ArticleVeterinary world2021
Discrepancies in the efficacy of H5 inactivated avian influenza vaccines in specific-pathogen-free chickens against challenge with the Egyptian H5N8 clade 2.3.4.4 Group B virus isolated in 2018.
Article in Veterinary world, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimHighly pathogenic avian influenza H5N8 virus of clade 2.3.4.4 was newly emerged to Egypt and firstly detected in carcasses of wild birds in November 2016. This study assessed the protection efficacy and virus shedding reduction of three different inactivated avian influenza (AI) H5 (H5N1, H5N2, and H5N3) commercial vaccines against challenge with two newly emerging highly pathogenic AI virus H5N8 Egyptian isolates in specific-pathogen-free (SPF) chicks. MATERIALS AND
methods10-day-old SPF chicks (n=260) were divided into 20 groups (n=13). Groups 1-5 were vaccinated through the subcutaneous route (S/C) with 0.5 mL of H5N1 vaccine, Groups 6-10 were vaccinated (S/C) with 0.5 mL of H5N2 vaccine, and Groups 11-15 were vaccinated (S/C) with 0.5 mL of H5N3 vaccine. Positive control groups (16-19) were challenged at 25 and 31 days old (2 and 3 weeks post-vaccination [PV]) using H5N8 clade 2.3.4.4 A/duck/Egypt/F13666A/2017(H5N8) and H5N8 clade 2.3.4.4 A/chicken/Egypt/18FL6/2018(H5N8). Group 20 was left non-vaccinated as a control. All vaccinated groups were divided and challenged with both viruses at 25 and 31 days of age. The viral challenge dose was 0.1 mL of 10
resultsAll studied vaccines displayed 70-100% protection within 10 days PC. Hemagglutination inhibition results from sera samples revealed antibody titers ranging from 0.6 to 5.4 log
conclusionOur findings suggest that the inadequate virus shedding reduction and protection efficacy of studied vaccines were variable and that the type of vaccine to be used under field conditions should be reconsidered. Study of the variability between the Egyptian old emerged AI (AIV) 2017 H5N8 strains and the new emerging AIV 2018 H5N8 is required to achieve optimal protection and limit the current economic losses.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.