The effect of foot-and-mouth disease vaccination on early pregnancy loss in beef heifers in Argentina.
Argentina
Early pregnancy loss
Foot and mouth disease
Pregnancy rate
Vaccination
Journal
Preventive veterinary medicine
ISSN: 1873-1716
Titre abrégé: Prev Vet Med
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 8217463
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Oct 2019
01 Oct 2019
Historique:
received:
13
02
2019
revised:
26
06
2019
accepted:
26
06
2019
pubmed:
20
8
2019
medline:
18
12
2019
entrez:
18
8
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The threat of Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) in South America has global economic implications and retaining a FMD Free status under the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) remains a top priority. In Argentina the Servicio Nacional de Sanidad y Calidad Agroalimentaria (SENASA), the national service of agri-food health and quality, requires cattle located in the Pampean region of the Salado River basin to receive two foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) vaccinations per year, which results in one vaccination coinciding with beef cattle breeding season. While the vaccination program remains necessary, there is a growing concern amongst food animal veterinarians, that the overlap of FMD vaccination with the first 35 days of the breeding season is associated with early pregnancy loss (EPL). To address this concern, a preliminary randomized controlled trial t study was conducted to investigate the risk ratio (RR) of EPL in vaccinated, pregnant Aberdeen Angus heifers. Initially (Day 0), 858 heifers underwent fixed time-AI (FTAI). Subsequently, on day 33, following pregnancy diagnosis by transrectal ultrasonography pregnant heifers (n = 311) were randomly allocated to two treatment groups. Group 1 (162 animals) received an inactivated oil emulsion FMD vaccine, and Group 2 (149 animals) received a saline injection (control). On day 51 (18 days post vaccination), pregnancy status was re-evaluated by ultrasonography. The initial pregnancy rate (PR) on Day 33 was 58% (498/858 animals). On Day 51 (18 days post vaccination), PR in Group 1 was 96.3% (156/162 animals), and in Group 2 (control) was 98.6% (147/149 animals). The EPL in Group 1 was 3.7% (6/162 animals) and in Group 2 was 1.3% (2/149 animals). The RR of EPL in Group 1, compared to Group 2, was 2.8 (95% confidence interval: 0.6-13, p-value: 0.20). With such a wide range in confidence intervals and a p value of 0.20 a larger prospective study would be necessary to establish an unequivocally statistically significant link between heifer vaccination 33 days post FTAI and an increased risk of EPL.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31421488
pii: S0167-5877(19)30102-3
doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2019.104716
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
104716Informations de copyright
Published by Elsevier B.V.