Literature DB >> 29786520

Impact of piglet oral vaccination against tuberculosis in endemic free-ranging wild boar populations.

Iratxe Díez-Delgado1, Iker A Sevilla2, Beatriz Romero3, Eleanor Tanner4, Jose A Barasona5, Andrew R White4, Peter W W Lurz6, Mike Boots7, José de la Fuente8, Lucas Dominguez5, Joaquin Vicente9, Joseba M Garrido2, Ramón A Juste10, Alicia Aranaz11, Christian Gortazar9.   

Abstract

The Eurasian wild boar (Sus scrofa) is the main wild reservoir of the Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex in Mediterranean woodlands and a key risk factor for cattle tuberculosis (TB) breakdowns. Wild boar vaccination therefore has the potential to be a valuable tool for TB control. We tested two orally delivered vaccines, heat-inactivated Mycobacterium bovis (IV) and BCG, in four sites (two per vaccine type: one Managed and one Natural or unmanaged) during four years. TB was also monitored in 15 unvaccinated sites (spatial control), as well as in all sites from one year prior to intervention (temporal control). The rationale is that by vaccinating 2-6 month old wild boar piglets we can reduce disease at the population level during the study period. This is achievable due to the fast turnover of wild boar populations. Vaccine baits were deployed using selective piglet feeders and this method proved highly successful with uptake rates of 50 to 74% in Natural sites and 89 to 92% in Managed sites. This is relevant for the potential delivery of vaccines to control other diseases, too. Local wild boar TB prevalence at the beginning of the study was already high ranging from 50 to 100%. TB prevalence increased in unvaccinated sites (6%), while a significant decline occurred in the Managed IV site (34%). Changes recorded in the remaining sites were not significant. The short-term impact of vaccination observed in the field was complemented by mathematical modelling, representative of the field system, which examined the long-term impact and showed that vaccination of piglets reduced prevalence and increased abundance at the population level. We conclude that IV could become part of integrated TB control schemes, although its application must be tailored for each specific site.
Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  BCG; Epidemiological modelling; Field vaccination; Heat-inactivated Mycobacterium bovis; Tuberculosis control; Wild boar

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29786520     DOI: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2018.04.002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Prev Vet Med        ISSN: 0167-5877            Impact factor:   2.670


  5 in total

Review 1.  Development and Challenges in Animal Tuberculosis Vaccination.

Authors:  Ana Balseiro; Jobin Thomas; Christian Gortázar; María A Risalde
Journal:  Pathogens       Date:  2020-06-15

Review 2.  Efficacy and Safety of BCG Vaccine for Control of Tuberculosis in Domestic Livestock and Wildlife.

Authors:  Bryce M Buddle; Hans Martin Vordermeier; Mark A Chambers; Lin-Mari de Klerk-Lorist
Journal:  Front Vet Sci       Date:  2018-10-26

3.  Wolves contribute to disease control in a multi-host system.

Authors:  E Tanner; A White; P Acevedo; A Balseiro; J Marcos; C Gortázar
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2019-05-28       Impact factor: 4.379

Review 4.  Innate Immunomodulation in Food Animals: Evidence for Trained Immunity?

Authors:  Kristen A Byrne; Crystal L Loving; Jodi L McGill
Journal:  Front Immunol       Date:  2020-06-05       Impact factor: 7.561

5.  Measuring impact of vaccination among wildlife: The case of bait vaccine campaigns for classical swine fever epidemic among wild boar in Japan.

Authors:  Ryota Matsuyama; Takehisa Yamamoto; Yoko Hayama; Ryosuke Omori
Journal:  PLoS Comput Biol       Date:  2022-10-06       Impact factor: 4.779

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.