Impact of piglet oral vaccination against tuberculosis in endemic free-ranging wild boar populations
Investigación publicada en Preventive Veterinary Medicine
1 de julio de 2018
The Eurasian wild boar (Sus scrofa) is the main wild reservoir of the Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex in Mediterranean woodlands and a key risk factor for cattle tuberculosis (TB) breakdowns. Wild boar vaccination therefore has the potential to be a valuable tool for TB control. We tested two orally delivered vaccines, heat-inactivated Mycobacterium bovis (IV) and BCG, in four sites (two per vaccine type: one Managed and one Natural or unmanaged) during four years. TB was also monitored in 15 unvaccinated sites (spatial control), as well as in all sites from one year prior to intervention (temporal control). The rationale is that by vaccinating 2–6 month old wild boar piglets we can reduce disease at the population level during the study period. This is achievable due to the fast turnover of wild boar populations. Vaccine baits were deployed using selective piglet feeders and this method proved highly successful with uptake rates of 50 to 74% in Natural sites and 89 to 92% in Managed sites. This is relevant for the potential delivery of vaccines to control other diseases, too. Local wild boar TB prevalence at the beginning of the study was already high ranging from 50 to 100%. TB prevalence increased in unvaccinated sites (6%), while a significant decline occurred in the Managed IV site (34%). Changes recorded in the remaining sites were not significant. The short-term impact of vaccination observed in the field was complemented by mathematical modelling, representative of the field system, which examined the long-term impact and showed that vaccination of piglets reduced prevalence and increased abundance at the population level. We conclude that IV could become part of integrated TB control schemes, although its application must be tailored for each specific site
Diez-Delgado I., Sevilla IA., Romero B., Tanner E., Barasona JA., White AR., Lurz PWW., Boots M., de la Fuente J., Dominguez L., Vicente J., Garrido JM., Juste RA., Aranaz A. y Gortazar C.
 | Departamento de Sanidad Animal. Facultad de Veterinaria. Universidad Complutense (UCM). |
 | Sanidad y Biotecnología (SaBio). Instituto de Investigación en Recursos Cinegéticos (IREC). Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC). Universidad de Castilla La Mancha (UCLM). Gobierno de Castilla-La Mancha (JCCM). |
 | Instituto Vasco de Investigación y Desarrollo Agrario (NEIKER). Gobierno Vasco. |
| Department of Mathematics and the Maxwell Institute for Mathematical Sciences. Heriot-Watt University. | |
| Lurzengasse 3. | |
| Department of Integrative Biology. University of California. | |
 | Biosciences. College of Life and Environmental Sciences. University of Exeter. |
 | Departament of Veterinary Pathobiology. Center for Veterinary Health Sciences (CVHS). Oklahoma State University (OSU). |
 | Servicio Regional de Investigación y Desarrollo Agroalimentario (SERIDA). Gobierno del Principado de Asturias. |
| Servicio de Micobacterias (MYC). Centro de Vigilancia Sanitaria Veterinaria (VISAVET). Universidad Complutense (UCM). |
