Vaccine · 2021
Evaluation of the intranasal route for porcine reproductive and respiratory disease modified-live virus vaccination.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Opriessnig Tanja, Rawal Gaurav, McKeen Lauren, Filippsen Favaro Patricia, Halbur Patrick G, Gauger Phillip C
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: In pigs, modified live virus (MLV) vaccines against porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV) are commonly used and administered by intramuscular (IM) injection. In contrast, PRRSV, as a primary respiratory pathogen, is mainly transmitted via the intranasal (IN) route. The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of a commonly used commercial PRRSV MLV delivered IN compared to the IM route.
METHODS: Fifty-four pigs were divided into five treatment groups. All vaccinated groups received the same MLV vaccine but administered via different routes. Group IN-JET-VAC was vaccinated with an automated high pressure prototype nasal jet device (IN-JET-VAC, n = 12), group IN-MAD-VAC was vaccinated with a mucosal atomization device (IN-MAD-VAC, n = 12), group IM-VAC was vaccinated intramuscularly (IM-VAC; n = 12) according to label instructions, while the NEG-CONTROL (n = 6) and the POS-CONTROL (n = 12) groups were both unvaccinated. At 28 days post vaccination all vaccinated groups and the POS-CONTROL pigs were challenged with a pathogenic US PRRSV isolate. Blood and nasal swabs were collected at regular intervals, and all pigs were necropsied at day 10 post challenge (dpc) when gross and microscopic lung lesions were assessed.
RESULTS: Prior to challenge most vaccinated pigs had seroconverted to PRRSV. Clinical signs (fever, inappetence) were most obvious in the POS-CONTROL group from dpc 7 onwards. The vaccinated groups were not different for PRRSV viremia, seroconversion, or average daily weight gain. However, IN-JET-VAC and IN-MAD-VAC had significantly higher neutralizing antibody levels against the vaccine virus at challenge.
CONCLUSIONS: Comparable vaccine responses were obtained in IN and IM vaccinated pigs, suggesting the intranasal administration route as an alternative option for PRRSV vaccination.
METHODS: Fifty-four pigs were divided into five treatment groups. All vaccinated groups received the same MLV vaccine but administered via different routes. Group IN-JET-VAC was vaccinated with an automated high pressure prototype nasal jet device (IN-JET-VAC, n = 12), group IN-MAD-VAC was vaccinated with a mucosal atomization device (IN-MAD-VAC, n = 12), group IM-VAC was vaccinated intramuscularly (IM-VAC; n = 12) according to label instructions, while the NEG-CONTROL (n = 6) and the POS-CONTROL (n = 12) groups were both unvaccinated. At 28 days post vaccination all vaccinated groups and the POS-CONTROL pigs were challenged with a pathogenic US PRRSV isolate. Blood and nasal swabs were collected at regular intervals, and all pigs were necropsied at day 10 post challenge (dpc) when gross and microscopic lung lesions were assessed.
RESULTS: Prior to challenge most vaccinated pigs had seroconverted to PRRSV. Clinical signs (fever, inappetence) were most obvious in the POS-CONTROL group from dpc 7 onwards. The vaccinated groups were not different for PRRSV viremia, seroconversion, or average daily weight gain. However, IN-JET-VAC and IN-MAD-VAC had significantly higher neutralizing antibody levels against the vaccine virus at challenge.
CONCLUSIONS: Comparable vaccine responses were obtained in IN and IM vaccinated pigs, suggesting the intranasal administration route as an alternative option for PRRSV vaccination.