Vis enkel innførsel

dc.contributor.authorde Oliveira, Marina Martins
dc.contributor.authorPereira, Carine Rodrigues
dc.contributor.authorde Oliveira, Izabela R.C.
dc.contributor.authorGodfroid, Jacques Xavier Leon
dc.contributor.authorLage, Andrey Pereira
dc.contributor.authorDorneles, Elaine Maria Seles
dc.date.accessioned2022-03-25T10:22:42Z
dc.date.available2022-03-25T10:22:42Z
dc.date.issued2021-07-30
dc.description.abstractThis systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to recalculate the efficacy of <i>Brucella abortus</i> S19 and RB51 vaccine strains and discuss the main variables associated with controlled trials to evaluate bovine brucellosis vaccine efficacy (VE). The most commonly used vaccine strain was S19, at a dose of 10<sup>10</sup> colony forming units (CFU), followed by RB51 at 10<sup>10</sup> CFU. The most commonly used challenge strain was <i>B. abortus</i> 2308, at a dose of 10<sup>7</sup> CFU, by the intraconjunctival route. Regarding the meta-analysis, trials were grouped according to the vaccine strain and dose to recalculate protection against abortion (four groups) or infection (five groups) using pooled risk ratio (RR) and VE. Regarding protection against abortion (n = 15 trials), the S19 vaccine at 10<sup>9</sup> CFU exhibited the highest protection rate (RR = 0.25, 95% confidence interval (CI) : 0.12–0.52; VE = 75.09%, 95% CI: 48.08–88.05), followed by RB51 at 10<sup>10</sup> CFU (RR = 0.31, 95% CI: 0.16–0.61; VE = 69.25%, 95% CI: 39.48–84.38). Regarding protection against infection (n = 23 trials), only two subgroups exhibited significant protection: S19 at 10<sup>9</sup> CFU (RR = 0.28, 95% CI: 0.14–0.55; VE = 72.03%, 95% CI: 57.70– 81.50) and RB51 at 10<sup>10</sup> CFU (RR = 0.43, 95% CI: 0.22–0.84; VE = 57.05%, 95% CI: 30.90–73.30). In conclusion, our results suggest that a dose of 10<sup>9</sup> CFU for S19 and 10<sup>10</sup> CFU for RB51 are the most suitable for the prevention of abortion and infection caused by <i>B. abortus</i>.en_US
dc.descriptionThis is the pre-peer reviewed version of the following article: de Oliveira, M.M., Pereira, C.R., de Oliveira, I.R.C., Godfroid, J., Lage, A.P. & Dorneles, E.M.S. (2021). Efficacy of <i>Brucella abortus</i> S19 and RB51 vaccine strains: A systematic review and meta-analysis. <i>Transboundary and Emerging Diseases</i>, which has been published in final form at <a href=https://doi.org/10.1111/tbed.14259>https://doi.org/10.1111/tbed.14259</a>. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with <a href=https://authorservices.wiley.com/author-resources/Journal-Authors/licensing/self-archiving.html>Wiley Terms and Conditions for Use of Self-Archived Versions</a>.en_US
dc.identifier.citationde Oliveira, M.M., Pereira, C.R., de Oliveira, I.R.C., Godfroid, J., Lage, A.P. & Dorneles, E.M.S. (2021). Efficacy of <i>Brucella abortus</i> S19 and RB51 vaccine strains: A systematic review and meta-analysis. <i>Transboundary and Emerging Diseases</i>.en_US
dc.identifier.cristinIDFRIDAID 1998975
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/tbed.14259
dc.identifier.issn1865-1674
dc.identifier.issn1865-1682
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10037/24566
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherWileyen_US
dc.relation.journalTransboundary and Emerging Diseases
dc.rights.accessRightsopenAccessen_US
dc.rights.holderCopyright 2021 The Author(s)en_US
dc.titleEfficacy of Brucella abortus S19 and RB51 vaccine strains: A systematic review and meta-analysisen_US
dc.type.versionsubmittedVersionen_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.typeTidsskriftartikkelen_US
dc.typePeer revieweden_US


Tilhørende fil(er)

Thumbnail

Denne innførselen finnes i følgende samling(er)

Vis enkel innførsel