| |
Safety and efficacy of different dermatophyte vaccines in cats
 |
Dermatophytosis in cats is known to be one of the diseases that need to be treated aggressively and over a long period of time. Also the most common dermatophyte, Microsporum canis, is contagious for other animals and humans and also transmitted via vectors and the environment. An effective vaccination to protect cats from infection and the owner from doing the whole therapeutic programme would be phantastic - but is it realistic?
|
|
|
| |
In this study in Wisconsin, the antidermatophyte immunologic effects of an experimental combined live-inactivated dermatophytosis vaccine (CLIDV) and a commercial inactivated dermatophytosis vaccine (IDV) in cats was evaluated. Also adverse effects associated with administration of these vaccines were checked.
20 healthy juvenile domestic shorthair cats were included in the study. They were injected with 2 doses of CLIDV at the standard dosage or 1 dose of CLIDV at 10 times the standard dosage; IDV was administered at the manufacturer-recommended dosage. Cats were observed for illness and reactions at inoculation sites. Periodically, samples were obtained for fungal culture, lymphocyte blastogenesis test (LBT) as an indicator of cell-mediated immunity against dermatophyte antigens, and antidermatophyte IgG titers.
Following vaccination, cats were challenge-exposed by topical application of Microsporum canis macroconidia and examined weekly for clinical signs of dermatophytosis.
of 10 cats given CLIDV developed focal crusts at the injection site that resolved without treatment; these were areas of dermatophyte infection with the vaccine strain. Antidermatophyte IgG titers increased significantly with all vaccination protocols. Cellular immunity against M canis increased slightly and variably during the vaccination period and did not differ significantly between vaccinated and control cats.
All cats developed dermatophyte infection after challenge exposure. Vaccination with CLIDV or IDV was associated with slightly reduced severity of initial infection.
Inoculation with IDV or CLIDV did not provide prophylactic immunity against topical challenge exposure with M canis. Inoculation with either vaccine did not provide a more rapid cure of an established infection.
Source: DeBoer DJ, Moriello KA, Blum JL, Volk LM, Bredahl LK (2002): Safety and immunologic effects after inoculation of inactivated and combined live-inactivated dermatophytosis vaccines in cats. In: Am J Vet Res 2002 Nov;63(11):1532-7 50
Tell a friend
|
Print version
|
Send this article
|
| |
Metastasis of a well differentiated perianal gland tumorPunica granatum associated with hepatotoxicosis in cattle Toceranib phosphate (Palladia®) in canine gastrointestinal stromal tumorsRadioactive iodine uptake in hyperthyroid cats after rh-TSHHypoechoic tissue changes in dogs with malignant prostatic lymphomaEmphysematous gastritis in dogs and catsPrimary pulmonary histiocytic sarcoma in dogsDetermining prognosis in canine sepsis Correlation of plasma and tear glucose, creatinine and urea nitrogen in catsPerineal hernias in dogs - always a bilateral problem?Pharmacokinetic of gabapentin in catsFollicular development of canine ovaries stimulated by eCG plus hCG
|
