SlideShare una empresa de Scribd logo
1 de 9
Descargar para leer sin conexión
Preventive Veterinary Medicine 98 (2011) 1–9



                                                         Contents lists available at ScienceDirect


                                              Preventive Veterinary Medicine
                                      journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/prevetmed


Review

Meta-analysis on the efficacy of foot-and-mouth disease
emergency vaccination
T. Halasa a,∗ , A. Boklund a , S. Cox b , C. Enøe a
a
    Technical University of Denmark, the Veterinary Institute, Bülowsvej 27, 1790 Copenhagen V, Denmark
b
    Institute for Animal Health, Pirbright Laboratory, Ash Road, Pirbright, Working, Surry, GU 24, 0NF, United Kingdom




a r t i c l e           i n f o                         a b s t r a c t

Article history:                                        The objectives of this study were to provide a summary quantification of the efficacy of FMD
Received 20 November 2009                               emergency vaccination based on a systematic review and a meta-analysis of available liter-
Received in revised form 23 August 2010
                                                        ature, and to further discuss the suitability of this review and meta-analysis to summarize
Accepted 26 August 2010
                                                        and further interpret the results. Peer-reviewed, symposium, and unpublished studies were
                                                        considered in the analysis. Clinical protection and virological protection against FMD were
Key words:
                                                        used as parameters to assess the efficacy of emergency vaccination. The clinical protection
Emergency vaccine, Foot-and-mouth
                                                        was estimated based on the appearance of clinical signs including FMD lesions and fever,
disease, Meta-analysis
                                                        while the virological protection parameter was estimated based on the outcome of labo-
                                                        ratory tests that were used to diagnose FMD infection. A meta-analysis relative risk was
                                                        calculated per protection parameter. Results of the meta-analyses were examined using
                                                        publication bias tests. In total, 31 studies were included in the analyses, of which 26 were
                                                        peer-reviewed studies, 1 was a symposium study and 4 were unpublished studies. Cattle,
                                                        swine and sheep were well protected against clinical disease and FMD infection following
                                                        the use of emergency vaccine. Fortunately, no significant bias that would alter the conclu-
                                                        sions was encountered in the analysis. Meta-analysis can be a useful tool to summarize
                                                        literature results from a systematic review of the efficacy of FMD emergency vaccination.
                                                                                                               © 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.



1. Introduction                                                                       countries. Following the confirmation of FMD in any EU
                                                                                      member state, slaughter and disinfection of infected herds,
    Foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) is a highly contagious                               as well as movement restriction and surveillance of herds
viral disease affecting ruminants and pigs, which can cause                           within zones around the infected herds must be applied to
huge economic damage (Cox and Barnett, 2009; Pendell et                               contain the outbreak as fast as possible (Council Directive
al., 2007). Although FMD remains as an endemic disease                                2003/85/EC). From January 1st 1992, prophylactic vacci-
in several areas of the world, elsewhere FMD free status                              nation against FMD was prohibited in the EU countries.
has been maintained or FMD was eradicated by imposing                                 However, after public concerns regarding the mass killing
strict legislation and/or implementing a variety of control                           of animals in the UK and the Netherlands during the FMD
strategies including use of vaccination (Cox and Barnett,                             outbreak in 2001, the OIE and the EU have revised the pol-
2009). The eradication of the disease and the prohibition                             icy to make use of emergency vaccination in case the risk
of vaccination in these countries have created a highly                               of an extensive outbreak is suspected (Cox et al., 2005;
susceptible population of animals. This means that a poten-                           Parida, 2009). Emergency vaccination may be defined as
tial outbreak could rapidly spread within and between the                             the use of vaccines to control an outbreak of FMD in a
                                                                                      country free of the disease, in which routine prophylactic
                                                                                      vaccination is not applied (Council Directive 2003/85/EC).
    ∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +45 35886286; fax: +45 35886001.                    Based on the literature, an ideal emergency vaccine should
      E-mail address: tahbh@vet.dtu.dk (T. Halasa).                                   have the following characteristics: (1) contain no residues

0167-5877/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.prevetmed.2010.08.005
2                                       T. Halasa et al. / Preventive Veterinary Medicine 98 (2011) 1–9


of a live virus and have minimal side effects to newborns                  ously reported in a symposium paper, to prevent data sets
and adults; (2) after a single application with the recom-                 from being included twice in the analyses.
mended dose, achieve a potency dose 50 (PD50 ) of ≥6; (3)                      The quality of the studies was further assessed by insur-
be compatible with serological tests that identify infection               ing that a study: (1) met the above mentioned inclusion
in vaccinated animals; (4) induce reasonably long lasting                  criteria; (2) provided sufficient information on animal han-
immunity and provide a broad spectrum of antigenic pro-                    dling, vaccine application and virus challenge procedure;
tection; and (5) be stable under storage once formulated;                  (3) provided sufficient information regarding the measure
(6) provide a rapid protection after vaccination; and (7)                  of clinical disease and laboratory procedures to diagnose
reduce the reproduction ratio (R0 ) to below 1 (Goris et al.,              infection; (4) provided sufficient information about the
2007; Cox and Barnett, 2009).                                              duration of the experiment, and sampling frequency; (5)
    The economic consequence of using emergency vac-                       had an epidemiologic design that would meet the objec-
cination following an FMD outbreak is an essential                         tives of that study.
consideration for livestock and livestock products export-                     The primary check of the studies was carried out by
ing countries. Their export status is highly dependent on                  reading the abstract of the studies. When a study was found
the freedom of FMD, which could be delayed because of                      to fit our inclusion criteria, the study was read to insure
vaccination (Mahul and Durand, 2000). Several experimen-                   a good quality and thereafter a careful reading accompa-
tal studies have quantified the efficacy of FMD emergency                    nied with data extraction was carried out. When a study
vaccines and these were recently reviewed by Cox and                       lacked essential information, the authors were contacted
Barnett (2009). The authors observed a considerable vari-                  and asked to provide the necessary information.
ability between studies. This would make it difficult                           Unpublished data might be an important source of infor-
to conduct comprehensive economic assessment of the                        mation and should be considered in meta-analysis studies
efficacy of emergency vaccination. It was, therefore, rec-                  (Dohoo et al., 2003). Therefore, several researchers and
ommended to conduct a meta-analysis study to quantify                      research groups that are involved in FMD vaccine studies
the efficacy of FMD emergency vaccination. The outcome of                   were approached to provide unpublished data that fitted
this meta-analysis can be used for FMD modeling exercises                  the above mentioned inclusion criteria from point 2 to 6.
and economic analysis to assist policy makers in national                  The researchers were asked to provide further information
governments, the EU and worldwide on efficient FMD con-                     as needed to assess the quality of the data. This is important
trol strategies.                                                           to correctly pool unpublished data with published studies
    The objectives of this study were to provide a summary                 in a meta-analysis (Dohoo et al., 2003).
quantification of the efficacy of FMD emergency vaccina-                         Because different studies differ in the design, discrep-
tion based on a systematic review and a meta-analysis of                   ancies were expected that could affect the validity of the
available literature, and to further discuss the suitability of            meta-analysis. Data related to the study design, emergency
this review and meta-analysis to summarize and further                     vaccination and challenge are presented in the next sec-
interpret the results.                                                     tions and in supplementary file.

2. Materials and methods                                                   2.2. Emergency vaccination and challenge

2.1. Selection of published and unpublished studies                           The majority of the studies were performed in disease
                                                                           secure facilities. At the start of each study, the animals were
    A search was conducted on the literature related to                    FMD free. Frequently, animals were given a few days to
FMD vaccine efficacy studies published between 1960 and                     adapt to the new facility before assignment to either of
the beginning of 2009. The search was carried out using                    the vaccinated or control groups. In the majority of the
the key words: foot-and-mouth disease; emergency; vac-                     studies, the emergency vaccine application was carried out
cine; efficacy; and protection in different combinations.                   using the intramuscular route of injection using a full dose
Searches were conducted in PubMed (the National Library                    (Supplementary file, column VA). Thereafter, a challenge
of Medicine, Bethesda, USA) and Google Scholar (Google                     with a live homologous FMD virus was carried out. Some
Inc., CA, USA).                                                            studies examined the efficacy of emergency vaccination
    Studies included in the analysis had to: (1) be a research             using short and long periods between vaccination and chal-
or symposium paper published in English; (2) be an exper-                  lenge, while other used only long intervals (Supplementary
imental challenge study, which showed the efficacy of an                    file, footnote j). In the majority of the studies conducted
FMD emergency vaccine in pigs, cattle, and/or sheep; (3)                   on cattle, a period of 21 days between emergency vacci-
report the rate or the number of FMD infected or protected                 nation and challenge was used. In studies conducted on
animals and the total number of animals in at least 2 groups               swine and sheep, a period of 14 days between emergency
(challenged vaccinated and non-vaccinated control group);                  vaccination and challenge was often used. However, sev-
(4) include vaccination with the full vaccine dose. Proto-                 eral protocols were frequently tested within these studies.
cols with sub-preventive doses were not included so as                     Control animals were separated from the vaccinated ani-
not to under-estimate the efficacy of the tested vaccine;                   mals. In the majority of the studies conducted on cattle,
(5) include a challenge with a homologous virus to that                    contact with infected cattle for several days or a pig for
used in the vaccine, similarly in both groups (vaccinated                  1 h was used as the challenge method, while intra-dermal
and non-vaccinated); (6) in case of research papers, report                injection of the virus in the tongue was carried out in other
the outcome of a new experiment or protocol not previ-                     studies (Supplementary file, column CR). In the majority of
T. Halasa et al. / Preventive Veterinary Medicine 98 (2011) 1–9                                 3


the studies conducted on pigs, challenge was carried out                 et al., 1984; Salt et al., 1995, 1998) that used only VI to
by direct or less frequently indirect contact with infected              confirm infection from the samples. Orsel et al. (2005)
pigs for a period from 1 h to several days. In few studies,              used VI and PCR to confirm infection from the sam-
intra-dermal injection of the virus in the heel bulb was                 ples.
used (Supplementary file, column CR). In the majority of
the studies conducted on sheep, challenge with infected                  2.5. Evidence of FMD
pigs for 2–9 h was used (Supplementary file, column CR).
                                                                         2.5.1. Clinical disease
2.3. Follow-up days post-challenge                                          Clinical signs of FMD were diagnosed in all studies.
                                                                         However, there was variability between studies in the con-
    After challenge animals were monitored for clinical                  sideration of which clinical signs represent clinical disease.
infection over variable time periods (Supplementary file,                 The majority of studies conducted on cattle and pigs con-
column FC) and samples for laboratory analyses and diag-                 sidered the presence of FMD lesions and/or fever as a sign
nosis were obtained (Supplementary file, column FS). In                   of disease (Supplementary file, column Fe). In the other
most studies conducted on cattle, 7–14 days post-challenge               studies only lesions on the feet were considered to diag-
was used as the follow-up period for clinical diagnosis.                 nose clinical infection. In studies conducted on sheep, the
However, some studies recorded clinical disease up to the                presence of FMD lesions and/or fever was considered to
end of the trial. Follow up for laboratory diagnosis varied              diagnose clinical infection.
from 14 to 35 days post-challenge, but was mainly up to 28                  In the studies that used fever as a clinical sign, discrep-
days post-challenge.                                                     ancies between the studies in the consideration of fever
    In most studies conducted on pigs, the follow-up period              were also observed. In only one study conducted using
for clinical diagnosis was also 7–14 days post-challenge.                cattle, where fever was considered a clinical sign of the
However, in one study (Eblé et al., 2009), clinical disease              disease, fever was specified to be a rectal temperature of
was recorded up to 42 days post-challenge. Follow up for                 ≥40 ◦ C (Aggarwal et al., 2002). In studies conducted using
laboratory diagnosis varied from 8 up to 42 days post-                   swine, 40 ◦ C was used as a cut-off value, except in one study
challenge, but was frequently up to 14 days post-challenge.              (Parida et al., 2007), which used 39.5 ◦ C as a cut-off value.
    In studies conducted on sheep, follow up for clinical                Two studies conducted with swine included fever to diag-
diagnosis varied from 10 up to 14 days post-challenge,                   nose FMD, but did not specify a cut-off value (Doel et al.,
while in one study (Barnett et al., 2004), FMD lesion record-            1994; Orsel et al., 2007a). In studies conducted using sheep,
ing was carried out up to 42 days post-challenge. Follow up              fever was defined as ≥40 ◦ C, except one study (Parida et al.,
for laboratory diagnosis varied from 14 up to 42 days post-              2008), which used ≥39.5 ◦ C.
challenge and was frequently up to 14 days post-challenge.

2.4. Samples collection, storage and laboratory methods                  2.5.2. Virological infection
                                                                            In the majority of studies, FMD infection was confirmed
   Sample collection, storage and laboratory methods were                by laboratory diagnosis (Supplementary file, column FS).
generally similar among the different studies. We will only              In the current meta-analysis we defined infection based
describe these procedures briefly, as detailed information                on the results of: (1) VI from the blood, oral, nasal and/or
can be found in the original publications.                               esophageal–pharyngeal fluids samples; (2) presence of
   Heparinised and unheparinised blood samples were                      antibodies against NSP; or (3) presence of viral RNA in oral,
stored at −70 ◦ C, while serum samples were stored at                    nasal and/or esophageal–pharyngeal fluids samples diag-
−20 ◦ C until processing. Nasal fluids were collected on cot-             nosed using RT-PCR.
ton buds and stored at −70 ◦ C. Oropharyngeal fluid was
collected using cotton swabs. For ELISA, oropharyngeal                   2.6. Meta-analysis procedure
fluid samples were stored at −20 ◦ C, but they were stored
at −70 ◦ C for virus isolation (VI). Probang samples were                2.6.1. Outcome parameters
collected using a probang sampler on sedated animals and                     In the current meta-analysis we defined two main
then the samples were stored at −70 ◦ C.                                 parameters to determine the efficacy of FMD emergency
   VI or titration was carried out by inoculation of the                 vaccination: clinical protection and virological protection.
sample onto monolayers of mammalian cells in tubes or                        The relative risk (RR) of clinical disease was considered
plates. Infection was determined either by staining and                  to represent clinical protection. For each study, the RR was
counting of plaques or by microscopic examination for                    calculated as the incidence risk of clinically FMD diseased
the cytopathic effect with subsequent confirmation of                     animals in the vaccinated group divided by the incidence
serotype by ELISA. The presence of antibodies against the                risk in the unvaccinated control group. The incidence risk of
non-structural proteins (NSP) 3ABC was tested using com-                 clinical FMD was calculated for each group as the number of
mercial ELISA. The RT-PCR was used to confirm and identify                clinically diseased animals divided by the total number of
infection from the samples, mostly using the MagNA Pure®                 animals. The length of the follow-up period post-challenge
LC kit (Roche) and a light cycler® RT-PCR system.                        was assumed not to affect the outcome, given that animals
   All studies that confirmed infection using laboratory                  were followed up at least 7 days. Seven days after challenge
tests used VI, PCR and NSP, except (Barnett et al., 2002;                was assumed to be a sufficient period for clinical signs to
Cox et al., 1999; Donaldson and Kitching, 1989; Gibson                   appear.
4                                      T. Halasa et al. / Preventive Veterinary Medicine 98 (2011) 1–9


    The virological protection was estimated based on the                 combined in a multivariable model using a backward step-
definition of infection, which considered an animal to have                wise regression method. A liberal P-value <0.3 was chosen
FMD infection when it was found positive to VI, NSP or RT-                for the variables to be included in a combined multivari-
PCR tests from the original studies. The RR of infection was              able model. In case of a significant association between the
used to represent virological protection. For each study,                 explanatory variable and the dependent variable (RR per
a RR of infection was calculated as the incidence risk of                 study) with a P-value <0.05 in the multivariable model, the
infection in the vaccinated group divided by the incidence                variable was believed to explain the heterogeneity signifi-
risk in the unvaccinated control group. The incidence risk                cantly.
of infection was calculated for each group (vaccinated and
unvaccinated) as the number of animals that were positive                 2.6.4. Publication bias
to any of the 3 tests divided by the total number of animals.                 Because studies that result in large and interesting
As for clinical disease, we assumed that the length of the                effects are more likely to be published than studies that
follow-up period post-challenge to diagnose infection did                 show relatively small or no effects, the outcome could be
not affect the outcome, given that animals were followed                  a biased body of research (Halasa et al., 2009). The publi-
for at least 7 days. Seven days after challenge was assumed               cation bias was assessed using funnel plots. A funnel plot
to be a sufficient period for virus shedding to occur and 14               is a plot of a measure of study size (standard error) on
days for NSP antibodies to develop.                                       the vertical axis as a function of the effect size on the
    From 4 studies (Eblé et al., 2004, 2007; Orsel et al.,                horizontal axis. Large studies appear toward the top of
2005, 2007b) only results of experiments using vaccinated                 the graph, and tend to cluster near the mean effect value.
and non-vaccinated animals challenged by direct injection                 Smaller studies appear toward the bottom of the graph
of the virus were included in the current meta-analysis.                  and tend to disperse across a range of values. Publication
Only results of experiments using vaccinated and non-                     bias methods included Duval and Tweedie’s fill and trim
vaccinated animals that had been challenged using the                     method (Duval and Tweedie, 2000), Begg and Mazumdar
airborne route with unvaccinated infected seeders were                    correlation test (Begg and Mazumdar, 1994), and Egger’s
included in the analysis from Orsel et al. (2007a). Results of            regression test (Egger et al., 1997). A significant publica-
other experiments from these studies were not included.                   tion bias was deemed to exist when adjustment for the
                                                                          bias altered our conclusion or when the confidence limits of
2.6.2. Statistical procedure                                              the unadjusted and the adjusted RR did not overlap. When
    The RRs were pooled over the studies; separately per                  significant publication bias and change on the estimated
protection parameter, and animal species, using a commer-                 pooled RR were detected, the number of studies necessary
cial analytical package (Comprehensive meta-analysis 2.0,                 to reverse the pooled effect was calculated using Orwin’s
2009). When the pooled RRs were calculated, classification                 fail-safe N method (Orwin, 1983). The study influence was
on virus serotype was carried out to correct for potential                examined using the one study removed method (Dohoo et
differences between the different virus serotypes in reac-                al., 2003). When significant publication bias was deemed
tion to vaccination. In studies that included more than one               to exist, the pooled RR was presented based on the Duval
protocol, a combined effect was calculated per study. When                and Tweedie’s fill and trim estimation after correcting for
one study reported the outcome of separate challenge trials               the publication bias. The interpretation of each of the above
with different virus serotypes, we treated each challenge                 mentioned methods is presented in Sections 3 and 4.
trail as a separate study in the meta-analysis. Because stud-                 It is important to mention that these methods are based
ies are conducted by different people, in different areas and             on statistical theory. They do not necessarily prove exis-
times, which could create a heterogeneous population of                   tence of bias, but they do suggest it, and the confirmation
studies, a random effect model was used to estimate the                   of the bias should be based on biological and rational rea-
pooled RR (Halasa et al., 2009). A meta-analysis was con-                 soning (Halasa et al., 2009).
ducted when at least 4 studies were available (Halasa et al.,
2009). Forest plots were used to illustrate the calculated RR             3. Results
per study and virus serotype and the overall pooled effect
of all studies in the last line of the plot.                              3.1. Descriptive results

2.6.3. Meta-regression                                                       The primary search identified 862 published studies of
   As recommended by Lean et al. (2009), a weighted                       relevance. Of these, 69 studies examined FMD vaccines in
meta-regression was conducted in an attempt to explain                    cases and control groups in cattle, swine and/or sheep.
the heterogeneity between studies. Explanatory variables                  However, only 29 published studies described a vaccine
of the heterogeneity were selected based on the litera-                   that would meet our criteria for an emergency vaccine. The
ture and expert assessment of likely factors. The variables               authors of 4 studies were contacted to identify the PD50 of
used are presented in the supplementary file. The coun-                    the vaccine used in their studies. Finally, 28 studies were
try of origin and animal species were not included in the                 identified to fit our criteria and 27 of them were included in
meta-regression, while the number of tests conducted to                   the analysis. One study (Orsel et al., 2007c) was excluded to
confirm infection per study was included. These variables                  correct for age as a natural confounder, because the study
were regressed against the RR results of each study and                   only included older cattle. Of these 27 studies, 10 exam-
weighted by the inverse variance (Dohoo et al., 2003). The                ined the efficacy of emergency vaccination using cattle; 9
variables were first tested in univariable models and then                 studies using swine; 5 studies using sheep, and 3 studies
T. Halasa et al. / Preventive Veterinary Medicine 98 (2011) 1–9                                                  5


examined emergency vaccination in more than 1 species                     Table 1
                                                                          Pooled relative risk (RR) together with the 95% confidence interval as
(Supplementary file). One of the 5 studies (Cox et al., 1999)
                                                                          estimated based on the corresponding studies in the meta-analysis to
conducted in sheep included 3 different virus strains, and                quantify the clinical and virological protection against foot-and-mouth
hence each experiment was treated in the analysis and                     disease using emergency vaccination.
referred to as a separate study (Supplementary file). All
                                                                             Animal species      Studies included in the            Pooled RR and 95%
studies were peer-reviewed research papers except one                        and measure of      meta-analysis                      confidence limits
(Salt et al., 1995), which was a symposium paper.                            protection
   Four unpublished experiments conducted on swine
                                                                             Cattle
were included in the analysis; all of good quality and                       Clinical            (Aggarwal et al., 2002;            0.13 (0.09–0.18)
with experimental design similar to other included studies                                       Brehm et al., 2008; Cox et
(Supplementary file).                                                                             al., 2005; Cox et al., 2006;
                                                                                                 Cox et al., 2007; Doel et al.,
                                                                                                 1994; Donaldson and
3.2. Protection in cattle                                                                        Kitching 1989; Goris et al.,
                                                                                                 2007, 2008; Graves et al.,
                                                                                                 1968; Mattion et al., 2004;
   Studies included in investigating the clinical protec-                                        Orsel et al., 2005; Salt et al.,
tion provided by emergency vaccination against FMD in                                            1995)
cattle were homogeneous (Q-value = 16.3 with 12 degrees                      Virological         (Cox et al., 2005, 2006,           0.71 (0.59–0.85)
of freedom and a P-value = 0.178). The studies included                                          2007; Donaldson and
                                                                                                 Kitching 1989; Orsel et al.,
virus serotypes O, A and Asia 1. In general, emergency
                                                                                                 2005; Salt et al., 1995)
vaccination protected cattle well against clinical disease                   Swine
(Table 1). There was no significant difference in clinical                    Clinical            (Aggarwal et al., 2002;            0.48 (0.36–0.65)
protection between the different vaccine serotypes (Fig. 1).                                     Barnett et al., 2002;
                                                                                                 Buonavoglia et al., 1998;
Removing any of the studies did not alter the pooled effect
                                                                                                 Doel et al., 1994; Eblé et al.,
significantly. Further investigation of the publication bias                                      2004, 2007, 2009; Graves
showed signs of bias. The Begg and Mazumdar test sug-                                            et al., 1968; Orsel et al.,
gested a significant correlation between study size and                                           2007a,b; Parida et al.,
study effect ( = −0.45 and a P-value = 0.03). Egger’s regres-                                    2007; Sellers and
                                                                                                 Herniman, 1974; Salt et al.,
sion test suggested a significant association between study
                                                                                                 1998; Unpublished data).
size and study effect with an intercept = −1.46, a stan-                     Virological         (Barnett et al., 2002; Eblé et     0.67 (0.51–0.87)
dard error = 0.45 and a P-value = 0.01. Correcting for the                                       al., 2004, 2007, 2009; Orsel
bias using the Duval and Tweedie’s trim and fill method,                                          et al., 2007a,b; Parida et al.,
                                                                                                 2007; Salt et al., 1998)
resulted in an insignificant change to the pooled RR.
                                                                             Sheep
   In the meta-analysis to examine virological protec-                       Clinical            (Aggarwal et al., 2002;            0.31 (0.18–0.53)
tion against FMD, the studies were heterogeneous, and                                            Barnett et al., 2004; Cox et
none of the variables in the meta-regression explained                                           al., 1999; Gibson et al.,
the heterogeneity significantly. Vaccinated cattle had 0.71                                       1984; Orsel et al., 2007a,b;
                                                                                                 Parida et al., 2008)
(0.59–0.85) times lower risk of FMD infection compared
                                                                             Virological         (Barnett et al., 2004; Cox et      0.59 (0.44–0.80)
to non-vaccinated cattle (Table 1). Publication bias tests                                       al., 1999; Gibson et al.,
indicated no significant publication bias.                                                        1984; Orsel et al., 2007a,b;
                                                                                                 Parida et al., 2008)

3.3. Protection in swine
                                                                          publication bias.
    Studies investigating the clinical protection provided
by emergency vaccination against FMD in swine were                        3.4. Protection in sheep
heterogeneous. None of the tested variables in the meta-
regression explained the heterogeneity significantly. The                      Studies investigating the clinical protection provided by
studies included virus serotypes O, A, C and Asia. In general,            emergency vaccination against FMD in sheep were het-
emergency vaccination provided good protection against                    erogeneous. In the meta-regression, none of the tested
clinical disease in swine (Table 1). There was no signifi-                 variables explained the heterogeneity significantly. The
cant difference in clinical protection between the different              included studies examined virus serotypes O, C and Asia
vaccine serotypes. Publication bias tests did not indicate a              1. In general, emergency vaccination protected sheep well
significant bias that would alter the results.                             against clinical disease (Table 1) and no significant publi-
    Emergency vaccination protected swine against FMD                     cation bias was found.
infection (Fig. 2). Vaccinated swine had 0.67 (0.51–0.87)                     Emergency vaccination provided virological protection
times lower risk of FMD infection compared to non-                        against FMD infection in sheep (Table 1). The studies were
vaccinated swine (Table 1). The studies were heteroge-                    heterogeneous and none of the variables in the meta-
neous, and none of the variables in the meta-regression                   regression explained the heterogeneity significantly. There
explained the heterogeneity significantly. Only Egger’s                    was no significant difference in protection between the dif-
regression test suggested an association between study size               ferent vaccine serotypes. Removing any of the studies did
and study effect. All other publication bias test indicated no            not alter the effect. Begg and Mazumdar correlation test
6                                              T. Halasa et al. / Preventive Veterinary Medicine 98 (2011) 1–9


                            Virus serotype      Study           RR       Lower Upper                                 RR and 95% CI
                                                                          limit limit
                               A         Brehm, 2008            0.051    0.003    0.770
                               A         Goris, 2008            0.123    0.071    0.214
                               A         Graves, 1968           0.075    0.016    0.352
                               A         Mattion, 2004          0.225    0.069    0.737
                               PRR A                            0.126    0.079    0.202
                               Asia 1    Salt, 1995             0.124    0.052    0.295
                               PRR Asia 1                       0.124    0.052    0.295
                               O         Aggarwal, 2002         0.100    0.007    1.490
                               O         Cox, 2005              0.026    0.002    0.406
                               O         Cox, 2006              0.026    0.002    0.406
                               O         Cox, 2007              0.294    0.177    0.488
                               O         Doel, 1994             0.019    0.001    0.297
                               O         Donaldson, 1989        0.179    0.089    0.361
                               O         Goris, 2007            0.090    0.037    0.219
                               O         Orsel, 2005            0.100    0.015    0.664
                               PRR O                            0.127    0.068    0.236
                               Overall PRR                      0.126    0.089    0.178
                                                                                                           0.01        0.1            1          10     100
                                                                                                                Favors vaccine            Favors no vaccine

Fig. 1. Forest plot of the relative risk (RR) of the clinical disease in vaccinated cattle for each of the 13 included studies, the pooled RR (PRR) per virus
serotype and the overall PRR together with the 95% confidence interval (CI).

                              Virus serotype      Study        RR       Lower Upper                                   RR and 95% CI
                                                                         limit limit
                                  C         Salt, 1998         0.484    0.285    0.821
                                  PRR C                        0.484    0.285    0.821
                                  O         Barnett, 2002      1.000    0.818    1.223
                                  O         Orsel, 2007        0.818    0.634    1.057
                                  O         Eble, 2004         0.524    0.286    0.959
                                  O         Eble, 2007         1.000    0.833    1.200
                                  O         Eble, 2009         0.211    0.126    0.353
                                  O         Parida, 2007       1.055    0.853    1.306
                                  PRR O                        0.739    0.545    1.001
                                  Overall PRR                  0.665    0.511    0.866
                                                                                                          0.01        0.1         1        10         100
                                                                                                           Favors vaccine Favors no vaccine

Fig. 2. Forest plot of the relative risk (RR) of the FMD infection of swine for each of the 7 included studies, the pooled RR (PRR) per virus serotype and the
overall PRR together with the 95% confidence interval (CI).


suggested an absence of correlation between study size                              signs is also important, because the virus can be excreted
and study effect. This result was contradicted by Egger’s                           through the lesions. Preventing the appearance of lesions
regression test that suggested a strong association between                         might, therefore, decrease virus shedding. However, if vac-
study size and study effect with an intercept = −2.84, a stan-                      cination induces protection against clinical signs without
dard error = 0.54 and a P-value = 0.003. Duval and Tweedie’s                        virological protection, clinical disease can be concealed
trim and fill method suggested adding 3 studies to the
right side of the funnel plot (Fig. 3), which would shift                                                 0.0
the effect from 0.59 (0.4–0.8) (the white diamond under
the X-axis), to 0.68 (0.5–0.99) (the black diamond under
                                                                                         Standard Error




                                                                                                          0.5
the X-axis). Nonetheless, this adjustment would not alter
the result that emergency vaccination protected sheep
against FMD infection significantly than non-vaccinated                                                    1.0
animals.
                                                                                                          1.5
4. Discussion
                                                                                                          2.0
   The results indicate that emergency vaccination pro-
                                                                                                                -3           -2             -1              0    1   2   3
tect cattle, swine and sheep against FMD clinical disease
                                                                                                                                             Log relative risk
compared to unvaccinated animals (Table 1). More impor-
tantly, emergency vaccination provided protection against                           Fig. 3. Funnel plot of the logarithm pooled relative risk (RR) of 7 stud-
virological infection with FMD in these species. The pur-                           ies (empty circles) quantifying the effect of FMD vaccination against FMD
pose of an emergency vaccine is to limit the spread of                              infection in sheep. The dark spots are the potential missing studies accord-
                                                                                    ing to Duval and Tweedie’s trim and fill method (if they had existed, the
the disease or in other words, decrease the reproduction
                                                                                    pooled effect would have shifted from 0.59 (0.4–0.8); the white diamond
ratio to <1. Therefore, virological protection is more impor-                       under the X-axis, to be 0.68 (0.50–0.99); the black diamond under the
tant than the clinical protection. Still, reducing the clinical                     X-axis).
T. Halasa et al. / Preventive Veterinary Medicine 98 (2011) 1–9                                  7


making early disease detection of vaccinated farms more                       In some of the studies included in the analysis, several
difficult.                                                                 periods of time between vaccination and virus challenge
    Despite the finding that emergency vaccination pro-                    were tested. A longer period between vaccination and chal-
tects cattle against FMD infection, it was observed that                  lenge gives the immune system more time to develop
several cattle persisted as carriers. Some cattle were found              neutralizing antibody titers, resulting in better protection
to excrete virus up to 553 days post-inoculation (Moonen                  (Doel et al., 1994; Salt et al., 1998). This could have created
et al., 2004). This will pose the risk of harboring and trans-            bias in our study, because some studies used longer peri-
mitting the virus for a long period, which could delay                    ods between vaccination and challenge compared to other
regaining FMD free status, and hence increase the eco-                    studies. Nevertheless, an emergency vaccine should pro-
nomic damage due to the outbreak. This problem can                        vide rapid protection after vaccination (Cox and Barnett,
be solved by culling all vaccinated animals after the epi-                2009) and hence, the use of long or short duration between
demic. However, this might not be an option, because                      vaccination and challenge should not affect the efficacy of
mass culling has, in previous outbreaks, triggered public                 the vaccine. Because the pooled RRs of clinical and viro-
concerns (Cox et al., 2005; Parida, 2009), which lead to                  logical protection from the current study were calculated
the introduction of the so-called “vaccine-to-live policy”.               from studies that included different periods between vac-
Consequently, the OIE and EU regulations were adjusted,                   cination and challenge, and because it is actually unknown
implying that if a vaccine-to-live policy is used, countries              when a virus could infect a herd after emergency vacci-
can now regain the FMD free status 6 months instead of                    nation, the pooled RRs of the virological protection are
one year after the last case has been detected (Council                   useful in simulation exercises to represent the efficacy of
Directive 2003/85/EC). Given the long period of potential                 the emergency vaccine. Simulation exercises are important
virus excretion from the carrier animals, a strict post-                  to estimate the cost-effectiveness of FMD emergency vac-
vaccination screening program is essential to find carrier                 cination during an outbreak and its effects on the national
animals and cull the infected herds to prevent subsequent                 economy. The results from such exercise may assist pol-
outbreaks.                                                                icy makers to decide whether and how to use emergency
    First, we observed that sheep that had emergency                      vaccines during an outbreak.
vaccination had 0.59 (0.4–0.8) lower risk of FMD infec-                       We included only studies with homologous virus chal-
tion compared to non-vaccinated sheep. However, after                     lenge. Three published studies and two of the unpublished
thorough examination of publication bias, we noticed an                   experiments involved semi-homologous virus strain chal-
existing trend in the studies (Fig. 3). Small studies showed              lenge to the vaccine (Supplementary file, footnote l), but
large effect, while large studies showed small effect. This               were included, because the challenge virus strain and the
could be an indication of publication bias. This finding was               vaccine virus antigen are categorized within the same topo-
supported by other publication bias tests such as Egger’s                 type on the basis of their VP1 gene and are antigenically
regression test, which has been reported to be powerful                   closely related (Barnett et al., 2001; Cox et al., 2006).
in detecting publication bias, especially when the data is                    A major target of emergency vaccination is to reduce
heterogeneous, such as ours (Peters et al., 2006). Correct-               the reproduction ratio to <1. This means that an infected
ing for publication bias by including the “missing” studies               case will produce <1 secondary case during its entire infec-
would move the RR toward the null effect. The “missing”                   tious period, which will cause the epidemic to fade out.
studies could have been truly missing, conducted but not                  Recent advancements in statistics make it possible to mea-
published, due to several reasons discussed thoroughly by                 sure the reduction of the reproduction ratio of FMD virus
Thornton and Lee (2000), Bornstein et al. (2009) and Halasa               in vaccinated groups (Eblé et al., 2008). It is important
et al. (2009). More important than accepting or rejecting                 to quantify the effect of emergency vaccination on the
this bias was that the correction for the bias did not alter              reproduction ratio of FMD virus for example by use of meta-
the conclusion that there was significant protective effect                analysis. Such a meta-analysis has been published, but was
of vaccinating sheep against FMD. Moreover, the confi-                     restricted to outcomes of 10 experiments on swine from
dence limits of the corrected and uncorrected pooled RR                   one project (Eblé et al., 2008). Therefore, it would be inter-
overlap, making the difference between them statistically                 esting to estimate the reproduction ratio with and without
insignificant.                                                             emergency vaccination from all relevant studies and for
    In the current study, we defined infection to be a pos-                the different species. Such a parameter would be useful for
itive result based on VI, NSP or RT-PCR tests. This could                 modeling within herd spread in simulation models.
have included bias, because some studies conducted more                       In the current meta-analysis, experimental data from
tests than other studies. When more tests are applied, the                (Eblé et al., 2004, 2007; Orsel et al., 2005, 2007b) were
chance of positive diagnosis (true or false) might become                 included only for vaccinated and non-vaccinated animals
higher. Nonetheless, the majority of studies applied the 3                challenged by direct injection of the virus. Moreover,
tests (VI, RT-PCR and NSP), and all studies conducted VI,                 only experimental data using vaccinated and unvaccinated
which is considered the gold standard test to diagnose FMD                challenged animals with the airborne route with non-
infection (Paixão et al., 2008). In an outbreak situation, one            vaccinated infected seeders were included in the analysis
positive test result will most likely be interpreted as an FMD            from Orsel et al. (2007a). This was carried out, because
infection and further measures will be taken according to                 the excluded experiments would represent the dynamics
the EU Council Directive 2003/85/EC. Therefore, the tests                 of infection within a population rather than the efficacy of
do not replace each other; likewise, they supplement each                 the vaccine. In the excluded experiments, the seeders were
other.                                                                    vaccinated; this means that their infectiousness could be
8                                      T. Halasa et al. / Preventive Veterinary Medicine 98 (2011) 1–9


lower compared to non-vaccinated seeders and hence dif-                   Conflict of interest statement
ferent than other studies used in the current meta-analysis.
Moreover, infection of the contact animals in the excluded                   The authors declare that no financial or personal rela-
experiments is a stochastic process, because the number                   tionships with other people or organizations could have
of infected animals to which a given contact animal is                    inappropriately influenced our work.
exposed is not predetermined by the experiment setup, as
the challenged seeders might be protected following vac-                  Acknowledgements
cination. These are important differences between these
experiments and the included studies in the current meta-                     The authors acknowledge Graham Belsham, Phaedra
analysis, and therefore it is necessary to exclude the results            Eblé, Karin Orsel, Marvin Grubman, Canio Buonavoglia, Luis
of such experiments to avoid bias.                                        Rodriguez, Satya Parida, and Paul Barnett for the active
    Several attempts were made to restrict the heterogene-                communication and the advice in relation to the inclusion
ity of studies, such as: Only including challenge studies                 of their studies in the analysis. We acknowledge Larry Pais-
after emergency vaccination, controlled studies, challenge                ley for proof reading the manuscript.
studies with animals of the same age category, challenge                      This study was funded by the Directorate for Food, Agri-
studies with a homologous virus, and inclusion of sym-                    culture and Fisheries, Denmark. Sarah Cox is financially
posium studies and unpublished data. Nevertheless, the                    supported by Defra-UK.
heterogeneity existed in most of the analyses. Including
only studies published in English language could have been
                                                                          Appendix A. Supplementary data
a source of heterogeneity. Language could be a source
of heterogeneity and bias, because non-English speaking
                                                                              Supplementary data associated with this article
researchers might publish their positive results in English
                                                                          can be found, in the online version, at doi:10.1016/
language to have more publicity, they would on the other
                                                                          j.prevetmed.2010.08.005.
hand publish their negative results in their native language
(Gregoire et al., 1995). Although attempts were made to
explain the heterogeneity using meta-regression with sev-                 References
eral potential variables, none of them was able to explain
                                                                          Aggarwal, N., Zhang, Z., Cox, S., Statham, R., Alexandersen, S., Kitching,
it significantly. Another source of heterogeneity could have                  R.P., Barnett, P.V., 2002. Experimental studies with foot-and-mouth
been the virus challenge dose. Studies that have challenged                  disease virus, strain O, responsible for the 2001 epidemic in the United
animals by direct injection of the virus showed variability                  Kingdom. Vaccine 20, 2508–2515.
                                                                          Barnett, P.V., Samuel, A.R., Statham, R.J., 2001. The suitability of the emer-
in the challenge dose (Cox and Barnett, 2009). Studies that                  gency foot-and-mouth disease antigens held by the international
challenged animals using the airborne route showed even                      vaccine bank within a global context. Vaccine 19, 2107–2117.
more variability in the challenge procedure and challenge                 Barnett, P.V., Cox, S.J., Aggarwal, N., Gerber, H., McCullough, K.C., 2002.
                                                                             Further studies on the early protective responses of pigs following
intensity (Cox and Barnett, 2009). Unfortunately, because                    immunization with high potency foot-and-mouth disease vaccine.
these variables varied largely between studies and given                     Vaccine 20, 3197–3208.
the small number of studies included in some analyses, it                 Barnett, P.V., Keel, P., Reid, S., Armstrong, R.M., Statham, R.J., Voyce, C.,
                                                                             Aggarwal, N., Cox, S.J., 2004. Evidence that high potency foot-and-
was not possible to examine the effect of these variables
                                                                             mouth disease vaccine inhibits local virus replication and prevents
on the heterogeneity in the meta-regression. Nevertheless,                   the ‘carrier’ state in sheep. Vaccine 22, 1221–1232.
the use of random effect model to calculate the pooled                    Begg, C.B., Mazumdar, M., 1994. Operating characteristics of a rank corre-
                                                                             lation test for publication bias. Biometrics 50, 1088–1101.
RR took into account the existing heterogeneity to provide
                                                                          Bornstein, M., Hedges, L.V., Higgins, J.P.T., Rothstein, H.R., 2009. Introduc-
the pooled RR by assuming a true RR per study instead of                     tion to Meta-analysis. John Wiley & Sons Ltd., United Kingdom.
assuming only one true RR for all studies (Bornstein et al.,              Brehm, K.E., Kumar, N., Thulke, H.-H., Haas, B., 2008. High potency
2009).                                                                       vaccines induce protection against heterologous challenge with foot-
                                                                             and-mouth disease virus. Vaccine 26, 1681–1687.
                                                                          Buonavoglia, C., di Trani, L., Gramenzi, F., Zoletto, R., Lelli, R., Scacchia,
                                                                             M., 1988. Duration of immunity in swine inoculated with a monova-
5. Conclusions                                                               lent foot-and-mouth disease oil emulsion vaccine. J. Vet. Med. B 35,
                                                                             397–401.
                                                                          Comprehensive meta-analysis 2.0, 2009. Meta-analysis Manual. Biostat
   Emergency vaccination against FMD provided protec-                        Institute Inc., Englewood, NJ, USA.
tion against clinical disease and against FMD infection                   Council Directive 2003/85/EC on community measures for the control of
in cattle, swine and sheep. For clinical protection, the                     foot-and-mouth disease repealing, 2003. Directive 85/511/EEC and
                                                                             amending directive 92/46/EEC. Official J. Eur. Union L306, 46, 22
pooled RRs with the 95% confidence intervals were 0.13                        November 2003.
(0.09–0.18), 0.48 (0.36–0.65) and 0.31 (0.18–0.53), respec-               Cox, S.J., Barnett, P.V., Dani, P., Salt, J.S., 1999. Emergency vaccination of
tively. For virological protection, the pooled RRs with                      sheep against foot-and-mouth disease: protection against disease and
                                                                             reduction in contact transmission. Vaccine 17, 1858–1868.
the 95% confidence intervals were 0.71 (0.59–0.85), 0.67                   Cox, S.J., Voyce, C., Parida, S., Reid, S.M., Hamblin, P.A., Paton, D.J., Barnett,
(0.51–0.87) and 0.59 (0.44–0.80), respectively. Fortunately,                 P.V., 2005. Protection against direct contact challenge following emer-
no significant publication bias was identified in the differ-                  gency FMD vaccination of cattle and the effect on virus excretion from
                                                                             the oropharynx. Vaccine 23, 1106–1113.
ent meta-analyses.                                                        Cox, S.J., Voyce, C., Parida, S., Reid, S.M., Hamblin, P.A., Hutchings, G., Paton,
   The current systematic review provided valid outcomes                     D.J., Barnett, P.V., 2006. Effect of emergency FMD vaccine antigen pay-
that can be used in simulation models to examine the eco-                    load on protection, sub-clinical infection and persistence following
                                                                             direct contact challenge of cattle. Vaccine 24, 3184–3190.
nomic consequences of applying emergency vaccination
                                                                          Cox, S.J., Parida, S., Voyce, C., Reid, S.M., Hamblin, P.A., Hutchings, G., Paton,
during an FMD outbreak situation.                                            D.J., Barnett, P.V., 2007. Further evaluation of higher potency vaccines
T. Halasa et al. / Preventive Veterinary Medicine 98 (2011) 1–9                                                    9


    for early protection of cattle against FMDV direct contact challenge.             Mahul, O., Durand, B., 2000. Simulated economic consequences of foot-
    Vaccine 25, 40–50.                                                                    and-mouth disease epidemics and their public control in France. Prev.
Cox, S.J., Barnett, P.V., 2009. Experimental evaluation of foot-and-mouth                 Vet. Med. 47, 23–38.
    disease vaccines for emergency use in ruminants and pigs: a review.               Mattion, N., K’onig, G., Seki, C., Smitsaart, E., Maradei, E., Robiolo, B., Duffy,
    Vet. Res. 40, 13–43.                                                                  S., Leon, E., Piccone, M., Sadir, A., Bottini, R., Cosentino, B., Falczuk, A.,
Doel, T.R., Williams, L., Barnett, P.V., 1994. Emergency vaccination against              Maresca, R., Periolo, O., Bellinzoni, R., Espinoza, A., La Torre, J., Palma,
    foot-and-mouth disease: rate of development of immunity and its                       E.L., 2004. Reintroduction of foot-and-mouth disease in Argentina:
    implication for the carrier state. Vaccine 12, 592–600.                               characterisation of the isolates and development of tools for the con-
Donaldson, A.I., Kitching, R.P., 1989. Transmission of foot-and-mouth dis-                trol and eradication of the disease. Vaccine 22, 4149–4162.
    ease by vaccinated cattle following natural challenge. Res. Vet. Sci. 46,         Moonen, P., Jacobs, L., Crienen, A., Dekker, A., 2004. Detection of carriers of
    9–14.                                                                                 foot and mouth disease virus among vaccinated cattle. Vet. Microbiol.
Dohoo, I.R., Martin, S.W., Stryhn, H., 2003. Veterinary Epidemiologi-                     103, 151–160.
    cal Research. Atlantic Veterinary College Inc., Prince Edward Island,             Orsel, K., Dekker, A., Bouma, A., Stegeman, J.A., de Jong, M.C.M., 2005. Vac-
    Canada.                                                                               cination against foot-and-mouth disease reduces virus transmission
Duval, S., Tweedie, R., 2000. A non-parametric “trim and fill” method of                   in groups of calves. Vaccine 23, 4887–4894.
    accounting for publication bias in meta-analysis. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 95,         Orsel, K., de Jong, M.C.M., Bouma, A., Stegeman, J.A., Dekker, A., 2007a.
    89–98.                                                                                Foot-and-mouth disease virus transmission among vaccinated pigs
Eblé, P.L., Bouma, A., de Bruin, M.G.M., van Hemert-Kluitenberg, F., Van                  after exposure to virus shedding pigs. Vaccine 25, 6381–6391.
    Oirschot, J.T., Dekker, A., 2004. Vaccination of pigs two weeks before            Orsel, K., Dekker, A., Bouma, A., Stegeman, J.A., de Jong, M.C.M., 2007b.
    infection significantly reduces transmission of foot-and-mouth dis-                    Quantification of foot-and-mouth disease virus excretion and trans-
    ease virus. Vaccine 22, 1372–1374.                                                    mission within groups of lambs with and without vaccination. Vaccine
Eblé, P.L., Bouma, A., Weerdmeester, J.A., Stegeman, J.A., Dekker, A., 2007.              25, 2673–2679.
    Serological and mucosal immune responses after vaccination and                    Orsel, K., de Jong, M.C.M., Bouma, A., Stegeman, J.A., Dekker, A., 2007c. The
    infection with FMDV in pigs. Vaccine 25, 1043–1054.                                   effect of vaccination on foot-and-mouth disease virus transmission
Eblé, P.L., Koeijer, A.A., de Jong, M.C.M., Engel, B., Dekker, A., 2008. A                among dairy cows. Vaccine 25, 327–335.
    meta-analysis quantifying transmission parameters of FMD strain O                 Orwin, R., 1983. A fail-safe N for effect size in meta-analysis. J. Educ. Stat.
    Taiwan among non-vaccinated and vaccinated pigs. Prev. Vet. Med.                      8, 157–159.
    83, 98–106.                                                                       Paixão, T.A., Carvalho Neta, A.V., Paiva, N.O., Reis, J.R., Barbosa, M.S., Serra,
Eblé, P.L., Weerdmeester, K., van Hemert-Kluitenberg, F., Dekker, A., 2009.               C.V., Silva, R.R., Beckham, T.R., Martin, B.M., Clarke, N.P., Adams, L.G.,
    Intradermal vaccination of pigs against FMD with 1/10 dose results in                 Santos, R.L., 2008. Diagnosis of foot-and-mouth disease by real time
    comparable vaccine efficacy as intramuscular vaccination with a full                   reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction under field condi-
    dose. Vaccine 27, 1272–1278.                                                          tions in Brazil. BMC Vet. Res. 4, 53–59.
Egger, M., Davey Smith, G., Schneider, M., Minder, C., 1997. Bias in meta-            Parida, S., Fleming, L., Oh, Y., Mahapatra, M., Hamblin, P., Gloster, J., Doel,
    analysis detected by a simple graphical test. BMJ 315, 629–634.                       C., Gubbins, S., Paton, D.J., 2007. Reduction of foot-and-mouth disease
Gibson, C.F., Donaldson, A.I., Ferris, N.P., 1984. Responses of sheep                     (FMD) virus load in nasal excretions, saliva and exhaled air of vacci-
    vaccinated with large doses of vaccine to challenge by airborne foot-                 nated pigs following direct contact challenge. Vaccine 25, 7806–7817.
    and-mouth disease virus. Vaccine 2, 157–161.                                      Parida, S., Fleming, L., Oh, Y., Mahapatra, M., Hamblin, P., Gloster, J., Paton,
Goris, N., Merkelbach-Peters, P., Diev, V.I., Verloo, D., Zakharov, V.M., Kraft,          D.J., 2008. Emergency vaccination of sheep against foot-and-mouth
    H.-P., De Clercq, K., 2007. European Pharmacopoeia foot-and-mouth                     disease: significance and detection of subsequent sub-clinical infec-
    disease vaccine potency testing in cattle: between test variability and               tion. Vaccine 26, 3469–3479.
    its consequences. Vaccine 25, 3373–3379.                                          Parida, S., 2009. Vaccination against foot-and-mouth disease virus: strate-
Goris, N., Maradeib, E., D’Aloiab, R., Fondevila, N., Mattiond, N., Perezb,               gies and effectiveness. Exp. Rev. Vaccines 8, 347–365.
    A., Smitsaarte, E., Nauwynck, H.J., La Torred, J., Palmag, E., De Clercq,         Pendell, D.L., Leatherman, J., Schroeder, T.C., Alward, G.S., 2007. The eco-
    K., 2008. Foot-and-mouth disease vaccine potency testing in cattle                    nomic impacts of a foot-and-mouth disease outbreak: a regional
    using homologous and heterologous challenge strains: Precision of                     analysis. J. Agric. Appl. Eco. 39, 19–33.
    the “Protection against Podal Generalisation” test. Vaccine 26, 3432–             Peters, J.L., Sutton, A.J., Jones, E.R., Abrams, K.R., Rushton, L., 2006. Com-
    3437.                                                                                 parison of two methods to detect publication bias in meta-analysis.
Graves, J.H., McKercher, P.D., Farris Jr., H.E., Cowan, K.M., 1968. Early                 JAMA 295, 676–680.
    responses of cattle and swine to inactivated foot-and-mouth disease               Salt, J.S., Williams, L., Statham, R., Barnett, P.V., 1995. Further studies on
    vaccine. Res. Vet. Sci. 9, 35–40.                                                     the rate of development of protection in cattle given emergency vac-
Gregoire, G., Derderian, F., LeLorier, J., 1995. Selecting the language of the            cination against FMD. Rep. Session Res. Group Standing Techn. Comm.
    publications included in a meta-analysis: is there a tower of Babel                   Eur. Comm. Contr. 17, 90–97, FMD, Modelling, Denmark, FAO, Rome,
    bias? J. Clin. Epidemiol. 48, 159–163.                                                Appendix.
Halasa, T., Østerås, O., van Werven, T., Hogeveen, H., Nielen, M., 2009.              Salt, J.S., Barnett, P.V., Dani, P., Williams, L., 1998. Emergency vaccination of
    Meta-analysis on dry cow management for dairy cattle. Part 1.                         pigs against foot-and-mouth disease: protection against disease and
    Protection against new intramammary infections. J. Dairy Sci. 92,                     reduction in contact transmission. Vaccine 16, 746–754.
    3134–3149.                                                                        Sellers, R.F., Herniman, K.A.J., 1974. Early protection of pigs against foot-
Lean, I.J., Rabiee, A.R., Duffield, T.F., Dohoo, I.R., 2009. Use of meta-analysis          and-mouth disease. Br. Vet. J. 130, 440–445.
    in animal health and reproduction: methods and applications. J. Dairy             Thornton, A., Lee, P., 2000. Publication bias in meta-analysis: its causes
    Sci. 92, 3545–3565.                                                                   and consequences. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 53, 207–216.

Más contenido relacionado

La actualidad más candente

Epidemiology of wound_infection_in_a_surgical_ward_of_a_tertiary_care_hospita...
Epidemiology of wound_infection_in_a_surgical_ward_of_a_tertiary_care_hospita...Epidemiology of wound_infection_in_a_surgical_ward_of_a_tertiary_care_hospita...
Epidemiology of wound_infection_in_a_surgical_ward_of_a_tertiary_care_hospita...Jacob Amofa
 
Antibiotic choice in icu 20.10.04 final
Antibiotic choice in icu 20.10.04 finalAntibiotic choice in icu 20.10.04 final
Antibiotic choice in icu 20.10.04 finalMohit Aggarwal
 
Comparative diagnosis of falciparum malaria infections by microscopy, two rd ...
Comparative diagnosis of falciparum malaria infections by microscopy, two rd ...Comparative diagnosis of falciparum malaria infections by microscopy, two rd ...
Comparative diagnosis of falciparum malaria infections by microscopy, two rd ...Alexander Decker
 
Antibiotic therapy in_patients_with_septic_shock
Antibiotic therapy in_patients_with_septic_shockAntibiotic therapy in_patients_with_septic_shock
Antibiotic therapy in_patients_with_septic_shockNHS
 
5.rivas vivent etal 2006 (1)
5.rivas vivent etal 2006 (1)5.rivas vivent etal 2006 (1)
5.rivas vivent etal 2006 (1)Nicole Rivera
 
Evaluation of Prescribing Patterns of Antibiotics in General Medicine Ward in...
Evaluation of Prescribing Patterns of Antibiotics in General Medicine Ward in...Evaluation of Prescribing Patterns of Antibiotics in General Medicine Ward in...
Evaluation of Prescribing Patterns of Antibiotics in General Medicine Ward in...ijtsrd
 
Gain of-function experiments on H7N9
Gain of-function experiments on H7N9Gain of-function experiments on H7N9
Gain of-function experiments on H7N9Harm Kiezebrink
 
Comparative seroprevalence and risk factors of toxoplasmosis among three subg...
Comparative seroprevalence and risk factors of toxoplasmosis among three subg...Comparative seroprevalence and risk factors of toxoplasmosis among three subg...
Comparative seroprevalence and risk factors of toxoplasmosis among three subg...Alexander Decker
 
host genomics and tuberculosis
host genomics and tuberculosishost genomics and tuberculosis
host genomics and tuberculosisabdalla ibrahim
 
Rapid diagnosis of drug resistant tuberculosis: current perspectives and chal...
Rapid diagnosis of drug resistant tuberculosis: current perspectives and chal...Rapid diagnosis of drug resistant tuberculosis: current perspectives and chal...
Rapid diagnosis of drug resistant tuberculosis: current perspectives and chal...Dr Muktikesh Dash, MD, PGDFM
 
Infecciones gram negativos y terapia antibiotica inicial
Infecciones gram negativos y terapia antibiotica inicialInfecciones gram negativos y terapia antibiotica inicial
Infecciones gram negativos y terapia antibiotica inicialAlex Castañeda-Sabogal
 
Hospital acquired infection
Hospital acquired infectionHospital acquired infection
Hospital acquired infectionabdalla ibrahim
 
Assessment of Zooplankton Diversity in Kosavampatti Lake at Namakkal District...
Assessment of Zooplankton Diversity in Kosavampatti Lake at Namakkal District...Assessment of Zooplankton Diversity in Kosavampatti Lake at Namakkal District...
Assessment of Zooplankton Diversity in Kosavampatti Lake at Namakkal District...BRNSS Publication Hub
 

La actualidad más candente (20)

Epidemiology of wound_infection_in_a_surgical_ward_of_a_tertiary_care_hospita...
Epidemiology of wound_infection_in_a_surgical_ward_of_a_tertiary_care_hospita...Epidemiology of wound_infection_in_a_surgical_ward_of_a_tertiary_care_hospita...
Epidemiology of wound_infection_in_a_surgical_ward_of_a_tertiary_care_hospita...
 
Antibiotic choice in icu 20.10.04 final
Antibiotic choice in icu 20.10.04 finalAntibiotic choice in icu 20.10.04 final
Antibiotic choice in icu 20.10.04 final
 
Comparative diagnosis of falciparum malaria infections by microscopy, two rd ...
Comparative diagnosis of falciparum malaria infections by microscopy, two rd ...Comparative diagnosis of falciparum malaria infections by microscopy, two rd ...
Comparative diagnosis of falciparum malaria infections by microscopy, two rd ...
 
Antibiotic therapy in_patients_with_septic_shock
Antibiotic therapy in_patients_with_septic_shockAntibiotic therapy in_patients_with_septic_shock
Antibiotic therapy in_patients_with_septic_shock
 
5.rivas vivent etal 2006 (1)
5.rivas vivent etal 2006 (1)5.rivas vivent etal 2006 (1)
5.rivas vivent etal 2006 (1)
 
MDR - XDR
MDR - XDRMDR - XDR
MDR - XDR
 
Evaluation of Prescribing Patterns of Antibiotics in General Medicine Ward in...
Evaluation of Prescribing Patterns of Antibiotics in General Medicine Ward in...Evaluation of Prescribing Patterns of Antibiotics in General Medicine Ward in...
Evaluation of Prescribing Patterns of Antibiotics in General Medicine Ward in...
 
Gain of-function experiments on H7N9
Gain of-function experiments on H7N9Gain of-function experiments on H7N9
Gain of-function experiments on H7N9
 
Comparative seroprevalence and risk factors of toxoplasmosis among three subg...
Comparative seroprevalence and risk factors of toxoplasmosis among three subg...Comparative seroprevalence and risk factors of toxoplasmosis among three subg...
Comparative seroprevalence and risk factors of toxoplasmosis among three subg...
 
Prevalence of Post-operative Surgical site infection in a district Hospital o...
Prevalence of Post-operative Surgical site infection in a district Hospital o...Prevalence of Post-operative Surgical site infection in a district Hospital o...
Prevalence of Post-operative Surgical site infection in a district Hospital o...
 
Seasonal variation in major post surgical site infection micro-organism in SM...
Seasonal variation in major post surgical site infection micro-organism in SM...Seasonal variation in major post surgical site infection micro-organism in SM...
Seasonal variation in major post surgical site infection micro-organism in SM...
 
host genomics and tuberculosis
host genomics and tuberculosishost genomics and tuberculosis
host genomics and tuberculosis
 
MDR enterococcal urinary isolates with associated co-morbidity and mortality ...
MDR enterococcal urinary isolates with associated co-morbidity and mortality ...MDR enterococcal urinary isolates with associated co-morbidity and mortality ...
MDR enterococcal urinary isolates with associated co-morbidity and mortality ...
 
JPP-2015[1]
JPP-2015[1]JPP-2015[1]
JPP-2015[1]
 
Piis1473 3099(16)30190-6
Piis1473 3099(16)30190-6Piis1473 3099(16)30190-6
Piis1473 3099(16)30190-6
 
Rapid diagnosis of drug resistant tuberculosis: current perspectives and chal...
Rapid diagnosis of drug resistant tuberculosis: current perspectives and chal...Rapid diagnosis of drug resistant tuberculosis: current perspectives and chal...
Rapid diagnosis of drug resistant tuberculosis: current perspectives and chal...
 
Infecciones gram negativos y terapia antibiotica inicial
Infecciones gram negativos y terapia antibiotica inicialInfecciones gram negativos y terapia antibiotica inicial
Infecciones gram negativos y terapia antibiotica inicial
 
Hospital acquired infection
Hospital acquired infectionHospital acquired infection
Hospital acquired infection
 
Lecture mdr tb nhung
Lecture mdr tb nhungLecture mdr tb nhung
Lecture mdr tb nhung
 
Assessment of Zooplankton Diversity in Kosavampatti Lake at Namakkal District...
Assessment of Zooplankton Diversity in Kosavampatti Lake at Namakkal District...Assessment of Zooplankton Diversity in Kosavampatti Lake at Namakkal District...
Assessment of Zooplankton Diversity in Kosavampatti Lake at Namakkal District...
 

Destacado

MANU CALZADA Vitae With Links
MANU CALZADA Vitae With LinksMANU CALZADA Vitae With Links
MANU CALZADA Vitae With LinksManuel Calzada
 
Brendan%20Byrne%20resume[1]
Brendan%20Byrne%20resume[1]Brendan%20Byrne%20resume[1]
Brendan%20Byrne%20resume[1]Brendan Byrne
 
Irlen Awareness Week - Proclamation (1)
Irlen Awareness Week - Proclamation (1)Irlen Awareness Week - Proclamation (1)
Irlen Awareness Week - Proclamation (1)Cathryn Hay
 
Eric Walters Resume 5
Eric Walters Resume 5Eric Walters Resume 5
Eric Walters Resume 5Eric Walters
 

Destacado (9)

MANU CALZADA Vitae With Links
MANU CALZADA Vitae With LinksMANU CALZADA Vitae With Links
MANU CALZADA Vitae With Links
 
Joe H Engle Day - Proclamation
Joe H Engle Day - ProclamationJoe H Engle Day - Proclamation
Joe H Engle Day - Proclamation
 
alya cv
alya cvalya cv
alya cv
 
Resume
ResumeResume
Resume
 
Nels
NelsNels
Nels
 
resume kolden
resume koldenresume kolden
resume kolden
 
Brendan%20Byrne%20resume[1]
Brendan%20Byrne%20resume[1]Brendan%20Byrne%20resume[1]
Brendan%20Byrne%20resume[1]
 
Irlen Awareness Week - Proclamation (1)
Irlen Awareness Week - Proclamation (1)Irlen Awareness Week - Proclamation (1)
Irlen Awareness Week - Proclamation (1)
 
Eric Walters Resume 5
Eric Walters Resume 5Eric Walters Resume 5
Eric Walters Resume 5
 

Similar a Meta analysis on the efficacy of foot-and-mouth disease

TB screening in prescribers of anti- TNF therapy in the EU
TB screening in prescribers of anti- TNF therapy in the EUTB screening in prescribers of anti- TNF therapy in the EU
TB screening in prescribers of anti- TNF therapy in the EUBrian Attig
 
Guideline useofantimicrobialagentsinneutropenicpatients
Guideline useofantimicrobialagentsinneutropenicpatientsGuideline useofantimicrobialagentsinneutropenicpatients
Guideline useofantimicrobialagentsinneutropenicpatientsnegrulo2013
 
Per contact probability of infection by Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza
Per contact probability of infection by Highly Pathogenic Avian InfluenzaPer contact probability of infection by Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza
Per contact probability of infection by Highly Pathogenic Avian InfluenzaHarm Kiezebrink
 
The Pharmacological Treatments For Opiates, Drugs, And Drugs
The Pharmacological Treatments For Opiates, Drugs, And DrugsThe Pharmacological Treatments For Opiates, Drugs, And Drugs
The Pharmacological Treatments For Opiates, Drugs, And DrugsBrenda Torres
 
Danish experience in tackling AMR
Danish experience in tackling AMRDanish experience in tackling AMR
Danish experience in tackling AMRTHL
 
Frontier virology_review_Oh et al 2016
Frontier virology_review_Oh et al 2016Frontier virology_review_Oh et al 2016
Frontier virology_review_Oh et al 2016Ding Y Oh
 
Low-dose hydroxychloroquine therapy and mortality in hospitalised patients wi...
Low-dose hydroxychloroquine therapy and mortality in hospitalised patients wi...Low-dose hydroxychloroquine therapy and mortality in hospitalised patients wi...
Low-dose hydroxychloroquine therapy and mortality in hospitalised patients wi...La Verità
 
PROBING INTO THE EDIBLE VACCINES: NEWER PARADIGMS, SCOPE AND RELEVANCE
PROBING INTO THE EDIBLE VACCINES: NEWER PARADIGMS, SCOPE AND RELEVANCEPROBING INTO THE EDIBLE VACCINES: NEWER PARADIGMS, SCOPE AND RELEVANCE
PROBING INTO THE EDIBLE VACCINES: NEWER PARADIGMS, SCOPE AND RELEVANCEDr Varruchi Sharma
 
Global HIV cohort studies among IDU and future vaccine trials
Global HIV cohort studies among IDU and future vaccine trialsGlobal HIV cohort studies among IDU and future vaccine trials
Global HIV cohort studies among IDU and future vaccine trialsThira Woratanarat
 
Multidrug-resistant, extensively drug-resistant and pandrug-resistant bacteri...
Multidrug-resistant, extensively drug-resistant and pandrug-resistant bacteri...Multidrug-resistant, extensively drug-resistant and pandrug-resistant bacteri...
Multidrug-resistant, extensively drug-resistant and pandrug-resistant bacteri...RodolfoGamarra
 
Bioinformatics in pandemic Script
Bioinformatics in pandemic ScriptBioinformatics in pandemic Script
Bioinformatics in pandemic ScriptYOGESHHK
 
Sars-cov2 Spike protein and derivates toxicology :fertility and teratogen eva...
Sars-cov2 Spike protein and derivates toxicology :fertility and teratogen eva...Sars-cov2 Spike protein and derivates toxicology :fertility and teratogen eva...
Sars-cov2 Spike protein and derivates toxicology :fertility and teratogen eva...M. Luisetto Pharm.D.Spec. Pharmacology
 
Meningitis
MeningitisMeningitis
Meningitisusapuka
 

Similar a Meta analysis on the efficacy of foot-and-mouth disease (20)

TB screening in prescribers of anti- TNF therapy in the EU
TB screening in prescribers of anti- TNF therapy in the EUTB screening in prescribers of anti- TNF therapy in the EU
TB screening in prescribers of anti- TNF therapy in the EU
 
Guideline useofantimicrobialagentsinneutropenicpatients
Guideline useofantimicrobialagentsinneutropenicpatientsGuideline useofantimicrobialagentsinneutropenicpatients
Guideline useofantimicrobialagentsinneutropenicpatients
 
Per contact probability of infection by Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza
Per contact probability of infection by Highly Pathogenic Avian InfluenzaPer contact probability of infection by Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza
Per contact probability of infection by Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza
 
Crypto 2010 guideline
Crypto 2010 guidelineCrypto 2010 guideline
Crypto 2010 guideline
 
Crypto 2010 guideline
Crypto 2010 guidelineCrypto 2010 guideline
Crypto 2010 guideline
 
The Pharmacological Treatments For Opiates, Drugs, And Drugs
The Pharmacological Treatments For Opiates, Drugs, And DrugsThe Pharmacological Treatments For Opiates, Drugs, And Drugs
The Pharmacological Treatments For Opiates, Drugs, And Drugs
 
journal.pmed.1001903
journal.pmed.1001903journal.pmed.1001903
journal.pmed.1001903
 
Danish experience in tackling AMR
Danish experience in tackling AMRDanish experience in tackling AMR
Danish experience in tackling AMR
 
Frontier virology_review_Oh et al 2016
Frontier virology_review_Oh et al 2016Frontier virology_review_Oh et al 2016
Frontier virology_review_Oh et al 2016
 
Low-dose hydroxychloroquine therapy and mortality in hospitalised patients wi...
Low-dose hydroxychloroquine therapy and mortality in hospitalised patients wi...Low-dose hydroxychloroquine therapy and mortality in hospitalised patients wi...
Low-dose hydroxychloroquine therapy and mortality in hospitalised patients wi...
 
Document
DocumentDocument
Document
 
PROBING INTO THE EDIBLE VACCINES: NEWER PARADIGMS, SCOPE AND RELEVANCE
PROBING INTO THE EDIBLE VACCINES: NEWER PARADIGMS, SCOPE AND RELEVANCEPROBING INTO THE EDIBLE VACCINES: NEWER PARADIGMS, SCOPE AND RELEVANCE
PROBING INTO THE EDIBLE VACCINES: NEWER PARADIGMS, SCOPE AND RELEVANCE
 
Global HIV cohort studies among IDU and future vaccine trials
Global HIV cohort studies among IDU and future vaccine trialsGlobal HIV cohort studies among IDU and future vaccine trials
Global HIV cohort studies among IDU and future vaccine trials
 
Reference 2
Reference 2Reference 2
Reference 2
 
Multidrug-resistant, extensively drug-resistant and pandrug-resistant bacteri...
Multidrug-resistant, extensively drug-resistant and pandrug-resistant bacteri...Multidrug-resistant, extensively drug-resistant and pandrug-resistant bacteri...
Multidrug-resistant, extensively drug-resistant and pandrug-resistant bacteri...
 
Bioinformatics in pandemic Script
Bioinformatics in pandemic ScriptBioinformatics in pandemic Script
Bioinformatics in pandemic Script
 
Sars-cov2 Spike protein and derivates toxicology :fertility and teratogen eva...
Sars-cov2 Spike protein and derivates toxicology :fertility and teratogen eva...Sars-cov2 Spike protein and derivates toxicology :fertility and teratogen eva...
Sars-cov2 Spike protein and derivates toxicology :fertility and teratogen eva...
 
Neutropenia febril
Neutropenia febrilNeutropenia febril
Neutropenia febril
 
Meningitis
MeningitisMeningitis
Meningitis
 
Articulo resistencia microbina ingles
Articulo resistencia microbina inglesArticulo resistencia microbina ingles
Articulo resistencia microbina ingles
 

Último

AUDIENCE THEORY -- FANDOM -- JENKINS.pptx
AUDIENCE THEORY -- FANDOM -- JENKINS.pptxAUDIENCE THEORY -- FANDOM -- JENKINS.pptx
AUDIENCE THEORY -- FANDOM -- JENKINS.pptxiammrhaywood
 
Education and training program in the hospital APR.pptx
Education and training program in the hospital APR.pptxEducation and training program in the hospital APR.pptx
Education and training program in the hospital APR.pptxraviapr7
 
Human-AI Co-Creation of Worked Examples for Programming Classes
Human-AI Co-Creation of Worked Examples for Programming ClassesHuman-AI Co-Creation of Worked Examples for Programming Classes
Human-AI Co-Creation of Worked Examples for Programming ClassesMohammad Hassany
 
DUST OF SNOW_BY ROBERT FROST_EDITED BY_ TANMOY MISHRA
DUST OF SNOW_BY ROBERT FROST_EDITED BY_ TANMOY MISHRADUST OF SNOW_BY ROBERT FROST_EDITED BY_ TANMOY MISHRA
DUST OF SNOW_BY ROBERT FROST_EDITED BY_ TANMOY MISHRATanmoy Mishra
 
Practical Research 1 Lesson 9 Scope and delimitation.pptx
Practical Research 1 Lesson 9 Scope and delimitation.pptxPractical Research 1 Lesson 9 Scope and delimitation.pptx
Practical Research 1 Lesson 9 Scope and delimitation.pptxKatherine Villaluna
 
The basics of sentences session 10pptx.pptx
The basics of sentences session 10pptx.pptxThe basics of sentences session 10pptx.pptx
The basics of sentences session 10pptx.pptxheathfieldcps1
 
Maximizing Impact_ Nonprofit Website Planning, Budgeting, and Design.pdf
Maximizing Impact_ Nonprofit Website Planning, Budgeting, and Design.pdfMaximizing Impact_ Nonprofit Website Planning, Budgeting, and Design.pdf
Maximizing Impact_ Nonprofit Website Planning, Budgeting, and Design.pdfTechSoup
 
Philosophy of Education and Educational Philosophy
Philosophy of Education  and Educational PhilosophyPhilosophy of Education  and Educational Philosophy
Philosophy of Education and Educational PhilosophyShuvankar Madhu
 
3.21.24 The Origins of Black Power.pptx
3.21.24  The Origins of Black Power.pptx3.21.24  The Origins of Black Power.pptx
3.21.24 The Origins of Black Power.pptxmary850239
 
Prescribed medication order and communication skills.pptx
Prescribed medication order and communication skills.pptxPrescribed medication order and communication skills.pptx
Prescribed medication order and communication skills.pptxraviapr7
 
Patient Counselling. Definition of patient counseling; steps involved in pati...
Patient Counselling. Definition of patient counseling; steps involved in pati...Patient Counselling. Definition of patient counseling; steps involved in pati...
Patient Counselling. Definition of patient counseling; steps involved in pati...raviapr7
 
Presentation on the Basics of Writing. Writing a Paragraph
Presentation on the Basics of Writing. Writing a ParagraphPresentation on the Basics of Writing. Writing a Paragraph
Presentation on the Basics of Writing. Writing a ParagraphNetziValdelomar1
 
Drug Information Services- DIC and Sources.
Drug Information Services- DIC and Sources.Drug Information Services- DIC and Sources.
Drug Information Services- DIC and Sources.raviapr7
 
What is the Future of QuickBooks DeskTop?
What is the Future of QuickBooks DeskTop?What is the Future of QuickBooks DeskTop?
What is the Future of QuickBooks DeskTop?TechSoup
 
UKCGE Parental Leave Discussion March 2024
UKCGE Parental Leave Discussion March 2024UKCGE Parental Leave Discussion March 2024
UKCGE Parental Leave Discussion March 2024UKCGE
 
How to Add a New Field in Existing Kanban View in Odoo 17
How to Add a New Field in Existing Kanban View in Odoo 17How to Add a New Field in Existing Kanban View in Odoo 17
How to Add a New Field in Existing Kanban View in Odoo 17Celine George
 
In - Vivo and In - Vitro Correlation.pptx
In - Vivo and In - Vitro Correlation.pptxIn - Vivo and In - Vitro Correlation.pptx
In - Vivo and In - Vitro Correlation.pptxAditiChauhan701637
 
How to Use api.constrains ( ) in Odoo 17
How to Use api.constrains ( ) in Odoo 17How to Use api.constrains ( ) in Odoo 17
How to Use api.constrains ( ) in Odoo 17Celine George
 

Último (20)

AUDIENCE THEORY -- FANDOM -- JENKINS.pptx
AUDIENCE THEORY -- FANDOM -- JENKINS.pptxAUDIENCE THEORY -- FANDOM -- JENKINS.pptx
AUDIENCE THEORY -- FANDOM -- JENKINS.pptx
 
Education and training program in the hospital APR.pptx
Education and training program in the hospital APR.pptxEducation and training program in the hospital APR.pptx
Education and training program in the hospital APR.pptx
 
Human-AI Co-Creation of Worked Examples for Programming Classes
Human-AI Co-Creation of Worked Examples for Programming ClassesHuman-AI Co-Creation of Worked Examples for Programming Classes
Human-AI Co-Creation of Worked Examples for Programming Classes
 
DUST OF SNOW_BY ROBERT FROST_EDITED BY_ TANMOY MISHRA
DUST OF SNOW_BY ROBERT FROST_EDITED BY_ TANMOY MISHRADUST OF SNOW_BY ROBERT FROST_EDITED BY_ TANMOY MISHRA
DUST OF SNOW_BY ROBERT FROST_EDITED BY_ TANMOY MISHRA
 
Practical Research 1 Lesson 9 Scope and delimitation.pptx
Practical Research 1 Lesson 9 Scope and delimitation.pptxPractical Research 1 Lesson 9 Scope and delimitation.pptx
Practical Research 1 Lesson 9 Scope and delimitation.pptx
 
The basics of sentences session 10pptx.pptx
The basics of sentences session 10pptx.pptxThe basics of sentences session 10pptx.pptx
The basics of sentences session 10pptx.pptx
 
Maximizing Impact_ Nonprofit Website Planning, Budgeting, and Design.pdf
Maximizing Impact_ Nonprofit Website Planning, Budgeting, and Design.pdfMaximizing Impact_ Nonprofit Website Planning, Budgeting, and Design.pdf
Maximizing Impact_ Nonprofit Website Planning, Budgeting, and Design.pdf
 
Philosophy of Education and Educational Philosophy
Philosophy of Education  and Educational PhilosophyPhilosophy of Education  and Educational Philosophy
Philosophy of Education and Educational Philosophy
 
3.21.24 The Origins of Black Power.pptx
3.21.24  The Origins of Black Power.pptx3.21.24  The Origins of Black Power.pptx
3.21.24 The Origins of Black Power.pptx
 
Prescribed medication order and communication skills.pptx
Prescribed medication order and communication skills.pptxPrescribed medication order and communication skills.pptx
Prescribed medication order and communication skills.pptx
 
Finals of Kant get Marx 2.0 : a general politics quiz
Finals of Kant get Marx 2.0 : a general politics quizFinals of Kant get Marx 2.0 : a general politics quiz
Finals of Kant get Marx 2.0 : a general politics quiz
 
Patient Counselling. Definition of patient counseling; steps involved in pati...
Patient Counselling. Definition of patient counseling; steps involved in pati...Patient Counselling. Definition of patient counseling; steps involved in pati...
Patient Counselling. Definition of patient counseling; steps involved in pati...
 
Presentation on the Basics of Writing. Writing a Paragraph
Presentation on the Basics of Writing. Writing a ParagraphPresentation on the Basics of Writing. Writing a Paragraph
Presentation on the Basics of Writing. Writing a Paragraph
 
Drug Information Services- DIC and Sources.
Drug Information Services- DIC and Sources.Drug Information Services- DIC and Sources.
Drug Information Services- DIC and Sources.
 
What is the Future of QuickBooks DeskTop?
What is the Future of QuickBooks DeskTop?What is the Future of QuickBooks DeskTop?
What is the Future of QuickBooks DeskTop?
 
UKCGE Parental Leave Discussion March 2024
UKCGE Parental Leave Discussion March 2024UKCGE Parental Leave Discussion March 2024
UKCGE Parental Leave Discussion March 2024
 
Personal Resilience in Project Management 2 - TV Edit 1a.pdf
Personal Resilience in Project Management 2 - TV Edit 1a.pdfPersonal Resilience in Project Management 2 - TV Edit 1a.pdf
Personal Resilience in Project Management 2 - TV Edit 1a.pdf
 
How to Add a New Field in Existing Kanban View in Odoo 17
How to Add a New Field in Existing Kanban View in Odoo 17How to Add a New Field in Existing Kanban View in Odoo 17
How to Add a New Field in Existing Kanban View in Odoo 17
 
In - Vivo and In - Vitro Correlation.pptx
In - Vivo and In - Vitro Correlation.pptxIn - Vivo and In - Vitro Correlation.pptx
In - Vivo and In - Vitro Correlation.pptx
 
How to Use api.constrains ( ) in Odoo 17
How to Use api.constrains ( ) in Odoo 17How to Use api.constrains ( ) in Odoo 17
How to Use api.constrains ( ) in Odoo 17
 

Meta analysis on the efficacy of foot-and-mouth disease

  • 1. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 98 (2011) 1–9 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Preventive Veterinary Medicine journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/prevetmed Review Meta-analysis on the efficacy of foot-and-mouth disease emergency vaccination T. Halasa a,∗ , A. Boklund a , S. Cox b , C. Enøe a a Technical University of Denmark, the Veterinary Institute, Bülowsvej 27, 1790 Copenhagen V, Denmark b Institute for Animal Health, Pirbright Laboratory, Ash Road, Pirbright, Working, Surry, GU 24, 0NF, United Kingdom a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t Article history: The objectives of this study were to provide a summary quantification of the efficacy of FMD Received 20 November 2009 emergency vaccination based on a systematic review and a meta-analysis of available liter- Received in revised form 23 August 2010 ature, and to further discuss the suitability of this review and meta-analysis to summarize Accepted 26 August 2010 and further interpret the results. Peer-reviewed, symposium, and unpublished studies were considered in the analysis. Clinical protection and virological protection against FMD were Key words: used as parameters to assess the efficacy of emergency vaccination. The clinical protection Emergency vaccine, Foot-and-mouth was estimated based on the appearance of clinical signs including FMD lesions and fever, disease, Meta-analysis while the virological protection parameter was estimated based on the outcome of labo- ratory tests that were used to diagnose FMD infection. A meta-analysis relative risk was calculated per protection parameter. Results of the meta-analyses were examined using publication bias tests. In total, 31 studies were included in the analyses, of which 26 were peer-reviewed studies, 1 was a symposium study and 4 were unpublished studies. Cattle, swine and sheep were well protected against clinical disease and FMD infection following the use of emergency vaccine. Fortunately, no significant bias that would alter the conclu- sions was encountered in the analysis. Meta-analysis can be a useful tool to summarize literature results from a systematic review of the efficacy of FMD emergency vaccination. © 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction countries. Following the confirmation of FMD in any EU member state, slaughter and disinfection of infected herds, Foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) is a highly contagious as well as movement restriction and surveillance of herds viral disease affecting ruminants and pigs, which can cause within zones around the infected herds must be applied to huge economic damage (Cox and Barnett, 2009; Pendell et contain the outbreak as fast as possible (Council Directive al., 2007). Although FMD remains as an endemic disease 2003/85/EC). From January 1st 1992, prophylactic vacci- in several areas of the world, elsewhere FMD free status nation against FMD was prohibited in the EU countries. has been maintained or FMD was eradicated by imposing However, after public concerns regarding the mass killing strict legislation and/or implementing a variety of control of animals in the UK and the Netherlands during the FMD strategies including use of vaccination (Cox and Barnett, outbreak in 2001, the OIE and the EU have revised the pol- 2009). The eradication of the disease and the prohibition icy to make use of emergency vaccination in case the risk of vaccination in these countries have created a highly of an extensive outbreak is suspected (Cox et al., 2005; susceptible population of animals. This means that a poten- Parida, 2009). Emergency vaccination may be defined as tial outbreak could rapidly spread within and between the the use of vaccines to control an outbreak of FMD in a country free of the disease, in which routine prophylactic vaccination is not applied (Council Directive 2003/85/EC). ∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +45 35886286; fax: +45 35886001. Based on the literature, an ideal emergency vaccine should E-mail address: tahbh@vet.dtu.dk (T. Halasa). have the following characteristics: (1) contain no residues 0167-5877/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.prevetmed.2010.08.005
  • 2. 2 T. Halasa et al. / Preventive Veterinary Medicine 98 (2011) 1–9 of a live virus and have minimal side effects to newborns ously reported in a symposium paper, to prevent data sets and adults; (2) after a single application with the recom- from being included twice in the analyses. mended dose, achieve a potency dose 50 (PD50 ) of ≥6; (3) The quality of the studies was further assessed by insur- be compatible with serological tests that identify infection ing that a study: (1) met the above mentioned inclusion in vaccinated animals; (4) induce reasonably long lasting criteria; (2) provided sufficient information on animal han- immunity and provide a broad spectrum of antigenic pro- dling, vaccine application and virus challenge procedure; tection; and (5) be stable under storage once formulated; (3) provided sufficient information regarding the measure (6) provide a rapid protection after vaccination; and (7) of clinical disease and laboratory procedures to diagnose reduce the reproduction ratio (R0 ) to below 1 (Goris et al., infection; (4) provided sufficient information about the 2007; Cox and Barnett, 2009). duration of the experiment, and sampling frequency; (5) The economic consequence of using emergency vac- had an epidemiologic design that would meet the objec- cination following an FMD outbreak is an essential tives of that study. consideration for livestock and livestock products export- The primary check of the studies was carried out by ing countries. Their export status is highly dependent on reading the abstract of the studies. When a study was found the freedom of FMD, which could be delayed because of to fit our inclusion criteria, the study was read to insure vaccination (Mahul and Durand, 2000). Several experimen- a good quality and thereafter a careful reading accompa- tal studies have quantified the efficacy of FMD emergency nied with data extraction was carried out. When a study vaccines and these were recently reviewed by Cox and lacked essential information, the authors were contacted Barnett (2009). The authors observed a considerable vari- and asked to provide the necessary information. ability between studies. This would make it difficult Unpublished data might be an important source of infor- to conduct comprehensive economic assessment of the mation and should be considered in meta-analysis studies efficacy of emergency vaccination. It was, therefore, rec- (Dohoo et al., 2003). Therefore, several researchers and ommended to conduct a meta-analysis study to quantify research groups that are involved in FMD vaccine studies the efficacy of FMD emergency vaccination. The outcome of were approached to provide unpublished data that fitted this meta-analysis can be used for FMD modeling exercises the above mentioned inclusion criteria from point 2 to 6. and economic analysis to assist policy makers in national The researchers were asked to provide further information governments, the EU and worldwide on efficient FMD con- as needed to assess the quality of the data. This is important trol strategies. to correctly pool unpublished data with published studies The objectives of this study were to provide a summary in a meta-analysis (Dohoo et al., 2003). quantification of the efficacy of FMD emergency vaccina- Because different studies differ in the design, discrep- tion based on a systematic review and a meta-analysis of ancies were expected that could affect the validity of the available literature, and to further discuss the suitability of meta-analysis. Data related to the study design, emergency this review and meta-analysis to summarize and further vaccination and challenge are presented in the next sec- interpret the results. tions and in supplementary file. 2. Materials and methods 2.2. Emergency vaccination and challenge 2.1. Selection of published and unpublished studies The majority of the studies were performed in disease secure facilities. At the start of each study, the animals were A search was conducted on the literature related to FMD free. Frequently, animals were given a few days to FMD vaccine efficacy studies published between 1960 and adapt to the new facility before assignment to either of the beginning of 2009. The search was carried out using the vaccinated or control groups. In the majority of the the key words: foot-and-mouth disease; emergency; vac- studies, the emergency vaccine application was carried out cine; efficacy; and protection in different combinations. using the intramuscular route of injection using a full dose Searches were conducted in PubMed (the National Library (Supplementary file, column VA). Thereafter, a challenge of Medicine, Bethesda, USA) and Google Scholar (Google with a live homologous FMD virus was carried out. Some Inc., CA, USA). studies examined the efficacy of emergency vaccination Studies included in the analysis had to: (1) be a research using short and long periods between vaccination and chal- or symposium paper published in English; (2) be an exper- lenge, while other used only long intervals (Supplementary imental challenge study, which showed the efficacy of an file, footnote j). In the majority of the studies conducted FMD emergency vaccine in pigs, cattle, and/or sheep; (3) on cattle, a period of 21 days between emergency vacci- report the rate or the number of FMD infected or protected nation and challenge was used. In studies conducted on animals and the total number of animals in at least 2 groups swine and sheep, a period of 14 days between emergency (challenged vaccinated and non-vaccinated control group); vaccination and challenge was often used. However, sev- (4) include vaccination with the full vaccine dose. Proto- eral protocols were frequently tested within these studies. cols with sub-preventive doses were not included so as Control animals were separated from the vaccinated ani- not to under-estimate the efficacy of the tested vaccine; mals. In the majority of the studies conducted on cattle, (5) include a challenge with a homologous virus to that contact with infected cattle for several days or a pig for used in the vaccine, similarly in both groups (vaccinated 1 h was used as the challenge method, while intra-dermal and non-vaccinated); (6) in case of research papers, report injection of the virus in the tongue was carried out in other the outcome of a new experiment or protocol not previ- studies (Supplementary file, column CR). In the majority of
  • 3. T. Halasa et al. / Preventive Veterinary Medicine 98 (2011) 1–9 3 the studies conducted on pigs, challenge was carried out et al., 1984; Salt et al., 1995, 1998) that used only VI to by direct or less frequently indirect contact with infected confirm infection from the samples. Orsel et al. (2005) pigs for a period from 1 h to several days. In few studies, used VI and PCR to confirm infection from the sam- intra-dermal injection of the virus in the heel bulb was ples. used (Supplementary file, column CR). In the majority of the studies conducted on sheep, challenge with infected 2.5. Evidence of FMD pigs for 2–9 h was used (Supplementary file, column CR). 2.5.1. Clinical disease 2.3. Follow-up days post-challenge Clinical signs of FMD were diagnosed in all studies. However, there was variability between studies in the con- After challenge animals were monitored for clinical sideration of which clinical signs represent clinical disease. infection over variable time periods (Supplementary file, The majority of studies conducted on cattle and pigs con- column FC) and samples for laboratory analyses and diag- sidered the presence of FMD lesions and/or fever as a sign nosis were obtained (Supplementary file, column FS). In of disease (Supplementary file, column Fe). In the other most studies conducted on cattle, 7–14 days post-challenge studies only lesions on the feet were considered to diag- was used as the follow-up period for clinical diagnosis. nose clinical infection. In studies conducted on sheep, the However, some studies recorded clinical disease up to the presence of FMD lesions and/or fever was considered to end of the trial. Follow up for laboratory diagnosis varied diagnose clinical infection. from 14 to 35 days post-challenge, but was mainly up to 28 In the studies that used fever as a clinical sign, discrep- days post-challenge. ancies between the studies in the consideration of fever In most studies conducted on pigs, the follow-up period were also observed. In only one study conducted using for clinical diagnosis was also 7–14 days post-challenge. cattle, where fever was considered a clinical sign of the However, in one study (Eblé et al., 2009), clinical disease disease, fever was specified to be a rectal temperature of was recorded up to 42 days post-challenge. Follow up for ≥40 ◦ C (Aggarwal et al., 2002). In studies conducted using laboratory diagnosis varied from 8 up to 42 days post- swine, 40 ◦ C was used as a cut-off value, except in one study challenge, but was frequently up to 14 days post-challenge. (Parida et al., 2007), which used 39.5 ◦ C as a cut-off value. In studies conducted on sheep, follow up for clinical Two studies conducted with swine included fever to diag- diagnosis varied from 10 up to 14 days post-challenge, nose FMD, but did not specify a cut-off value (Doel et al., while in one study (Barnett et al., 2004), FMD lesion record- 1994; Orsel et al., 2007a). In studies conducted using sheep, ing was carried out up to 42 days post-challenge. Follow up fever was defined as ≥40 ◦ C, except one study (Parida et al., for laboratory diagnosis varied from 14 up to 42 days post- 2008), which used ≥39.5 ◦ C. challenge and was frequently up to 14 days post-challenge. 2.4. Samples collection, storage and laboratory methods 2.5.2. Virological infection In the majority of studies, FMD infection was confirmed Sample collection, storage and laboratory methods were by laboratory diagnosis (Supplementary file, column FS). generally similar among the different studies. We will only In the current meta-analysis we defined infection based describe these procedures briefly, as detailed information on the results of: (1) VI from the blood, oral, nasal and/or can be found in the original publications. esophageal–pharyngeal fluids samples; (2) presence of Heparinised and unheparinised blood samples were antibodies against NSP; or (3) presence of viral RNA in oral, stored at −70 ◦ C, while serum samples were stored at nasal and/or esophageal–pharyngeal fluids samples diag- −20 ◦ C until processing. Nasal fluids were collected on cot- nosed using RT-PCR. ton buds and stored at −70 ◦ C. Oropharyngeal fluid was collected using cotton swabs. For ELISA, oropharyngeal 2.6. Meta-analysis procedure fluid samples were stored at −20 ◦ C, but they were stored at −70 ◦ C for virus isolation (VI). Probang samples were 2.6.1. Outcome parameters collected using a probang sampler on sedated animals and In the current meta-analysis we defined two main then the samples were stored at −70 ◦ C. parameters to determine the efficacy of FMD emergency VI or titration was carried out by inoculation of the vaccination: clinical protection and virological protection. sample onto monolayers of mammalian cells in tubes or The relative risk (RR) of clinical disease was considered plates. Infection was determined either by staining and to represent clinical protection. For each study, the RR was counting of plaques or by microscopic examination for calculated as the incidence risk of clinically FMD diseased the cytopathic effect with subsequent confirmation of animals in the vaccinated group divided by the incidence serotype by ELISA. The presence of antibodies against the risk in the unvaccinated control group. The incidence risk of non-structural proteins (NSP) 3ABC was tested using com- clinical FMD was calculated for each group as the number of mercial ELISA. The RT-PCR was used to confirm and identify clinically diseased animals divided by the total number of infection from the samples, mostly using the MagNA Pure® animals. The length of the follow-up period post-challenge LC kit (Roche) and a light cycler® RT-PCR system. was assumed not to affect the outcome, given that animals All studies that confirmed infection using laboratory were followed up at least 7 days. Seven days after challenge tests used VI, PCR and NSP, except (Barnett et al., 2002; was assumed to be a sufficient period for clinical signs to Cox et al., 1999; Donaldson and Kitching, 1989; Gibson appear.
  • 4. 4 T. Halasa et al. / Preventive Veterinary Medicine 98 (2011) 1–9 The virological protection was estimated based on the combined in a multivariable model using a backward step- definition of infection, which considered an animal to have wise regression method. A liberal P-value <0.3 was chosen FMD infection when it was found positive to VI, NSP or RT- for the variables to be included in a combined multivari- PCR tests from the original studies. The RR of infection was able model. In case of a significant association between the used to represent virological protection. For each study, explanatory variable and the dependent variable (RR per a RR of infection was calculated as the incidence risk of study) with a P-value <0.05 in the multivariable model, the infection in the vaccinated group divided by the incidence variable was believed to explain the heterogeneity signifi- risk in the unvaccinated control group. The incidence risk cantly. of infection was calculated for each group (vaccinated and unvaccinated) as the number of animals that were positive 2.6.4. Publication bias to any of the 3 tests divided by the total number of animals. Because studies that result in large and interesting As for clinical disease, we assumed that the length of the effects are more likely to be published than studies that follow-up period post-challenge to diagnose infection did show relatively small or no effects, the outcome could be not affect the outcome, given that animals were followed a biased body of research (Halasa et al., 2009). The publi- for at least 7 days. Seven days after challenge was assumed cation bias was assessed using funnel plots. A funnel plot to be a sufficient period for virus shedding to occur and 14 is a plot of a measure of study size (standard error) on days for NSP antibodies to develop. the vertical axis as a function of the effect size on the From 4 studies (Eblé et al., 2004, 2007; Orsel et al., horizontal axis. Large studies appear toward the top of 2005, 2007b) only results of experiments using vaccinated the graph, and tend to cluster near the mean effect value. and non-vaccinated animals challenged by direct injection Smaller studies appear toward the bottom of the graph of the virus were included in the current meta-analysis. and tend to disperse across a range of values. Publication Only results of experiments using vaccinated and non- bias methods included Duval and Tweedie’s fill and trim vaccinated animals that had been challenged using the method (Duval and Tweedie, 2000), Begg and Mazumdar airborne route with unvaccinated infected seeders were correlation test (Begg and Mazumdar, 1994), and Egger’s included in the analysis from Orsel et al. (2007a). Results of regression test (Egger et al., 1997). A significant publica- other experiments from these studies were not included. tion bias was deemed to exist when adjustment for the bias altered our conclusion or when the confidence limits of 2.6.2. Statistical procedure the unadjusted and the adjusted RR did not overlap. When The RRs were pooled over the studies; separately per significant publication bias and change on the estimated protection parameter, and animal species, using a commer- pooled RR were detected, the number of studies necessary cial analytical package (Comprehensive meta-analysis 2.0, to reverse the pooled effect was calculated using Orwin’s 2009). When the pooled RRs were calculated, classification fail-safe N method (Orwin, 1983). The study influence was on virus serotype was carried out to correct for potential examined using the one study removed method (Dohoo et differences between the different virus serotypes in reac- al., 2003). When significant publication bias was deemed tion to vaccination. In studies that included more than one to exist, the pooled RR was presented based on the Duval protocol, a combined effect was calculated per study. When and Tweedie’s fill and trim estimation after correcting for one study reported the outcome of separate challenge trials the publication bias. The interpretation of each of the above with different virus serotypes, we treated each challenge mentioned methods is presented in Sections 3 and 4. trail as a separate study in the meta-analysis. Because stud- It is important to mention that these methods are based ies are conducted by different people, in different areas and on statistical theory. They do not necessarily prove exis- times, which could create a heterogeneous population of tence of bias, but they do suggest it, and the confirmation studies, a random effect model was used to estimate the of the bias should be based on biological and rational rea- pooled RR (Halasa et al., 2009). A meta-analysis was con- soning (Halasa et al., 2009). ducted when at least 4 studies were available (Halasa et al., 2009). Forest plots were used to illustrate the calculated RR 3. Results per study and virus serotype and the overall pooled effect of all studies in the last line of the plot. 3.1. Descriptive results 2.6.3. Meta-regression The primary search identified 862 published studies of As recommended by Lean et al. (2009), a weighted relevance. Of these, 69 studies examined FMD vaccines in meta-regression was conducted in an attempt to explain cases and control groups in cattle, swine and/or sheep. the heterogeneity between studies. Explanatory variables However, only 29 published studies described a vaccine of the heterogeneity were selected based on the litera- that would meet our criteria for an emergency vaccine. The ture and expert assessment of likely factors. The variables authors of 4 studies were contacted to identify the PD50 of used are presented in the supplementary file. The coun- the vaccine used in their studies. Finally, 28 studies were try of origin and animal species were not included in the identified to fit our criteria and 27 of them were included in meta-regression, while the number of tests conducted to the analysis. One study (Orsel et al., 2007c) was excluded to confirm infection per study was included. These variables correct for age as a natural confounder, because the study were regressed against the RR results of each study and only included older cattle. Of these 27 studies, 10 exam- weighted by the inverse variance (Dohoo et al., 2003). The ined the efficacy of emergency vaccination using cattle; 9 variables were first tested in univariable models and then studies using swine; 5 studies using sheep, and 3 studies
  • 5. T. Halasa et al. / Preventive Veterinary Medicine 98 (2011) 1–9 5 examined emergency vaccination in more than 1 species Table 1 Pooled relative risk (RR) together with the 95% confidence interval as (Supplementary file). One of the 5 studies (Cox et al., 1999) estimated based on the corresponding studies in the meta-analysis to conducted in sheep included 3 different virus strains, and quantify the clinical and virological protection against foot-and-mouth hence each experiment was treated in the analysis and disease using emergency vaccination. referred to as a separate study (Supplementary file). All Animal species Studies included in the Pooled RR and 95% studies were peer-reviewed research papers except one and measure of meta-analysis confidence limits (Salt et al., 1995), which was a symposium paper. protection Four unpublished experiments conducted on swine Cattle were included in the analysis; all of good quality and Clinical (Aggarwal et al., 2002; 0.13 (0.09–0.18) with experimental design similar to other included studies Brehm et al., 2008; Cox et (Supplementary file). al., 2005; Cox et al., 2006; Cox et al., 2007; Doel et al., 1994; Donaldson and 3.2. Protection in cattle Kitching 1989; Goris et al., 2007, 2008; Graves et al., 1968; Mattion et al., 2004; Studies included in investigating the clinical protec- Orsel et al., 2005; Salt et al., tion provided by emergency vaccination against FMD in 1995) cattle were homogeneous (Q-value = 16.3 with 12 degrees Virological (Cox et al., 2005, 2006, 0.71 (0.59–0.85) of freedom and a P-value = 0.178). The studies included 2007; Donaldson and Kitching 1989; Orsel et al., virus serotypes O, A and Asia 1. In general, emergency 2005; Salt et al., 1995) vaccination protected cattle well against clinical disease Swine (Table 1). There was no significant difference in clinical Clinical (Aggarwal et al., 2002; 0.48 (0.36–0.65) protection between the different vaccine serotypes (Fig. 1). Barnett et al., 2002; Buonavoglia et al., 1998; Removing any of the studies did not alter the pooled effect Doel et al., 1994; Eblé et al., significantly. Further investigation of the publication bias 2004, 2007, 2009; Graves showed signs of bias. The Begg and Mazumdar test sug- et al., 1968; Orsel et al., gested a significant correlation between study size and 2007a,b; Parida et al., study effect ( = −0.45 and a P-value = 0.03). Egger’s regres- 2007; Sellers and Herniman, 1974; Salt et al., sion test suggested a significant association between study 1998; Unpublished data). size and study effect with an intercept = −1.46, a stan- Virological (Barnett et al., 2002; Eblé et 0.67 (0.51–0.87) dard error = 0.45 and a P-value = 0.01. Correcting for the al., 2004, 2007, 2009; Orsel bias using the Duval and Tweedie’s trim and fill method, et al., 2007a,b; Parida et al., 2007; Salt et al., 1998) resulted in an insignificant change to the pooled RR. Sheep In the meta-analysis to examine virological protec- Clinical (Aggarwal et al., 2002; 0.31 (0.18–0.53) tion against FMD, the studies were heterogeneous, and Barnett et al., 2004; Cox et none of the variables in the meta-regression explained al., 1999; Gibson et al., the heterogeneity significantly. Vaccinated cattle had 0.71 1984; Orsel et al., 2007a,b; Parida et al., 2008) (0.59–0.85) times lower risk of FMD infection compared Virological (Barnett et al., 2004; Cox et 0.59 (0.44–0.80) to non-vaccinated cattle (Table 1). Publication bias tests al., 1999; Gibson et al., indicated no significant publication bias. 1984; Orsel et al., 2007a,b; Parida et al., 2008) 3.3. Protection in swine publication bias. Studies investigating the clinical protection provided by emergency vaccination against FMD in swine were 3.4. Protection in sheep heterogeneous. None of the tested variables in the meta- regression explained the heterogeneity significantly. The Studies investigating the clinical protection provided by studies included virus serotypes O, A, C and Asia. In general, emergency vaccination against FMD in sheep were het- emergency vaccination provided good protection against erogeneous. In the meta-regression, none of the tested clinical disease in swine (Table 1). There was no signifi- variables explained the heterogeneity significantly. The cant difference in clinical protection between the different included studies examined virus serotypes O, C and Asia vaccine serotypes. Publication bias tests did not indicate a 1. In general, emergency vaccination protected sheep well significant bias that would alter the results. against clinical disease (Table 1) and no significant publi- Emergency vaccination protected swine against FMD cation bias was found. infection (Fig. 2). Vaccinated swine had 0.67 (0.51–0.87) Emergency vaccination provided virological protection times lower risk of FMD infection compared to non- against FMD infection in sheep (Table 1). The studies were vaccinated swine (Table 1). The studies were heteroge- heterogeneous and none of the variables in the meta- neous, and none of the variables in the meta-regression regression explained the heterogeneity significantly. There explained the heterogeneity significantly. Only Egger’s was no significant difference in protection between the dif- regression test suggested an association between study size ferent vaccine serotypes. Removing any of the studies did and study effect. All other publication bias test indicated no not alter the effect. Begg and Mazumdar correlation test
  • 6. 6 T. Halasa et al. / Preventive Veterinary Medicine 98 (2011) 1–9 Virus serotype Study RR Lower Upper RR and 95% CI limit limit A Brehm, 2008 0.051 0.003 0.770 A Goris, 2008 0.123 0.071 0.214 A Graves, 1968 0.075 0.016 0.352 A Mattion, 2004 0.225 0.069 0.737 PRR A 0.126 0.079 0.202 Asia 1 Salt, 1995 0.124 0.052 0.295 PRR Asia 1 0.124 0.052 0.295 O Aggarwal, 2002 0.100 0.007 1.490 O Cox, 2005 0.026 0.002 0.406 O Cox, 2006 0.026 0.002 0.406 O Cox, 2007 0.294 0.177 0.488 O Doel, 1994 0.019 0.001 0.297 O Donaldson, 1989 0.179 0.089 0.361 O Goris, 2007 0.090 0.037 0.219 O Orsel, 2005 0.100 0.015 0.664 PRR O 0.127 0.068 0.236 Overall PRR 0.126 0.089 0.178 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 Favors vaccine Favors no vaccine Fig. 1. Forest plot of the relative risk (RR) of the clinical disease in vaccinated cattle for each of the 13 included studies, the pooled RR (PRR) per virus serotype and the overall PRR together with the 95% confidence interval (CI). Virus serotype Study RR Lower Upper RR and 95% CI limit limit C Salt, 1998 0.484 0.285 0.821 PRR C 0.484 0.285 0.821 O Barnett, 2002 1.000 0.818 1.223 O Orsel, 2007 0.818 0.634 1.057 O Eble, 2004 0.524 0.286 0.959 O Eble, 2007 1.000 0.833 1.200 O Eble, 2009 0.211 0.126 0.353 O Parida, 2007 1.055 0.853 1.306 PRR O 0.739 0.545 1.001 Overall PRR 0.665 0.511 0.866 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 Favors vaccine Favors no vaccine Fig. 2. Forest plot of the relative risk (RR) of the FMD infection of swine for each of the 7 included studies, the pooled RR (PRR) per virus serotype and the overall PRR together with the 95% confidence interval (CI). suggested an absence of correlation between study size signs is also important, because the virus can be excreted and study effect. This result was contradicted by Egger’s through the lesions. Preventing the appearance of lesions regression test that suggested a strong association between might, therefore, decrease virus shedding. However, if vac- study size and study effect with an intercept = −2.84, a stan- cination induces protection against clinical signs without dard error = 0.54 and a P-value = 0.003. Duval and Tweedie’s virological protection, clinical disease can be concealed trim and fill method suggested adding 3 studies to the right side of the funnel plot (Fig. 3), which would shift 0.0 the effect from 0.59 (0.4–0.8) (the white diamond under the X-axis), to 0.68 (0.5–0.99) (the black diamond under Standard Error 0.5 the X-axis). Nonetheless, this adjustment would not alter the result that emergency vaccination protected sheep against FMD infection significantly than non-vaccinated 1.0 animals. 1.5 4. Discussion 2.0 The results indicate that emergency vaccination pro- -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 tect cattle, swine and sheep against FMD clinical disease Log relative risk compared to unvaccinated animals (Table 1). More impor- tantly, emergency vaccination provided protection against Fig. 3. Funnel plot of the logarithm pooled relative risk (RR) of 7 stud- virological infection with FMD in these species. The pur- ies (empty circles) quantifying the effect of FMD vaccination against FMD pose of an emergency vaccine is to limit the spread of infection in sheep. The dark spots are the potential missing studies accord- ing to Duval and Tweedie’s trim and fill method (if they had existed, the the disease or in other words, decrease the reproduction pooled effect would have shifted from 0.59 (0.4–0.8); the white diamond ratio to <1. Therefore, virological protection is more impor- under the X-axis, to be 0.68 (0.50–0.99); the black diamond under the tant than the clinical protection. Still, reducing the clinical X-axis).
  • 7. T. Halasa et al. / Preventive Veterinary Medicine 98 (2011) 1–9 7 making early disease detection of vaccinated farms more In some of the studies included in the analysis, several difficult. periods of time between vaccination and virus challenge Despite the finding that emergency vaccination pro- were tested. A longer period between vaccination and chal- tects cattle against FMD infection, it was observed that lenge gives the immune system more time to develop several cattle persisted as carriers. Some cattle were found neutralizing antibody titers, resulting in better protection to excrete virus up to 553 days post-inoculation (Moonen (Doel et al., 1994; Salt et al., 1998). This could have created et al., 2004). This will pose the risk of harboring and trans- bias in our study, because some studies used longer peri- mitting the virus for a long period, which could delay ods between vaccination and challenge compared to other regaining FMD free status, and hence increase the eco- studies. Nevertheless, an emergency vaccine should pro- nomic damage due to the outbreak. This problem can vide rapid protection after vaccination (Cox and Barnett, be solved by culling all vaccinated animals after the epi- 2009) and hence, the use of long or short duration between demic. However, this might not be an option, because vaccination and challenge should not affect the efficacy of mass culling has, in previous outbreaks, triggered public the vaccine. Because the pooled RRs of clinical and viro- concerns (Cox et al., 2005; Parida, 2009), which lead to logical protection from the current study were calculated the introduction of the so-called “vaccine-to-live policy”. from studies that included different periods between vac- Consequently, the OIE and EU regulations were adjusted, cination and challenge, and because it is actually unknown implying that if a vaccine-to-live policy is used, countries when a virus could infect a herd after emergency vacci- can now regain the FMD free status 6 months instead of nation, the pooled RRs of the virological protection are one year after the last case has been detected (Council useful in simulation exercises to represent the efficacy of Directive 2003/85/EC). Given the long period of potential the emergency vaccine. Simulation exercises are important virus excretion from the carrier animals, a strict post- to estimate the cost-effectiveness of FMD emergency vac- vaccination screening program is essential to find carrier cination during an outbreak and its effects on the national animals and cull the infected herds to prevent subsequent economy. The results from such exercise may assist pol- outbreaks. icy makers to decide whether and how to use emergency First, we observed that sheep that had emergency vaccines during an outbreak. vaccination had 0.59 (0.4–0.8) lower risk of FMD infec- We included only studies with homologous virus chal- tion compared to non-vaccinated sheep. However, after lenge. Three published studies and two of the unpublished thorough examination of publication bias, we noticed an experiments involved semi-homologous virus strain chal- existing trend in the studies (Fig. 3). Small studies showed lenge to the vaccine (Supplementary file, footnote l), but large effect, while large studies showed small effect. This were included, because the challenge virus strain and the could be an indication of publication bias. This finding was vaccine virus antigen are categorized within the same topo- supported by other publication bias tests such as Egger’s type on the basis of their VP1 gene and are antigenically regression test, which has been reported to be powerful closely related (Barnett et al., 2001; Cox et al., 2006). in detecting publication bias, especially when the data is A major target of emergency vaccination is to reduce heterogeneous, such as ours (Peters et al., 2006). Correct- the reproduction ratio to <1. This means that an infected ing for publication bias by including the “missing” studies case will produce <1 secondary case during its entire infec- would move the RR toward the null effect. The “missing” tious period, which will cause the epidemic to fade out. studies could have been truly missing, conducted but not Recent advancements in statistics make it possible to mea- published, due to several reasons discussed thoroughly by sure the reduction of the reproduction ratio of FMD virus Thornton and Lee (2000), Bornstein et al. (2009) and Halasa in vaccinated groups (Eblé et al., 2008). It is important et al. (2009). More important than accepting or rejecting to quantify the effect of emergency vaccination on the this bias was that the correction for the bias did not alter reproduction ratio of FMD virus for example by use of meta- the conclusion that there was significant protective effect analysis. Such a meta-analysis has been published, but was of vaccinating sheep against FMD. Moreover, the confi- restricted to outcomes of 10 experiments on swine from dence limits of the corrected and uncorrected pooled RR one project (Eblé et al., 2008). Therefore, it would be inter- overlap, making the difference between them statistically esting to estimate the reproduction ratio with and without insignificant. emergency vaccination from all relevant studies and for In the current study, we defined infection to be a pos- the different species. Such a parameter would be useful for itive result based on VI, NSP or RT-PCR tests. This could modeling within herd spread in simulation models. have included bias, because some studies conducted more In the current meta-analysis, experimental data from tests than other studies. When more tests are applied, the (Eblé et al., 2004, 2007; Orsel et al., 2005, 2007b) were chance of positive diagnosis (true or false) might become included only for vaccinated and non-vaccinated animals higher. Nonetheless, the majority of studies applied the 3 challenged by direct injection of the virus. Moreover, tests (VI, RT-PCR and NSP), and all studies conducted VI, only experimental data using vaccinated and unvaccinated which is considered the gold standard test to diagnose FMD challenged animals with the airborne route with non- infection (Paixão et al., 2008). In an outbreak situation, one vaccinated infected seeders were included in the analysis positive test result will most likely be interpreted as an FMD from Orsel et al. (2007a). This was carried out, because infection and further measures will be taken according to the excluded experiments would represent the dynamics the EU Council Directive 2003/85/EC. Therefore, the tests of infection within a population rather than the efficacy of do not replace each other; likewise, they supplement each the vaccine. In the excluded experiments, the seeders were other. vaccinated; this means that their infectiousness could be
  • 8. 8 T. Halasa et al. / Preventive Veterinary Medicine 98 (2011) 1–9 lower compared to non-vaccinated seeders and hence dif- Conflict of interest statement ferent than other studies used in the current meta-analysis. Moreover, infection of the contact animals in the excluded The authors declare that no financial or personal rela- experiments is a stochastic process, because the number tionships with other people or organizations could have of infected animals to which a given contact animal is inappropriately influenced our work. exposed is not predetermined by the experiment setup, as the challenged seeders might be protected following vac- Acknowledgements cination. These are important differences between these experiments and the included studies in the current meta- The authors acknowledge Graham Belsham, Phaedra analysis, and therefore it is necessary to exclude the results Eblé, Karin Orsel, Marvin Grubman, Canio Buonavoglia, Luis of such experiments to avoid bias. Rodriguez, Satya Parida, and Paul Barnett for the active Several attempts were made to restrict the heterogene- communication and the advice in relation to the inclusion ity of studies, such as: Only including challenge studies of their studies in the analysis. We acknowledge Larry Pais- after emergency vaccination, controlled studies, challenge ley for proof reading the manuscript. studies with animals of the same age category, challenge This study was funded by the Directorate for Food, Agri- studies with a homologous virus, and inclusion of sym- culture and Fisheries, Denmark. Sarah Cox is financially posium studies and unpublished data. Nevertheless, the supported by Defra-UK. heterogeneity existed in most of the analyses. Including only studies published in English language could have been Appendix A. Supplementary data a source of heterogeneity. Language could be a source of heterogeneity and bias, because non-English speaking Supplementary data associated with this article researchers might publish their positive results in English can be found, in the online version, at doi:10.1016/ language to have more publicity, they would on the other j.prevetmed.2010.08.005. hand publish their negative results in their native language (Gregoire et al., 1995). Although attempts were made to explain the heterogeneity using meta-regression with sev- References eral potential variables, none of them was able to explain Aggarwal, N., Zhang, Z., Cox, S., Statham, R., Alexandersen, S., Kitching, it significantly. Another source of heterogeneity could have R.P., Barnett, P.V., 2002. Experimental studies with foot-and-mouth been the virus challenge dose. Studies that have challenged disease virus, strain O, responsible for the 2001 epidemic in the United animals by direct injection of the virus showed variability Kingdom. Vaccine 20, 2508–2515. Barnett, P.V., Samuel, A.R., Statham, R.J., 2001. The suitability of the emer- in the challenge dose (Cox and Barnett, 2009). Studies that gency foot-and-mouth disease antigens held by the international challenged animals using the airborne route showed even vaccine bank within a global context. Vaccine 19, 2107–2117. more variability in the challenge procedure and challenge Barnett, P.V., Cox, S.J., Aggarwal, N., Gerber, H., McCullough, K.C., 2002. Further studies on the early protective responses of pigs following intensity (Cox and Barnett, 2009). Unfortunately, because immunization with high potency foot-and-mouth disease vaccine. these variables varied largely between studies and given Vaccine 20, 3197–3208. the small number of studies included in some analyses, it Barnett, P.V., Keel, P., Reid, S., Armstrong, R.M., Statham, R.J., Voyce, C., Aggarwal, N., Cox, S.J., 2004. Evidence that high potency foot-and- was not possible to examine the effect of these variables mouth disease vaccine inhibits local virus replication and prevents on the heterogeneity in the meta-regression. Nevertheless, the ‘carrier’ state in sheep. Vaccine 22, 1221–1232. the use of random effect model to calculate the pooled Begg, C.B., Mazumdar, M., 1994. Operating characteristics of a rank corre- lation test for publication bias. Biometrics 50, 1088–1101. RR took into account the existing heterogeneity to provide Bornstein, M., Hedges, L.V., Higgins, J.P.T., Rothstein, H.R., 2009. Introduc- the pooled RR by assuming a true RR per study instead of tion to Meta-analysis. John Wiley & Sons Ltd., United Kingdom. assuming only one true RR for all studies (Bornstein et al., Brehm, K.E., Kumar, N., Thulke, H.-H., Haas, B., 2008. High potency 2009). vaccines induce protection against heterologous challenge with foot- and-mouth disease virus. Vaccine 26, 1681–1687. Buonavoglia, C., di Trani, L., Gramenzi, F., Zoletto, R., Lelli, R., Scacchia, M., 1988. Duration of immunity in swine inoculated with a monova- 5. Conclusions lent foot-and-mouth disease oil emulsion vaccine. J. Vet. Med. B 35, 397–401. Comprehensive meta-analysis 2.0, 2009. Meta-analysis Manual. Biostat Emergency vaccination against FMD provided protec- Institute Inc., Englewood, NJ, USA. tion against clinical disease and against FMD infection Council Directive 2003/85/EC on community measures for the control of in cattle, swine and sheep. For clinical protection, the foot-and-mouth disease repealing, 2003. Directive 85/511/EEC and amending directive 92/46/EEC. Official J. Eur. Union L306, 46, 22 pooled RRs with the 95% confidence intervals were 0.13 November 2003. (0.09–0.18), 0.48 (0.36–0.65) and 0.31 (0.18–0.53), respec- Cox, S.J., Barnett, P.V., Dani, P., Salt, J.S., 1999. Emergency vaccination of tively. For virological protection, the pooled RRs with sheep against foot-and-mouth disease: protection against disease and reduction in contact transmission. Vaccine 17, 1858–1868. the 95% confidence intervals were 0.71 (0.59–0.85), 0.67 Cox, S.J., Voyce, C., Parida, S., Reid, S.M., Hamblin, P.A., Paton, D.J., Barnett, (0.51–0.87) and 0.59 (0.44–0.80), respectively. Fortunately, P.V., 2005. Protection against direct contact challenge following emer- no significant publication bias was identified in the differ- gency FMD vaccination of cattle and the effect on virus excretion from the oropharynx. Vaccine 23, 1106–1113. ent meta-analyses. Cox, S.J., Voyce, C., Parida, S., Reid, S.M., Hamblin, P.A., Hutchings, G., Paton, The current systematic review provided valid outcomes D.J., Barnett, P.V., 2006. Effect of emergency FMD vaccine antigen pay- that can be used in simulation models to examine the eco- load on protection, sub-clinical infection and persistence following direct contact challenge of cattle. Vaccine 24, 3184–3190. nomic consequences of applying emergency vaccination Cox, S.J., Parida, S., Voyce, C., Reid, S.M., Hamblin, P.A., Hutchings, G., Paton, during an FMD outbreak situation. D.J., Barnett, P.V., 2007. Further evaluation of higher potency vaccines
  • 9. T. Halasa et al. / Preventive Veterinary Medicine 98 (2011) 1–9 9 for early protection of cattle against FMDV direct contact challenge. Mahul, O., Durand, B., 2000. Simulated economic consequences of foot- Vaccine 25, 40–50. and-mouth disease epidemics and their public control in France. Prev. Cox, S.J., Barnett, P.V., 2009. Experimental evaluation of foot-and-mouth Vet. Med. 47, 23–38. disease vaccines for emergency use in ruminants and pigs: a review. Mattion, N., K’onig, G., Seki, C., Smitsaart, E., Maradei, E., Robiolo, B., Duffy, Vet. Res. 40, 13–43. S., Leon, E., Piccone, M., Sadir, A., Bottini, R., Cosentino, B., Falczuk, A., Doel, T.R., Williams, L., Barnett, P.V., 1994. Emergency vaccination against Maresca, R., Periolo, O., Bellinzoni, R., Espinoza, A., La Torre, J., Palma, foot-and-mouth disease: rate of development of immunity and its E.L., 2004. Reintroduction of foot-and-mouth disease in Argentina: implication for the carrier state. Vaccine 12, 592–600. characterisation of the isolates and development of tools for the con- Donaldson, A.I., Kitching, R.P., 1989. Transmission of foot-and-mouth dis- trol and eradication of the disease. Vaccine 22, 4149–4162. ease by vaccinated cattle following natural challenge. Res. Vet. Sci. 46, Moonen, P., Jacobs, L., Crienen, A., Dekker, A., 2004. Detection of carriers of 9–14. foot and mouth disease virus among vaccinated cattle. Vet. Microbiol. Dohoo, I.R., Martin, S.W., Stryhn, H., 2003. Veterinary Epidemiologi- 103, 151–160. cal Research. Atlantic Veterinary College Inc., Prince Edward Island, Orsel, K., Dekker, A., Bouma, A., Stegeman, J.A., de Jong, M.C.M., 2005. Vac- Canada. cination against foot-and-mouth disease reduces virus transmission Duval, S., Tweedie, R., 2000. A non-parametric “trim and fill” method of in groups of calves. Vaccine 23, 4887–4894. accounting for publication bias in meta-analysis. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 95, Orsel, K., de Jong, M.C.M., Bouma, A., Stegeman, J.A., Dekker, A., 2007a. 89–98. Foot-and-mouth disease virus transmission among vaccinated pigs Eblé, P.L., Bouma, A., de Bruin, M.G.M., van Hemert-Kluitenberg, F., Van after exposure to virus shedding pigs. Vaccine 25, 6381–6391. Oirschot, J.T., Dekker, A., 2004. Vaccination of pigs two weeks before Orsel, K., Dekker, A., Bouma, A., Stegeman, J.A., de Jong, M.C.M., 2007b. infection significantly reduces transmission of foot-and-mouth dis- Quantification of foot-and-mouth disease virus excretion and trans- ease virus. Vaccine 22, 1372–1374. mission within groups of lambs with and without vaccination. Vaccine Eblé, P.L., Bouma, A., Weerdmeester, J.A., Stegeman, J.A., Dekker, A., 2007. 25, 2673–2679. Serological and mucosal immune responses after vaccination and Orsel, K., de Jong, M.C.M., Bouma, A., Stegeman, J.A., Dekker, A., 2007c. The infection with FMDV in pigs. Vaccine 25, 1043–1054. effect of vaccination on foot-and-mouth disease virus transmission Eblé, P.L., Koeijer, A.A., de Jong, M.C.M., Engel, B., Dekker, A., 2008. A among dairy cows. Vaccine 25, 327–335. meta-analysis quantifying transmission parameters of FMD strain O Orwin, R., 1983. A fail-safe N for effect size in meta-analysis. J. Educ. Stat. Taiwan among non-vaccinated and vaccinated pigs. Prev. Vet. Med. 8, 157–159. 83, 98–106. Paixão, T.A., Carvalho Neta, A.V., Paiva, N.O., Reis, J.R., Barbosa, M.S., Serra, Eblé, P.L., Weerdmeester, K., van Hemert-Kluitenberg, F., Dekker, A., 2009. C.V., Silva, R.R., Beckham, T.R., Martin, B.M., Clarke, N.P., Adams, L.G., Intradermal vaccination of pigs against FMD with 1/10 dose results in Santos, R.L., 2008. Diagnosis of foot-and-mouth disease by real time comparable vaccine efficacy as intramuscular vaccination with a full reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction under field condi- dose. Vaccine 27, 1272–1278. tions in Brazil. BMC Vet. Res. 4, 53–59. Egger, M., Davey Smith, G., Schneider, M., Minder, C., 1997. Bias in meta- Parida, S., Fleming, L., Oh, Y., Mahapatra, M., Hamblin, P., Gloster, J., Doel, analysis detected by a simple graphical test. BMJ 315, 629–634. C., Gubbins, S., Paton, D.J., 2007. Reduction of foot-and-mouth disease Gibson, C.F., Donaldson, A.I., Ferris, N.P., 1984. Responses of sheep (FMD) virus load in nasal excretions, saliva and exhaled air of vacci- vaccinated with large doses of vaccine to challenge by airborne foot- nated pigs following direct contact challenge. Vaccine 25, 7806–7817. and-mouth disease virus. Vaccine 2, 157–161. Parida, S., Fleming, L., Oh, Y., Mahapatra, M., Hamblin, P., Gloster, J., Paton, Goris, N., Merkelbach-Peters, P., Diev, V.I., Verloo, D., Zakharov, V.M., Kraft, D.J., 2008. Emergency vaccination of sheep against foot-and-mouth H.-P., De Clercq, K., 2007. European Pharmacopoeia foot-and-mouth disease: significance and detection of subsequent sub-clinical infec- disease vaccine potency testing in cattle: between test variability and tion. Vaccine 26, 3469–3479. its consequences. Vaccine 25, 3373–3379. Parida, S., 2009. Vaccination against foot-and-mouth disease virus: strate- Goris, N., Maradeib, E., D’Aloiab, R., Fondevila, N., Mattiond, N., Perezb, gies and effectiveness. Exp. Rev. Vaccines 8, 347–365. A., Smitsaarte, E., Nauwynck, H.J., La Torred, J., Palmag, E., De Clercq, Pendell, D.L., Leatherman, J., Schroeder, T.C., Alward, G.S., 2007. The eco- K., 2008. Foot-and-mouth disease vaccine potency testing in cattle nomic impacts of a foot-and-mouth disease outbreak: a regional using homologous and heterologous challenge strains: Precision of analysis. J. Agric. Appl. Eco. 39, 19–33. the “Protection against Podal Generalisation” test. Vaccine 26, 3432– Peters, J.L., Sutton, A.J., Jones, E.R., Abrams, K.R., Rushton, L., 2006. Com- 3437. parison of two methods to detect publication bias in meta-analysis. Graves, J.H., McKercher, P.D., Farris Jr., H.E., Cowan, K.M., 1968. Early JAMA 295, 676–680. responses of cattle and swine to inactivated foot-and-mouth disease Salt, J.S., Williams, L., Statham, R., Barnett, P.V., 1995. Further studies on vaccine. Res. Vet. Sci. 9, 35–40. the rate of development of protection in cattle given emergency vac- Gregoire, G., Derderian, F., LeLorier, J., 1995. Selecting the language of the cination against FMD. Rep. Session Res. Group Standing Techn. Comm. publications included in a meta-analysis: is there a tower of Babel Eur. Comm. Contr. 17, 90–97, FMD, Modelling, Denmark, FAO, Rome, bias? J. Clin. Epidemiol. 48, 159–163. Appendix. Halasa, T., Østerås, O., van Werven, T., Hogeveen, H., Nielen, M., 2009. Salt, J.S., Barnett, P.V., Dani, P., Williams, L., 1998. Emergency vaccination of Meta-analysis on dry cow management for dairy cattle. Part 1. pigs against foot-and-mouth disease: protection against disease and Protection against new intramammary infections. J. Dairy Sci. 92, reduction in contact transmission. Vaccine 16, 746–754. 3134–3149. Sellers, R.F., Herniman, K.A.J., 1974. Early protection of pigs against foot- Lean, I.J., Rabiee, A.R., Duffield, T.F., Dohoo, I.R., 2009. Use of meta-analysis and-mouth disease. Br. Vet. J. 130, 440–445. in animal health and reproduction: methods and applications. J. Dairy Thornton, A., Lee, P., 2000. Publication bias in meta-analysis: its causes Sci. 92, 3545–3565. and consequences. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 53, 207–216.