Evaluation of the effect of applying a specific diluent on efficacy and effectiveness of Fowl Pox vaccine

Document Type : Full Research Paper

Authors

1 Razi Vaccine and Serum Research Institute, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Karaj, Iran

2 Razi Vaccine and Serum Research Institute, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization, Karaj, Iran

Abstract

Providing a standard diluent for preparing the lyophilized Fowl Pox vaccine not only facilitates the preparation of the vaccine for inoculation and improves the accuracy of vaccination but can also affect the effectiveness of the vaccine. The aim of the present study was to investigate the role of a standard diluent in the preparation of the Fowl Pox vaccine and its effect on virus stability in the ready-to-use vaccine, vaccine efficacy, and effectiveness in field conditions. In this study, a colored diluent specifically prepared for the Razi poultry Fowl pox vaccine was evaluated and compared with conventional diluents recommended by vaccine producers. In the first experiment, the vaccine titer stability was investigated at 0, 12, and 24 hours after vaccine preparation by different diluents including specific diluent, distilled water containing 20% (V/V) of glycerin and PBS (Phosphate-buffered saline), as the positive control. In the second experiment, the efficacy of the vaccine prepared with a specific diluent, distilled water containing 20% (V/V) of glycerin, an imported diluent (containing water for injection), was evaluated following a challenge with the virulent Fowl Pox virus. In the third experiment, the effectiveness of the vaccine prepared with specific diluent or distilled water containing 20% (V/V) of glycerin was studied. The results of the first experiment showed that the use of a specific diluent or distilled water containing 20% glycerin could help to maintain vaccine titer during the post-preparation period compared to PBS (P <0.05). The results of the second experiment revealed that under the controlled laboratory conditions, there was no difference between the experimental diluents in terms of vaccinal take and vaccine efficacy in preventing post-challenge acute disease (P>0.05); however, all the vaccinated groups had higher vaccinal take and protection compared to the positive (inoculation of specific diluents without vaccine) and negative (inoculation of no vaccine and diluent) control groups (P<0.05). In the field trial experiment, the vaccinal take associated with the specific diluent group was 11% higher than the positive control group (P<0.05). In general, the findings of this study showed that the application of a specific diluent for preparing the Fowl Pox vaccine, not only maintains its maximum efficacy but also it has advantages over conventional diluents in terms of applying easiness and improving the vaccine effectiveness. 

Keywords

References

1- Ahern, T. J. and M. C. Manning. 1992. Stability of protein pharmaceuticals (Part A. Chemical and physical pathways of protein degradation). New York, NY: Plenum Press p 1-29.
2- Alehegn, E., M. Chanie and D. Mengesha. 2014. A systematic review of serological and clinicopathological features and associated risk factors of avian pox. British Journal of Poultry Sciences 3: 78-87.
3- Alemian, A., B. Khalesi and M. M. Ebrahimi, Sh. 2021. Efficacy evaluation of Razi Institute Fowl pox vaccine in laying hen pullet (In Farsi). Veterinary Research and Biological Products 34: 6-14.
4- Black, F. L. 1959. Growth and stability of measles virus. Virology 7: 184-192.
5- Brandau, D. T., Jones, L. S., Wiethoff, C. M., Rexroad, J and C. R. Middaugh. 2003. Thermal stability of vaccines. Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences 92: 218-231.
6-  Burke, C. J., Hsu, T and D. B. Volkin. 1999. Formulation, stability, and delivery of live attenuated vaccines for human use. Critical Reviews in Therapeutic Drug Carrier Systems 16: 1-83.
7- Colwell, W. M., Simmons, D. J., Harris, J. R., Fulp, T. G., Carrozza J. H and Maag T. A. 1975. Influence of some physical factors on survival of Marek's disease vaccine virus. Avian diseases 19: 781-790.
8- Committee for Veterinary Medicinal Products (CVMP). 2010. Guideline on requirements for the production and control of immunological veterinary medicinal products. European Medicines Agency. London, 1-13. Avalable online at: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en
9- Fairchild, B. and C. Ritz. 2012. Poultry drinking water primer. UGA Cooperative Extension Bulletin 1301.
10- Khalil, A. A. and A. I. Khalafalla. 2011. Analysis and effect of water sources used as diluents on Newcastle disease vaccine efficacy in chickens in the Sudan. Tropical Animal Health and Production 43: 295-297.
11- Lancz, G. and J. Sample. 1985. Thermal-pH inactivation of herpes simplex virus: Interdependence of the medium composition and the pH on the rate of virus inactivation. Archives of Virology 84: 141-146.
12- Li, S., Schöneich C and R. T. Borchardt. 1995. Chemical instability of protein pharmaceuticals: mechanisms of oxidation and strategies for stabilization. Biotechnology and Bioengineering 48: 490-500.
13- Middaugh, C. and D. Volkin. 1992. Protein solubility. Stability of protein pharmaceuticals, Part A: chemical and physical pathways of protein degradation, pharmaceutical biotechnology 2: 109-134.
14- Newman, J., S. Tirrell, C. Ullman, P. Piatti and F. Brown. 1995. Stabilising oral poliovaccine at high ambient temperatures. Vaccine 13: 1431-1435.
15- OIE (World Organisation for Animal Health) Terrestrial Manual. 2018. Chapter 3.3. 10, Fowlpox. p 906-914.
16- Rice, E. W., N. J. Adcock, M. Sivaganesan, J. D. Brown, D. E. Stallknecht and D. E. Swayne. 2007. Chlorine inactivation of highly pathogenic avian influenza virus (H5N1). Emerging Infectious Diseases 13: 1568-1570.
17- Salo, R. and D. Cliver. 1976. Effect of acid pH, salts, and temperature on the infectivity and physical integrity of enteroviruses. Archives of Virology 52: 269-282.
18- Sawale, G., Roshini, S., Bulbule, N., Chawak, M and G. Kinge. 2012. Pathology of fowl pox in chickens. Indian Journal of Veterinary Pathology 36: 110-111. 
19- Tadesse, H., Belete, S and B. Deressa. 2018. Evaluation of the safety and efficacy of combined Newcastle disease, fowl pox and fowl typhoid vaccine under laboratory condition. Veterinary Medicine and Animal Health: 60.
20- Tripathy, D. N., and W. M. Reed. 2020. “Pox.” In Diseases of Poultry. 13th ed., edited by D. E. Swayne, 364–381. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
21- Vadas, E. B. 2000. Stability of pharmaceutical products, Remington: The science and practice of pharmacy 20th ed. Philadelphia: Mack Publishing Company, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins: 986-994.
22- Van Der Sluis, W. 2002. Water quality is important but often overestimated. World Poultry 18: 26-32.
23- Villegas, P. and S. Kleven. 1976. Aerosol vaccination against Newcastle Disease. II. Effect of vaccine diluents. Avian diseases 20: 260-267.
24- World Health Organization (WHO). 2015. Department of Immunization, Vaccines and Biologicals. WHO guidance note: vaccine diluents, revision 2015, the proper handling and use of vaccine diluents. Geneva: World Health Organization. p. 2015.
25- Winterfield, R. and S. Hitchner. 1965. The response of chickens to vaccination with different concentrations of pigeon pox and fowl pox viruses. Avian Diseases 9: 237-241.

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 14 June 2022
  • Revise Date: 11 July 2022
  • Accept Date: 12 July 2022

Share

How to cite

Statistics