2015
DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2014.12.010
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Randomised field trial to evaluate serological response after foot-and-mouth disease vaccination in Turkey

Abstract: Despite years of biannual mass vaccination of cattle, foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) remains uncontrolled in Anatolian Turkey. To evaluate protection after mass vaccination we measured post-vaccination antibodies in a cohort of cattle (serotypes O, A and Asia-1). To obtain results reflecting typical field protection, participants were randomly sampled from across Central and Western Turkey after routine vaccination. Giving two-doses one month apart is recommended when cattle are first vaccinated against FMD. How… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

6
40
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 33 publications
(46 citation statements)
references
References 21 publications
6
40
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Similar estimation was made by Knight‐Jones et al. () in Turkey, with a fall of 0.5 (antibody) titre/day. Antibody persistence forecast by the linear regression curve indicated faster decline of antibodies against serotype O when compared to antibodies against serotypes A and Asia1.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 80%
“…Similar estimation was made by Knight‐Jones et al. () in Turkey, with a fall of 0.5 (antibody) titre/day. Antibody persistence forecast by the linear regression curve indicated faster decline of antibodies against serotype O when compared to antibodies against serotypes A and Asia1.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 80%
“…An important over‐simplification of many studies predicting the benefits of control is a failure to incorporate the variable effectiveness of FMD control programmes (Knight‐Jones et al., , ; Knight‐Jones et al., a, Lyons et al., ; Elnekave et al., ; Woolhouse et al., ; Lyons et al., ). Two critical factors are (i) the variable potency and quality of vaccines used in endemic settings (Metwally et al., In press) and (ii) the limited application of biosecurity and sanitary control measures (Young et al., ).…”
Section: Fmd Smallholder Impact: What Do We Know and What Don't We Know?mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Disease control in these settings may be heavily reliant upon vaccination alone. But FMD vaccines used in endemic countries typically provide short‐lived and limited protection (Knight‐Jones et al., ). Furthermore, mass vaccination of all cattle and pigs, and possibly sheep and goats, every 6 months, may be unrealistic in developing countries with poor infrastructure and numerous smallholdings (Knight‐Jones et al., ).…”
Section: Feasibility Of Controlmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This is an important but neglected area. Some field studies have used FMDV structural protein antibody titres as a proxy for protection, which allows easy comparison of different vaccine groups and schedules (Lee et al., ; Knight‐Jones et al., ), but inevitably fails to assess protection itself and other aspects of immunity. In Argentina, population immunity is estimated through field surveys of protective antibody levels as part of routine post‐vaccination monitoring.…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%