Hostname: page-component-54dcc4c588-9xpg2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-05T11:57:27.924Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Failure of vaccination to prevent outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

M. E. J. Woolhouse ,
D. T. Haydon ,
A. Pearson  and
R. P. Kitching
M. E. J. Woolhouse
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3PS, UK
D. T. Haydon
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3PS, UK Institute for Animal Health, Pirbright, Woking, Surrey GU24 0NF, UK
A. Pearson
Affiliation:
Almarai Group, PO Box 8524, Riyadh 11492, Saudi Arabia
R. P. Kitching
Affiliation:
Institute for Animal Health, Pirbright, Woking, Surrey GU24 0NF, UK
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease persist in dairy cattle herds in Saudi Arabia despite revaccination at intervals of 4–6 months. Vaccine trials provide data on antibody responses following vaccination. Using this information we developed a mathematical model of the decay of protective antibodies with which we estimated the fraction of susceptible animals at a given time after vaccination. The model describes the data well, suggesting over 95% take with an antibody half-life of 43 days. Farm records provided data on the time course of five outbreaks. We applied a ‘SLIR’ epidemiological model to these data, fitting a single parameter representing disease transmission rate. The analysis provides estimates of the basic reproduction number, R0, which may exceed 70 in some cases. We conclude that the critical intervaccination interval which would provide herd immunity against FMDV is unrealistically short, especially for heterologous challenge. We suggest that it may not be possible to prevent foot-and-mouth disease outbreaks on these farms using currently available vaccines.

Information

Type
Special Article
Information
Epidemiology & Infection , Volume 116 , Issue 3 , June 1996 , pp. 363 - 371
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1996

References

REFERENCES

1.Anderson, RM, May, RM, Infectious diseases of humans: dynamics and control. Oxford: Oxford Scientific Press, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Nokes, J, Anderson, RM. Mathematical models of infectious agent transmission and the impact of mass vaccination. Rev Med Microbiol 1992; 3: 187–95.Google Scholar
3.Ada, GL. The development of new vaccines. In: Cutts, FT, Smith, PG, eds. Vaccination and world health. Chichester: Wiley, 1994.Google Scholar
4.Mackett, M, Williamson, JD, Human vaccines and vaccination. Oxford: Bios Scientific, 1995.Google Scholar
5.Glosser, JW. Regulation and application of biotechnology products for use in veterinary medicine. Rev Sci Tech Off Int Epiz 1988; 7: 223–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. FAO Animal Production and Health Series No. 33. Rome: FAO, 1994.Google Scholar
7.McLean, AR, Blower, SM. Imperfect vaccines and herd immunity to HIV. Proc R Soc Lond Ser B 1993; 253: 9–13.Google ScholarPubMed
8.Agur, Z, Cojocaru, L, Mazor, G, Anderson, RM, Danon, YL. Pulse mass vaccination across age cohorts. Proc. Natl Acad Sci USA 1993; 90: 11698–702.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.Hamblin, C, Barnett, ITR, Hedger, RS. A new enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (Elisa) for the detection of antibodies against foot-and-mouth disease virus. 1. Development and method of elisa. J Imm Meth 1986; 93: 115–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10.Berger, J, Schermbrucker, CG, Pay, TWF. The immune response obtained with quadrivalent FMD vaccines in Kenyan cattle. Bull Off Int Epiz 1975; 83: 327–36.Google Scholar
11.Hamblin, C, Kitching, RP, Donaldson, AI, Crowther, JR, Barnett, ITR. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (Elisa) for the detection of antibodies against foot-and- mouth disease virus. 3. Evaluation after infection and vaccination. Epidemiol Infect 1987; 99: 733–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12.Periolo, OH, Seki, C, Grigera, PR et al. , Large scale use of liquid-phase blocking sandwich ELISA for the evaluation of protective immunity against aphthovirus in cattle vaccinated with oil-adjuvanted vaccines in Argentina. Vaccine 1993; 11: 754–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13.McCullough, KL, Simone, F, Brocchi, E, Cappuci, L, Crowther, JR, Kihm, V. Protective immune responses against foot and mouth disease. J Virol 1992; 66: 1835–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14.Papoulis, A. Probability, random variables and stochastic processes. McGraw-Hill, 1965.Google Scholar
15.Sokal, RR, Rohlf, FJ. Biometry. New York: Freeman, 1981.Google Scholar
16.Kitching, RP, Mackay, DK. Foot and mouth disease. State Vet J 1994; 4: 7–10.Google Scholar
17.Brown, F. New approaches to vaccination against foot- and-mouth disease. Vaccine 1992; 10: 1022–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed