Gilt Vaccination with a Mixed Administration of a PRRS MLV and a PPV1 Subunit Vaccine Protects against Heterologous PRRSV1 Infection and Prevents Detrimental Effects on Piglet Performance

Efficacy of Simultaneous Intradermal Vaccination of Swine against Porcine Circovirus 2, Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome Virus, Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae and Lawsonia intracellularis

The combined application of vaccines in swine offers many benefits, including reduced time and labour costs, and improved animal welfare, due to fewer injections and manipulations. This study investigated if simultaneous intradermal vaccinations against porcine circovirus 2, porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus, Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae, and Lawsonia intracellularis, using a specialised needle-free applicator would confer comparable protection against experimental infection compared to the single vaccines. In all cases, the administration of the vaccines together was as efficacious as the administration of the vaccines alone, significantly reducing clinical signs associated with each of the four pathogens.

Effects of three commercial vaccines against porcine parvovirus 1 in pregnant gilts

Porcine parvovirosis is a common and important cause of reproductive failure in naïve dams. Even though vaccination is generally effective at preventing disease occurrence, the homology between the vaccine and challenge strains has been recently suggested to play a role in protection. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the efficacy of three currently available commercial vaccines against porcine parvovirus genotype 1 (PPV1) in an experimental model using pregnant gilts. Seventy-seven PPV1-negative gilts were included in the trial and randomly allocated to four groups. In group 1, gilts received two doses, three weeks apart, of a PPV1 subunit vaccine (ReproCyc® ParvoFLEX). Following the same scheme, gilts from group 2 received two doses of a PPV1 bivalent vaccine (ERYSENG® PARVO). In group 3, gilts received two doses, four weeks apart, of a PPV1 octavalent vaccine (Porcilis® Ery + Parvo + Lepto). Lastly, gilts from group 4 were left untreated and were used as challenge controls. All gilts were artificially inseminated three weeks after completion of vaccination. Pregnant animals were subsequently challenged around 40 days of gestation with a heterologous PPV1 strain. Foetuses were harvested at around day 90 of gestation and evaluated for their macroscopic appearance (i.e., normal, mummified, or autolytic). Along the study, safety parameters after vaccination, antibody responses against PPV1 and viremia in gilts were also measured. All the foetuses in the challenge control group were mummified, which validated the challenge model, whereas the three evaluated vaccines protected the progeny against PPV1 by preventing the appearance of clinical manifestations associated to parvovirosis. Remarkably, the PPV1 subunit vaccine induced an earlier seroconversion of gilts and was the only vaccine that could prevent viremia after challenge. This vaccine also achieved the largest average litter size accompanied with a high average proportion of clinically healthy foetuses.

Modelling the transmission and vaccination strategy for porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus

Many aspects of the porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV) between-farm transmission dynamics have been investigated, but uncertainty remains about the significance of farm type and different transmission routes on PRRSV spread. We developed a stochastic epidemiological model calibrated on weekly PRRSV outbreaks accounting for the population dynamics in different pig production phases, breeding herds, gilt development units, nurseries and finisher farms, of three hog producer companies. Our model accounted for indirect contacts by the close distance between farms (local transmission), between-farm animal movements (pig flow) and reinfection of sow farms (re-break). The fitted model was used to examine the effectiveness of vaccination strategies and complementary interventions such as enhanced PRRSV detection and vaccination delays and forecast the spatial distribution of PRRSV outbreak. The results of our analysis indicated that for sow farms, 59% of the simulated infections were related to local transmission (e.g. airborne, feed deliveries, shared equipment) whereas 36% and 5% were related to animal movements and re-break, respectively. For nursery farms, 80% of infections were related to animal movements and 20% to local transmission; while at finisher farms, it was split between local transmission and animal movements. Assuming that the current vaccines are 1% effective in mitigating between-farm PRRSV transmission, weaned pigs vaccination would reduce the incidence of PRRSV outbreaks by 3%, indeed under any scenario vaccination alone was insufficient for completely controlling PRRSV spread. Our results also showed that intensifying PRRSV detection and/or vaccination pigs at placement increased the effectiveness of all simulated vaccination strategies. Our model reproduced the incidence and PRRSV spatial distribution; therefore, this model could also be used to map current and future farms at-risk. Finally, this model could be a useful tool for veterinarians, allowing them to identify the effect of transmission routes and different vaccination interventions to control PRRSV spread.