Reducing animal experimentation in foot-and-mouth disease vaccine potency tests

Reeve, Richard; Cox, S. F. J.; Smitsaart, Eliana; Beascoechea, Claudia Perez; Haas, Bernd; Maradei, Eduardo; Haydon, Daniel T.; Barnett, P.V.

doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2011.05.056

Cited by 11 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It has been reported that vaccinated livestock respond rapidly to the first dose of vaccine and produce peak antibody titres between 14 and 28 days depending on the vaccine composition (Doel, 2003). Immune response against FMDV includes circulating humoral antibody has been shown to correlate with protection (Reeve et al, 2011;Robiolo et al, 2010;Mackowiak et al, 1962;van Bekkun, 1969;Pay and Hingley, 1987;McCullough et al 1992a;McCullough et al, 1992b). Therefore serological evidence of FMD antibodies in vaccinated cattle in the absence of circulating field virus might be an indicator of protection against challenge with a homologous virus.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Administering at least 2 doses one month apart when cattle are vaccinated for the first time against FMD with such vaccine is recommended, however due to cost and logistical reasons this is not routinely practised in most endemic countries (Knight-Jones et al, 2014a). FMD structural protein antibody levels are strongly correlated with protection in vaccinated cattle (Reeve et al, 2011;Robiolo et al, 2010). Therefore, when testing FMD protection from antibody titre, the serological test used should be correlated with protection (OIE, 2013), because when the test antigen used is different from the one evaluated in the study, the extent of the protection may be uncertain.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Serological response of commercial dairy cattle to inactivated foot-and-mouth disease vaccine (type-O & A) in Nigeria

Lazarus

Wungak

Adah

et al. 2015

Asian J. Med. Biol. Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An observational study was conducted in a peri-urban dairy establishment in Jos South, Plateau State Nigeria to determine immune response of dairy cattle to commercial inactivated foot-and-mouth disease vaccine serotypes (O and A). Thirty seven Friesian cattle aged ?2years old with their crosses (15 selected pre-vaccination and 22 selected 21 days post-vaccination) were investigated for immune response to vaccination with an inactivated trivalent FMD vaccine containing serotypes O, A and SAT 2). Sera collected on day 0 pre-vaccination and 21 days post-vaccination was tested for structural protein antibodies to FMD serotypes O and A using the Solid Phase Competitive ELISA assay. The mean OD value for serum end point titre of FMD serotype O pre-vaccination was 11.64% with 6.67% (95%CI: 0.33 28.73) of the selected cattle being seropositive, at 21 days post-vaccination the mean OD value in selected cattle was 52.83% with 68.18% (95%CI: 46.95 84.89) of the selected cattle seropositive. For the FMD serotype A, 26.67% (95%CI: 9.10 52.53) of the selected cattle were seropositive pre-vaccination with a mean OD value of 29.21% and by 21 days post-vaccination, 72.73% (95%CI: 51.67 88.13) of the selected cattle were seropositive with a mean OD value of 61.70%. Serological response to vaccination improved in most selected cattle by 21 days post-vaccination. This study result has indicated that commercial inactivated FMD vaccines used for the prophylactic control of FMD in commercial dairy farm in Nigeria provoked immune response after a single shot.Asian J. Med. Biol. Res. June 2015, 1(2): 163-168

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Serological response of commercial dairy cattle to inactivated foot-and-mouth disease vaccine (type-O & A) in Nigeria

Lazarus

Wungak

Adah

et al. 2015

Asian J. Med. Biol. Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although serological measures of immunogenicity are often used for assessing potency, particularly for batch testing, usually by ELISA or VNT to measure antibodies against viral structural proteins, at present, a widespread move from large animal challenge experiments towards in vivo laboratory models or in vitro assays to predict vaccine potency is not supported by the available data. However, further careful exploration of the possibility of using small animal models, or of reduced numbers of large animals, and defining the most appropriate surrogate measures of protection for in vitro assays should move us closer towards this goal in the near future (Reeve et al., , ).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Global Foot-and-Mouth Disease Research Update and Gap Analysis: 3 - Vaccines

Robinson

Knight-Jones

Charleston

et al. 2016

Transbound Emerg Dis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryThis study assessed research knowledge gaps in the field of FMDV (foot-andmouth disease virus) vaccines. The study took the form of a literature review combined with research updates collected in 2014 from 33 institutes from across the world. Findings were used to identify priority areas for future FMD vaccine research. Vaccines play a vital role in FMD control, used both to limit the spread of the virus during epidemics in FMD-free countries and as the mainstay of disease management in endemic regions, particularly where sanitary controls are difficult to apply. Improvements in the performance or cost-effectiveness of FMD vaccines will allow more widespread and efficient disease control. FMD vaccines have changed little in recent decades, typically produced by inactivation of whole virus, the quantity and stability of the intact viral capsids in the final preparation being key for immunogenicity. However, these are exciting times and several promising novel FMD vaccine candidates have recently been developed. This includes the first FMD vaccine licensed for manufacture and use in the USA; this adenovirus-vectored FMD vaccine causes in vivo expression of viral capsids in vaccinated animals. Another promising vaccine candidate comprises stabilized empty FMDV capsids produced in vitro in a baculovirus expression system. Recombinant technologies are also being developed to improve otherwise conventionally produced inactivated vaccines, for example, by creating a chimeric vaccine virus to increase capsid stability and by inserting sequences into the vaccine virus for desired antigen expression. Other important areas of ongoing research include enhanced adjuvants, vaccine quality control procedures and predicting vaccine protection from immune correlates, thus reducing dependency on animal challenge studies. Globally, the degree of independent vaccine evaluation is highly variable, and this is essential for vaccine quality. Previously neglected, the importance of evaluating vaccination programme effectiveness and impact is increasingly being recognized.

show abstract

“…There is pressure to minimize the use of animal challenge studies [37], evaluating serological measures of protection instead [38] (box 2). Although serological studies are routinely used in the evaluation of veterinary vaccines, sero-conversion per se is rarely used as a measure of efficacy during licensure.…”

Section: Evaluating Protective Effects In Vaccinated Humans and Animalsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Veterinary and human vaccine evaluation methods

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite the universal importance of vaccines, approaches to human and veterinary vaccine evaluation differ markedly. For human vaccines, vaccine efficacy is the proportion of vaccinated individuals protected by the vaccine against a defined outcome under ideal conditions, whereas for veterinary vaccines the term is used for a range of measures of vaccine protection. The evaluation of vaccine effectiveness, vaccine protection assessed under routine programme conditions, is largely limited to human vaccines. Challenge studies under controlled conditions and sero-conversion studies are widely used when evaluating veterinary vaccines, whereas human vaccines are generally evaluated in terms of protection against natural challenge assessed in trials or post-marketing observational studies. Although challenge studies provide a standardized platform on which to compare different vaccines, they do not capture the variation that occurs under field conditions. Field studies of vaccine effectiveness are needed to assess the performance of a vaccination programme. However, if vaccination is performed without central co-ordination, as is often the case for veterinary vaccines, evaluation will be limited. This paper reviews approaches to veterinary vaccine evaluation in comparison to evaluation methods used for human vaccines. Foot-and-mouth disease has been used to illustrate the veterinary approach. Recommendations are made for standardization of terminology and for rigorous evaluation of veterinary vaccines.

show abstract

Reducing animal experimentation in foot-and-mouth disease vaccine potency tests

Cited by 11 publications

References 17 publications

Serological response of commercial dairy cattle to inactivated foot-and-mouth disease vaccine (type-O & A) in Nigeria

Serological response of commercial dairy cattle to inactivated foot-and-mouth disease vaccine (type-O & A) in Nigeria

Global Foot-and-Mouth Disease Research Update and Gap Analysis: 3 - Vaccines

Veterinary and human vaccine evaluation methods

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About