Blood B Cell Depletion Reflects Immunosuppression Induced by Live-Attenuated Infectious Bursal Disease Vaccines.

Immunosuppression in poultry production is a recurrent problem worldwide, and one of the major viral immunosuppressive agents is Infectious Bursal Disease Virus (IBDV). IBDV infections are mostly controlled by using live-attenuated vaccines. Live-attenuated Infectious Bursal Disease (IBD) vaccine candidates are classified as "mild," "intermediate," "intermediate-plus" or "hot" based on their residual immunosuppressive properties. The immunosuppression protocol described by the European Pharmacopoeia (Ph. Eur.) uses a lethal Newcastle Disease Virus (NDV) infectious challenge to measure the interference of a given IBDV vaccine candidate on NDV vaccine immune response. A Ph. Eur.-derived protocol was thus implemented to quantify immunosuppression induced by one mild, two intermediate, and four intermediate-plus live-attenuated IBD vaccines as well as a pathogenic viral strain. This protocol confirmed the respective immunosuppressive properties of those vaccines and virus. In the search for a more ethical alternative to Ph. Eur.-based protocols, two strategies were explored. First, ex vivo viral replication of those vaccines and the pathogenic strain in stimulated chicken primary bursal cells was assessed. Replication levels were not strictly correlated to immunosuppression observed in vivo. Second, changes in blood leukocyte counts in chicks were monitored using a Ph. Eur. - type protocol prior to lethal NDV challenge. In case of intermediate-plus vaccines, the drop in B cells counts was more severe. Counting blood B cells may thus represent a highly quantitative, faster, and ethical strategy than NDV challenge to assess the immunosuppression induced in chickens by live-attenuated IBD vaccines.

Low levels of extraneous agents in vaccine starting materials.

There are different ways to define the concept of 'low levels' of extraneous agents in vaccines and vaccine starting materials, based on the amount of extraneous agents as such, the sensitivity of the detection method and the probability approach linked to the sampling method. None of these approaches, however, is entirely satisfactory--a general definition of a 'low level' cannot be provided. Since the main point is the safety of medicinal products, the risk analysis approach to 'low level' contaminations can be considered as a way to overcome the above mentioned deadlock. But as too many variables impact the risk analysis, it cannot be properly performed either. In practice, seeds are tested to show freedom from extraneous agents, the other raw materials are inactivated through a validated method. However, there are technical and regulatory limits in both cases, and neither testing nor inactivation entirely guarantees freedom from extraneous agents. Despite this unsatisfactory situation, it should be acknowledged that no truly significant disease outbreak linked to an extraneous agent has been identified until today. Regulatory actions are mainly undertaken when a sanitary problem occurs. In the end, companies remain responsible for their products.

EMA and EFSA Joint Scientific Opinion on measures to reduce the need to use antimicrobial agents in animal husbandry in the European Union, and the resulting impacts on food safety (RONAFA).

EFSA and EMA have jointly reviewed measures taken in the EU to reduce the need for and use of antimicrobials in food-producing animals, and the resultant impacts on antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Reduction strategies have been implemented successfully in some Member States. Such strategies include national reduction targets, benchmarking of antimicrobial use, controls on prescribing and restrictions on use of specific critically important antimicrobials, together with improvements to animal husbandry and disease prevention and control measures. Due to the multiplicity of factors contributing to AMR, the impact of any single measure is difficult to quantify, although there is evidence of an association between reduction in antimicrobial use and reduced AMR. To minimise antimicrobial use, a multifaceted integrated approach should be implemented, adapted to local circumstances. Recommended options (non-prioritised) include: development of national strategies; harmonised systems for monitoring antimicrobial use and AMR development; establishing national targets for antimicrobial use reduction; use of on-farm health plans; increasing the responsibility of veterinarians for antimicrobial prescribing; training, education and raising public awareness; increasing the availability of rapid and reliable diagnostics; improving husbandry and management procedures for disease prevention and control; rethinking livestock production systems to reduce inherent disease risk. A limited number of studies provide robust evidence of alternatives to antimicrobials that positively influence health parameters. Possible alternatives include probiotics and prebiotics, competitive exclusion, bacteriophages, immunomodulators, organic acids and teat sealants. Development of a legislative framework that permits the use of specific products as alternatives should be considered. Further research to evaluate the potential of alternative farming systems on reducing AMR is also recommended. Animals suffering from bacterial infections should only be treated with antimicrobials based on veterinary diagnosis and prescription. Options should be reviewed to phase out most preventive use of antimicrobials and to reduce and refine metaphylaxis by applying recognised alternative measures.