Miles E Theurer1, Robert L Larson, Brad J White. 1. Department of Diagnostic Medicine and Pathobiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and analyze data from controlled studies on the effectiveness of vaccinating cattle with commercially available viral antigen vaccines for mitigation of the effects of bovine respiratory disease complex (BRDC). DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. SAMPLE: 31 studies comprising 88 trials. PROCEDURES: Studies that reported the effectiveness of commercially available bovine herpesvirus-1 (BHV-1), bovine viral diarrhea virus (BVDV), bovine respiratory syncytial virus (BRSV), and parainfluenza type 3 virus (PI3) vaccines for protection of cattle against BRDC or its components were included in the analysis. Studies or trials were categorized as natural exposure or experimental challenge and were further divided by the viral antigen evaluated and vaccine type (modified-live virus [MLV] or inactivated vaccine). Meta-analysis was performed; summary Mantel-Haenszel risk ratios were determined, and Forest plots were generated. RESULTS: In natural exposure trials, beef calves vaccinated with various antigen combinations had a significantly lower BRDC morbidity risk than did nonvaccinated control calves. In trials evaluating BHV-1 and MLV BVDV vaccines in experimental challenge models, vaccinated calves had a lower BRDC morbidity risk than did control calves; however, in experimental challenge trials evaluating MLV BRSV and PI3 vaccines, no significant difference in morbidity or mortality risk was found between vaccinated and control calves. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Estimating clinical efficacy from results of experimental challenge studies requires caution because these models differ substantially from those involving natural exposure. The literature provides data but does not provide sufficiently strong evidence to guide definitive recommendations for determining which virus components are necessary to include in a vaccination program for prevention or mitigation of BRDC in cattle.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and analyze data from controlled studies on the effectiveness of vaccinating cattle with commercially available viral antigen vaccines for mitigation of the effects of bovinerespiratory disease complex (BRDC). DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. SAMPLE: 31 studies comprising 88 trials. PROCEDURES: Studies that reported the effectiveness of commercially available bovine herpesvirus-1 (BHV-1), bovine viral diarrhea virus (BVDV), bovine respiratory syncytial virus (BRSV), and parainfluenza type 3 virus (PI3) vaccines for protection of cattle against BRDC or its components were included in the analysis. Studies or trials were categorized as natural exposure or experimental challenge and were further divided by the viral antigen evaluated and vaccine type (modified-live virus [MLV] or inactivated vaccine). Meta-analysis was performed; summary Mantel-Haenszel risk ratios were determined, and Forest plots were generated. RESULTS: In natural exposure trials, beef calves vaccinated with various antigen combinations had a significantly lower BRDC morbidity risk than did nonvaccinated control calves. In trials evaluating BHV-1 and MLV BVDV vaccines in experimental challenge models, vaccinated calves had a lower BRDC morbidity risk than did control calves; however, in experimental challenge trials evaluating MLV BRSV and PI3 vaccines, no significant difference in morbidity or mortality risk was found between vaccinated and control calves. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Estimating clinical efficacy from results of experimental challenge studies requires caution because these models differ substantially from those involving natural exposure. The literature provides data but does not provide sufficiently strong evidence to guide definitive recommendations for determining which virus components are necessary to include in a vaccination program for prevention or mitigation of BRDC in cattle.
Authors: L M Kramer; M S Mayes; E Fritz-Waters; J L Williams; E D Downey; R G Tait; A Woolums; C Chase; J M Reecy Journal: J Anim Sci Date: 2017-11 Impact factor: 3.159
Authors: Nathan E N Erickson; Adam Berenik; Herbert Lardner; Stacey Lacoste; John Campbell; Sheryl Gow; Cheryl Waldner; John Ellis Journal: Can Vet J Date: 2021-01 Impact factor: 1.008
Authors: Shehnaz Lokhandwala; Xin Fang; Suryakant D Waghela; Jocelyn Bray; Leo M Njongmeta; Andy Herring; Karim W Abdelsalam; Christopher Chase; Waithaka Mwangi Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-01-18 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Jodi L McGill; Sean M Kelly; Pankaj Kumar; Savannah Speckhart; Shannon L Haughney; Jamie Henningson; Balaji Narasimhan; Randy E Sacco Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2018-02-14 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Maria Stokstad; Thea Blystad Klem; Mette Myrmel; Veslemøy Sunniva Oma; Ingrid Toftaker; Olav Østerås; Ane Nødtvedt Journal: Front Vet Sci Date: 2020-04-07
Authors: Baoshan Zhang; Lei Chen; Chiara Silacci; Michelle Thom; Jeffrey C Boyington; Aliaksandr Druz; M Gordon Joyce; Efrain Guzman; Wing-Pui Kong; Yen-Ting Lai; Guillaume B E Stewart-Jones; Yaroslav Tsybovsky; Yongping Yang; Tongqing Zhou; Ulrich Baxa; John R Mascola; Davide Corti; Antonio Lanzavecchia; Geraldine Taylor; Peter D Kwong Journal: NPJ Vaccines Date: 2017-03-08 Impact factor: 7.344