RT Journal Article
T1 Vaccination of poultry against highly pathogenic avian influenza – Part 1: Available vaccines and vaccination strategies
A1 Nielsen, Søren Saxmose
A1 Álvarez Sánchez, Julio
A1 Bicout, Dominique Joseph
A1 Calistri, Paolo
A1 Canali, Elisabetta
A1 Drewe, Julian Ashley
A1 Garin Bastuji, Bruno
A1 Gonzales Rojas, José Luis
A1 Gortázar, Christian
A1 Herskin, Mette S.
A1 Michel, Virginie
A1 Miranda Chueca, Miguel Ángel
A1 Paladino, Bárbara
A1 Roberts, Helen Clare
A1 Spoolder, Hans
A1 Stahl, Carl
A1 Velarde, Antonio
A1 Viltrop, Arvo
AB Several vaccines have been developed against highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI), mostly inactivated whole-virus vaccines for chickens. In the EU, one vaccine is authorised in chickens but is not fully efficacious to stop transmission, highlighting the need for vaccines tailored to diverse poultry species and production types. Off-label use of vaccines is possible, but effectiveness varies. Vaccines are usually injectable, a time-consuming process. Mass-application vaccines outside hatcheries remain rare. First vaccination varies from in-ovo to 6 weeks of age. Data about immunity onset and duration in the target species are often unavailable, despite being key for effective planning. Minimising antigenic distance between vaccines and field strains is essential, requiring rapid updates of vaccines to match circulating strains. Generating harmonised vaccine efficacy data showing vaccine ability to reduce transmission is crucial and this ability should be also assessed in field trials. Planning vaccination requires selecting the most adequate vaccine type and vaccination scheme. Emergency protective vaccination is limited to vaccines that are not restricted by species, age or pre-existing vector-immunity, while preventive vaccination should prioritise achieving the highest protection, especially for the most susceptible species in high-risk transmission areas. Model simulations in France, Italy and The Netherlands revealed that (i) duck and turkey farms are more infectious than chickens, (ii) depopulating infected farms only showed limitations in controlling disease spread, while 1-km ring-culling performed better than or similar to emergency preventive ring-vaccination scenarios, although with the highest number of depopulated farms, (iii) preventive vaccination of the most susceptible species in high-risk transmission areas was the best option to minimise the outbreaks' number and duration, (iv) during outbreaks in such areas, emergency protective vaccination in a 3-km radius was more effective than 1- and 10-km radius. Vaccine efficacy should be monitored and complement other surveillance and preventive efforts.
PB Wiley
SN 1831-4732
YR 2023
FD 2023-10-10
LK https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14352/104320
UL https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14352/104320
LA eng
NO EFSA AHAW Panel (EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Animal Welfare), EuropeanUnion Reference Laboratory for Avian Influenza, Nielsen, S. S., Alvarez, J., Bicout, D. J., Calistri, P.,Canali, E., Drewe,J. A., Garin-Bastuji, B., Gonzales Rojas, J. L., Gort´azar, C., Herskin, M., Michel, V.,Miranda Chueca, M. A., Padalino, B., Roberts, H. C., Spoolder, H., Stahl, K., Velarde, A., . . . Viltrop, A.2023. Vaccination of poultry against highly pathogenic avian influenza – part 1. Available vaccines andvaccination strategies. EFSA Journal, 21(10), 1–87. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2023.8271
NO 2023 Acuerdos transformativos CRUE
DS Docta Complutense
RD 9 abr 2025