Peer-reviewed veterinary case report
Leish-tec vaccine tested for preventing canine leishmaniasis
By Grimaldi, Gabriel et al.·Published in PloS one·2017·Instituto Gonç, Brazil·View original on PubMed →
PetCaseFinder translated the abstract of this peer-reviewed paper into plain English so pet owners can read it. We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above. How we work →
Original publication title: Field trial of efficacy of the Leish-tec® vaccine against canine leishmaniasis caused by Leishmania infantum in an endemic area with high transmission rates.
- Species:
- dog
Plain-English summary
A study in Brazil looked at the Leish-tec vaccine to see if it could help protect dogs from leishmaniasis, a disease spread by sand flies. Dogs received three doses of the vaccine, and after two years, vaccinated dogs had a lower infection rate (27%) compared to unvaccinated dogs (42%). However, the vaccine did not fully prevent the disease, as 43% of vaccinated dogs still became ill. While the vaccine showed some promise, it needs further improvement to be more effective in real-world situations.
People also search for: dog leishmaniasis vaccine · Leish-tec vaccine efficacy · why is my dog sick after vaccination · canine leishmaniasis treatment · dog vaccination side effects
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Because domestic dogs are reservoir hosts for visceral leishmaniasis (VL) in Brazil, one of the approaches used to reduce human disease incidence is to cull infected dogs. However, the results of controlled intervention trials based on serological screening of dogs and killing of seropositive animals are equivocal. A prophylactic vaccine to protect dogs from being infectious to the sand fly vector could be an effective strategy to provide sustained control. Here, we investigated whether a currently licensed commercial subunit rA2 protein-saponin vaccine (Leish-tec®) had an additional effect to dog culling on reducing the canine infectious populations. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: This prospective study was conducted in an L. infantum highly endemic area of southeast Brazil. At the onset of the intervention, all of the eligible dogs received through subcutaneous route a three-dose vaccine course at 21-day intervals and a booster on month 12. For the purpose of comparison, newly recruited healthy dogs were included as the exposed control group. To ascertain vaccine-induced protection, dogs were screened on clinical and serological criteria every 6 months for a 2-year follow-up period. Antibody-based tests and histopathological examination of post-mortem tissue specimens from euthanized animals were used as a marker of infection. The standardized vaccine regime, apart from being safe, was immunogenic as immunized animals responded with a pronounced production of anti-A2-specific IgG antibodies. It should be noted the mean seroconversion time for infection obtained among immunized exposed dogs (~ 18 months), which was twice as high as that for unvaccinated ones (~ 9 months). After two transmission cycles completed, the cumulative incidence of infection did differ significantly (P = 0.016) between the vaccinated (27%) and unvaccinated (42%) dogs. However, the expected efficacy for the vaccine in inducing clinical protection was not evident since 43% of vaccine recipients developed disease over time. Our estimates also indicated that immunoprophylaxis by Leish-tec® vaccine in addition to dog culling might not have an impact on bringing down the incidence of canine infection with L. infantum in areas of high transmission rates. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Leish-tec® as a prophylactic vaccine showed promise but needs to be further optimized to be effective in dogs under field conditions, and thereby positively impacts human incidence.
Find similar cases for your pet
PetCaseFinder finds other peer-reviewed reports of pets with the same symptoms, plus a plain-English summary of what was tried across them.
Search related cases →Original publication on PubMed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28953944/