Efficacy of bacterial vaccines to prevent respiratory disease in swine: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. (December 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Sargeant, Jan M.; Deb, Bhumika; Bergevin, Michele D.; Churchill, Katheryn; Dawkins, Kaitlyn; Dunn, Jennifer; Hu, Dapeng; Moody, Carly; O'Connor, Annette M.; O'Sullivan, Terri L.; Reist, Mark; Wang, Chong; Wilhelm, Barbara; Winder, Charlotte B.
• Is Part Of: Animal health research reviews. Volume 20:Number 2(2019)
• Page Start: 274
• Page End: 290
• Publication Date: 2019-12
• Subjects: Antibiotic use, -- bacterial vaccines, -- network meta-analysis, -- respiratory disease, -- swine, -- systematic review; Animal health -- Periodicals; Veterinary medicine -- Periodicals; 636.089
• DOI: 10.1017/S1466252319000173
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1466-2523

Abstract

Abstract: A systematic review and network meta-analysis (MA) was conducted to address the question, 'What is the efficacy of bacterial vaccines to prevent respiratory disease in swine?' Four electronic databases and the grey literature were searched to identify clinical trials in healthy swine where at least one intervention arm was a commercially available vaccine for one or more bacterial pathogens associated with respiratory disease in swine, including Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae, Actinobacillus pleuropneumonia, Actinobacillus suis, Bordetella bronchiseptica, Pasteurella multocida, Stretococcus suis, Haemophils parasuis, and Mycoplasma hyorhinis . To be eligible, trials had to measure at least one of the following outcomes: incidence of clinical morbidity, mortality, lung lesions, or total antibiotic use. There were 179 eligible trials identified in 146 publications. Network MA was undertaken for morbidity, mortality, and the presence or absence of non-specific lung lesions. However, there was not a sufficient body of research evaluating the same interventions and outcomes to allow a meaningful synthesis of the comparative efficacy of the vaccines. To build this body of research, additional rigor in trial design and analysis, and detailed reporting of trial methods and results are warranted.