Influenza A virus vaccine research conducted in swine from 1990 to May 2018: A scoping review

Keay, Sheila; Poljak, Zvonimir; Klapwyk, Mackenzie; O’Connor, Annette M.; Friendship, Robert; O’Sullivan, Terri L.; Sargeant, Jan M.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0236062

Cited by 4 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 99 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This highlights the centrality of pigs in relation to infectious diseases, such as influenza and Nipah viruses, that are of high concern to human spill over events of pandemic potential. This further validates their use as models for human diseases [ 82 , 103 ] and vaccine development [ 17 , 18 ], particularly for pathogens shared with humans [ 82 ].…”

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 54%

“…Within this field, the pig is a suitable large animal model due to their anatomical and immunological similarity to humans [ 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 ]. Their central role in the One Health approach as food industry animals [ 15 ] and source of zoonotic diseases [ 16 ] also situates them as a target species for some vaccines [ 17 , 18 ]. The aim of this review is to evaluate the field of skin-based vaccination in the pig, focusing on vaccine-induced immune responses and safety.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Skin-Based Vaccination: A Systematic Mapping Review of the Types of Vaccines and Methods Used and Immunity and Protection Elicited in Pigs

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The advantages of skin-based vaccination include induction of strong immunity, dose-sparing, and ease of administration. Several technologies for skin-based immunisation in humans are being developed to maximise these key advantages. This route is more conventionally used in veterinary medicine. Skin-based vaccination of pigs is of high relevance due to their anatomical, physiological, and immunological similarities to humans, as well as being a source of zoonotic diseases and their livestock value. We conducted a systematic mapping review, focusing on vaccine-induced immunity and safety after the skin immunisation of pigs. Veterinary vaccines, specifically anti-viral vaccines, predominated in the literature. The safe and potent skin administration to pigs of adjuvanted vaccines, particularly emulsions, are frequently documented. Multiple methods of skin immunisation exist; however, there is a lack of consistent terminology and accurate descriptions of the route and device. Antibody responses, compared to other immune correlates, are most frequently reported. There is a lack of research on the underlying mechanisms of action and breadth of responses. Nevertheless, encouraging results, both in safety and immunogenicity, were observed after skin vaccination that were often comparable to or superior the intramuscular route. Further research in this area will underlie the development of enhanced skin vaccine strategies for pigs, other animals and humans.

show abstract

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 54%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Skin-Based Vaccination: A Systematic Mapping Review of the Types of Vaccines and Methods Used and Immunity and Protection Elicited in Pigs

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The impact of how veterinarians allocate time on their effectiveness with keeping up will be important to evaluate further. For example, over 275 primary research publications were identified as relevant following a recent search for primary literature on IAV-S vaccines in swine [ 51 ]. It may not be a pragmatic choice for many of the respondents in this survey to try to access and to assess this body of evidence simply given the reported time they allot each week to staying current.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The distribution of relevant publications across journals complicates efforts to practice EBM for veterinarians with limited access to journal subscriptions. For example, over the last 30 years, IAV-S vaccine primary research has been published across 51 different journals, most of which are not open access or those preferred by respondents in this survey [ 51 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Veterinarian barriers to knowledge translation (KT) within the context of swine infectious disease research: an international survey of swine veterinarians

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Food animal veterinarians face commodity specific and urgent global challenges yet conditions preventing use of best available knowledge have been sparsely studied. The American Association of Swine Veterinarians (AASV) membership (N = 1289) was surveyed online to benchmark their information priorities and their motivations and sources for keeping current with infectious disease research, and to describe their reported time, skill, access, and process as barriers to knowledge translation (KT). Results Respondents (n = 80) were mostly from Canada (n = 40) and the U.S.A (n = 31) and demographics approximated the AASV’s. Colleagues are the first choice for information on difficult cases (49%, 95%CI: 38–61). Half of respondents (53%, 95%CI: 41–64) spend an hour or less per week keeping up with infectious disease research. The majority reported moderate or less than moderate efficiency (62%, 95%CI: 51–72), and moderate or greater stress (59%, 95%CI: 48–70) with their process for keeping up. Journal article methods sections are commonly not read, almost a third (32%, 95% CI: 22–43) reported either they do not evaluate statistical methods or that they had poor confidence to do so, and half (52, 95%CI: 41–63) could not explain ‘confounding bias’. Approximately half (55%, 95%CI: 41-69) with direct oversight of swine herds had full access to 2 or fewer academic journals. Approximately a third of respondents (34%, 95%CI: 24–46) selected only formats involving single research studies (either full text or summaries) as preferred reading materials for keeping current over expert summaries of the body of evidence. Conclusion KT barriers are considerable and a source of stress for many swine veterinarians. Sub-optimal efficiency with keeping up and low confidence to appraise aspects of research are concerns. Results are consistent with previous literature and illustrate need for improved KT infrastructure and for additional training in statistical methods and interpretation of primary research. Further evaluation is warranted of why approximately a third of veterinarians in this study, for the purpose of keeping up, preferentially choose to review individual research studies over choices that would include an expert summary of the body of evidence. Consideration of reasons for this preference will be important in the planning of KT infrastructure improvements.

show abstract

“…Previously, 376 potentially relevant publications were identified from a scoping review of primary IAV-S vaccine research in pigs (from 1990 to 2018) [60]. To update the list of relevant publications, sources were searched as follows:…”

Section: Information Sources and Search Strategymentioning

confidence: 99%

Does Vaccine-Induced Maternally-Derived Immunity Protect Swine Offspring against Influenza a Viruses? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Challenge Trials from 1990 to May 2021

Keay,

Poljak,

Alberts

et al. 2023

Animals

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is unclear if piglets benefit from vaccination of sows against influenza. For the first time, methods of evidence-based medicine were applied to answer the question: “Does vaccine-induced maternally-derived immunity (MDI) protect swine offspring against influenza A viruses?”. Challenge trials were reviewed that were published from 1990 to April 2021 and measured at least one of six outcomes in MDI-positive versus MDI-negative offspring (hemagglutination inhibition (HI) titers, virus titers, time to begin and time to stop shedding, risk of infection, average daily gain (ADG), and coughing) (n = 15). Screening and extraction of study characteristics was conducted in duplicate by two reviewers, with data extraction and assessment for risk of bias performed by one. Homology was defined by the antigenic match of vaccine and challenge virus hemagglutinin epitopes. Results: Homologous, but not heterologous MDI, reduced virus titers in piglets. There was no difference, calculated as relative risks (RR), in infection incidence risk over the entire study period; however, infection hazard (instantaneous risk) was decreased in pigs with MDI (log HR = −0.64, 95% CI: −1.13, −0.15). Overall, pigs with MDI took about a ½ day longer to begin shedding virus post-challenge (MD = 0.51, 95% CI: 0.03, 0.99) but the hazard of infected pigs ceasing to shed was not different (log HR = 0.32, 95% CI: −0.29, 0.93). HI titers were synthesized qualitatively and although data on ADG and coughing was extracted, details were insufficient for conducting meta-analyses. Conclusion: Homology of vaccine strains with challenge viruses is an important consideration when assessing vaccine effectiveness. Herd viral dynamics are complex and may include concurrent or sequential exposures in the field. The practical significance of reduced weaned pig virus titers is, therefore, not known and evidence from challenge trials is insufficient to make inferences on the effects of MDI on incidence risk, time to begin or to cease shedding virus, coughing, and ADG. The applicability of evidence from single-strain challenge trials to field practices is limited. Despite the synthesis of six outcomes, challenge trial evidence does not support or refute vaccination of sows against influenza to protect piglets. Additional research is needed; controlled trials with multi-strain concurrent or sequential heterologous challenges have not been conducted, and sequential homologous exposure trials were rare. Consensus is also warranted on (1) the selection of core outcomes, (2) the sizing of trial populations to be reflective of field populations, (3) the reporting of antigenic characterization of vaccines, challenge viruses, and sow exposure history, and (4) on the collection of non-aggregated individual pig data.

show abstract

Influenza A virus vaccine research conducted in swine from 1990 to May 2018: A scoping review

Cited by 4 publications

References 99 publications

Skin-Based Vaccination: A Systematic Mapping Review of the Types of Vaccines and Methods Used and Immunity and Protection Elicited in Pigs

Skin-Based Vaccination: A Systematic Mapping Review of the Types of Vaccines and Methods Used and Immunity and Protection Elicited in Pigs

Veterinarian barriers to knowledge translation (KT) within the context of swine infectious disease research: an international survey of swine veterinarians

Does Vaccine-Induced Maternally-Derived Immunity Protect Swine Offspring against Influenza a Viruses? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Challenge Trials from 1990 to May 2021

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About