OS16 - Open Session 2016 Cascais, Portugal 26 - 28 /10/2016 EuFMD Sessions\Open Session\Archive-2018\Open 2016 Cascais- Portugal\PPT presentations\

1. Open Session of the EuFMD - Cascais –Portugal 26-28 October 2016
FMD vaccine quality assurance
why does it matter
Frenkel Lecture
A. Dekker

2. Bernd Haas
14 March 1958 – 4 October 2015

3. Why was Bernd important for VQA
• He started in Tübingen with Dr. Ahl and
was among others responsible for
vaccine quality control
• Studied relation between Ab and
protection

4. Some papers and presentations by Bernd
For more detail see poster outside

5. Bernd worked on many important issues
• Vaccine Quality
– Relation Ab and protection (neutralisation and ELISA)
– MAb specific for 12S and 146S for quality control
– Heterologous protection
• Diagnostic tests
– Use of LPB ELISA for import export serology
– RT-PCR development and validation for FMD
– DIVA testing validation and development of new techniques
– European diagnostic bank
– Non invasive sampling
• Biosecurity standards for the EuFMD commission

6. Bernd worked on many important issues
• Vaccine Quality
– Relation Ab and protection (neutralisation and ELISA)
– MAb specific for 12S and 146 for quality control
– Heterologous protection
• Diagnostic tests
– Use of LPB ELISA for import export serology
– RT-PCR development and validation for FMD
– DIVA testing validation and development of new techniques
– European diagnostic bank
– Non invasive sampling
• Biosecurity standards for the EuFMD commission

7. FMD vaccine quality
• Why is quality so extremely important
– History on control with vaccination
– Good quality vaccine longer duration of immunity
– Economics of vaccine quality
• How is vaccine quality affected
– Adjuvant and other additions
– Amount of antigen
– Ageing effect
• How can a consumer assess vaccine quality
– History of efficacy testing
– Relation antibody response and protection
– Standardisation of serology

8. FMD vaccine quality
• Why is quality so extremely important
– History on control with vaccination
– Good quality vaccine longer duration of immunity
– Economics of vaccine quality
• How is vaccine quality affected
– Adjuvant and other additions
– Amount of antigen
– Ageing effect
• How can a consumer assess vaccine quality
– History of efficacy testing
– Relation antibody response and protection
– Standardisation of serology

9. Number of FMD cases in the Netherlands
1
10
100
1000
10000
100000
1909
1914
1919
1924
1929
1934
1939
1944
1949
1954
1959
1964
1969
1974
1979
1984
1989
1994
1999
2004
Year
Numberofcases
Start mass vaccination cattle
End vaccination campaign
History of FMD control with vaccination
South-America
Naranjo, J. and O. Cosivi (2013). "Elimination of foot-and-mouth
disease in South America: lessons and challenges." Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 368(1623)
Lombard, M., P. P. Pastoret and A. M. Moulin (2007). "A brief
history of vaccines and vaccination." Revue scientifique et
technique office international des epizooties 26(1): 29-48.

10. Good quality vaccine longer DOI (reduction of vaccination costs)

11. Economics
• Direct costs of disease
• Production losses
• Vaccine application costs
• Costs of the vaccine
• Control costs
• More evaluations are necessary
Source: MSD emergence focus on. http://www.emergence-msd-animal-
health.com/NewsletterArticle.aspx?NL=5&Article=2

12. FMD vaccine quality
• Why is quality so extremely important
– History on control with vaccination
– Good quality vaccine longer duration of immunity
– Economics of vaccine quality
• How is vaccine quality affected
– Adjuvant and other additions
– Amount of antigen
– Ageing effect
• How can a consumer assess vaccine quality
– History of efficacy testing
– Relation antibody response and protection
– Standardisation of serology

13. Barei, S., G. F. Panina, Z. Orfei, L. Nardelli and S. Castelli (1979). "Comparison of the potency for cattle of
trivalent FMD vaccines adjuvanted by aluminum hydroxide-saponin or oil emulsion." Zentralbl
Veterinarmed B 26(6): 454-60.
Adjuvant differences
• Aluminum hydroxide saponin
– Works perfectly in ruminants
• Oil emulsion adjuvant
– Works both in ruminants and pigs
– Not all oil emulsions are the same
• Comparison of aluminium hydroxide saponin and oil adjuvant indicates superiority
of oil adjuvant in ruminants
– Using the same antigen concentration we observed the same potency in Aluminium hydroxide
saponin adjuvanted vaccines compared to oil emulsion vaccines
• local reactions with oil emulsion vaccines are more severe especially in sheep

14. Amount of antigen
• Old studies by Frenkel, 10 times
more antigen 0.45 – 0.5 log10
higher antibody level
• Pay and Hingley, 1987, 10 times
more antigen 0.4 log10 higher
antibody level
• Potency tests in pigs with
different Ag doses, 10 times more
antigen 0.5 log10 higher antibody
level (unpublished data)

15. Type of FMD antigen
Intact 146S
Good immune response
Dissociated 12S
Poor immune response

16. Protection of 12S and 146S in guinea pigs
• Doel and Chong 1982
• Potency tests in guinea pigs
• 400 times more 12S needed for protection than 146S
• Very limited data in cattle
• Huge gap: Relation between 12S induced antibody response and protection

17. Immunogenicity of 12S in pigs
• 12S produced by heating at
56°C for 1 hour
• Vaccination of pigs with the
same antigen heated and non-
treated
• Formulation in double oil
emulsion
Approximately 1 log10 lower antibody response.

18. Stability of antigen is poor
• Most 146S antigen (O Manisa) disintegrates in oil emulsion vaccines within 3
months when using thiomersal as additive
• Stability of Aluminum hydroxide vaccines has not been tested yet
• Similar results in cattle vaccination stability studies
Harmsen et al. 2015, vaccines
including thiomersal

19. Stability can be improved by addition of sugar and BSA
M.M. Harmsen et al. 2015. Stabilizing effects of excipients on dissociation of intact (146S) foot-and-mouth disease
virions into 12S particles during storage as oil-emulsion vaccine, Vaccine, 33(21):2477-2484
DOE vaccine

20. Cattle studies and stability
• Frenkel vaccine
• 2, 6 and 10 weeks post vac
• 1.5 year old
• 0.2 year old
• 0 – 1 log10 difference
• Titres still at protective level
Frenkel, S. (1964). "Modifications de la méthode de culture du virus aphteux selon
Frenkel, valeur des vaccins selon les données du laboratoire." Bulletin Office
International des Epizooties 61: 9-10

21. Cattle protection studies and stability
• Reports of no protection against SAT1 strains 6 month after formulation using ISA
206B (which could be pH related) (2013, F.R.M. Peta, thesis)
• T = 0  5/5 protected
• T = 6  0/5 protected
LPBEtitre(log10)

22. FMD vaccine quality
• Why is quality so extremely important
– History on control with vaccination
– Good quality vaccine longer duration of immunity
– Economics of vaccine quality
• How is vaccine quality affected
– Adjuvant and other additions
– Amount of antigen
– Ageing effect
• How can a consumer assess vaccine quality
– History of efficacy testing
– Relation antibody response and protection
– Standardisation of serology

23. How can customers test the vaccine quality
• History of efficacy testing
– Potency tests
• 3 groups of 5 cattle with full, 1/4 and 1/16 dose (at least 3 PD50/dose ≈ 75% protection)
• PGP test 16 cattle determining the level of protection (at least 75%)
 Based on these protection test the relation between antibody and protection was determined
– Small decrease in Antibody response huge decrease in protection

24. Historically many studies analysing relation Ab response and
protection
• Loeffler and Frosch, 1897
– Passive antibodies can protect against infection
• Van Bekkum et al. 1969
– 566 cattle
– 2 weeks post vaccination type C (n=424)
– 9-49 months post vaccination 3 serotypes (n=142)
• Pay and Hingley, 1987
– 360 vaccinated and challenged cattle
– 3 weeks post vaccination
– 3 serotypes
• South-America (several publications, hundreds of cattle)
– Using Liquid phase blocking ELISA

25. VNT titre
Protection
0.9 1.2 1.5 1.8 2.1 2.4 2.7 3.0 3.3 3
0.00.20.40.60.81.0
Example: results Pay and Hingley
• Relation between Ab and
protection 3 weeks post-
vaccination
• Same slope for all 3
serotypes (observed in
many studies)
• Serology can be used for
vaccine release
• Different cut-off for each
strain
Type A24
Type OBFS
Type C1
fractionprotected

26. Conclusions from literature
• Antibody response is a good predictor for protection against challenge in both cattle
and pigs
• Immunity does not depend on antibodies alone
• For different vaccines different relations are found
• For different routes of vaccination different relations are found
• Differences between laboratories can be standardised by inclusion of a standard
serum
• Vaccine inducing highest titre is best choice

27. Relation antibody and protection of O Manisa vaccine
Titre
10
log
Fractionprotected
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
0.00.20.40.60.81.0
Example to show the dramatic
effect when the antibody
response is low.

28. Relation antibody and protection of O Manisa vaccine
Titre
10
log
Fractionprotected
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
0.00.20.40.60.81.0
Example to show the dramatic
effect when the antibody
response is low.

29. Relation antibody and protection of O Manisa vaccine
Titre
10
log
Fractionprotected
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
0.00.20.40.60.81.0
Example to show the dramatic
effect when the antibody
response is low.

30. Can we use the information in the field
Jamal et al. 2013. Clear differences between locally produced and
internationally acquired FMDV vaccine

31. Yes we can!
VNT titre equal to 50% protection for O Manisa is approximately 1.5 in our laboratory
NB! Titres decrease after 4 – 5 weeks. Cut-off is determined at 3 -4 weeks

32. Conclusions from literature on relation Ab and protection
• Small differences (0.5 log10) can have huge consequences in protection (in steep part
of the curve)
• Protective titres determined 3 – 4 weeks after vaccination, should not be applied to
other vaccination sampling intervals without caution
• NB! Protection against idl challenge will sufficiently reduce transmission, but in the
field lower levels might be sufficient (Van Bekkum et al. 1969)

33. Standardisation of serology
• FAO phase XIV study (1996)
• 19 laboratories using the same
ingredients in the same ELISA
• 4 antibody positive reference sera
• Difference between highest and
lowest result varied between 0.8
and 1.0 log10
• Standardisation with a ref serum
reduced variation to 0.4 to 0.7
log10

34. Potency test results O Manisa
3 laboratories
Ukkel, 10 potency tests
Pirbright, 2 potency tests
Lelystad, 7 potency test
Standardisation reduced
differences

35. Potency test results O Manisa
3 laboratories
Ukkel, 10 potency tests
Pirbright, 2 potency tests
Lelystad, 7 potency test
Standardisation reduced
differences

36. Conclusion standardisation
• Standardisation will reduce variation
• Variation will still exist
• Results will give an indication, but should not be interpreted too absolute

37. Overall conclusion
• Huge differences between vaccines from different producers
• Using poor quality vaccine costs money
• Also good quality vaccines can degrade
– Cold-chain important (especially at airport of arrival)
• Vaccine quality should be monitored
– At time of acquisition
– At time of application

38. Current gaps in knowledge
• Insufficient data on relation antibody response and protection in African and Asian
FMD strains
– What precision is needed
• No sera available for standardisation of serology
Who should do the testing
• National laboratories
– Making them proficient in serology, builds capacity in the country
• International reference laboratories
– No expertise on relation antibody response and protection with African and Asian strains