Advances in veterinary medicine最新文献

Whatever strategy is adopted for the development of viral vectors for delivery of veterinary vaccines there are several key points to consider: (1) Will the vectored vaccine give a delivery advantage compared to what's already available? (2) Will the vectored vaccine give a manufacturing advantage compared to what's already available? (3) Will the vectored vaccine provide improved safety compared to what's already available? (5) Will the vectored vaccine increase the duration of immunity compared to what's already available? (6) Will the vectored vaccine be more convenient to store compared to what's already available? (7) Is the vectored vaccine compatible with other vaccines? If there is no other alternative available then the answer to these questions is easy. However, if there are alternative vaccines available then the answers to these questions become very important because the answers will determine whether a vectored vaccine is merely a good laboratory idea or a successful vaccine.

Any analysis of spontaneous AER data must consider the many biases inherent in the observation and reporting of vaccine adverse events. The absence of a clear probability structure requires statistical procedures to be used in a spirit of exploratory description rather than definitive confirmation. The extent of such descriptions should be temperate, without the implication that they extend to parent populations. It is important to recognize the presence of overdispersion in selecting methods and constructing models. Important stochastic or systematic features of the data may always be unknown. Our attempts to delineate what constitutes an AER have not eliminated all the fuzziness in its definition. Some count every event in a report as a separate AER. Besides confusing the role of event and report, this introduces a complex correlational structure, since multiple event descriptions received in a single report can hardly be considered independent. The many events described by one reporter would then become inordinately weighted. The alternative is to record an AER once, regardless of how many event descriptions it includes. As a practical compromise, many regard the simultaneous submission of several report forms by one reporter as a single AER, and the next submission by that reporter as another AER. This method is reasonable when reporters submit AERs very infrequently. When individual reporters make frequent reports, it becomes difficult to justify the inconsistency of counting multiple events as a single AER when they are submitted together, but as separate AERs when they are reported at different times. While either choice is imperfect, the latter approach is currently used by the USDA and its licensed manufacturers in developing a mandatory postmarketing surveillance system for veterinary immunobiologicals in the United States. Under the proposed system, summaries of an estimated 10,000 AERs received annually by the manufacturers would be submitted to the USDA. In quantitative summaries, AERs received from lay consumers are usually weighted equally with those received from veterinary health professionals, although arguments have been advanced for separate classifications. The emphasis on AER rate estimation differentiates the surveillance of veterinary vaccines by the USDA CVB from the surveillance of veterinary drugs as practiced by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM). The FDA CVM does, in fact, perform a retrodictive causality assessment for individual AERs (Parkhie et al., 1995). This distinction reflects the differences between vaccines and drugs, as well as the difference in regulatory philosophy between the FDA and the USDA. The modified Kramer algorithm (Kramer et al., 1979) used by the FDA relies on features more appropriate to drug therapy than vaccination, such as an ongoing treatment regimen which allows evaluation of the response to dechallenge and rechallenge. In tracking AERs, the

During the last 40 years vaccines have been developed that have greatly reduced the incidence of infectious diseases of dogs. In general, modified live products have been superior to inactivated vaccines for dogs. It can be expected that recombinant and/or DNA vaccines may dominate the market in the future. Although most vaccines on the market are safe and efficacious, there have been exceptions where disease was induced by vaccination or dogs were not protected. The failure of protection may in part be due to variations in individual vaccine batches. Only potency tests but not efficacy tests are required, which may not be sufficient. For example, a virus titer in a vaccine may be meaningless if the minimum protective dose is not known. Overattenuated virus (e.g., CDV-Ond or parvovirus in cat cells) may have a high titer in tissue culture but is not immunogenic. The question of frequency of vaccination of dogs should be addressed. Annual revaccinations for CDV, CPV, and CAV are probably not needed. However, it would be desirable to collect more data to support less frequent vaccinations. Annual immunization for bacterial diseases such as kennel cough, Lyme disease, and leptospirosis should continue. It also would be desirable to develop more oro/nasal vaccines, perhaps combined with newly developed vectors that are less likely to induce undesirable side effects that may be seen after parenteral vaccination. Finally a word of warning against homeopathic "nosodes" to replace tested canine vaccines. They will appear highly effective as long as the majority of dogs remain vaccinated. As soon as a nonvaccinated dog population is large enough to allow virulent agents to spread, disease outbreaks will occur and we will be back where we began 40 years ago.

The frequent transfers of horses, whether on a permanent or temporary basis, make strict control of infectious diseases essential. Such control needs a reliable and rapid means to accurately diagnose the relevant diseases. Indirect diagnosis based on antibody detection remains certainly the best method to secure the epidemiologic surveillance of the diseases at regional, national, or even world level, while direct diagnosis is the only way to diagnose a new outbreak. New diagnostic methods resulting from advances in biochemistry, molecular biology, and immunology are now available. As far as antibody detection is concerned, the new methods are mainly based on immunoassays, especially ELISAs. Regarding the identification of the pathogens, while isolation is still of importance, much progress has been made with immunocapture tests including capture ELISA based on monoclonal antibodies. DNA probes and amplification tests such as PCR or RT-PCR are representing a real breakthrough. Factors common to all of these tests are specificity, sensitivity, rapid implementation, and quick results. Such tests are, however, often still at the development stage. They absolutely need to be validated under multicentric evaluations prior to being used on a larger scale. At the same time there is an obvious need for the standardization of the reagents used. The technical and economic impact of a false (either positive or negative) diagnosis justifies such an harmonization which could effectively be achieved worldwide under the aegis of the Office International des Epizooties (OIE), which is itself the primary source of disease information. Vaccines are also essential for the control of equine infectious diseases. Most vaccines used in the prevention of viral or bacterial diseases are inactivated adjuvanted vaccines, which may cause unacceptable side effects. Also, their efficacy can sometimes be questioned. Subunit vaccines, when available, represent significant advances especially with regards to safety. Greater progress is expected from the use of new technologies taking advantage of recent developments in molecular biology (recombinant DNA technology) and in immunology (immunomodulators). Significant results have been obtained with subunit vaccines or with live vectored vaccines using recombinant DNA technology. Good results are on the way to be achieved with genetic (or naked-DNA) vaccines. It is therefore possible to expect the availability of a new generation of vaccines in the rather short term. Such vaccines will not only be safer and more efficacious, but they will also make it possible to differentiate vaccinated from infected animals, which will contribute to better control of the infection. Whatever the quality of the vaccines of the future may be, vaccination alone will never be sufficient to control infectious diseases. It is therefore essential to keep on making the animal owners and their veterinarians aware of the importance of the management an

These are two examples of organisms which may cause morbidity and/or mortality among numerous unrelated species. Since it is cost prohibitive in most instances to have a biological licensed for wild or exotic species, it remains a challenge to the zoo or wildlife veterinarian to determine if a licensed vaccine for other species is safe and efficacious for a particular exotic species.

Increased susceptibility of animals to infectious disease during the periparturient period results in suffering and economic losses. Stress appears to delay inflammation by reducing efficiency of CD62L-mediated immune surveillance by phagocytes. It is important to note that the effects of stress are not limited to alteration of leukocyte trafficking patterns since various stressors (e.g., transport, parturition, and castration) also decrease IFN-gamma secretion by lymphocytes, and may decrease antigen presentation efficiency by down-regulating class II molecule expression on antigen presenting cells, and delay or impair immune responses to vaccination. Documented immunosuppression in periparturient animals, particularly the bias toward Th2 immune responses, and also changes in general leukocyte trafficking patterns suggest that vaccination intending to elicit cell-mediated immunity may not be efficacious at this point of the production cycle. Based on findings of numerous periparturient studies on immunosuppression in cattle, waiting at least 30 days after parturition before administering routine vaccinations is recommended.