Porcine epidemic diarrhea (PED) is a syndrome that is characterized by rapidly spreading watery diarrhea affecting pigs of all ages, but with major effects on suckling piglets. The disease, as well as the causative Alphacoronavirus, the Porcine epidemic diarrhea virus (PEDV), was first described in Europe in the 1970s and since then has spread over many Asian and American countries, where it recently led to devastating effects on swine health and pork industry. While the disease was seldom reported in Europe within the last few decades, a few recent reports re-emergence of PED in German pig farms. The hitherto isolated German strain seems to be closely related to a low pathogenic PEDV variant from the USA. This case report describes the first detection of PEDV in Austria. Reduced feed uptake and occasional diarrhea were observed in December 2014 in a group of fattening pigs, kept on an Austrian swine farm. The concerned pigs had been recently purchased from Germany. Within a few weeks, diarrhea became apparent also in pigs of Austrian origin, which were kept in a different stable on the same farm. Gastrointestinal symptoms among fattening pigs were generally mild, quickly resolving and did not lead to death. PEDV RNA was identified by RT-qPCR in pooled feces and serum and PEDV antibodies were detectable in serum in both groups of pigs. Phylogenetic analysis of the nearly complete PEDV spike gene shows that the Austrian PEDV strain is highly similar to other strains involved in recent outbreaks in Western and Central Europe. This is the first report demonstrating the presence of PEDV in Austria. The virus was probably introduced by purchasing piglets from a German source, which underlines the significance of trans-boundary animal trade for the distribution of highly contagious diseases, such as PED.

In recent years, several new ELISAs for the detection of antibodies against the porcine reproductive and respiratory disease virus (PRRSV) in pig serum have been developed. To interpret the results, specificity and sensitivity data as well as agreement to a reference ELISA must be available. In this study, three commercial ELISAs (INgezim PRRS 2.0 - ELISA II, Priocheck® PRRSV Ab porcine – ELISA III and CIVTEST suis PRRS E/S PLUS - ELISA IV, detecting PRRSV type 1 antibodies) were compared to a standard ELISA (IDEXX PRRS X3 Ab Test - ELISA I). The serum of three pigs vaccinated with an attenuated PRRSV live vaccine (genotype 2) was tested prior to and several times after the vaccination. Furthermore, serum samples of 245 pigs of PRRSV positive herds, 309 pigs of monitored PRRSV negative herds, 256 fatteners of assumed PRRSV negative herds with unknown herd history and 92 wild boars were tested with all four ELISAs. ELISAs II and III were able to detect seroconversion of vaccinated pigs with a similar reliability. According to kappa coefficient, the results showed an almost perfect agreement between ELISA I as reference and ELISA II and III (kappa > 0.8), and substantial agreement between ELISA I and ELISA IV (kappa = 0.71). Sensitivity of ELISA II, III and IV was 96.0%, 100% and 91.5%, respectively. The specificity of the ELISAs determined in samples of monitored PRRSV negative herds was 99.0%, 95.1% and 96.4%, respectively. In assumed negative farms that were not continually monitored, more positive samples were found with ELISA II to IV. The reference ELISA I had a specificity of 100% in this study. All tested ELISAs were able to detect a PRRSV positive herd. The specificity and sensitivity of the tested commercial ELISAs, however, differed. ELISA II had the highest specificity and ELISA III had the highest sensitivity in comparison to the reference ELISA. ELISA IV had a lower sensitivity and specificity than the other ELISAs.

Effective vaccines against porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV), especially against highly pathogenic (HP) PRRSV are still missing. The objective of this study was to evaluate the protective efficacy of an experimental live attenuated PRRSV 2 vaccine, composed of two strains, against heterologous challenge with a Vietnamese HP PRRSV 2 field strain. For this reason, 20 PRRSV negative piglets were divided into two groups. The pigs of group 1 were vaccinated with the experimental vaccine, group 2 remained unvaccinated. All study piglets received an intranasal challenge of the HP PRRSV 2 on day 0 of the study (42 days after vaccination). Blood samples were taken on days 7 and 21 after vaccination and on several days after challenge. On day 28 after challenge, all piglets were euthanized and pathologically examined. On days 7 and 21 after vaccination, a PRRSV 2 viraemia was seen in all piglets of group 1 which remained detectable in seven piglets up to 42 days after vaccination. On day 3 after challenge, all piglets from both groups were positive in PRRSV 2 RT-qPCR. From day 7 onwards, viral load and number of PRRSV 2 positive pigs were lower in group 1 than in group 2. All pigs of group 1 seroconverted after PRRSV 2 vaccination. PRRSV antibodies were detected in serum of all study pigs from both groups from day 14 after challenge onwards. In group 2, moderate respiratory symptoms with occasional coughing were seen following the challenge with HP PRRSV 2. Pigs of group 1 remained clinically unaffected. Interstitial pneumonia was found in four piglets of group 1 and in all ten piglets of group 2. Histopathological findings were more severe in group 2. It was thus concluded that the used PRRSV 2 live experimental vaccine provided protection from clinical disease and marked reduction of histopathological findings and viral load in pigs challenged with a Vietnamese HP PRRSV 2 field strain.

The monitoring of infectious diseases like the porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome (PRRS) using pen-wise oral fluid samples becomes more and more established. The collection of individual oral fluid, which would be useful in the monitoring of PRRSV negative boar studs, is rather difficult. The aim of the study was to test two methods for individual oral fluid collection from pigs and to evaluate the specificity of a commercial ELISA for detection of PRRSV antibodies in these sample matrices. For this reason, 334 serum samples from PRRSV negative pigs (group 1) and 71 serum samples from PRRSV positive pigs (group 2) were tested for PRRSV antibodies with a commercial ELISA. Individual oral fluid was collected with a cotton gauze swab from 311 pigs from group 1 and 39 pigs from group 2. Furthermore, 312 oral fluid samples from group 1 and 67 oral fluid samples from group 2 were taken with a self-drying foam swab (GenoTube). The recollected oral fluid was then analysed twice with a commercial ELISA for detection of PRRSV antibodies in oral fluid. All serum samples from group 1 tested negative for PRRSV antibodies. The collection of oral fluid was sufficient in all samples. Sampling with GenoTubes was less time consuming than sampling with cotton gauze swabs. False positive results were obtained in 7 (measure 1) respectively 9 (measure 2) oral fluid samples recollected from cotton gauze swabs and in 9 and 8 samples from GenoTubes. The specificity of the oral fluid ELISA was 97.4% for cotton gauze swabs and 97.3% for GenoTubes. 70 out of 71 serum samples and all oral fluid samples from group 2 tested positive for PRRSV antibodies. The sensitivity of the oral fluid ELISA was 100%. According to the kappa coefficient, the results showed an almost perfect agreement between serum and oral fluid collected in both ways (kappa > 0.8). Both methods used for individual oral fluid collection proved to be practical and efficient and can be used for PRRSV antibody detection. It has to be considered, however, that false positive results may occur more often than in serum samples.