Effect of the needle-free “intra dermal application of liquids” vaccination on the welfare of pregnant sows

Temple, Déborah; Escribano, Damián; Jiménez, Marta; Mainau, Eva; Cerón, José J.; Manteca, Xavier

doi:10.1186/s40813-017-0056-3

Cited by 22 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Local ISR were observed in both vaccination groups until 28 dpv. In contrast, in a recent study, ISR after intradermal application of Porcilis PRRS were resolved by 28 dpv [ 21 ]. However, in consistency with other studies, using the intradermal route of vaccination, the observed ISR were of minor degree [ 20 , 22 , 23 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 79%

Safety and immune responses after intradermal application of Porcilis PRRS in either the neck or the perianal region

Stadler¹,

Naderer²,

Beffort³

et al. 2018

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objective of the present study was to assess safety and immune responses in gilts after intradermal application of Porcilis® PRRS in two different application sites under field conditions. Forty-four gilts were allocated to one of three groups: Gilts of group 1 (n = 10) served as non-vaccinated controls, gilts of group 2 (n = 17) were vaccinated intradermally in the neck and gilts of group 3 (n = 17) received an intradermal vaccination in the perianal region. Clinical observations, local injection site reactions and histopathologic examination of the injection site were used for safety assessments. Frequency and degree of clinical signs were not significantly different between all three groups. Minor local reactions for both vaccination groups were observed; however, at 6, 7, 8, 9 and 15 days post-vaccination (dpv), the mean injection site reaction score was significantly lower in pigs vaccinated in the perianal region. In histopathologic examination, an extended inflammatory dimension was observed more frequently in pigs vaccinated in the neck. Blood samples were analyzed to quantify the post-vaccination humoral (ELISA and virus neutralization test) and cellular (IFN-γ ELISPOT) immune responses. PRRSV-specific antibodies were present in the serum of all vaccinated animals from 14 dpv onwards, whereas all control pigs remained negative throughout the study. Neutralizing antibody titers were significantly higher in pigs vaccinated in the perianal region at 28 dpv. At 14, 21 and 28 dpv, PRRSV-specific IFN-γ secreting cells were significantly increased in both vaccination groups compared to non-vaccinated gilts. Analysis of mean numbers of PRRSV-specific IFN-γ secreting cells did not result in statistically significant differences between both vaccination groups. The results of this study indicate that the perianal region is a safe alternative application site for intradermal vaccination of gilts with Porcilis PRRS. Furthermore, the intradermal application of Porcilis PRRS induced humoral and cellular immune responses independent of the administration site.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 79%

Safety and immune responses after intradermal application of Porcilis PRRS in either the neck or the perianal region

Stadler¹,

Naderer²,

Beffort³

et al. 2018

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Pigs were scored as either active or inactive. The behaviours recorded from active pigs are shown in Table 1 and followed the methodology described by Temple et al [ 11 ]. Observations took place the day before and the day after the vaccination procedure, with three observations blocks per day for each pen (from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m.).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A recent study reported differences in piglets’ vocalizations at the moment of injection between pigs vaccinated intramuscularly and intradermally, where piglets vaccinated intramuscularly showed a greater number of vocalizations with a longer and more powerful peak [ 10 ]. Furthermore, sows vaccinated intramuscularly were more fearful two days after vaccination than sows vaccinated with a needle-free system [ 11 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…APPs have been proposed as suitable biomarkers for monitoring inflammatory response [ 13 ]. Although plasma cortisol concentration has been widely used to measure stress in farm animals, recent studies have not found significant differences in cortisol levels after vaccination [ 10 , 11 ] suggesting the importance of investigating alternative stress biomarkers to evaluate the effects of vaccination methods. Salivary alpha-amylase (sAA) and Chromogranin-A (CgA) have been shown to be reliable alternatives to catecholamines for monitoring the sympathetic adrenal-medullary (SAM) activity in pigs, which constitutes the initial and “fast” response to stress and pain [ 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Welfare Benefits of Intradermal Vaccination of Piglets

Temple

Jiménez

Escribano

et al. 2020

Animals

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Vaccination is reported as a stressful and painful event for animals. This study investigated whether needle-free intradermal vaccination improves the welfare of weaned pigs through the reduction of stress and pain biomarkers and improvement of behavioural parameters compared to traditional intramuscular injection with a needle. A total of 339 weaned piglets were allocated to 3 treatment groups: Intradermal Application of Liquids (IDAL) pigs, vaccinated against Porcine Circovirus type 2 (PCV2) by means of intradermal vaccination using a needle-free device Porcilis® PCV ID; Intramuscular (IM) pigs vaccinated against PCV2 with Porcilis® PCV intramuscularly with a needle; CONTROL pigs were managed identically but did not receive any vaccine injection. At the time of the injection, the reaction of IDAL piglets was similar to control piglets, whereas a greater percentage of piglets vaccinated intramuscularly displayed high-pitch vocalizations (7% CONTROL, 7% IDAL, 32% IM) and retreat attempts (3% CONTROL, 7% IDAL, 39% IM). The day after vaccination, IDAL piglets did not differ from the control piglets for any of the behavioural variables studied through scan samplings. IM piglets showed a lower frequency of social negative interactions (p = 0.001) and rope manipulation (p = 0.04) compared to the CONTROL group. Resting postures did not differ between treatments. At 28 h post-vaccination, IDAL piglets presented lower blood C-reactive protein levels (CONTROL = 20 μg/mL; IDAL = 39 μg/mL; IM = 83 μg/mL, p < 0.0001) and blood Haptoglobin (CONTROL = 1.8 mg/mL; IDAL = 1.9 mg/mL vs. IM = 3.1 mg/mL, p < 0.0001) compared to IM piglets. Salivary chromogranin A and alpha-amylase did not differ between treatment groups when measured 25 min post-vaccination. The method of vaccination did not affect the growth of the piglets or their rectal temperature. These results support that needle-free intradermal vaccination reduces vaccination-related pain in growing pigs.

show abstract

“…Dass die Art der Applikation der Impfung Auswirkungen auf das Wohlbefinden der Tiere hat und sich die intradermale Impfung in dieser Hinsicht als deutlich vorteilhaft erweist, wurde erstmals für tragende Sauen gezeigt (16). Andere Studien zu möglichen Auswirkungen der Applikationsart auf die Tiere bezogen sich bezüglich der intradermalen Applikation von Substanzen bei Ferkeln ab der 3.…”

Section: Introductionunclassified

Intradermale versus intramuskuläre Impfstoffapplikation bei Saugferkeln

Göller¹,

Gerdts²,

Kemper³

2018

Tierarztl Prax Ausg G

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Zusammenfassung Ziel dieser Studie war, eine intradermale Impfmethode gegen Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae bei Saugferkeln im Hinblick auf Hautreaktionen, Leistungsparameter und arbeitstechnische Gesichtspunkte mit einer konventionell durchgeführten intramuskulären Impfung wissenschaftlich zu vergleichen und mögliche Konsequenzen für das Wohlbefinden der Tiere abzuleiten. Material und Methoden: Unter Feldbedingungen wurden insgesamt 672 Saugferkel aus drei Durchgängen geimpft, davon 338 intradermal und 334 intramuskulär. Neben einer umfassenden Bonitur wurde die lokale Hautreaktion an der Impfstelle bonitiert, indem die Größe der Schwellung (Scoring 0–5) sowie die Rötung und Krustenbildung (Scoring 0–3) benotet wurden. Die Ferkel wurden am Tag vor der Impfung und 8 Tage später einzeln gewogen. Ferner erfolgten eine Messung und Dokumentation der für die jeweilige Impfung benötigten Zeit. Ergebnisse: Am 1. Tag nach der Impfung zeigten 71,3 % der intramuskulär geimpften Ferkel und 2,7 % der intradermal geimpften Ferkel keine Schwellung an der Impfstelle. Diese Unterschiede nivellierten sich mit zunehmendem zeitlichem Abstand zur Impfung. Die tägliche Gewichtszunahme der Ferkel differierte zwischen der intradermal (248 g) und der intramuskulär (258 g) geimpften Gruppe nicht signifikant. Die intradermale Impfung benötigte pro Ferkel im Schnitt 11 Sekunden, die intramuskuläre Impfung 17 Sekunden. Schlussfolgerungen und klinische Relevanz: In dieser ersten Studie konnten keine nachteiligen Effekte der intradermalen Impfung auf Leistungsparameter und keine länger anhaltenden Hautreaktionen bei Saugferkeln nachgewiesen werden. An den Hautreaktionen zeigte sich sehr gut die bei der intradermalen Impfung gewünschte Immunantwort an der Impfstelle, die nach 7 Tagen aber nicht mehr offensichtlich war. Darüber hinaus stellte sich der arbeitstechnische Vorteil der intradermalen Impfung klar heraus. Um letztendlich mögliche Vorteile hinsichtlich der Auswirkungen auf das Wohlbefinden von Saugferkeln zu evaluieren, sind weitere Analysen anhand von Videobeobachtungen erforderlich.

show abstract

Effect of the needle-free “intra dermal application of liquids” vaccination on the welfare of pregnant sows

Cited by 22 publications

References 25 publications

Safety and immune responses after intradermal application of Porcilis PRRS in either the neck or the perianal region

Safety and immune responses after intradermal application of Porcilis PRRS in either the neck or the perianal region

Welfare Benefits of Intradermal Vaccination of Piglets

Intradermale versus intramuskuläre Impfstoffapplikation bei Saugferkeln

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About