Efficacy of an inactivated FeLV vaccine compared to a recombinant FeLV vaccine in minimum age cats following virulent FeLV challenge

Stuke, Kristin; King, Vickie L.; Southwick, Kendra; Stoeva, Mira I.; Thomas, Anne; Winkler, M.

doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2014.03.016

Cited by 12 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The prevented fraction calculated for the PureVax recombinant FeLV vaccine was 45%. This prevented fraction was higher than that seen in a previous report with a recombinant canarypox virus-vectored vaccine, which was 20% ( 19 ). Ten of 11 (91%) control cats were positive for the FeLV p27 antigen, demonstrating a strong viral challenge.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 71%

“…Previous work has demonstrated the efficacy of whole-virus adjuvanted killed vaccines after challenge, including testing vaccinated and unvaccinated cats for viral RNA, proviral DNA, FeLV antibodies, and the p27 antigen ( 16 – 18 ). There are limited data evaluating the efficacy of the nonadjuvanted recombinant FeLV vaccine available for use ( 19 ). Therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of two commercially available feline leukemia vaccines, Nobivac feline 2-FeLV (an inactivated whole-virus vaccine) and PureVax recombinant FeLV (a live canarypox virus-vectored vaccine) following challenge with virulent feline leukemia virus.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparative Efficacy of Feline Leukemia Virus (FeLV) Inactivated Whole-Virus Vaccine and Canarypox Virus-Vectored Vaccine during Virulent FeLV Challenge and Immunosuppression

Patel¹,

Carritt²,

Lane³

et al. 2015

Clin. Vaccine Immunol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Four vaccines for feline leukemia virus (FeLV) are available in the United States. This study's purpose was to compare the efficacy of Nobivac feline 2-FeLV (an inactivated, adjuvanted whole-virus vaccine) and PureVax recombinant FeLV (a live, canarypox virus-vectored vaccine) following FeLV challenge. Cats were vaccinated at 9 and 12 weeks with Nobivac feline 2-FeLV (group A, n = 11) or PureVax recombinant FeLV (group B, n = 10). Group C (n = 11) comprised unvaccinated controls. At 3 months postvaccination, cats were immunosuppressed and challenged with FeLV-A/61E. The outcomes measured were persistent antigenemia at 12 weeks postchallenge (PC) and proviral DNA and viral RNA at 3 to 9 weeks PC. Persistent antigenemia was observed in 0 of 11 cats in group A, 5 of 10 cats in group B, and 10 of 11 cats in group C. Group A was significantly protected compared to those in groups B (P < 0.013) and C (P < 0.0001). No difference was found between groups B and C (P > 0.063). The preventable fraction was 100% for group A and 45% for group B. At 9 weeks PC, proviral DNA and viral RNA were detected 1 of 11 cats in group A, 6 of 10 cats in group B, and 9 of 11 cats in group C. Nucleic acid loads were significantly lower in group A than in group C (P < 0.01). Group A had significantly lower proviral DNA loads than group B at weeks 6 to 9 (P < 0.02). The viral RNA loads were significantly lower in group A than in group B at weeks 7 to 9 (P < 0.01). The results demonstrate that Nobivac feline 2-FeLV-vaccinated cats were fully protected against persistent antigenemia and had significantly smaller amounts of proviral DNA and plasma viral RNA loads than PureVax recombinant FeLV-vaccinated cats and unvaccinated controls.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 71%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative Efficacy of Feline Leukemia Virus (FeLV) Inactivated Whole-Virus Vaccine and Canarypox Virus-Vectored Vaccine during Virulent FeLV Challenge and Immunosuppression

Patel¹,

Carritt²,

Lane³

et al. 2015

Clin. Vaccine Immunol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Presumptively regressively-infected cats were more likely to test NAb-positive than presumptively progressively-infected cats, highlighting the role an individual cat’s humoral immune response plays in determining the outcome of FeLV exposure. Despite vaccination against FeLV, and irrespective of which type of FeLV vaccine is administered, regressive infections still occur in some vaccinated cats following natural or experimental challenge with FeLV [17,27,46,47,48,49]. In the current study, it was impossible to determine whether the three presumptively regressively-infected cats that had been vaccinated against FeLV had been infected prior to initial vaccination, since no pre-vaccination FeLV testing had been performed.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 86%

The Diagnosis of Feline Leukaemia Virus (FeLV) Infection in Owned and Group-Housed Rescue Cats in Australia

Westman

Norris

Malík

et al. 2019

Viruses

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A field study was undertaken to (i) measure the prevalence of feline leukaemia virus (FeLV) exposure and FeLV infection in a cross-section of healthy Australian pet cats; and (ii) investigate the outcomes following natural FeLV exposure in two Australian rescue facilities. Group 1 (n = 440) consisted of healthy client-owned cats with outdoor access, predominantly from eastern Australia. Groups 2 (n = 38) and 3 (n = 51) consisted of a mixture of healthy and sick cats, group-housed in two separate rescue facilities in Sydney, Australia, tested following identification of index cases of FeLV infection in cats sourced from these facilities. Diagnostic testing for FeLV exposure/infection included p27 antigen testing using three different point-of-care FeLV kits and a laboratory-based ELISA, real-time polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) testing to detect FeLV proviral DNA in leukocytes, real-time reverse-transcription PCR (qRT-PCR) testing to detect FeLV RNA in plasma, and neutralising antibody (NAb) testing. Cats were classified as FeLV-uninfected (FeLV-unexposed and presumptively FeLV-abortive infections) or FeLV-infected (presumptively regressive and presumptively progressive infections). In Group 1, 370 FeLV-unexposed cats (370/440, 84%), 47 abortive infections (47/440, 11%), nine regressive infections (9/440, 2%), and two progressive infections (2/440, 0.5%) were identified, and 12 FeLV-uninfected cats (12/440, 3%) were unclassifiable as FeLV-unexposed or abortive infections due to insufficient samples available for NAb testing. In Groups 2 and 3, 31 FeLV-unexposed cats (31/89, 35%), eight abortive infections (8/89, 9%), 22 regressive infections (22/89; 25%), and 19 progressive infections (19/89; 21%) were discovered, and nine FeLV-uninfected cats (9/89; 10%) were unclassifiable due to insufficient samples available for NAb testing. One of the presumptively progressively-infected cats in Group 3 was likely a focal FeLV infection. Two other presumptively progressively-infected cats in Group 3 may have been classified as regressive infections with repeated testing, highlighting the difficulties associated with FeLV diagnosis when sampling cats at a single time point, even with results from a panel of FeLV tests. These results serve as a reminder to Australian veterinarians that the threat of FeLV to the general pet cat population remains high, thus vigilant FeLV testing, separate housing for FeLV-infected cats, and FeLV vaccination of at-risk cats is important, particularly in group-housed cats in shelters and rescue facilities, where outbreaks of FeLV infection can occur.

show abstract

“…Most of the published efficacy trials have been small studies conducted in research cats and have been performed or supported by the vaccine manufacturers. 86–93 Other factors that hamper interpretation of vaccine efficacy studies include lack of standard challenge and testing protocols, as well as the difficulty of infecting control groups of adult cats without inducing immune suppression.…”

Section: Prevention Of Retrovirus Infectionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

2020 AAFP Feline Retrovirus Testing and Management Guidelines

Little

Levy

Hartmann³

et al. 2020

Journal of Feline Medicine and Surgery

140

207

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Clinical importance: Feline leukemia virus (FeLV) and feline immunodeficiency virus (FIV) infections are found in cats worldwide. Both infections are associated with a variety of clinical signs and can impact quality of life and longevity. Scope: This document is an update of the 2008 American Association of Feline Practitioners' feline retrovirus management guidelines and represents current knowledge on pathogenesis, diagnosis, prevention and treatment of retrovirus infections in cats. Testing and interpretation: Although vaccines are available for FeLV in many countries and for FIV in some countries, identification of infected cats remains an important factor for preventing new infections. The retrovirus status of every cat at risk of infection should be known. Cats should be tested as soon as possible after they are acquired, following exposure to an infected cat or a cat of unknown infection status, prior to vaccination against FeLV or FIV, and whenever clinical illness occurs. It might not be possible to determine a cat's infection status based on testing at a single point in time; repeat testing using different methods could be required. Although FeLV and FIV infections can be associated with clinical disease, some infected cats, especially those infected with FIV, can live for many years with good quality of life. Management of infected cats:There is a paucity of data evaluating treatments for infected cats, especially antiretroviral and immunomodulatory drugs. Management of infected cats is focused on effective preventive healthcare strategies, and prompt identification and treatment of illness, as well as limiting the spread of infection.

show abstract

Efficacy of an inactivated FeLV vaccine compared to a recombinant FeLV vaccine in minimum age cats following virulent FeLV challenge

Cited by 12 publications

References 22 publications

Comparative Efficacy of Feline Leukemia Virus (FeLV) Inactivated Whole-Virus Vaccine and Canarypox Virus-Vectored Vaccine during Virulent FeLV Challenge and Immunosuppression

Comparative Efficacy of Feline Leukemia Virus (FeLV) Inactivated Whole-Virus Vaccine and Canarypox Virus-Vectored Vaccine during Virulent FeLV Challenge and Immunosuppression

The Diagnosis of Feline Leukaemia Virus (FeLV) Infection in Owned and Group-Housed Rescue Cats in Australia

2020 AAFP Feline Retrovirus Testing and Management Guidelines

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About