Field study of pneumonia in vaccinated cattle associated with incorrect vaccination and Pasteurella multocida infection

WM Crawshaw, GL Caldow

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

This field study used data on the vaccine courses against bovine respiratory disease sold by one pharmaceutical company in conjunction with pharmacovigilance data to explore reported suspected lack of expected efficacy and the reasons for this. The study ran from May 1, 2007, to April 30, 2010, and covered vaccines sold in Scotland and part of Northumberland. In total, 83 groups of cattle reported suspected lack of expected efficacy, representing 1.6 per cent of the 804,618 vaccine courses sold. It was possible to investigate 45 of these outbreaks in depth using a standard questionnaire and diagnostic protocol. Vaccine usage outwith the specific product characteristics (SPC) occurred in 47 per cent of cases (21/45). The proportion of vaccination courses used where a pathogen contained in the vaccine was detected in the diseased cattle and vaccine use was consistent with the SPC was estimated at 0.12 per cent of the courses sold. Pasteurella multocida was the most common pathogen detected and was found in 21 of the outbreaks. For outbreaks where a pathogen contained in the vaccine was detected, P. multocida was found at a significantly greater frequency (P=0.03) where vaccine use was compliant with the SPC (five of six outbreaks) compared with outbreaks where vaccine use had not been compliant with the SPC (one of seven outbreaks). The limitations of the study, including the diagnostic tests employed and definition of vaccination outwith the SPC, are discussed.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)434 - 441
Number of pages8
JournalVeterinary Record
Volume176
Issue number17
DOIs
Publication statusFirst published - 27 Feb 2015

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Field study of pneumonia in vaccinated cattle associated with incorrect vaccination and Pasteurella multocida infection'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this