Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2014 Apr 16;281(1784):20132839.
doi: 10.1098/rspb.2013.2839. Print 2014 Jun 7.

Veterinary and human vaccine evaluation methods

T J D Knight-Jones  1 , K Edmond, S Gubbins, D J Paton
Affiliations
Review

Veterinary and human vaccine evaluation methods

T J D Knight-Jones et al. Proc Biol Sci. .

Abstract

Despite the universal importance of vaccines, approaches to human and veterinary vaccine evaluation differ markedly. For human vaccines, vaccine efficacy is the proportion of vaccinated individuals protected by the vaccine against a defined outcome under ideal conditions, whereas for veterinary vaccines the term is used for a range of measures of vaccine protection. The evaluation of vaccine effectiveness, vaccine protection assessed under routine programme conditions, is largely limited to human vaccines. Challenge studies under controlled conditions and sero-conversion studies are widely used when evaluating veterinary vaccines, whereas human vaccines are generally evaluated in terms of protection against natural challenge assessed in trials or post-marketing observational studies. Although challenge studies provide a standardized platform on which to compare different vaccines, they do not capture the variation that occurs under field conditions. Field studies of vaccine effectiveness are needed to assess the performance of a vaccination programme. However, if vaccination is performed without central co-ordination, as is often the case for veterinary vaccines, evaluation will be limited. This paper reviews approaches to veterinary vaccine evaluation in comparison to evaluation methods used for human vaccines. Foot-and-mouth disease has been used to illustrate the veterinary approach. Recommendations are made for standardization of terminology and for rigorous evaluation of veterinary vaccines.

Keywords: evaluation; vaccine; vaccine effectiveness; veterinary.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Diagram showing the different types of vaccine effect detectable in a cluster trial and which vaccine groups to compare to estimate them. Within a cluster, V and U represent vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals, respectively [6]. Using this design, the different effects (direct, indirect, total and overall) can be estimated by comparing groups as indicated by the arrows. Coverage in the vaccinated cluster is <100%.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Plotkin SA, Orenstein WA, Offit PA. (eds) 2008. Vaccines, 5th edn Philadelphia, PA: Saunders.
    1. Van Aarle P. 2010. Immunological correlates of vaccine-derived protection against FMD: the regulatory perspective. In Vaccine efficacy: immunological correlates of vaccine derived protection, Fondation Merieux, Veyrier-du-Lac, France, 20–22 September 2010. - PubMed
    1. Knight-Jones TJ, Rushton J. 2013. The economic impacts of foot and mouth disease—what are they, how big are they and where do they occur? Prev. Vet. Med. 112, 161–173. (10.1016/j.prevetmed.2013.07.013) - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Meeusen ENT, Walker J, Peters A, Pastoret P-P, Jungersen G. 2007. Current status of veterinary vaccines. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 20, 489–510. (10.1128/cmr.00005-07) - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. OIE. 2012. Manual of diagnostic tests and vaccines for terrestrial animals 2012. Paris: World Organisation for Animal Health.

Publication types