Estimating the effectiveness of vaccine programs in dog populations

Wallace, Ryan M.; Undurraga, Eduardo A.; Gibson, Andrew D; Boone, John D.; Pieracci, Emily G.; Gamble, Luke; Blanton, Jesse D.

doi:10.1017/s0950268819001158

Cited by 26 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…To this end, the concept of oral rabies vaccination (ORV) of dogs has gained renewed interest [ 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 ]. The added value of ORV of dogs as a complementary tool to mass parenteral dog vaccination campaigns has both quantitative and qualitative considerations; not only does it increase the overall vaccination coverage in the dog population, it specifically targets the free-roaming dog population [ 7 , 12 , 13 ]. In many areas, the majority of free-roaming dogs cannot be restrained and vaccinated by the parenteral route without special effort and are, therefore, considered inaccessible for rabies vaccination.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Humoral Immune Response of Thai Dogs after Oral Vaccination against Rabies with the SPBN GASGAS Vaccine Strain

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Applied research is crucial in pushing the boundaries and finding a solution to the age-old problem of dog-mediated rabies. Although oral vaccination of dogs is considered to have great potential in mass dog vaccination campaigns and could have far-reaching benefits, it is perhaps the most ignored of all available tools in efforts to eliminate dog-mediated rabies, not least because of limited data on immunogenicity, efficacy, and safety of potential oral rabies vaccine candidates. In this study, the long-term immunogenicity in local Thai dogs after oral administration of the highly attenuated 3rd generation rabies virus vaccine strain SPBN GASGAS was assessed. The oral rabies vaccine was administered to dogs by either direct oral administration (n = 10) or by offering a vaccine loaded intestine bait (n = 15). The humoral immune response was then compared to three groups of dogs; a group that received a parenteral delivered inactivated rabies vaccine (n = 10), a group offered a placebo intestine bait (n = 7), and a control group (n = 4) for an observation period of 365 days. There was no significant difference in the immune response of dogs that received oral and parenteral vaccine in terms of magnitude, kinetics, and persistence of both rabies virus (RABV) neutralizing (RFFIT) and binding (ELISA) antibodies. Although the single parenteral injection of an inactivated rabies vaccine mounted a slightly higher humoral immune response than the orally delivered live vaccine, RABV specific antibodies of both types were still detectable after one year in most animals for all treatment groups and resulted in no difference in seropositivity. Characterization of rabies specific antibodies revealed two main classes of antibodies involved in the immune response of dogs vaccinated. While IgM antibodies were the first to appear, the succeeding IgG response was mainly IgG2 dominated independent of the vaccine type used. The results support the view that SPBN GASGAS induces a sustained detectable immune response in local dogs both after direct oral administration and via bait application.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Humoral Immune Response of Thai Dogs after Oral Vaccination against Rabies with the SPBN GASGAS Vaccine Strain

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In most rabies ontrol programs, a positive association exists between dog accessibility and efficiency of vaccinations delivered, as well as cost-effectiveness, predicated on parenteral vaccination. With ORV, this fundamental relationship can change (46). Several studies have shown that in areas with low dog accessibility, parenteral vaccination was either ineffective or inefficient, but ORV was able to achieve adequate coverage while remaining a cost-effective public health intervention (42,(45)(46)(47)(48).…”

Section: Rationale For the Consideration Of Oral Vaccines For Dog Vacmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…With ORV, this fundamental relationship can change (46). Several studies have shown that in areas with low dog accessibility, parenteral vaccination was either ineffective or inefficient, but ORV was able to achieve adequate coverage while remaining a cost-effective public health intervention (42,(45)(46)(47)(48). Although ORV has been used for >40 years in highincome countries to successfully control and eliminate rabies in wildlife (24,27), hesitancy to implement ORV as a component of mass dog vaccination campaigns has resulted in a dearth of evidence to argue for the integration, impact, and cost of these vaccines in the context of dog rabies control.…”

Section: Rationale For the Consideration Of Oral Vaccines For Dog Vacmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In contrast, ORV targets similar dog populations as CVR (i.e., free-roaming) but requires substantially less labor and expertise. Recent studies conducted in Asia and the Americas have shown that although CVR techniques applied to inaccessible dog populations are inefficient (reaching only 10–20 dogs per vaccinator per day), vaccinators using ORV in these same dog populations can far exceed 50 successful vaccinations each day ( 42 , 45 , 46 ). In settings where alternative vaccination methods are necessary to reach adequate herd immunity, scalability will likely require inclusion of ORV to effectively eliminate dog-mediated rabies.…”

Section: Rationale For the Consideration Of Oral Vaccines For Dog Vacmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…With no major production of oral rabies vaccines for dogs currently operationalized, the exact cost of these vaccines remains unclear. Costs are expected to be higher than parenteral vaccines ($2–$4 USD per ORV bait compared with $0.30–$1 USD per parenteral vaccine) ( 46 ). Despite the relatively high cost per oral vaccine dose, studies have shown that inclusion of ORV as a component of a campaign can increase vaccinator efficiency, leading to overall more cost-effective programs compared with persistent undervaccination that might occur with parenteral-only vaccination methods.…”

Section: Factors Contributing To Underutilization Of Oral Rabies Vaccmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Role of Oral Rabies Vaccines in the Elimination of Dog-Mediated Human Rabies Deaths

Wallace¹,

Cliquet²,

Fehlner-Gardiner³

et al. 2020

Emerg. Infect. Dis.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

S ince the advent of Pasteur's germ theory and the general acceptance that infectious diseases do not develop spontaneously, humankind has strived to reduce and eliminate pathogens that pose a serious public health threat. Incorporating routine vaccinations to control human diseases such as pneumonia, diarrhea, pertussis, measles, and polio contributed to the prevention of >10 million human deaths during 2010-2015 (1). Intensive global efforts toward disease eradication have focused on only a few diseases, including Guinea worm disease (dracunculiasis) (>99% reduction in human cases), smallpox (eradicated in 1980), rinderpest (eradicated in 2011), polio (99% reduction in human cases), and lymphatic filariasis (73% reduction in human cases) (2-6). Those disease eradication efforts have focused on pathogens that are host-restricted or affect only a single host. In 2015, the world called for action by setting a goal of zero human dog-mediated rabies deaths by 2030 worldwide. In 2018, the World Health Organization (WHO), the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE), the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, and the Global Alliance for Rabies Control launched the Global Strategic Plan for global elimination of dog-mediated human rabies deaths by 2030, which represents the first major effort to eliminate a classical zoonosis and poses

show abstract