dc.contributor.author | de Oliveira, Marina Martins | |
dc.contributor.author | Pereira, Carine Rodrigues | |
dc.contributor.author | de Oliveira, Izabela R.C. | |
dc.contributor.author | Godfroid, Jacques Xavier Leon | |
dc.contributor.author | Lage, Andrey Pereira | |
dc.contributor.author | Dorneles, Elaine Maria Seles | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2022-03-25T10:22:42Z | |
dc.date.available | 2022-03-25T10:22:42Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2021-07-30 | |
dc.description.abstract | This 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.description | This 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.citation | 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>. | en_US |
dc.identifier.cristinID | FRIDAID 1998975 | |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1111/tbed.14259 | |
dc.identifier.issn | 1865-1674 | |
dc.identifier.issn | 1865-1682 | |
dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/10037/24566 | |
dc.language.iso | eng | en_US |
dc.publisher | Wiley | en_US |
dc.relation.journal | Transboundary and Emerging Diseases | |
dc.rights.accessRights | openAccess | en_US |
dc.rights.holder | Copyright 2021 The Author(s) | en_US |
dc.title | Efficacy of Brucella abortus S19 and RB51 vaccine strains: A systematic review and meta-analysis | en_US |
dc.type.version | submittedVersion | en_US |
dc.type | Journal article | en_US |
dc.type | Tidsskriftartikkel | en_US |
dc.type | Peer reviewed | en_US |