples that show cytological features consistent with FIP (e.g. the presence of neutrophils and macrophages).
FCoV immunostaining of effusion samples has shown variable sensitivity, ranging from 57 to 100% (Parodi et al., 1993; Hirschberger et al., 1995; Paltrinieri et al., 1999; Hartmann et al., 2003; Litster et al., 2013; Felten et al., 2017c). Since this technique relies on staining FCoV within macrophages in the effusion, false negative results can result if the effusion is cell-poor and/or the FCoV antigen is masked by FCoV antibodies in the effusion. Immunostaining was thought to be very specific, although two of seven non-FIP effusions (one of the two cats had heart failure, the other one cholangiocarcinoma) were positive by IF in one study (Litster et al., 2013), and eight (two cats with heart failure and two cats with neoplasia) of 29 non-FIP effusions were positive by ICC in another (Felten et al., 2017c), questioning the specificity of ICC. However, the reported poorer specificity might be due to the methodology, and neither of these studies included negative control slides. Some authors have suggested that using cell pellets prepared from centrifuged effusion samples to prepare formalin-fixed, paraffin embedded samples that can then be treated like a tissue specimen for FCoV antigen IHC (Kipar and Meli, 2014), could improve the reliability of detection of FCoV antigen (Kipar and Meli, 2014), although the processing time required for this would be longer than for ICC.
FCoV immunostaining of FNA samples has not yet been described in any large comprehensive studies. Two recent studies did describe the successful amplification of FCoV RNA from ultrasound-guided FNAs of abnormal tissue in eleven of eleven cats (Freiche et al., 2016), and from mesenteric lymph node FNAs (Dunbar et al., 2018) in 18 of 20 cats with FIP without effusions. This successful sampling and RNA detection suggest that demonstration of FCoV antigen by immunostaining on cytology samples might also be useful in cats with FIP if abnormal tissues are sampled, but this needs further evaluation. FCoV immunostaining using ICC has been reported as being successful in detecting FCoV in the CSF of a cat with neurological FIP (Ives et al., 2013). A recent study evaluated ICC in the CSF of cats with and without FIP, that presented with and without neurological signs, collected at post-mortem examination (Gruendl et al., 2016); this study found that 17 of 20 cats with FIP gave positive ICC results but of 18 cats without FIP, three also had positive results (one cat with mediastinal lymphoma, one with lymphocytic meningoencephalitis and one with hypertensive angiopathy with brain haemorrhage), limiting the test’s specificity. The reasons for the positive ICC results in three cats without FIP are not known but possibilities raised in the study include concurrent presence of FIP alongside the other diseases present (although IHC staining of neurological tissues was also negative), detection of the presence of systemic FCoV antigen in the absence of FIP or non-specific staining and aberrant antibody binding, although these were deemed unlikely. These analyses (Gruendl et al., 2016) excluded those cats that had no cells present in their CSF as ICC could not be performed on these cats. Application of ICC to CSF samples collected ante-mortem from a larger number of cats with neurological signs due to FIP and other causes would be desirable to further evaluate the usefulness of this technique.
The use of FCoV antigen immunostaining has recently also been described in aqueous humour samples collected directly following euthanasia from 25 cats with confirmed FIP and eleven cats with other diseases (Felten et al., 2017b). A sensitivity of 64.0% was reported but most of the 25 cats with FIP did not present with uveitis. The specificity of ICC in aqueous humour was 81.8%, with positive results occurring in one cat with lymphoma and one with a pulmonary adenocarcinoma (in both cats the aqueous humour cytology was not consistent with FIP). Therefore, accompanying cytology is important to aid interpretation. However, aqueous humour as a target sample is interesting as it could be collected non-invasively from cats with suspected FIP, although the sample collection technique used in the published study (Felten et al., 2017b) might need modification (e.g., a smaller gauge needle) for use ante-mortem. Further evaluation of ICC on aqueous humour samples collected ante-mortem from cats with uveitis due to FIP and other causes are needed to further evaluate the usefulness of ICC in the diagnosis of FIP.
Reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) for FCoV RNA
Reverse transcriptase PCR assays are available to detect FCoV RNA; they often amplify both cell-associated subgenomic mRNA (RNA produced in feline cells when the FCoV replicates), as well as cell-associated and virus particle-associated genomic RNA (which correlates to the presence of whole FCoV). Where the PCR primers bind to the FCoV genome determines whether subgenomic mRNA is preferentially amplified (Barker et al., 2017). Those RT-PCR assays that favour amplification of subgenomic mRNA might overestimate the FCoV viral loads present in the sample. Laboratories should be able to report the analytical sensitivity and specificity of their RT-PCRs and also provide details with the positive and negative controls that they use. As an RNA virus, FCoV shows a high rate of errors during replication and any mutations at the site of primer and/or probe binding can result in loss of PCR assay efficiency, and ultimately sensitivity. PCR conditions can be altered to tolerate such mutations, but this can result in a loss of specificity (Barker and Tasker, 2017). Additionally, RT-PCRs designed to target type I FCoV, which represents the majority of field strains found in naturally infected cats, although geographical variation exists (Hohdatsu et al., 1992; Benetka et al., 2004), might not amplify type II FCoV if the PCR primers and probe bind to the region of the FCoV genome which differs between the two (i.e. the spike (S) protein) (Herrewegh et al., 1998; Terada et al., 2014).
FCoV RT-PCR has been used to detect FCoV RNA in blood, effusion, tissue (including aspirates), CSF, or aqueous humour samples from suspected cases of FIP, with varying results. Assays used should be quantitative (RT-qPCR), and able to report the FCoV load present in the sample, and this information is an important aid to interpretation of results. This is because systemic FCoV infection can occur in healthy cats and cats without FIP (albeit uncommonly) but with lower FCoV viral loads than in cats with FIP (Meli et al., 2004; Kipar et al., 2006, 2010; Desmarets et al., 2016), so a positive RT-PCR result is not specific for FIP, but positive results with a high FCoV load can be used to support a diagnosis.
Running FCoV RNA RT-PCRs can be rapid, although, once the time taken to submit the sample to the laboratory is factored in, reporting of results can still take a few days. This is usually quicker than immunostaining on tissue biopsy samples and often also quicker than immunostaining on effusion samples. Recently rapid molecular techniques (loop mediated isothermal amplification) for detecting FCoV RNA in-house as point-of-care tests have been described (Stranieri et al., 2017b; Gunther et al., 2018), but they suffered from poor sensitivity.
FCoV RT-PCR on blood samples
Samples derived from blood (e.g., whole blood, serum, plasma or peripheral blood mononuclear cells [PBMCs]) can be subjected to RT-PCR for FCoV RNA following RNA extraction but unfortunately these are rarely positive in cats with FIP and so cannot be recommended for the diagnosis of FIP. For example, when FCoV RT-PCR was performed on plasma or serum samples from cats with and without FIP (Doenges et al., 2017; Felten et al., 2017a, 2017d), although none of the cats without FIP cases gave positive results, only 0 to 15.4% of the FIP cases were positive for FCoV RNA. Similarly FCoV RNA was only rarely detected in whole blood of 20 FIP cases in an experimental study (Pedersen et al., 2015), and although whole blood or PBMCs might be a better target for RT-PCR than serum (Doenges et al., 2017) sensitivity was still poor at 28.6%. A recent study (Stranieri et al., 2018) amplified FCoV RNA by RT-PCR from pellets derived from whole blood in six of eight (75.0%) cats with FIP but none of eight cats with diseases other than FIP, so results are variable. Despite these studies, specificity of FCoV RT-PCR is an issue as healthy and ill cats without FIP can have detectable viraemia in the blood. A recent study (Fish et al., 2018) found that nine of 205 (4.4%) healthy US shelter cats were FCoV RNA RT-PCR positive in buffy coats prepared from blood; one of those had replicating virus in the bloodstream, as demonstrated by a positive FCoV mRNA RT-PCR result, and this 8-week old kitten was likely undergoing a primary viraemia. Neither this kitten, nor seven of the nine FCoV RNA RT-PCR positive cats with follow up developed FIP during the subsequent six months.
FCoV RT-PCR on effusions
Effusion samples in cats with FIP often contain FCoV RNA (Pedersen et al., 2015), which can be detected by RT-PCR. Up until recently, published studies have amplified FCoV RNA in most (72-100%) effusion samples from cats with FIP (Doenges et al., 2017; Felten et al., 2017d; Longstaff et al., 2017; Stranieri et al., 2018) but usually not in any effusions from cats without FIP (Doenges et al., 2017; Felten et al., 2017d; Longstaff et al., 2017). However, recent studies have challenged the specificity of this test. One study (Barker et al., 2017) amplified FCoV RNA, albeit at a low level, in abdominal fluid from one of 29 control cats that did not have FIP. Another study (Felten et al., 2017a) amplified FCoV RNA from three (two of these three had low levels of FCoV RNA) of 24 control cats without FIP that had effusions tested. In the latter study, the control cats that generated positive FCoV RT-PCR results had neoplasia (lymphoma and a malignant round cell tumour) or chronic kidney disease (this cat had higher FCoV RNA levels in the effusion). Lastly a recent study (Stranieri et al., 2018) amplified FCoV RNA (levels not reported) from the effusion of one cat with an intestinal carcinoma (out of six control cats with effusions tested). Despite this it is clear that the presence of FCoV RNA, particularly moderate to high levels, in an effusion that also has cytological and biochemical features suggestive of FIP, is highly supportive of a diagnosis of FIP.
FCoV RT-PCR on tissue samples
When tissue biopsy samples are obtained from cats with suspected FIP, the samples should be submitted for histopathology and IHC, as this allows for a definitive diagnosis of FIP. However, if a delay in analysis is expected, tissue can also be submitted for RT-PCR as finding high levels of FCoV RNA in a sample of an affected organ can be helpful and supportive of a diagnosis of FIP. This is because it is known that tissue samples from cats with FIP are significantly more likely to be FCoV RT-PCR positive (Barker et al., 2017; Stranieri et al., 2018), and have significantly higher FCoV RNA loads by RT-PCR (Porter et al., 2014), than tissue samples from cats without FIP. However, it is important to remember that cats without FIP can be positive for FCoV RNA by RT-PCR in tissues. A recent extensive study evaluating FCoV RT-PCR in 260 tissue samples from 57 cats with FIP, and 258 tissue samples from 45 cats without FIP (Barker et al., 2017) found that 90.4% of tissue samples from cats with FIP were FCoV RT-PCR positive compared to only 7.8% of tissue samples from cats without FIP.
In cats with FIP, FCoV RNA loads correlate with histopathological findings suggestive of FIP (Pedersen et al., 2015; Barker et al., 2017). Thus, the presence of high levels of FCoV RNA in tissue samples is highly supportive of a diagnosis of FIP. It is usually suggested that tissue samples should not be formalin-fixed before RT-PCR, as formalin can degrade RNA and decrease PCR sensitivity (Tasker, 2018), although a recent study described the successful use of FCoV RT-PCR in formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissues in cats with FIP (Sangl et al., 2018).
FNAs, such as obtained by ultrasound guidance, could be a good alternative to tissue samples for FCoV RT-PCR analysis, with the advantage of relatively easy collection. One study (Freiche et al., 2016) described successful amplification of FCoV RNA from ultrasound-guided FNAs of abnormal tissue in eleven cats with FIP without effusions, suggesting that FNAs could be a useful sampling material for RT-PCR in cats with non-effusive FIP. A controlled study of FCoV RNA detection in FNAs collected from the mesenteric lymph nodes from 20 cats with FIP without effusions reported sensitivity of 90.0 % and specificity of 96.1 % (Dunbar et al., 2018). In that study FCoV RNA survived normal mailing as the FNAs tested by RT-PCR were sent by regular mail without ice or an RNA preservative (Dunbar et al., 2018).
FCoV RT-PCR on CSF samples
Samples of CSF can be submitted for FCoV RT-PCR. A recent paper (Doenges et al., 2016) described the use of FCoV RT-PCR on CSF samples and found it to have 100% specificity for FIP but a sensitivity of only 41.2%. Other studies (Foley et al., 1998; Barker et al., 2017) have also shown poor sensitivity. However, not all cats included in all of these studies had neurological signs, as CSF was collected at post-mortem examination independent of presenting signs (Doenges et al., 2016; Barker et al., 2017), such that the population tested does not necessarily reflect a population that would have had CSF samples collected for diagnostic purposes. Indeed, in one study (Doenges et al., 2016), the sensitivity of RT-PCR rose to 85.7% when only cats with neurological and ophthalmological signs were considered. In one study (Soma et al., 2018) it was found that all CSF samples with a CSF FCoV antibody titre of >640 that were tested for FCoV RNA were positive by RT-PCR. This study was limited by the fact that FIP was not confirmed in all cats, but it does suggest at least an association between high CSF FCoV antibody titres and positive CSF FCoV RT-PCR. In summary, FCoV RT-PCR on CSF appears to be a useful additional test in cats with neurological signs, as a positive result highly supports a diagnosis of FIP, but a negative result does not rule out FIP.
FCoV RT-PCR on aqueous humour samples
Very few studies have so far evaluated FCoV RT-PCR on aqueous humour samples, although positive FCoV RT-PCR results have been reported in cats with FIP (Barker et al., 2017; Dunbar et al., 2018).
FCoV RT-PCR on faeces
FCoV RT-PCR can be performed on faecal samples, but this is primarily used to identify cats that are shedding FCoV for the management of infection in a multi-cat household, and it is not used to diagnose FIP, as it is known that many healthy cats without FIP shed FCoV. Two studies found that 75% and 65% of cats with FIP shed virus in their faeces (Addie et al., 1996; Barker et al., 2017). A recent study testing faecal samples by RT-qPCR from 50 healthy cats in US shelters (Fish et al., 2018) found that 56% were positive for FCoV RNA. Although one study (Barker et al., 2017) showed that cats with FIP were more likely to be shedding FCoV in their faeces than cats that were euthanased due to diseases other than FIP, while other studies showed the contrary. However, with certainty, faecal RT-PCR is not useful for diagnosis of FIP.
Molecular techniques characterizing FCoV spike (S) gene mutations
Following detection of FCoV RNA in a sample by RT-PCR, varied molecular techniques can be used to derive sequence data for the FCoV present. However, such techniques are not always successful in FCoV RT-PCR positive samples as low FCoV levels will preclude sequence analysis and FCoV sequence variability can prevent targeted sequencing techniques from generating sequence data (e.g. some sequence analysis methods only detect mutations in type I FCoV, and not type II FCoV).
RNA sequence analysis usually focuses on the region of the S gene of type I FCoV in which certain mutations were found in the FCoV in tissues from cats with FIP but not in the FCoV in the faeces of healthy cats without FIP (Chang et al., 2012). Subsequent studies (Porter et al., 2014; Barker et al., 2017) analysed the FCoV in both tissue and faecal samples from both cats with FIP and cats without FIP (confirmed as having other diseases by histopathology). These studies found that these S gene mutations were also found in the FCoV in tissues from cats without FIP; thus they appear to be associated with systemic FCoV infection rather than FIP per se (Porter et al., 2014; Barker et al., 2017). These S gene mutations are still likely to be important in the development of FIP as it is probably via these, and/or other mutations, that the FCoV acquires its monocyte/macrophage tropism to allow it to spread systemically outside of the gut, and contribute to the development of FIP. However, other viral factors are likely to then allow effective and sustained replication in monocytes, and activation of infected monocytes, in cats that develop FIP following systemic FCoV infection (Kipar and Meli, 2014). So the mutations cannot be regarded as being specific for FIP.
S gene mutation analysis on tissue samples
An extensive study (Barker et al., 2017), that included 260 tissue samples from 57 cats with FIP, and 258 tissue samples from 45 cats without FIP, calculated that S gene mutation analysis on tissues, as an additional step to the detection of FCoV RNA alone by RT-qPCR, only slightly increased specificity for the diagnosis of FIP, from 92.6% to 94.6% (equivalent of five tissues), but moderately decreased sensitivity, from 89.8% to 80.9% (equivalent of 20 tissues). The decrease in sensitivity was because of the detection of non-mutated FCoV in cats with FIP (n=4), the presence of type II FCoV in cats with FIP which is not detected by mutation analysis assays that rely on finding the specific S gene mutations seen in type I FCoV by targeted analysis (n=12) and an inability to sequence the FCoV S gene due to only low FCoV copy numbers being present (n=4). The increase in specificity was due to the detection of non-mutated FCoV in cats without FIP (n=2) and an inability to sequence the FCoV S gene due to low FCoV copy numbers (n=3).
Another study (Sangl et al., 2018), that performed S gene mutation analysis on pooled tissue samples (five per cat) from 34 cats with FIP and 30 cats without FIP, reported a much higher specificity of 100% for S gene mutation analysis, as none of the 30 cats without FIP gave positive results on S gene mutation analysis. However, only three cats without FIP were FCoV RT-PCR-positive in this study, and in none of these was S gene mutation analysis successful, so the specificity calculation was not based on detecting non-mutated FCoV as such. Sensitivity in this study was moderate at 70.6%, as only 24 of the 34 FIP cases had mutations detected.
S gene mutation analysis on effusion samples
S gene mutation analysis has also been performed on effusions (Felten et al., 2017a, 2017d; Longstaff et al., 2017; Stranieri et al., 2018) with variable sensitivity of 40.0-88.8%. A study (Barker et al., 2017), that evaluated 51 fluid samples (primarily effusions but also included CSF and aqueous humour) from 57 cats with FIP and 47 fluid samples from 45 cats without FIP calculated that S gene mutation analysis, in addition to the detection of FCoV alone by RT-qPCR, did not increase specificity (it stayed at 97.9%) for the diagnosis of FIP, but markedly decreased sensitivity from 78.4% to 60%. Another study (Felten et al., 2017a) that carried out the same calculations on effusion samples, described an increase in specificity from 87.5% to 95.8% for S gene mutation analysis over FCoV RT-PCR alone whilst sensitivity decreased from 97.1% to 68.6%. However, only effusions from three cats without FIP were FCoV RT-PCR-positive and in only one of these, S gene mutation analysis was successful (mutated virus detected), so the improvement in specificity was not based on detecting non-mutated FCoV.
These data suggest that detection of S gene mutations alone cannot be regarded as being confirmative for FIP. It is important to interpret S gene mutation results in association with other factors (signalment, other test results) to determine how likely FIP is in the cat being tested. If mutation assays are being used where the success of the S gene mutation analysis is based on having sufficient FCoV copy numbers in a sample following FCoV RNA RT-PCR, the presence of the S gene mutation(s) can further support a diagnosis of FIP in fluid as compared with detection of FCoV RNA alone by RT-PCR.
Serum FCoV antibody testing
Serum FCoV antibody tests are usually enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA), indirect immunofluorescence antibody (IFA) tests or rapid immunomigration tests (Addie et al., 2015). Transmissible gastroenteritis virus (TGEV; a porcine coronavirus) or FCoV can be used in these tests as antigen substrates, both being able to detect serum FCoV antibodies; indeed using TGEV as a substrate in one study (Kummrow et al., 2005) showed higher sensitivity in the detection of serum FCoV antibodies than using FCoV as substrate. In most tests, antibody titres are determined in multiples of serum dilutions. A positive FCoV antibody test indicates that the cat has had contact with FCoV (by natural infection or vaccination) and has developed antibodies; this typically occurs around 10-28 days following natural infection (Meli et al., 2004; Vogel et al., 2010). Although cats with FIP tend to have higher FCoV antibody titres than cats without FIP, there is much overlap, with no difference between median FCoV antibody titres in healthy and suspected FIP cases, so the value in an individual cat to distinguish cats with FIP is very limited (Bell et al., 2006). It has been suggested that a negative serum FCoV antibody result in a suspected non-effusive FIP case is more useful to rule out a diagnosis of FIP than in a cat with effusion (Addie et al., 2009, 2015; Sparkes et al., 1994). However, negative results were reported in three of seven cats with non-effusive neurological FIP (Negrin et al., 2007), although in that study the method of FCoV antibody testing was not described. It is important that the FCoV antibody assay used has adequate sensitivity; otherwise false negative results can occur (Addie et al., 2015). FCoV antibody tests which begin with a dilution of the sample to 1 in 100, or 1 in 400, are commonly insensitive, missing titres lower than the starting dilution (i.e. those <100 or <400). Only tests which have a starting dilution of 1:25 or less are recommended. Opinions on the usefulness of antibody testing in cats suspected to have FIP vary, but there is no ‘FIP antibody test’; all that can be measured is antibody against FCoV.
FCoV antibody testing on effusion samples
FCoV antibody tests can also be performed on effusion samples. However, in one study, some cats with FIP (although the diagnosis was not confirmed in all cases) had unexpectedly low FCoV antibody titres in their effusions (Meli et al., 2013) and an inverse correlation between FCoV RNA load, measured by RT-qPCR, and FCoV antibodies was found in some samples, suggesting that the FCoV can bind antibodies rendering them unavailable as a ligand in the antibody test (Meli et al., 2013). False negative results for FCoV antibodies on effusions can be particularly a problem with rapid immunomigration/immunochromatography tests (Meli et al., 2013; Addie et al., 2015). However, another study (Lorusso et al., 2017) found no evidence of an inverse correlation between FCoV RNA loads and antibody titres in effusions from cases with suspected FIP and concluded that a combination of both FCoV RT-PCR and antibody testing would be more helpful to support a diagnosis of FIP compared to either test alone (Lorusso et al., 2017).
FCoV antibody testing on cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) samples
FCoV antibody testing has been performed on CSF samples in cats with FIP with varied results. One study (Foley et al., 1998) reported it to be useful in diagnosing FIP, with comparison of serum and CSF FCoV titres suggesting intrathecal FCoV antibody production, although no controls were included in this study. Another study (Boettcher et al., 2007) found a significant correlation between serum and CSF FCoV antibody titres, suggesting that any CSF FCoV antibodies detected were derived from blood, and thus their detection was not additionally useful for the diagnosis of FIP. A more recent study suggested that a CSF FCoV antibody titre of >640 might be useful for the diagnosis of FIP (Soma et al., 2018), although the diagnosis of FIP was not histopathologically confirmed in the cats in this study.
Thirty-five to 79% of cats with FIP shed FCoV in their faeces (Addie et al.,1996; Chang et al., 2010; Porter et al., 2014; Barker et al., 2017). However, it appears that some cats, once they have developed FIP, stop shedding virus in their faeces. One study (Chang et al., 2010), on 27 cats with asymptomatic FCoV infection and 28 cats with FIP from the same households revealed that eleven of 17 cats with FIP had no detectable intestinal FCoV and seemingly cleared their primary FCoV infection (Chang et al., 2010). In those cats suffering from FIP with detectable intestinal FCoV, sequence analysis focusing on the FCoV 3c gene revealed that in all but one cat, the virus was different to that associated with FIP lesions, and thus seemed to have been acquired by FCoV superinfection from other cats in the household (Chang et al., 2010). The authors concluded that if a cat with FIP restarts shedding, this is likely due to a new FCoV superinfection and not the original FCoV that resulted in FIP. However, in this study (Chang et al., 2010), the one cat with FIP that was shedding a FCoV strain in its faeces similar to the FCoV strain found in its ascitic fluid was believed to have arisen due to leakage of systemic virus into the intestines due to, for example, an intestinal granuloma. In another study it was reported that faecal FCoV from cats with FIP can carry the same S gene mutations as FCoV found systemically (Barker et al., 2017), and one study found that the full genomic RNA sequences of field FCoV strains isolated at post-mortem examination from the jejunum and the liver of a cat with FIP revealed 100% nucleotide identity between the enteric (jejunum) and non-enteric (liver) derived viral RNA sequences, suggesting that FIP-associated FCoV can be shed under some circumstances (Dye and Siddell, 2007). However, even if FIP-associated FCoV is shed in the faeces of cats with FIP, it would likely not cause FIP following transmission to another cat as one study demonstrated that faeces of cats with FIP did not cause FIP in another cat (Pedersen et al., 2012).
Although there is no clear evidence that the disease FIP is transmitted from cat to cat under natural circumstances, FIP can be induced experimentally, such as by inoculation of a FIP-associated FCoV intraperitoneally (Kim et al., 2016), a route which bypasses the natural faecal-oral transmission pathway.
Therefore, based on the current knowledge, it is likely to be relatively safe to take a cat with FIP back into a household with cats that have already been in contact with it, as these cats are likely to already be FCoV-infected. It is, however, not recommended that the cat with FIP has contact with any ‘naïve’ FCoV-uninfected cat, as if that cat with FIP is shedding FCoV, it could infect any naïve cats with FCoV.
Cats with FIP in a hospital should be handled and housed like any other cat, as any cat is a potential source of FCoV infection, and routine hygiene measures should be taken. Thus, there is no benefit in isolating the cat with FIP and it is not necessary to keep cats with FIP in infectious disease isolation wards. In households where a cat with FIP has been euthanised, with no remaining cats in the household, it is recommended that the owner waits for two months before obtaining new cats, as FCoV can remain infectious for up to seven weeks in a dry environment (Scott, 1988), such as in desiccated faeces. In households where other cats remain, they are likely to carry and shed FCoV already. Thus, before introducing a new cat into that environment, the FCoV infection status of both existing and new cats should be established (see paragraphs on diagnostics and on management in special situations).
Treatment of FIP
Treatment (or euthanasia) should only be considered after every effort has been made to obtain a definitive diagnosis, since the wrong treatment can be detrimental for a cat. Situations have been described in which a cat with toxoplasmosis was misdiagnosed as possibly having FIP, and was treated with glucocorticoids with fatal consequences (Cohen et al., 2016).
As currently no effective causal treatment is available on the market, every cat with confirmed FIP dies or is euthanized. The median survival after diagnosis in cats with FIP and effusions was eight days in one study (Ritz et al., 2007) and 21 days in another (Tsai et al., 2011). Occasionally, cats have survived for several months or years after diagnosis (Ishida et al., 2004; Ritz et al., 2007; Hugo and Heading, 2015; Legendre et al., 2017; Pedersen, 2014) receiving treatment, for example glucocorticoid or non-steroidal anti-inflammatories, but it is not clear whether prolonged survival was due to the treatment. There are some rare reports of “recovered” cats in the field, but in these cats, a definitive diagnosis has not usually been obtained or reported. Currently, no licensed drug has proved effective in curing FIP.
The prognosis for a cat with FIP is extremely poor. In a prospective study including 43 cats with FIP with effusion, the median survival time after definitive diagnosis was eight days (Ritz et al., 2007). Some cats, mainly those without effusions, however, live for several months up to years (Ishida et al., 2004; Ritz et al., 2007; Hartmann and Ritz, 2008; Pedersen, 2014; Hugo and Heading, 2015; Legendre et al., 2017; Pedersen et al., 2018; Murphy et al., 2018). The disease progression between onset of clinical signs and death is variable, but is shorter in younger cats and cats with effusion than in older cats and cats without effusion (Pedersen et al., 2014). One cat with FIP lived 200 days after a definitive diagnosis (Ritz et al., 2007; Hartmann and RItz, 2008), another survived 787 days (Hugo and Heading, 2015). One Birman cat that had never developed effusion died of FIP at six years of age; based on its history, the cat likely had a “mild form” of FIP for many years (Pedersen et al., 2014).
Some parameters can predict survival time; poor general condition, low platelet count, low lymphocyte count, low haematocrit, high bilirubin concentration, low sodium concentration, low potassium concentration, high AST activity, and a large volume of effusion indicate a poor prognosis (Ritz et al., 2007; Tsai et al., 2011). Seizures can also be considered a poor prognostic sign, since they occur significantly more frequently in animals with marked extension of inflammatory lesions in the forebrain (Timmann et al., 2008).
FIP is an immune-mediated disease; thus, symptomatic treatment is aimed at controlling the immune response to FCoV and consists of high doses of immune-suppressive or anti-inflammatory drugs that slow down disease progression, such as prednisolone (initially 2-4 mg/kg q24h PO), that might be tapered down slowly if the cat responds to treatment. Although used in many published cases and in the field, the effect of glucocorticoids never has been substantiated in controlled studies. In one study, cats without effusion treated with both systemic glucocorticoids and the immunomodulator polyprenyl immunostimulant (PPI) had poorer survival than those treated with PPI alone (Legendre et al., 2017); however, a definitive diagnosis of FIP was not established in all cats in this study.
If an effusion is present, some cats benefit from daily removal of the effusion and injection of dexamethasone into the abdominal or thoracic cavity (1 mg/kg q24h until effusion is no longer produced, for up to seven days – if effusion is present in both cavities, the dose per cavity should be divided) (Hartmann and Ritz, 2008). Cyclophosphamide (2-4 mg/kg four times per week PO) alone or in combination with glucocorticoids has been sometimes used but there are no data on its efficacy. If indicated, cats should also be treated with broad-spectrum antibiotics (e.g., as long as the effusion is being removed) and supportive therapy (e.g., fluids) (Hartmann and Ritz, 2008).
A thromboxane synthetase inhibitor (ozagrel hydrochloride) that inhibits platelet aggregation and cytokine release was used in two cats with some improvement of clinical signs (Watari et al., 1998), but this was not a controlled study.
A recent placebo-controlled study in a small number of cats (three treated, three placebo) with experimentally induced FIP found a possible beneficial effect of treatment with antibodies acting against tumour necrosis factor alpha (TNF-alpha) (Doki et al., 2016). Progression to FIP was prevented in two of the three cats treated with these antibodies, whereas all three cats developed FIP in the placebo group. TNF-alpha is thought to be involved in FCoV replication in macrophages (Takano et al., 2007a) and contributes to development of clinical signs in cats with FIP. No field studies have been conducted so far.
Pentoxyfyllineor propentofylline has been applied to cats with FIP because it can down-regulate pro-inflammatory cytokines which in turn is thought to reduce vasculitis. However, in a placebo-controlled, double-blind study in cats with confirmed FIP, there was no significant difference in survival time, quality of life, or any clinical or laboratory parameter in cats treated with propentofyllin versus cats receiving placebo (Fischer et al., 2011).
Antiviral Chemotherapy and Immunomodulators
Currently, no licensed drug has proved effective in curing FIP. For many drugs, evaluation of data is hampered by the lack of well-controlled clinical trials in which new treatments are compared against a standard care or placebo and the fact that the presence of FIP was not always confirmed in these studies before treatment was initiated, which makes an assessment of the outcome impossible (Hartmann and Ritz, 2008). Some very promising drugs have been recently developed and evaluated for the treatment of FIP but are not yet commercially available, such as nucleoside analogues and proteinase inhibitors. In addition, there are also some promising experimental approaches, including inhibition of the binding of FCoV spike protein to receptors on the host cell membrane that mediates fusion of the viral envelope with host cell membranes (Kim et al., 2013; Liu et al., 2013), circular triple helix-forming oligonucleotide RNA targeting viral RNA (Choong et al., 2014), cholesterol synthesis and transport inhibitors inducing cholesterol accumulation in cells and thereby inhibiting FCoV replication (Takano et al., 2017; Takano et al., 2019), or small interfering RNAs (siRNA) leading to RNA interference and thus, inhibition of virus replication (McDonald et al., 2011), but most of these compounds are still in an investigational stage. Some drugs are effective in vitro, but are too toxic for cats, such as ribavirin (Weiss and Oostrom-Ram, 1989; Weiss et al., 1993a, 1993b) or chloroquine (Takano et al., 2013). Other drugs have only been investigated in vitro, but in vivo efficacy is unknown, such as vidarabine (Barlough and Scott, 1990) which inhibits polymerases, nelfinavir, a commercially available protease inhibitor of human immunodeficiency virus and Galanthus nivalis agglutinin (GNA), a carbohydrate-binding agent that binds to FCoV-glycosylated envelope glycoproteins, thereby inhibiting viral attachment to the host cell (van der Meer et al., 2007; Hsieh et al., 2010).
Cyclosporine A can act as an antiviral drug as it binds to cellular cyclophilins thereby inhibiting calcineurin, which is required by many viruses for replication (Tanaka et al., 2012, 2013). Cyclosporine A inhibits FCoV replication in vitro (Tanaka et al., 2012). Cyclosporine A was also associated with a reduction in pleural fluid volume and a decrease in viral load in one cat with FIP, but the cat succumbed to FIP 264 days after treatment initiation (Tanaka et al., 2015). Thus, cyclosporine A might be an option in combination with other therapeutic agents. So far however, well-controlled clinical studies are missing.
Interferons are frequently used in cats with FIP. Human interferon-a was effective against a FIP-associated FCoV strain in vitro, but in a placebo-controlled treatment study including 74 specific pathogen-free cats in which FIP was induced experimentally, neither the prophylactic nor the therapeutic administration of high doses (104 or 106 IU/kg) interferon-a, feline interferon-b (103 IU/kg), the immunomodulator Propionibacterium acnes (0.4 mg/cat or 4 mg/cat), or a combination, significantly reduced mortality in treated versus untreated cats (Weiss et al., 1990) . However, in the cats treated with 106 IU/kg interferon-a in combination with Propionibacterium acnes, the mean survival time was prolonged, but only by three weeks (Weiss et al., 1990). As an explanation for the limited efficacy of interferon-a, it has been suggested that ORF-7-encoded accessory protein 7a of FIP-associated strains can act as type-I interferon antagonists and counteract the interferon-a-induced antiviral response (Dedeurwaerder et al., 2014). Feline interferon-w, which is licensed in many European countries, inhibits FCoV replication in vitro (Mochizuki et al., 1994). Preliminary positive results were obtained in one uncontrolled trial, but FIP was not confirmed in the cases that survived (Ishida et al., 2004). In a randomized placebo-controlled double-blind treatment trial in 37 cats with confirmed FIP, feline interferon-w and immunosuppressive levels of glucocorticoids was not more effective than glucocorticoids alone (Ritz et al., 2007).
Very promising new drugs are protease inhibitors that prevent viral replication by selectively binding to viral proteases and blocking proteolytic cleavage of protein precursors needed for the production of infectious viral particles. Inhibitors that target the 3C-like protease with broad-spectrum activity against human and animal coronaviruses have recently been created (Kim et al., 2013). One 3C-like protease inhibitor, GC376, showed strong activity against FCoV in vitro (Kim et al., 2016) and was effective in treating FIP in an experimental setting; of eight cats with experimentally induced FIP, six remained healthy for an eight month follow up period (Kim et al., 2016), although one of these six cats succumbed to neurological FIP subsequently (Pedersen et al., 2018). In a recent field trial, a cohort of 20 client-owned cats were treated with GC376 at 15 mg/kg SC q12h; this was a higher dose than that used in the experimental study (Kim et al., 2016) due to treatment failure in the first cat enrolled in the trial. Nineteen of 20 treated cats regained health within two weeks of treatment. However, disease signs recurred one to seven weeks after primary treatment. Relapses no longer responsive to treatment occurred in 12/19 cats within one to seven weeks of initial or repeat treatments. Most of these relapsed cats developed neurological FIP. At the time of writing, 7/20 cats were in disease remission (Pedersen et al., 2018); most of these were cats that had presented at a young age with effusion. Cats presenting with neurological signs had been excluded from the study as GC376 does not appear to penetrate the CNS. Some side effects occurred and included injection site reactions and retarded development or abnormal eruption of permanent teeth (Pedersen et al., 2018). No untreated controls were used in this study and FIP was not confirmed in all cats with histopathology and/or immunostaining of FCoV antigen, which hampers the interpretation of data. Considering the studies on this drug, however, protease inhibitors might be a promising new approach especially if combined with other antiviral drugs, but more field trials are necessary.
Another new promising treatment approach is the use of nucleoside analogues that act as an alternative substrate for viral RNA synthesis, resulting in RNA chain termination during viral RNA transcription. One such nucleoside analogue, the compound GS-441524, was shown to be non-toxic in vitro and effectively inhibited replication of FIP-associated FCoV strains and field isolates in two different cell culture systems. In ten young cats with experimentally induced FIP, GS-441524 (applied SQ q 12 h) caused a rapid reversal of clinical signs and return to a clinically healthy status within two weeks of treatment in all ten cats. Two of the ten treated cats had recurrences of clinical signs at four and six weeks post treatment, respectively. These two cats were treated a second time with GS-441524 for two weeks and they responded again, identically to the response seen with the first treatment. All ten cats remained clinically healthy until the time of publication (> eight months post infection) (Murphy et al., 2018). No signs of toxicity were noted besides a transient "stinging" injection reaction in some cats, such as unusual posturing, licking at the injection site and/or vocalizations, directly after compound administration (Murphy et al., 2018). GS-441524 treatment has recently also been evaluated in a field study of 31 cats with FIP (Pedersen et al., 2019). Cats were diagnosed with FIP based on signalment, history, clinical examination, prior test results, repeat testing and/or effusion analysis, and FCoV RT-PCR performed on effusions in some cats. Tissue IHC for FCoV antigen that confirmed FIP was only performed on five cats that later underwent post-mortem examination. Cats with neurological or ocular signs were discouraged from the trial due to concerns from the experimental trial of poor penetration of GS-441524 into the brain and/or eye (Murphy et al., 2018). Of the 31 cats with FIP recruited into this study (Pedersen et al., 2019), five had no evidence of effusion. Cats ranged from 3-73 months of age (mean 14 months). The cats were started with a primary treatment course of GS-441524 at a dosage of 2 mg/kg SQ q 24 h for at least 12 weeks (with more then 12 weeks of treatment given if serum protein levels remained elevated). The dosage was increased to 4 mg/kg SQ q 24 h for later treatments in the trial when cats showed a relapse or when a treatment course of longer than 12 weeks was deemed necessary. The study did not include a control group treated with a placebo or standard care protocol. Five of the 31 cats died or were euthanized within 26 days of the first treatment. The remaining 26 cats completed 12 or more weeks of GS-441524 treatment and showed rapid clinical improvement within two weeks. Of these 26 cats, 18 remained healthy, while eight others showed FIP relapses (six cats non-neurological FIP and two cats neurological FIP) at a mean of 23 days following treatment. Three of the eight cats with relapses were treated again with GS-441524 at 2 mg/kg SQ q 24 h; one of these three cats relapsed with neurological FIP and was euthanized whilst the two remaining cats responded well but relapsed with FIP again and were treated again with GS-441524 but at a higher dosage of 4 mg/kg SQ q 24 h. Of the original 31 cats, 25 were classified as long-time survivors after successful treatment, but one of these cats was subsequently euthanized due to presumably unrelated heart disease, while 24 remain healthy at the time of publication (Pedersen et al., 2019). Thus, efficacy in cats with naturally occurring FIP appeared greater with GS-441524 (Pedersen et al., 2019) than with GC376 (Pedersen et al., 2018), as only six of 20 cats treated with GC376 remain in remission (Pedersen, unpublished data, 2018; quoted in Pedersen et al., 2019) compared to 25 of 31 cats treated with GS-441524 (Pedersen et al., 2019). Disease relapses not responding to retreatment were far more common with GC376 compared to GS-441524, and most of the relapses seen in the GC376 trial were neurological in nature, in contrast to the GS-441524 trial. Both treatments caused similar injection site reactions and appeared to be relatively safe, although GC376 interfered with the development of permanent teeth when given to younger kittens. Although the results of the field studies appear to favour GS-441524 treatment, some of the difference might have been influenced by how the two drugs were administered as the efficacy of GC376 might have been better if all 20 cats had been treated without interruption for 12 weeks, rather than with progressively longer periods starting at just two weeks at the start of the trial in the first five cats. This was done because the 10 experimentally infected cats treated with GS-441524 (Murphy et al., 2018) were also initially given only a two weeks treatment course, although two cats required a second treatment. Thus, another GC376 field treatment trial would be warranted using a longer treatment with a higher dosage and a larger number of cats before a final comparison can be made. It would also be important to evaluate both types of drugs in combination. Neither GC376 nor GS-441524 are currently commercially available.
Immunomodulators are also commonly used in cats with FIP. The idea behind immunomodulator treatment is that these products might stimulate the immune response toward a cell-mediated response or to reduce an overactive Th2 response. An imbalance in T cell versus B cell response has been suggested to attribute to the development of FIP; however, this hypothesis has been questioned recently (Pedersen et al., 2014). Non-specific stimulation of the immune system might in fact even be contraindicated, since the clinical signs develop and progress because of an immune-mediated response. Therefore, treatment with these drugs is not recommended as long as there is a lack of documented efficacy in well-controlled studies (Hartmann and Ritz, 2008; Hartmann, 2018). Some old case reports suggest some effect through immunomodulator treatment, such as tylosine, promodulin, acemannan, or “para-immunity inducers”, but again FIP was not confirmed in these studies (Colgrove and Parker, 1971; Robison et al., 1971; Ford, 1986; Bolcskei and Bilkei, 1995a, 1995b; Hartmann and Ritz, 2008).
Polyprenyl immunostimulant (PPI) is a drug that has shown promise for immunomodulation. PPI is a commercially available oral agent that is given three times a week and that is considered to act by upregulating Th-1 cytokines. In a case series of three cats with FIP without effusion (confirmed by histopathology in one of the three cats only), PPI was associated with prolonged survival (Legendre and Bartges, 2009). In a recent field study, treatment with PPI was evaluated in 60 cats that were suspected to have FIP without effusion by primary care and specialist veterinarians, but again confirmation of FIP was not established in all cats and no untreated controls were included (Legendre et al., 2017). Of the 60 treated cats, 16 survived over 100 days; of these, eight survived over 200 days, including four who survived over 300 days. Veterinarians of treated cats that survived over 30 days reported improvements in clinical signs and behaviour. The survival times were significantly longer in cats that were not treated with systemic glucocorticoids concurrently, although topical ophthalmic glucocorticoids did not affect survival (Legendre et al., 2017). Thus, use of PPI might hold some promise for treatment of cats with FIP without effusion, although the number of cats responding to treatment in that study was low overall and FIP was not always confirmed. Controlled studies in cats with confirmed FIP would be necessary to evaluate efficacy.
Table 2: Drugs that have been suggested for use in cats with FIP: ANTIVIRALS AND IMMUNOMODULATORS
|GC376||Inhibits 3C-like protease. Promising results in vitro and in one in vivo experimental study, especially in young cats with effusion (Kim et al., 2016), and one field study, although FIP was not confirmed in all cases (Pedersen et al., 2018).||Not commercially available. Further controlled field studies required.|
|GS-441524||Acts as nucleoside analogue that terminates the RNA chain of viral RNA-dependent RNA polymerase. Very promising results in vitro, in one in vivo experimental study (Murphy et al., 2018), and in one field study, although FIP was not confirmed in all cases (Pedersen et al., 2019).||Not commercially available. Further controlled field studies required.|
|Ribavirin||Inhibits FCoV replication in vitro, but very toxic in cats (Weiss and Oostrom-Ram, 1989; Weiss et al., 1993a, 1993b).||Not recommended.|
|Vidarabine||Inhibits FCoV replication in vitro, but in vivo efficacy unknown (Takano et al., 2013). Toxic to cats if given systemically.||Not recommended.|
|Nelfinavir||Acts as protease inhibitor that showed synergistic effects against FCoV with Galanthus nivalis agglutinin in vitro (Hsieh et al., 2010). No in vivo data available.||Not recommended until in vivo studies available.|
|Galanthus nivalis agglutinin (GNA)||Binds to FCoV-glycosylated envelope glycoproteins, thereby inhibiting viral attachment to the host cell. Showed synergistic effects against FCoV with nelfinavir in vitro (Hsieh et al., 2010). No in vivo data available.||Not recommended until in vivo studies available.|
|Cyclosporine A and non-immunosuppressive derivatives (e.g., alosporivir)||Inhibits cyclophilins and thereby blocks replication of FCoV in vitro (Tanaka et al., 2012, 2013). Reduced viral load in one cat (Tanaka et al., 2015). Can lead to immunosuppression, depending on the cyclosporine A derivative.||Further field studies needed.|
|Indomethacin||Acts as cyclopentenone cyclooxygenase (COX) metabolite with activity against several RNA viruses, including canine coronavirus (Amici et al., 2006). No data on efficacy against FCoV in vitro or in cats with FIP available.||Not recommended until further studies available. Safety in cats unknown (e. g., general risk of non-steroidal anti-inflammatories in cats).|
|Chloroquine||Inhibits FCoV replication in vitro and has anti-inflammatory effects in vivo (Takano et al., 2013). Can increase liver enzyme activities.||Not recommended until further studies available.|
|Feline interferon-omega||Inhibits FCoV replication in vitro and reduced FCoV shedding in 9/11 cats (without FIP) in a shelter (Gil et al., 2013), but was not effective in one placebo-controlled study as treatment in cats with FIP with effusion that were concurrently treated with glucocorticoids (Ritz et al., 2007).||Lack of efficacy in one placebo-controlled study, but further studies in cats without effusions and with lower concurrent glucocorticoid doses would be useful.|
|Human interferon-alpha |
– SC high dose
|Inhibits FCoV replication in vitro, but SC high dose treatment was not effective in an experimental trial (Weiss et al., 1990). Leads to development of antibodies to human interferon-alpha within 3-7 weeks in cats (Zeidner et al., 1990).||Not recommended.|
– PO low dose
|Acts only as immunostimulant and not as an antiviral agent if given orally. No trials published.||Not recommended until further studies available.|
|Polyprenyl immunostimulant (PPI)||Acts as immunomodulator with some efficacy in case reports and one uncontrolled field trial in cats without effusion, but FIP was not definitively diagnosed in all cases (Legendre and Bartges, 2009; Legendre et al., 2017). Median survival of cats treated with glucocorticoids in addition was lower than median survival with PPI alone.||Available in USA and in Europe by importation. Can be considered in cats with FIP without effusion. Placebo-controlled clinical studies in cats with confirmed FIP required.|
Table 3: Drugs that have been suggested for use in cats with FIP: IMMUNOSUPPRESSANTS AND SYMPTOMATIC DRUGS
|Prednisolone/dexa-methasone||Acts as immunosuppressant. No controlled studies. Some cats benefit from treatment and survive for several months (Ritz et al., 2007). Does not cure FIP.||Currently supportive treatment of choice, especially in cats with effusion (if effusion is present, high dose dexamethasone injection in the body cavity can be considered).|
|Azathioprine||Aims to immunosuppress (and to lower the prednisolone/dexamethasone dose). Toxic in cats. No published studies available.||Not recommended.|
|Chlorambucil||Aims to immunosuppress (and to lower the prednisolone/dexamethasone dose). No published studies.||Might be considered in combination with prednisolone/dexamethasone.|
|Cyclophosphamide||Aims to immunosuppress (and to lower the|
prednisolone/dexamethasone dose). No published studies.
|Might be considered in combination with prednisolone/dexamethasone.|
|Anti-TNF-alpha antibody||Blocks TNF-alpha that is involved in exacerbating clinical signs of FIP (Takano et al., 2007a, 2007b, 2009). Some efficacy in a placebo-controlled study including few cats (three treated, three placebo) with experimentally induced FIP (Doki et al., 2016).||Placebo-controlled field studies required.|
|Ozagrel hydrochloride||Inhibits thromboxane synthesis leading to reduction of platelet aggregation and cytokine release. Only used in two cats with some improvement of clinical signs (Watari et al., 1998).||Not recommended until further studies available.|
|Pentoxyfylline/Propentofylline||Aims at treating vasculitis. One placebo-controlled double blind study on propentofylline showed no efficacy (Fischer et al., 2011).||Not recommended.|
Many attempts have been made to develop an FIP vaccine, most of which failed. In addition, antibody-dependent enhancement of infection was observed experimentally and resulted in more vaccinated than control cats developing FIP. At present there is one intranasal vaccine commercially available in the USA and in some European countries. It contains a temperature sensitive mutant of the type II FCoV strain DF2; type I coronaviruses are, however, more prevalent in the field in most countries (Addie and Jarrett, 2001; Addie et al., 2003; Kummrow et al., 2005). The vaccine aims to induce local mucosal immune responses through the induction of IgA and cell-mediated immunity. However, it also induces development of systemic antibodies against FCoV, although usually with low titres.
The efficacy of this vaccine is in question. Results from experimental studies have been inconsistent, with preventable fractions between 0 and 75% (Gerber et al., 1990; Hoskins et al., 1995; McArdle et al., 1995; Scott et al., 1995). Results from field studies have been equally inconsistent (Reeves, 1995; Fehr et al., 1995, 1997). No difference in the development of FIP between the vaccinated and placebo groups was found during the first 150 days after vaccination when the vaccine was used in Persian breeding colonies (Fehr et al., 1995). However, after 150 days, significantly fewer cases of FIP occurred in the vaccinated cats compared to the placebo group (Fehr et al., 1995) and retrospectively virus was found in the blood samples of the cats who developed FIP. In another trial, a preventable fraction of 75% was found when the vaccine was tested in a large cat shelter in the USA (Reeves, 1995). In this study, all kittens were antibody-negative prior to vaccination. The conclusion is that the vaccine is likely not effective in antibody-positive cats that have already been exposed to FCoV.
The antibody-dependent enhancement of infection that was a feature of some experimental vaccine trials has not been observed in field studies, suggesting that the vaccine can be considered safe (Reeves, 1995; Fehr et al., 1995, 1997).
FIP vaccine recommendations
The ABCD considers the FIP vaccine to be non-core and it is not recommended in FCoV antibody-positive cats, which severely limits its use as many cats are FCoV antibody-positive. FCoV antibody-negative kittens could potentially benefit from vaccination, particularly if they subsequently enter an FCoV-endemic environment and thus would be at risk of developing FIP. The fact that in multi-cat environments most kittens are already infected at the age of 16 weeks further limits the usefulness of the vaccine (Addie and Jarrett, 1992; Lutz et al., 2002; Pedersen et al., 2008).
If immunisation is to be performed, a primary vaccination course consisting of two doses of the vaccine three weeks apart from the age of 16 weeks onwards should be followed. Vaccination before 16 weeks of age was not shown to afford protection against FCoV infection (Pedersen et al., 1995; Lutz et al., 2002; Addie et al., 2004).
If primary vaccination has been performed, annual boosters might be considered. Although studies on the duration of immunity are lacking, it is thought to be short-lived (Addie et al., 2003).
Disease control in specific situations
FIP is especially a problem of cats kept in larger groups, particularly in breeding catteries and rescue situations. Breeding catteries are high-risk environments for FIP. In Europe, it is likely that the vast majority of breeding catteries have endemic FCoV infection. Very rarely an unusually high number of cats (more than 10%; Barker et al., 2013) develop FIP within a multi-cat environment.Three such “mini-outbreaks” (referred to as epizootics) were reported (Graham et al., 2012; Wang et al., 2013; Barker et al., 2013) and more have been observed by the authors of these guidelines (unpublished data). Several factors might contribute to these “mini-outbreaks”. These factors include FCoV that have a high chance of becoming FIP-associated FCoV (thus, need a low number of mutations to become FIP-associated), high viral replication and thus viral loads in the environment and spread of these FCoV within a highly susceptible cat population.
Measures for reduction of FCoV infection pressure and risk of FCoV transmission in multi-cat environments
Since FCoV is transmitted predominantly via the faecal–oral route, hygiene is the mainstay of FIP control in any multi-cat environment. FCoV infection is maintained in a household by continual cycles of infection and re-infection (Addie et al., 2003; Foley et al., 2003), the source of infection being faeces in the litter tray. Rarely is FIP a problem among cats leading an indoor–outdoor lifestyle or in stray cats that bury their faeces outside.
The goal in every cat household must be to reduce the FCoV infection pressure and risk of transmission. This can be achieved by keeping not more than three well-adapted cats per room (and keeping such cat groups stable), observing strict hygiene, and providing outdoor access if possible. If outside access is not possible, enough litter boxes should be provided (one more than the number of cats). Litter trays should be positioned in different rooms away from food and water bowls. They should have faeces removed at least twice a day, and litter tray utensils should be cleaned daily. Litter trays should be completely emptied at least weekly and cleaned using detergent. Although FCoV is only rarely shed in saliva, food and water bowls should be cleaned daily using detergent or in a dishwasher at a cycle of at least 60°C, because of the risk of fomite contamination.
In some breeding catteries, attempts to at least control FCoV spread by segregation of cats has been made. Virus shedding in cats occurs over several months or sometimes lifelong, especially in multi-cat households (Addie and Jarrett, 2001; Addie et al., 2003; Pedersen et al., 2008). Identification of cats that are persistently shedding a high FCoV load, and their separation from low shedders and faecal RT-PCR-negative cats, has been suggested for reducing transmission rates (Addie and Jarrett, 1995; Kass and Dent, 1995). Persistent high FCoV load shedders can be detected using quantitative RT-PCR on rectal swabs, which can be collected by the cat owner. Repeated individual RT-PCR of four swabs collected one week apart is recommended to correctly identify non-shedders. However, monthly sequential swabs might be more reliable in the identification of persistent shedding, and to determine the quantity of virus shedding; but this obviously increases the time period of uncertainty.
The laboratory performing the RT-PCR from faecal swabs should provide the FCoV loads and/or an interpretation of the results as to whether or not a cat is considered a persistent high FCoV load shedder. When persistent high shedders are identified within a multi-cat environment, access to their litter trays by non-shedders should be strictly avoided. Ideally three groups are formed: the persistent high shedders, low shedders and non-shedders. However, if not feasible and for practical reasons, separation of the high shedders from the low/non-shedders can be recommended. In addition, the recommendations on how to reduce the FCoV infection pressure listed above should be strictly enforced, and FCoV-infected cats should not be exposed to stressful situations. The screening for persistent high FCoV load shedders gives a temporary picture and results can change over time. Cats can be retested six to nine months later to evaluate whether the situation has changed.
Breeding catteries are those households in which the reduction of FCoV infection pressure is of particular importance. Special measures in kittens can be considered. FIP usually occurs after the kittens have left the breeder and are in a new household (Cave et al., 2002). Most kittens are considered protected from FCoV infection by maternally-derived antibodies (MDA) until they are five to six weeks of age. In some studies, FCoV transmission has been prevented by isolating pregnant queens two weeks before birth and then moving their kittens away to a clean environment away from other cats when they are five to six weeks old, and maintaining them there until they go to a new home (Addie and Jarrett, 1992, 1995). For this method to succeed, the breeder is required to follow strict quarantine hygiene methods. However, the procedure failed in another study in which kittens were found to shed FCoV already as early as at the age of two weeks (Lutz et al., 2002), questioning the protection through MDA. In addition, specialist veterinary behaviourists often advise against early weaning due to a risk of socialisation problems in these kittens (Philip and Seitz, 1959; Guyot et al., 1980; Bateson, 1981).
There are PCR tests commercially available which purport to detect cats that are resistant to FIP. These tests are currently not recommended. Positive selective breeding for “resistance to FIP” in a colony of laboratory cats was shown to decrease the survival of the offspring after intraperitoneal infection with FIP-associated FCoV Pedersen et al., 2016). The diminished resistance to FIP in these cats was associated with decreased genomic heterozygosity.
Rescue facilities, shelters and boarding catteries
Preventing FCoV infection in rescue facilities, shelters, and boarding catteries is extremely difficult. In catteries and shelters with more than six cats, FCoV infection is virtually always present (Pedersen, 2009). Strict hygiene precautions must be enforced to reduce virus contamination, infection pressure and viral spread. Special care should be given to sterilising litter trays between use in different cats, having litter trays and scoops dedicated to each cat pen, and avoiding fomite transmission on cleaning utensils such as brushes. Ideally, cats should be kept in small groups of three or less cats per room (Addie et al., 2009) (see above) and with limited exchange of animals. New catteries should be designed with infectious disease control and stress reduction as priorities (Möstl et al., 2013; Wagner et al., 2018a, 2018b).
Management of FCoV-infected cats
FCoV-infected cats can be detected by faecal RT-PCR. Stress experienced by FCoV-infected cats (e.g., surgery, boarding, adoption) (Rohrer et al., 1993; Riemer et al., 2016) or immunosuppression caused by co-infection with immunosuppressive viruses, e.g. feline leukaemia virus or feline immunodeficiency virus, predisposes the cats to develop FIP. Minimisation of stress and avoidance of secondary infections are therefore important features of prevention of the development of FIP in FCoV-infected cats.
FCoV-infected cats should not be vaccinated with a FIP vaccine. The question has been raised whether FCoV-infected cats should receive other vaccinations, since vaccination was identified as a stressor preceding onset of FIP in one study (Riemer et al., 2016). However, studies are lacking to support that FCoV-infected cats should be vaccinated less often than non-infected cats. Therefore, until the contrary has been demonstrated, healthy FCoV-positive cats should receive vaccination similarly to non-infected cats.
Any treatment inducing immunosuppression might increase the risk of FIP development in FCoV-infected cats (Addie et al., 2015). However, cats might have diseases that require immunosuppressive treatment in the presence of FCoV infection.
Maintaining a FCoV-negative status
Once a household or a geographic area has achieved a FCoV-negative status, every effort should be made to keep it FCoV-free. Rectal swabs for RT-PCR, taken four times, a week apart, and a serum or plasma antibody test, can help to prevent introduction of infected cats into a FCoV-free home or geographical area (Addie et al., 2012).The veterinarians of the Falkland (Malvinas) Islands instituted a policy that only FCoV antibody-negative cats could be imported to the Islands, protecting the islands’ cats from FIP by preventing the introduction of FCoV (Addie et al., 2012).
ABCD Europe gratefully acknowledges the support of Boehringer Ingelheim (the founding sponsor of the ABCD) and Virbac.
Addie DD (2000): Clustering of feline coronaviruses in multi-cat households. Vet J 159, 8-9.
Addie DD, Jarrett O (1990): Control of feline coronavirus infection in kittens. Vet Rec 126, 164.
Addie DD, Jarrett O (1992): A study of naturally occurring feline coronavirus infection in kittens. Vet Rec 130,133–137.
Addie DD, Jarrett O (1995): Control of feline coronavirus infections in breeding catteries by serotesting, isolation and early weaning. Feline Pract 23, 92–95.
Addie DD, Jarrett JO (2001): Use of a reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction for monitoring feline coronavirus shedding by healthy cats. Vet Rec 148, 649-653.
Addie D, Belak S, Boucraut-Baralon C, Egberink H, Frymus T, Gruffydd-Jones T, et al (2009): Feline infectious peritonitis. ABCD guidelines on prevention and management. J Feline Med Surg 11, 594–604.
Addie DD, Le Poder S, Burr P, Decaro N, Graham E, Hofmann-Lehmann R, Jarrett O, McDonald M, Meli ML (2015): Utility of feline coronavirus antibody tests. J Feline Med Surg 17, 152-162.
Addie DD, McDonald M, Audhuy S, Burr P, Hollins J, Kovacic R, Lutz H, Luxton Z, Mazar S, Meli ML (2012): Quarantine protects Falkland Islands (Malvinas) cats from feline coronavirus infection. J Feline Med Surg 14, 171-176.
Addie DD, Paltrinieri S, Pedersen NC (2004): Recommendations from workshops of the second international feline coronavirus/feline infectious peritonitis symposium. J Feline Med Surg 6, 125-130.
Addie DD, Schaap IA, Nicolson L, Jarrett O (2003): Persistence and transmission of natural type I feline coronavirus infection. J Gen Virol 84, 2735-2744.
Addie DD, Toth S, Herrewegh AAPM, Jarrett O (1996): Feline coronavirus in the intestinal contents of cats with feline infectious peritonitis. Vet Rec 139, 522-523.
Addie DD, Toth S, Murray GD, Jarrett O (1995): The risk of typical and antibody enhanced feline infectious peritonitis among cats from feline coronavirus endemic households. Feline Pract 23, 24-26.
Amici C, Di Caro A, Ciucci A, Chiappa L, Castilletti C, Martella V, Decaro N, Buonavoglia C, Capobianchi MR, Santoro MG (2006): Indomethacin has a potent antiviral activity against SARS coronavirus. Antivir Ther 11, 1021-1030.
An DJ, Jeoung HY, Jeong W, Park JY, Lee MH, Park BK (2011): Prevalence of Korean cats with natural feline coronavirus infections. Virol J 8, 455.
Baek S, Jo J, Song K, Seo K (2017): Recurrent pericardial effusion with feline infectious peritonitis in a cat. J Vet Clinics 34, 437-440.
Bálint Á, Farsang A, Zádori Z, Belák S (2014): Comparative in vivo analysis of recombinant type II feline coronaviruses with truncated and completed ORF3 region. PLoS One 20;9(2), e88758.
Barker EN, Stranieri A, Helps CR, Porter E, Davidson AD, Day MJ, Kipar A, Tasker S (2017): Limitations of using feline coronavirus spike protein gene mutations to diagnose feline infectious peritonitis. Vet Res 48, 60.
Barker EN, Tasker S (2017): Diagnosing FIP: Has recent research made it any easier? In: Amercian College of Veterinary Internal Medicine Forum, June 8-10 National Harbor, Maryland, USA.
Barker EN, Tasker S, Gruffydd-Jones TJ, Tuplin CK, Burton K, Porter E, et al (2013): Phylogenetic analysis of feline coronavirus strains in an epizootic outbreak of feline infectious peritonitis. J Vet Intern Med 27, 445-450.
Barlough JE, Scott FW (1990): Effectiveness of three antiviral agents against FIP virus in vitro. Vet Rec 126, 556-558.
Bauer BS, Kerr ME, Sandmeyer LS, Grahn BH (2013): Positive immunostaining for feline infectious peritonitis (FIP) in a Sphinx cat with cutaneous lesions and bilateral panuveitis. Vet Ophthalmol 16 Suppl 1, 160-163.
Bateson P (1981): Discontinuities in development and changes in the organization of play in cats. In: Immelmann K, Barlow GW, Petrinovich L, Main M (eds.): Behavioral Development. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 281-329.
Beatty J, Barrs V (2010): Pleural effusion in the cat: a practical approach to determining aetiology. J Feline Med Surg 12, 693-707.
Bell ET, Toribio JA, White JD, Malik R, Norris JM (2006): Seroprevalence study of feline coronavirus in owned and feral cats in Sydney, Australia. Aust Vet J 84, 74-81.
Belouzard S, Millet JK, Licitra BN, Whittaker GR (2012): Mechanisms of coronavirus cell entry mediated by the viral spike protein. Viruses 4, 1011-1033.
Benetka V, Kolodziejek J, Walk K, Rennhofer M, Möstl K (2006): M gene analysis of atypical strains of feline and canine coronavirus circulating in an Austrian animal shelter. Vet Rec 159, 170-175.
Benetka V, Kubber-Heiss A, Kolodziejek J, Nowotny N, Hofmann-Parisot M, Möstl K (2004): Prevalence of feline coronavirus types I and II in cats with histopathologically verified feline infectious peritonitis. Vet Microbiol 99, 31-42.
Boettcher IC, Steinberg T, Matiasek K, Greene CE, Hartmann K, Fischer A (2007): Use of anti-coronavirus antibody testing of cerebrospinal fluid for diagnosis of feline infectious peritonitis involving the central nervous system in cats. J Am Vet Med Assoc 230, 199-205.
Bolcskei A, Bilkei G (1995a): Langzeitstudie über behandelte FIP-verdächtige Katzen. Die Auswirkung verschiedener Therapieversuche auf das Überleben FIP-verdächtiger Katzen. Tieraerztliche Umschau 50, 21.
Bolcskei A, Bilkei G (1995b): Langzeitstudie über behandelte FIP-verdächtige Katzen. Überlebensrate der FIP-verdächtigen Katzen nach Behandlung mit Ampicillin, Prednisolon und Cyclophosphamid. Tieraerztliche Umschau 50, 592.
Borschensky CM, Reinacher M (2014): Mutations in the 3c and 7b genes of feline coronavirus in spontaneously affected FIP cats. Res Vet Sci pii: S0034-5288(14)00218-5.
Brown MA, Troyer JL, Pecon-Slattery J, Roelke ME, O'Brien SJ (2009): Genetics and pathogenesis of feline infectious peritonitis virus. Emerg Infect Dis 15,1445-1452.
Cannon MJ, Silkstone MA, Kipar AM (2005): Cutaneous lesions associated with coronavirus-induced vasculitis in a cat with feline infectious peritonitis and concurrent feline immunodeficiency virus infection. J Feline Med Surg 7, 233-236.
Cave TA, Golder MC, Simpson J, Addie DD (2004): Risk factors for feline coronavirus seropositivity in cats relinquished to a UK rescue charity. J Feline Med Surg 6(2), 53-58.
Cave TA, Thompson H, Reid SW, Hodgson DR, Addie DD (2002): Kitten mortality in the United Kingdom: a retrospective analysis of 274 histopathological examinations (1986 to 2000). Vet Rec 151, 497-501.
Ceciliani F, Grossi C, Giordano A, Pocacqua V, Paltrinieri S (2004): Decreased sialylation of the acute phase protein alpha1-acid glycoprotein in feline infectious peritonitis (FIP). Vet Immunol Immunopathol 99, 229-236.
Chang HW, de Groot RJ, Egberink HF, Rottier PJ (2010): Feline infectious peritonitis: insights into feline coronavirus pathobiogenesis and epidemiology based on genetic analysis of the viral 3c gene. J Gen Virol 91, 415-420.
Chang H-W, Egberink HF, Halpin R, Spiro DJ, Rottier PJM (2012): Spike protein fusion peptide and feline coronavirus virulence. Emerg Infect Dis 18, 1089–1095.
Choong OK, Mehrbod P, Tejo BA, et al (2014): In vitro antiviral activity of circular triple helix forming oligonucleotide RNA towards Feline Infectious Peritonitis virus replication. Biomed Res Int 654712, doi: 10.1155/2014/654712.
Cohen TM, Blois S, Vince AR (2016): Fatal extraintestinal toxoplasmosis in a young male cat with enlarged mesenteric lymph nodes. Can Vet J 57, 483-486.
Colgrove DJ, Parker AJ (1971): Feline infectious peritonitis. J Small Anim Pract 12, 225-232.
Cornelissen E, Dewerchin HL, Van Hamme E, Nauwynck HJ (2007): Absence of surface expression of feline infectious peritonitis virus (FIPV) antigens on infected cells isolated from cats with FIP. Vet Microbiol 121,131-137.
Crawford AH, Stoll AL, Sanchez-Masian D, Shea A, Michaels J, Fraser AR, Beltran E (2017): Clinicopathologic Features and Magnetic Resonance Imaging Findings in 24 Cats With Histopathologically Confirmed Neurologic Feline Infectious Peritonitis. J Vet Intern Med 31, 1477-1486.
Dean GA, Olivry T, Stanton C, Pedersen NC (2003): In vivo cytokine response to experimental feline infectious peritonitis virus infection. Vet Microbiol 97, 1-12.
Declercq J, De Bosschere H, Schwarzkopf I, Declercq L (2008): Papular cutaneous lesions in a cat associated with feline infectious peritonitis. Vet Dermatol 19, 255-258.
Dedeurwaerder A, Desmarets LM, Olyslaegers DA, Vermeulen BL, Dewerchin HL, Nauwynck HJ (2013): The role of accessory proteins in the replication of feline infectious peritonitis virus in peripheral blood monocytes. Vet Microbiol 162(2-4), 447-455.
Dedeurwaerder A, Olyslaegers DA, Desmarets LM, et al (2014): ORF7-encoded accessory protein 7a of feline infectious peritonitis virus as a counteragent against IFN-α-induced antiviral response. J Gen Virol 95, 393-402.
De Groot RJ, Baker SC, Baric R, Enjuanes L, Gorbalenya AE, Holmes KV, Perlman S, Poon L, Rottier PJM, Talbot PJ, Woo PCY, Ziebuhr J (2012): Family Coronaviridae. Ninth Report International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses; King AMQ, Adams MJ, Carstens EB, Lefkowitz EJ (eds.), Elsevier, Amsterdam, 806-828.
De Groot RJ, Horzinek MC (1995): Feline infectious peritonitis. In: Siddell SG (ed.): The coronaviridae. New York: Plenum Press, 293-309.
Desmarets LM, Vermeulen BL, Theuns S, Conceicao-Neto N, Zeller M, Roukaerts ID, Acar DD, Olyslaegers DA, Van Ranst M, Matthijnssens J, Nauwynck HJ (2016): Experimental feline enteric coronavirus infection reveals an aberrant infection pattern and shedding of mutants with impaired infectivity in enterocyte cultures. Sci Rep 6, 20022.
Dewerchin HL, Cornelissen E, Nauwynck HJ (2005): Replication of feline coronaviruses in peripheral blood monocytes. Arch Virol 150, 2483-2500.
Doenges SJ, Weber K, Dorsch R, Fux R, Fischer A, Matiasek LA, Matiasek K, Hartmann K (2016): Detection of feline coronavirus in cerebrospinal fluid for diagnosis of feline infectious peritonitis in cats with and without neurological signs. J Feline Med Surg 18, 104-109.
Doenges SJ, Weber K, Dorsch R, Fux R, Hartmann K (2017): Comparison of real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction of peripheral blood mononuclear cells, serum and cell-free body cavity effusion for the diagnosis of feline infectious peritonitis. J Feline Med Surg 19, 344-350.
Doki T, Takano T, Kawagoe K, Kito A, Hohdatsu T (2016): Therapeutic effect of anti-feline TNF-alpha monoclonal antibody for feline infectious peritonitis. Res Vet Sci 104, 17-23.
Doki T, Takano T, Nishiyama Y, Nakamura M, Hohdatsu T (2013): Generation, characterization and therapeutic potential of anti-felineTNF-alpha MAbs for feline infectious peritonitis. Res Vet Sci 95, 1248-1254.
Dunbar D, Kwok W, Graham E, Armitage A, Irvine R, Johnston P, McDonald M, Montgomery D, Nicolson L, Robertson E, Weir W, Addie DD (2018): Diagnosis of non-effusive feline infectious peritonitis by reverse transcriptase quantitative polymerase chain reaction from mesenteric lymph node fine needle aspirates. J Feline Med Surg, doi/10.1177/1098612X18809165.
Duthie S, Eckersall PD, Addie DD, Lawrence CE, Jarrett O (1997): Value of alpha 1-acid glycoprotein in the diagnosis of feline infectious peritonitis. Vet Rec 141, 299-303.
Dye C, Siddell SG (2007): Genomic RNA sequence of feline coronavirus strain FCoV F1Je. J Feline Med Surg 9, 202-213.
Dye C, Temperton N, Siddell SG (2007): Type I feline coronavirus spike glycoprotein fails to recognize aminopeptidase N as a functional receptor on feline cell lines. J Gen Virol 88, 1753-1760.
Evermann JF, Heeney JL, Roelke ME, McKiernan AJ, O'Brien SJ (1988): Biological and pathological consequences of feline infectious peritonitis virus infection in the cheetah. Arch. Virol. 102, 155-171.
Fehr D, Holznagel E, Bolla S, Hauser B, Herrewegh AAPM, Horzinek MC, Lutz H (1995): Evaluation of the Safety and Efficacy of a Modified-Live FIPV Vaccine under Field Conditions. Feline Practice 23, 83-88.
Fehr D, Holznagel E, Bolla S, Hauser B, Herrewegh AAPM, Horzinek MC, Lutz H (1997): Placebo-controlled evaluation of a modified life virus vaccine against feline infectious peritonitis: Safety and efficacy under field conditions. Vaccine 15, 1101-1109.
Felten S, Leutenegger CM, Balzer HJ, Pantchev N, Matiasek K, Wess G, Egberink H, Hartmann K (2017a): Sensitivity and specificity of a real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction detecting feline coronavirus mutations in effusion and serum/plasma of cats to diagnose feline infectious peritonitis. BMC Vet Res 13(1), 228.
Felten S, Matiasek K, Gruendl S, Sangl L, Hartmann K (2017b): Utility of an immunocytochemical assay using aqueous humor in the diagnosis of feline infectious peritonitis. Vet Ophthalmol 21(1), 27-34.
Felten S, Matiasek K, Gruendl S, Sangl L, Wess G, Hartmann K (2017c): Investigation into the utility of an immunocytochemical assay in body cavity effusions for diagnosis of feline infectious peritonitis. J Feline Med Surg 19, 410-418.
Felten S, Weider K, Doenges S, Gruendl S, Matiasek K, Hermanns W, Mueller E, Matiasek L, Fischer A, Weber K, Hirschberger J, Wess G, Hartmann K (2017d): Detection of feline coronavirus spike gene mutations as a tool to diagnose feline infectious peritonitis. J Feline Med Surg 19, 321-335.
Fischer Y, Ritz S, Weber K, et al (2011): Randomized, placebo controlled study of the effect of propentofylline on survival time and quality of life of cats with feline infectious peritonitis. J Vet Intern Med 25, 1270-1276.
Fischer Y, Sauter-Louis C, Hartmann K (2012a): Diagnostic accuracy of the Rivalta test for feline infectious peritonitis. Vet Clin Pathol 41, 558-567.
Fischer Y, Weber K, Sauter-Louis C, Hartmann K (2013): The Rivalta's test as a diagnostic variable in feline effusions - evaluation of optimum reaction and storage conditions. Tieraerztl Prax 41, 297-303.
Fischer Y, Wess G, Hartmann K (2012b): Pericardial effusion in a cat with feline infectious peritonitis. Schweiz Arch Tierheilkd 154, 27-31.
Fish EJ, Diniz PPV, Juan YC, Bossong F, Collisson EW, Drechsler Y, Kaltenboeck B (2018): Cross-sectional quantitative RT-PCR study of feline coronavirus viremia and replication in peripheral blood of healthy shelter cats in Southern California. J Feline Med Surg 20, 295-301.
Foley JE, Lapointe JM, Koblik P, Poland A, Pedersen NC (1998): Diagnostic features of clinical neurologic feline infectious peritonitis. J Vet Intern Med 12, 415-423.
Foley JE, Leutenegger C (2001): A review of coronavirus infection in the central nervous system of cats and mice. J Vet Intern Med 15, 438-444.
Foley JE, Pedersen NC (1996): The inheritance of susceptibility to feline infectious peritonitis in purebred catteries. Feline Practice 24, 14-22.
Foley JE, Poland A, Carlson J, Pedersen NC (1997): Patterns of feline coronavirus infection and fecal shedding from cats in multiple-cat environments. J Am Vet Med Assoc 210, 1307–1312.
Foley JE, Rand C, Leutenegger C (2003): Inflammation and changes in cytokine levels in neurological feline infectious peritonitis. J Feline Med Surg 5, 313-322.
Ford RB (1986): Biological response modifiers in the management of viral infection. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract 16, 1191-1204.
Freiche GM, Guidez CL, Duarte M, Le Poder YB (2016): Sequencing of 3c and spike genes in feline infectious peritonitis: which samples are the most relevant for analysis? A retrospective study of 33 cases from 2008 to 2014. J Vet Intern Med 30, 411.
Gelain ME, Meli M, Paltrinieri S (2006): Whole blood cytokine profiles in cats infected by feline coronavirus and healthy non-FCoV infected specific pathogen-free cats.
J Feline Med Surg 8, 389-399.
Gerber JD, Ingersoll JD, Gast AM, Christianson KK, Selzer NL, Landon RM, Pfeiffer NE, Sharpee RL, Beckenhauer WH (1990): Protection against feline infectious peritonitis by intranasal inoculation of a temperature-sensitive FIPV vaccine. Vaccine 8, 536-542.
Gil S, Leal Ro, Duarte A, et al (2013): Relevance of feline interferon omega for clinical improvement and reduction of concurrent viral excretion in retrovirus infected cats from a rescue shelter. Res Vet Sci 94, 753–763.
Giordano A, Paltrinieri S (2009): Interferon-gamma in the serum and effusions of cats with feline coronavirus infection. Vet J 180, 396-398.
Giordano A, Paltrinieri S, Bertazzolo W, Milesi E, Parodi M (2005): Sensitivity of Tru-cut and fine needle aspiration biopsies of liver and kidney for diagnosis of feline infectious peritonitis. Vet Clin Pathol 34, 368-374.
Giori L, Giordano A, Giudice C, Grieco V, Paltrinieri S (2011): Performances of different diagnostic tests for feline infectious peritonitis in challenging clinical cases. J Small Anim Pract 52, 152-157.
Gonon V, Duquesne V, Klonjkowski B, Monteil M, Aubert A, Eloit M (1999): Clearance of infection in cats naturally infected with feline coronaviruses is associated with an anti-S glycoprotein antibody response. J Gen Virol 80, 2315-2317.
Graham EM, Went K, Serra F, Dunbar D, Fuentes M, McDonald M, Jackson MW (2012): Early molecular diagnosis of an effusive FIP outbreak in antibody-negative kittens. J Feline Med Surg 14, 650-658.
Gruendl S, Matiasek K, Matiasek L, Fischer A, Felten S, Jurina K, Hartmann K (2016): Diagnostic utility of cerebrospinal fluid immunocytochemistry for diagnosis of feline infectious peritonitis manifesting in the central nervous system. J Feline Med Surg 19, 576-585.
Gunn-Moore DA, Caney SM, Gruffydd-Jones TJ, Helps CR, Harbour DA (1998): Antibody and cytokine responses in kittens during the development of feline infectious peritonitis (FIP). Vet Immunol Immunopathol 65, 221-242.
Gunther S, Felten S, Wess G, Hartmann K, Weber K (2018): Detection of feline Coronavirus in effusions of cats with and without feline infectious peritonitis using loop-mediated isothermal amplification. J Virol Methods 256, 32-36.
Guyot GW, Cross HA, Bennett TL (1980): Early social isolation of the domestic cat: Responses to separation from social and nonsocial rearing stimuli. Developmental Psychobiology 13, 309-315.
Hartmann K (2018): Coronavirus Infections (Canine and Feline), including Feline Infectious Peritonitis. In: Ettinger SJ, Feldman EC, Côté E (Eds.): Textbook of Veterinary Internal Medicine. Elsevier, St. Louis, 983–991.
Hartmann K, Binder C, Hirschberger J, Cole D, Reinacher M, Schroo S, Frost J, Egberink H, Lutz H, Hermanns W (2003): Comparison of different tests to diagnose feline infectious peritonitis. J Vet Int Med 17, 781-790.
Hartmann K, Ritz S (2008): Feline Infectious Peritonitis: de Mari K (ed.): Clinical Case Veterinary Interferon Handbook. 2nd edition, Virbac SA, BP 27, O6510 CARROS, France. 147-152.
Harvey CJ, Lopez JW, Hendrick MJ (1996): An uncommon intestinal manifestation of feline infectious peritonitis: 26 cases (1986-1993). J Amer Vet Med Assoc 209, 1117-1120.
Hazuchova K, Held S, Neiger R (2016): Usefulness of acute phase proteins in differentiating between feline infectious peritonitis and other diseases in cats with body cavity effusions. J Feline Med Surg, DOI: 10.1177/1098612X16658925.
Herrewegh AA, de Groot RJ, Cepica A, Egberink HF, Horzinek MC, Rottier PJ (1995a): Detection of feline coronavirus RNA in feces, tissues, and body fluids of naturally infected cats by reverse transcriptase PCR. J Clin Microbiol 33, 684-689.
Herrewegh AA, Mähler M, Hedrich HJ, et al (1997): Persistence and evolution of feline coronavirus in a closed cat-breeding colony. Virology 234, 349-363.
Herrewegh AA, Smeenk I, Horzinek MC, Rottier PJ, de Groot RJ (1998): Feline coronavirus type II strains 79-1683 and 79-1146 originate from a double recombination between feline coronavirus type I and canine coronavirus. J Virol 72, 4508-4514.
Herrewegh AAPM, Vennema H, Horzinek MC, Rottier PJM, de Groot RJ (1995): The molecular genetics of feline coronaviruses: comparative sequence analysis of the ORF7a/7b transcription unit of different biotypes. Virology 212, 622-631.
Hirschberger J, Hartmann K, Wilhelm N, Frost J, Lutz H, Kraft W (1995): Clinical symptoms and diagnosis of feline infectious peritonitis. Tierarztl Prax 23, 92-99.
Hohdatsu T, Okada S, Ishizuka Y, Yamada H, Koyama H (1992): The prevalence of types I and II feline coronavirus infections in cats. J Vet Med Sci 54, 557-562.
Horzinek MC, Osterhaus AD (1979): Feline infectious peritonitis: a world-wide serosurvey. Am J Vet Res 40, 1487-1492.
Hoskins JD, Henk WG, Storz J, Kearney MT (1995): The potential use of a modified live FIPV vaccine to prevent experimental FECV infection. Feline Practice 23, 89-90.
Hsieh LE, Chueh LL (2014): Identification and genotyping of feline infectious peritonitis-associated single nucleotide polymorphisms in the feline interferon-γ gene. Vet Res 45, 57.
Hsieh L, Huang W, Tang D, Wang Y, Chen C, Chueh L (2013): 3C protein of feline coronavirus inhibits viral replication independently of the autophagy pathway. Res Vet Sci 95, 1241-1247.
Hsieh LE, Lin CN, Su BL, et al (2010): Synergistic antiviral effect of Galanthus nivalis agglutinin and nelfinavir against feline coronavirus. Antiviral Res 88, 25-30.
Hugo TB, Heading KL (2015): Prolonged survival of a cat diagnosed with feline infectious peritonitis by immunohistochemistry. Can Vet J 56, 53-58.
Ishida T, Shibanai A, Tanaka S, et al (2004): Use of recombinant feline interferon and glucocorticoid in the treatment of feline infectious peritonitis. J Feline Med Surg 6, 107-109.
Ives EJ, Vanhaesebrouck AE, Cian F (2013): Immunocytochemical demonstration of feline infectious peritonitis virus within cerebrospinal fluid macrophages. J Feline Med Surg 15, 1149-1153.
Jeffery U, Deitz K, Hostetter S (2012): Positive predictive value of albumin:globulin ratio for feline infectious peritonitis in a mid-western referral hospital population. J Feline Med Surg 14, 903-905.
Jinks MR, English RV, Gilger BC (2016): Causes of endogenous uveitis in cats presented to referral clinics in North Carolina. Vet Ophthalmol 19 Suppl 1, 30-37.
Kass PH, Dent TH (1995): The epidemiology of feline infectious peritonitis in catteries. Feline Practice 23, 27-32.
Kennedy M, Citino S, McNabb AH, Moffatt AS, Gertz K, Kania S (2002): Detection of feline coronavirus in captive Felidae in the USA. J Vet Diagn Invest 14, 520-522.
Kent M (2009): The cat with neurological manifestations of systemic disease. Key conditions impacting on the CNS. J Feline Med Surg 11, 395-407.
Kim Y, Mandadapu SR, GroutasWC, et al (2013): Potent inhibition of feline coronaviruses with peptidyl compounds targeting coronavirus 3C-like protease. Antiviral Res 97, 161-168.
Kipar A, Baptiste K, Barth A, Reinacher M (2006): Natural FCoV infection: cats with FIP exhibit significantly higher viral loads than healthy infected cats. J Feline Med Surg 8, 69-72.
Kipar A, Koehler K, Bellmann S, Reinacher M (1999): Feline infectious peritonitis presenting as a tumour in the abdominal cavity. Vet Rec 144, 118-122.
Kipar A, Kremendahl J, Addie DD, Leukert W, Grant CK, Reinacher M (1998): Fatal enteritis associated with coronavirus infection in cats. J Comp Path 119, 1-14.
Kipar A, May H, Menger S, Weber M, Leukert W, Reinacher M (2005): Morphologic features and development of granulomatous vasculitis in feline infectious peritonitis. Vet Pathol 42, 321-330.
Kipar A, Meli ML (2014): Feline Infectious Peritonitis: Still an Enigma? Vet Path 51, 505-526.
Kipar A, Meli ML, Baptiste KE, Bowker LJ, Lutz H (2010): Sites of feline coronavirus persistence in healthy cats. J Gen Virol 91, 1698-1707.
Kiss I, Poland AM, Pedersen NC (2004): Disease outcome and cytokine responses in cats immunized with an avirulent feline infectious peritonitis virus (FIPV)-UCD1 and challenge-exposed with virulent FIPV-UCD8. J Feline Med Surg 6, 89-97.
Kline KL, Joseph RJ, Averdill DR (1994): Feline infectious peritonitis with neurologic involvement: clinical and pathological findings in 24 cats. J Amer Anim Hosp Assoc 30, 111-118.
Kummrow M, Meli ML, Haessig M, Goenczi E, Poland A, Pedersen NC, Hofmann-Lehmann R, Lutz H (2005): Feline coronavirus serotypes 1 and 2: seroprevalence and association with disease in Switzerland. Clin Diagn Lab Immunol 12, 1209-1215.
Legendre AM, Bartges JW (2009): Effect of Polyprenyl Immunostimulant on the survival times of three cats with the dry form of feline infectious peritonitis. J Feline Med Surg 11(8), 624-626.
Legendre AM, Kuritz T, Galyon G et al (2017): Polyprenyl Immunostimulant Treatment of Cats with Presumptive Non-Effusive Feline Infectious Peritonitis in a Field Study. Front Vet Sci 4, 7.
Le Poder S, Pham-Hung d'Alexandry d'Orangiani AL, Duarte L, Fournier A, Horhogea C, Pinhas C, Vabret A, Eloit M (2013): Infection of cats with atypical feline coronaviruses harbouring a truncated form of the canine type I non-structural ORF3 gene. Infect Genet Evol 20, 488-494.
Levy JK, Crawford PC, Lappin MR, Dubovi EJ, Levy MG, Alleman R, Tucker SJ, Clifford EL (2008): Infectious diseases of dogs and cats on Isabela Island, Galapagos. J Vet Intern Med 22, 60-65.
Lewis KM, O'Brien RT (2010): Abdominal Ultrasonographic Findings Associated with Feline Infectious Peritonitis: A Retrospective Review of 16 Cases. J Amer Anim Hosp Assoc 46, 152-160.
Licitra BN, Millet JK, Regan AD, Hamilton BS, Rinaldi VD, Duhamel GE, Whittaker GR (2013): Mutation in Spike Protein Cleavage Site and Pathogenesis of Feline Coronavirus. Emerg Infect Dis 19, 1066-1073.
Lin CN, Su BL, Wang CH, Hsieh MW, Chueh TJ, Chueh LL (2009): Genetic diversity and correlation with feline infectious peritonitis of feline coronavirus type I and II: a 5-year study in Taiwan. Vet Microbiol 12;136(3-4), 233-239.
Litster AL, Pogranichniy R, Lin TL (2013): Diagnostic utility of a direct immunofluorescence test to detect feline coronavirus antigen in macrophages in effusive feline infectious peritonitis. Vet J 198, 362-366.
Liu IJ, Tsai WT, Hsieh LE, et al (2013): Peptides corresponding to the predicted heptad repeat 2 domain of the feline coronavirus spike protein are potent inhibitors of viral infection. PLoS One 8, e82081.
Longstaff L, Porter E, Crossley VJ, Hayhow SE, Helps CR, Tasker S (2017): Feline coronavirus quantitative reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction on effusion samples in cats with and without feline infectious peritonitis. J Feline Med Surg 19, 240-245.
Lorusso E, Mari V, Losurdo M, Lanave G, Trotta A, Dowgier G, Colaianni ML, Zatelli A, Elia G, Buonavoglia D, Decaro N (2017): Discrepancies between feline coronavirus antibody and nucleic acid detection in effusions of cats with suspected feline infectious peritonitis. Res Vet Sci, pii: S0034-5288(17)30649-5.
Lutz H, Gut M, Leutenegger CM, Schiller I, Wiseman A, Meli M (2002): Kinetics of FCoV infection in kittens born in catteries of high risk for FIP under different rearing conditions. Second International Feline Coronavirus/Feline Infectious Peritonitis Symposium, Glasgow, Scotland.
McArdle F, Tennant B, Bennett M, Kelly DF, Gaskell CJ, Gaskell RM (1995): Independent Evaluation of a Modified-Live FIPV Vaccine under Experimental Conditions (University-of-Liverpool Experience). Feline Practice 23, 67-71.
Meli ML, Burr P, Decaro N, Graham E, Jarrett O, Lutz H, McDonald M, Addie DD (2013): Samples with high virus load cause a trend toward lower signal in feline coronavirus antibody tests. J Feline Med Surg 15, 295-299.
Meli M, Kipar A, Müller C, Jenal K, Gönczi E, Borel N, Gunn-Moore D, Chalmers S, Lin F, Reinacher M, Lutz H (2004): High viral loads despite absence of clinical and pathological findings in cats experimentally infected with feline coronavirus (FCoV) type I and in naturally FCoV-infected cats. J Feline Med Surg 6, 69-81.
Mesquita LP, Hora AS, de Siqueira A, Salvagni FA, Brandao PE, Maiorka PC (2016): Glial response in the central nervous system of cats with feline infectious peritonitis. J Feline Med Surg 18, 1023-1030.
Millet JK, Whittaker GR (2015): Host cell proteases: Critical determinants of coronavirus tropism and pathogenesis. Virus Res 202, 120-134.
Mochizuki M, Nakatani H, Yoshida M (1994): Inhibitory effects of recombinant feline interferon on the replication of feline enteropathogenic viruses in vitro. Vet Microbiol 39, 145-152.
Möstl K, Egberink H, Addie D, Frymus T, Boucraut-Baralon C, Truyen U, Hartmann K, Lutz H, Gruffydd-Jones T, Radford AD, Lloret A, Pennisi MG, Hosie MJ, Marsilio F, Thiry E, Belak S, Horzinek MC (2013): Prevention of infectious diseases in cat shelters: ABCD guidelines. J Feline Med Surg 15, 546-554.
Murphy BG, Perron M, Murakami E, Bauer K, Park Y, Eckstrand C, Liepnieks M, Pedersen NC (2018): The nucleoside analog GS-441524 strongly inhibits feline infectious peritonitis (FIP) virus in tissue culture and experimental cat infection studies. Vet Microbiol 219, 226-233.
Negrin A, Cherubini GB, Lamb C, Benigni L, Adams V, Platt S (2010): Clinical signs, magnetic resonance imaging findings and outcome in 77 cats with vestibular disease: a retrospective study. J Feline Med Surg 12, 291-299.
Negrin A, Lamb CR, Cappello R, Cherubini GB (2007): Results of magnetic resonance imaging in 14 cats with meningoencephalitis. J Feline Med Surg 9, 109-116.
Negrin A, Schatzberg S, Platt SR (2009): The paralyzed cat. Neuroanatomic diagnosis and specific spinal cord diseases. J Feline Med Surg 11, 361-372.
Norris JM, Bosward KL, White JD, Baral RM, Catt MJ, Malik R (2005): Clinicopathological findings associated with feline infectious peritonitis in Sydney, Australia: 42 cases (1990 – 2002). Austral Vet J 83, 666-673.
O'Halloran C, Gunn-Moore D (2017): Mycobacteria in cats: an update. In Practice 39, 399-406.
Paltrinieri S, Cammarata MP, Cammarata G (1999): In vivo diagnosis of feline infectious peritonitis by comparison of protein content, cytology, and direct immunofluorescence test on peritoneal and pleural effusions. J Vet Diag Invest 11, 358-361.
Paltrinieri S, Cammarata MP, Cammarata G, Comazzi S (1998): Some aspects of humoral and cellular immunity in naturally occurring feline infectious peritonitis. Vet Immunol Immunopathol 65, 205-220.
Paltrinieri S, Giordano A, Tranquillo V, Guazzetti S (2007a): Critical assessment of the diagnostic value of feline alpha1-acid glycoprotein for feline infectious peritonitis using the likelihood ratios approach. J Vet Diagn Invest 19, 266-272.
Paltrinieri S, Metzger C, Battilani M, Pocacqua V, Gelain ME, Giordano A (2007b): Serum alpha1-acid glycoprotein (AGP) concentration in non-symptomatic cats with feline coronavirus (FCoV) infection. J Feline Med Surg 9, 271-277.
Parodi MC, Cammarata G, Paltrinieri S, Lavazza A, Ape F (1993): Using Direct Immunofluorescence to Detect Coronaviruses in Peritoneal and Pleural Effusions. J Small Anim Pract 34, 609-613.
Pastoret PP, Henroteaux M (1978): Epigenetic transmission of feline infectious peritonitis. Comp Immunol Microbiol Infect Dis 1, 67-70.
Pedersen NC (1976): Serologic studies of naturally occurring feline infectious peritonitis. Am J Vet Res 37, 1449-1453.
Pedersen NC (1987): Virologic and immunologic aspects of feline infectious peritonitis virus infection. Adv Exp Med Biol 218, 529-550.
Pedersen NC (2009): A review of feline infectious peritonitis virus infection: 1963-2008. J Feline Med Surg 11, 225-258.
Pedersen NC (2014): An update on feline infectious peritonitis: virology and immunopathogenesis. Vet J 201, 123-132.
Pedersen NC, Addie D, Wolf A (1995): Recommendations from working groups of the international feline enteric coronavirus and feline infectious peritonitis workshop. Feline Practice 23, 108-111.
Pedersen NC, Allen CE, Lyons LA (2008): Pathogenesis of feline enteric coronavirus infection. J Feline Med Surg 10, 529-541.
Pedersen NC, Eckstrand C, Liu H, Leutenegger C, Murphy B (2015): Levels of feline infectious peritonitis virus in blood, effusions, and various tissues and the role of lymphopenia in disease outcome following experimental infection. Vet Microbiol 175, 157-166.
Pedersen NC, Evermann JF, McKeirnan AJ, Ott RL (1984): Pathogenicity studies of feline coronavirus isolates 79-1146 and 79-1683. Am J Vet Res 45, 2580-2585.
Pedersen NC, Kim Y, Liu H, et al (2018): Efficacy of a 3C-like protease inhibitor in treating various forms of acquired feline infectious peritonitis. J Feline Med Surg 20, 378–392.
Pedersen NC, Liu H, Dodd KA, Pesavento PA (2009): Significance of coronavirus mutants in feces and diseased tissues of cats suffering from feline infectious peritonitis. Viruses 1, 166-184.
Pedersen NC, Liu H, Durden M, Lyons LA (2016): Natural resistance to experimental feline infectious peritonitis virus infection is decreased rather than increased by positive genetic selection. Vet Immunol Immunopathol 171, 17-20.
Pedersen NC, Liu H, Gandolfi B, Lyons LA (2014): The influence of age and genetics on natural resistance to experimentally induced feline infectious peritonitis. Vet Immunol Immunopathol. pii: S0165-2427(14)00199-8.
Pedersen NC, Liu H, Scarlett J, Leutenegger CM, Golovko L, Kennedy H, et al (2012): Feline infectious peritonitis: Role of the feline coronavirus 3c gene in intestinal tropism and pathogenicity based upon isolates from resident and adopted shelter cats. Virus Res 165, 17-28.
Pedersen NC, Perron M, Bannasch M, Montgomery E, Murakami E, Liepnieks M, Liu H (2019): Efficacy and safety of the nucleoside analog GS-441524 for treatment of cats with naturally occurring feline infectious peritonitis. J Feline Med Surg DOI: 10.1177/1098612X19825701.
Penderis J (2009): The Wobbly Cat. Diagnostic and therapeutic approach to generalised ataxia. J Feline Med Surg 11, 349-359.
Pesteanu-Somogyi LD, Radzai C, Pressler BM (2006): Prevalence of feline infectious peritonitis in specific cat breeds. J Feline Med Surg 8, 1–5.
Philip F, Seitz D (1959): Infantile Experience and Adult Behavior in Animal Subjects. Psychosomatic Medicine VOL. XXI, Psychoanal Q 29, 435.
Porter E, Tasker S, Day MJ, Harley R, Kipar A, Siddell SG, Helps CR (2014): Amino acid changes in the spike protein of feline coronavirus correlate with systemic spread of virus from the intestine and not with feline infectious peritonitis. Vet Res 45, 49.
Pratelli A, Yesilbag K, Siniscalchi M, Yalcm E, Yilmaz Z (2009): Prevalence of feline coronavirus antibodies in cats in Bursa province, Turkey, by an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. J Feline Med Surg 11, 881-884.
Reeves NP (1995): Vaccination against naturally-occurring FIP in a single large cat shelter. Feline Practice 23, 81-82.
Riemer F, Kuehner KA, Ritz S, Sauter-Louis C, Hartmann K (2016): Clinical and laboratory features of cats with feline infectious peritonitis - a retrospective study of 231 confirmed cases (2000-2010). J Feline Med Surg 18, 348-356.
Rissi DR (2018): A retrospective study of the neuropathology and diagnosis of naturally occurring feline infectious peritonitis. J Vet Diagn Invest 30, 392-399.
Ritz S, Egberink H, Hartmann K (2007): Effect of feline interferon-omega on the survival time and quality of life of cats with feline infectious peritonitis. J Vet Intern Med 21, 1193-1197.
Robison RL, Holzworth J, Gilmore CE (1971): Naturally occurring feline infectious peritonitis: signs and clinical diagnosis. J Am Vet Med Assoc 158, 981-986.
Rohrbach BW, Legendre AM, Baldwin CA, Lein DH, Reed WM, Wilson RB (2001): Epidemiology of feline infectious peritonitis among cats examined at veterinary medical teaching hospitals. J Am Vet Med Assoc 218(7), 1111-1115.
Rohrer C (1992): Die Diagnostik der Felinen Infektiösen Peritonitis (FIP): eine restrospektive Studie. Dissertation Zürich.
Rohrer C, Suter PF, Lutz H (1993): The diagnosis of feline infectious peritonitis (FIP): a retrospective and prospective study. Kleintierpraxis 38, 379-389.
Rossi G, Paltrinieri S (2009): Total sialic acid: an acute phase reactant in cats with a possible role in feline coronavirus infection. Can J Vet Res 73, 144-150.
Rota A, Paltrinieri S, Jussich S, Ubertalli G, Appino S (2008): Priapism in a castrated cat associated with feline infectious peritonitis. J Feline Med Surg 10, 181-184.
Rottier PJ, Nakamura K, Schellen P, Volders H, Haijema BJ (2005): Acquisition of macrophage tropism during the pathogenesis of feline infectious peritonitis is determined by mutations in the feline coronavirus spikeprotein. J Virol 79, 14122-14130.
Sabshin SJ, Levy JK, Tupler T, Tucker SJ, Greiner EC, Leutenegger CM (2012): Enteropathogens identified in cats entering a Florida animal shelter with normal feces or diarrhea. J Am Vet Med Assoc 241, 331–337.
Sangl L, Matiasek K, Felten S, Grundl S, Bergmann M, Balzer HJ, Pantchev N, Leutenegger CM, Hartmann K (2018): Detection of feline coronavirus mutations in paraffin-embedded tissues in cats with feline infectious peritonitis and controls. J Feline Med Surg. 1098612X18762883. doi: 10.1177/1098612X18762883. [Epub ahead of print].
Savary KC, Sellon RK, Law JM (2001): Chylous abdominal effusion in a cat with feline infectious peritonitis. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc 37, 35-40.
Scott FW (1988): Update on FIP. Proceedings of the 12th Kal Kan Symposium, 43-47.
Scott FW, Corapi WV, Olsen CW (1995): Independent Evaluation of a Modified-Live FIPV Vaccine under Experimental Conditions (Cornell Experience). Feline Practice 23, 74-76.
Shelly SM, Scarlettkranz J, Blue JT (1988): Protein Electrophoresis on Effusions from Cats as a Diagnostic Test for Feline Infectious Peritonitis. J Amer Anim Hosp Assoc 24, 495-500.
Singh M, Foster DJ, Child G, Lamb WA (2005): Inflammatory cerebrospinal fluid analysis in cats: clinical diagnosis and outcome. J Feline Med Surg 7, 77-93.
Soma T, Saito N, Kawaguchi M, Sasai K (2018): Feline coronavirus antibody titer in cerebrospinal fluid from cats with neurological signs. J Vet Med Sci 80, 59-62.
Soma T, Wada M, Taharaguchi S, Tajima T (2013): Detection of ascitic feline coronavirus RNA from cats with clinically suspected feline infectious peritonitis. J Vet Med Sci 75, 1389-1392.
Sparkes AH, Gruffydd-Jones TJ, Harbour DA (1991): Feline infectious peritonitis: a review of clinicopathological changes in 65 cases, and a critical assessment of their diagnostic value. Vet Rec 129, 209-212.
Sparkes AH, Gruffydd-Jones TJ, Harbour DA (1994): An appraisal of the value of laboratory tests in the diagnosis of feline infectious peritonitis. JAAHA 30, 345-350.
Spencer SE, Knowles T, Ramsey IK, Tasker S (2017): Pyrexia in cats: retrospective analysis of signalment, clinical investigations, diagnosis and influence of prior treatment in 106 referred cases. J Feline Med Surg 19, 1123-1130.
Stoddart ME, Gaskell RM, Harbour DA, Gaskell CJ (1988): Virus shedding and immune responses in cats inoculated with cell culture-adapted feline infectious peritonitis virus. Vet Microbiol 16, 145-158.
Stranieri A, Giordano A, Bo S, Braghiroli C, Paltrinieri S (2017a): Frequency of electrophoretic changes consistent with feline infectious peritonitis in two different time periods (2004-2009 vs 2013-2014). J Feline Med Surg 19, 880-887.
Stranieri A, Giordano A, Paltrinieri S, Giudice C, Cannito V, Lauzi S (2018): Comparison of the performance of laboratory tests in the diagnosis of feline infectious peritonitis. J Vet Diagn Invest 30, 459-463.
Stranieri A, Lauzi S, Giordano A, Paltrinieri S (2017b): Reverse transcriptase loop-mediated isothermal amplification for the detection of feline coronavirus. J Virol Methods 243, 105-108.
Ström Holst B, Englund L, Palacios S, Renström LHM, Berndtsson LT (2006): Prevalence of antibodies against coronavirus and Chlamydophila felis in Swedish cats. J Feline Med Surg 8, 207-211.
Taharaguchi S, Soma T, Hara M (2012): Prevalence of feline coronavirus antibodies in Japanese domestic cats during the past decade. J Vet Med Sci 74(10), 1355-1358.
Takano T, Akiyama M, Doki T, Hohdatsu T (2019): Antiviral activity of itraconazole against type I feline coronavirus infection. Vet Res 50, 5.
Takano T, Azuma N, Satoh M, Toda A, Hashida Y, Satoh R, Hohdatsu T (2009): Neutrophil survival factors (TNF-alpha, GM-CSF, and G-CSF) produced by macrophages in cats infected with feline infectious peritonitis virus contribute to the pathogenesis of granulomatous lesions. Arch Virol 154, 775-781.
Takano T, Endoh M, Fukatsu H, et al (2017): The cholesterol transport inhibitor U18666A inhibits type I feline coronavirus infection. Antiviral Res 145, 96-102.
Takano T, Hohdatsu T, Hashida Y, Kaneko Y, Tanabe M, Koyama H (2007b): A "possible" involvement of TNF-alpha in apoptosis induction in peripheral blood lymphocytes of cats with feline infectious peritonitis. Vet Microbiol 119, 121-131.
Takano T, Hohdatsu T, Toda A, Tanabe M, Koyama H (2007a): TNF-alpha, produced by feline infectious peritonitis virus (FIPV)-infected macrophages, upregulates expression of type II FIPV receptor feline aminopeptidase N in feline macrophages. Virology 364, 64-72.
Takano T, Katoh Y, Doki T, et al (2013):Effect of chloroquine on feline infectious peritonitis virus infection in vitro and in vivo. Antiviral Res 99, 100-107.
Tammer R, Evensen O, Lutz H, Reinacher M (1995): Immunohistological demonstration of feline infectious peritonitis virus antigen in paraffin-embedded tissues using feline ascites or murine monoclonal antibodies. Vet Immunol Immunopathol 49, 177-182.
Tanaka Y, Sato Y, Sasaki T (2013): Suppression of coronavirus replication by cyclophilin inhibitors. Viruses 22, 1250-1260.
Tanaka Y, Sato Y, Takahashi D, Matsumoto H, Sasaki T (2015): Treatment of a case of feline infectious peritonitis with cyclosporin A. Vet Rec Case Rep 3.
Tasker S (2018): Diagnosis of feline infectious peritonitis: update on evidence supporting available tests. J Feline Med Surg 20, 228-243.
Tasker S, Dowgray N (2018): Managing feline coronavirus and feline infectious peritonitis in the multi-cat/shelter environment. In: BSAVA Manual of Canine and Feline Shelter Medicine: Principles of Health and Welfare in a Multi-animal Environment. BSAVA Publications, Gloucester.
Taylor SS, Tappin SW, Dodkin SJ, Papasouliotis K, Casamian-Sorrosal D, Tasker S (2010): Serum protein electrophoresis in 155 cats. J Feline Med Surg 12, 643-653.
Tekelioglu BK, Berriatua E, Turan N, Helps CR, Kocak M, Yilmaz H (2015): A retrospective clinical and epidemiological study on feline coronavirus (FCoV) in cats in Istanbul, Turkey. Prev Vet Med 119(1-2), 41-47.
Tekes G, Hofmann-Lehmann R, Bank-Wolf B, Maier R, Thiel HJ, Thiel V (2010): Chimeric feline coronaviruses that encode type II spike protein on type I genetic background display accelerated viral growth and altered receptor usage. J Virol 84, 1326-1333.
Terada Y, Matsui N, Noguchi K, Kuwata R, Shimoda H, Soma T, Mochizuki M, Maeda K (2014): Emergence of pathogenic coronaviruses in cats by homologous recombination between feline and canine coronaviruses. PLoS One 9, e106534.
Timmann D, Cizinauskas S, Tomek A, Doherr M, Vandevelde M, Jaggy A (2008): Retrospective analysis of seizures associated with feline infectious peritonitis in cats. J Feline Med Surg 10, 9-15.
Trotman TK, Mauldin E, Hoffmann V, Del Piero F, Hess RS (2007): Skin fragility syndrome in a cat with feline infectious peritonitis and hepatic lipidosis. Vet Dermatol 18, 365-369.
Trulove SG, Mccahon HA, Nichols R, Fooshee SK (1992): Pyogranulomatous Pneumonia Associated with Generalized Noneffusive Feline Infectious Peritonitis. Feline Pract 20, 25-29.
Tsai HY, Chueh LL, Lin CN, Su BL (2011): Clinicopathological findings and disease staging of feline infectious peritonitis: 51 cases from 2003 to 2009 in Taiwan. J Feline Med Surg 13, 74-80.
Tusell SM, Schittone SA, Holmes KV (2007): Mutational analysis of aminopeptidase N, a receptor for several group 1 coronaviruses, identifies key determinants of viral host range. J Virol 81, 1261-1273.
Van der Meer FGUM et al. (2007): The carbohydrate-binding plant lectins and the non-peptidic antibiotic pradimicin A target the glycans of the coronavirus envelope glycoproteins. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 60(4), 741-749.
Vennema H, de Groot RJ, Harbour DA, et al (1990): Early death after feline infectious peritonitis virus challenge due to recombinant vacciniavirus immunization. J Virol 64,1407–1409.
Vennema H, Poland A, Foley J, Pedersen NC (1998): Feline infectious peritonitis viruses arise by mutation from endemic feline enteric coronaviruses. Virology 243(1), 150-157.
Vermeulen BL, Devriendt B, Olyslaegers DA, Dedeurwaerder A, Desmarets LM, Favoreel HW, Dewerchin HL, Nauwynck HJ (2013): Suppression of NK cells and regulatory T lymphocytes in cats naturally infected with feline infectious peritonitis virus. Vet Microbiol 164, 46-59.
Vogel L, Van der Lubben M, Te Lintelo EG, Bekker CPJ, Geerts T, Schuijff LS, Grinwis GCM, Egberink HF, Rottier PJM (2010): Pathogenic characteristics of persistent feline enteric coronavirus infection in cats. Vet Res 41, 71.
Wang YT, Chueh LL, Wan CH (2014): An eight-year epidemiologic study based on baculovirus-expressed type-specific spike proteins for the differentiation of type I and II feline coronavirus infections. BMC Vet Res 10, 186.
Wang YT, Su BL, Hsieh LE, Chueh LL. (2013): An outbreak of feline infectious peritonitis in a Taiwanese shelter: epidemiologic and molecular evidence for horizontal transmission of a novel type II feline coronavirus. Vet Res 44, 57.
Watari T, Kaneshima T, Tsujimoto H, et al (1998): Effect of thromboxane synthetase inhibitor on feline infectious peritonitis in cats. J Vet Med Sci 60, 657-659.
Weiss RC, Cox NR, Boudreaux MK (1993a): Toxicologic effects of ribavirin in cats. J Vet Pharmacol Ther 16, 301-316.
Weiss RC, Cox NR, Martinez ML (1993b): Evaluation of free or liposome-encapsulated ribavirin for antiviral therapy of experimentally induced feline infectious peritonitis. Res Vet Sci 55, 162-172.
Weiss RC, Cox NR, Oostrom-Ram T (1990): Effect of interferon or Propionibacterium acnes on the course of experimentally induced feline infectious peritonitis in specific-pathogen-free and random-source cats. Am J Vet Res 51, 726-733.
Weiss RC, Oostrom-Ram T (1989): Inhibitory effects of ribavirin alone or combined with human alpha interferon on feline infectious peritonitis virus replication in vitro. Vet Microbiol 20, 255-265.
Weiss RC, Scott FW (1981): Pathogenesis of feline infectious peritonitis: pathologic changes and immunofluorescence. Am J Vet Res 42, 2036-2048.
Worthing KA, Wigney DI, Dhand NK, et al (2012): Risk factors for feline infectious peritonitis in Australian cats. J Feline Med Surg 14, 405-412.
Zeidner NS, Myles MH, Mathiason-DuBard CK, Dreitz MJ, Mullins JI, Hoover EA (1990). Alpha interferon (2b) in combination with zidovudine for the treatment of presymptomatic feline leukemia virus-induced immunodeficiency syndrome. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 34(9), 1749-1756.
Ziolkowska N, Pazdzior-Czapula K, Lewczuk B, Mikulska-Skupien E, Przybylska-Gornowicz B, Kwiecinska K, Ziolkowski H (2017): Feline Infectious Peritonitis: Immunohistochemical Features of Ocular Inflammation and the Distribution of Viral Antigens in Structures of the Eye. Vet Pathol 54, 933-944.