Efficacy of a FootandMouth Disease inactivated vaccine AFTOVAXPUR

Introduction • In field practice, FMD vaccines are frequently administered to sheep at half

Study design • Animals : 30 ewes, 1 year olds, Texel breed, randomly allocated

Study design G 1 (1 m. L vaccinated) G 2 (controls) G 3 (2

Study design G 1 (1 m. L vaccinated) G 3 (2 m. L vaccinated)

Study design Immunisation serum sample 7 days Ø Comparisons of G 1 and G

Study design Immunisation serum sample 7 days

Study design FMDv O Manisa Immunisation serum sample clinic + temp. blood for virology

Results : serology VNT to FMD A 22 Iraq D 28 VNT in G

Results : serology VNT to FMD SAT 2 D 28 VNT in G 1

Results : serology VNT to FMD O Manisa G 1 & G 2 D

Results : O 1 Manisa challenge Intercurrent Footrot infection during the immunization phase

Results : O 1 Manisa challenge Rectal temperatures

Results : O 1 Manisa challenge General Clinical Signs Controls (G 2) • every

Results : O 1 Manisa challenge Feet lesions G 3 was not challenged !

Results : O 1 Manisa challenge G 1 (1 m. L vaccinated) G 2

Conclusions The study results demonstrated : • Serological equivalence with a 2 m. L

Acknowledgements WBR : A. Dekker, M. Bleijenberg Merial B. V. : B. Van Schaijk,

Slides: 30

Download presentation

Efficacy of a Foot-and-Mouth Disease inactivated vaccine (AFTOVAXPUR DOE), administered at a 1 m. L dose to sheep Claude Hamers

Introduction • In field practice, FMD vaccines are frequently administered to sheep at half the dose recommended for cattle • Main reasons for this practice: i) a lower susceptibility of sheep to FMD infection ii) the relative vaccine cost as compared to the value of a sheep • Study to compare vaccination of sheep with an AFTOVAXPUR DOE vaccine ᴑ 1 m. L (half dose) = registered claim ᴑ 2 m. L (full dose)

Study design • Animals : 30 ewes, 1 year olds, Texel breed, randomly allocated to 3 groups in high containment throughout the study • Vaccine : AFTOVAXPUR DOE trivalent, formulated at low antigen content O Manisa, A 22 Iraq, SAT 2 Sau

Study design G 1 (1 m. L vaccinated) G 2 (controls) G 3 (2 m. L vaccinated)

Study design G 1 (1 m. L vaccinated) G 3 (2 m. L vaccinated)

Study design Immunisation serum sample 7 days Ø Comparisons of G 1 and G 3 on serological responses

Study design Immunisation serum sample 7 days

Study design FMDv O Manisa Immunisation serum sample clinic + temp. blood for virology FMD lesions challenge

Results : serology

Results : serology VNT to FMD A 22 Iraq D 28 VNT in G 1 statistically non inferior to D 28 VNT in G 3

Results : serology VNT to FMD SAT 2 D 28 VNT in G 1 statistically non inferior to D 28 VNT in G 3

Results : serology VNT to FMD O Manisa G 1 & G 2 D 28 VNT in G 1 statistically inferior to D 28 VNT in G 3

Results : O 1 Manisa challenge Intercurrent Footrot infection during the immunization phase

Results : O 1 Manisa challenge Rectal temperatures

Results : O 1 Manisa challenge General Clinical Signs Controls (G 2) • every animal presented polypnea and lameness between D 29 and D 31 • frequently accompanied or preceded by a reduced feed intake Vaccinates (G 1) • none of the vaccinates ever presented any general clinical sign

Results : O 1 Manisa challenge Feet lesions G 3 was not challenged !

Results : O 1 Manisa challenge Viraemia

Results : O 1 Manisa challenge G 1 (1 m. L vaccinated) G 2 (controls)

Conclusions The study results demonstrated : • Serological equivalence with a 2 m. L dose (A 22 Iraq, SAT 2 Sau) • Clinical and virological protections against a virulent challenge (O Manisa) .

Acknowledgements WBR : A. Dekker, M. Bleijenberg Merial B. V. : B. Van Schaijk, J. Coco-Martin Merial S. A. S. : L. Mouton, M. Besset, M. Curet, S. Goutebroze And Technical Staff from the WBR Animal Facilities and MERIAL R&D Lelystad Laboratories.

Thank you