• 1

    Poulet H, Brunet S, Boularand C, et al. Efficacy of a canarypox virus-vectored vaccine against feline leukaemia. Vet Rec 2003; 153: 141145.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2

    Tartaglia J, Jarrett O, Neil JC, et al. Protection of cats against feline leukemia virus by vaccination with a canarypox virus recombinant, ALVAC-FL. J Virol 1993; 67: 23702375.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3

    Grosenbaugh DA, Leard T, Pardo MC, et al. Comparison of the safety and efficacy of a recombinant feline leukemia virus (FeLV) vaccine delivered transdermally and an inactivated FeLV vaccine delivered subcutaneously. Vet Ther 2004; 5: 258262.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4

    Plotkin SA, Cadoz M, Meignier B, et al. The safety and use of canarypox vectored vaccines. Dev Biol Stand 1995; 84: 165170.

  • 5

    Taylor J, Trimarchi C, Weinberg R, et al. Efficacy studies on a canarypox-rabies recombinant virus. Vaccine 1991; 9: 190193.

  • 6

    Grosenbaugh DA, Backus CS, Karaca K, et al. The anamnestic serologic response to vaccination with a canarypox virus-vectored recombinant West Nile virus (WNV) vaccine in horses previously vaccinated with an inactivated WNV vaccine. Vet Ther 2004; 5: 251257.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7

    Hoover EA, Mullins JI, Chu HJ, et al. Efficacy of an inactivated feline leukemia virus vaccine. AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses 1996; 12: 379383.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Advertisement

Protection from challenge following administration of a canarypox virus–vectored recombinant feline leukemia virus vaccine in cats previously vaccinated with a killed virus vaccine

Deborah A. Grosenbaugh DVM, PhD, DACVA1, Tim Leard DVM, PhD2, and M. Camila Pardo DVM, MS3
View More View Less
  • 1 Merial Ltd, 115 Transtech Dr, Athens, GA 30601.
  • | 2 Merial Ltd, 115 Transtech Dr, Athens, GA 30601.
  • | 3 Merial Ltd, 115 Transtech Dr, Athens, GA 30601.

Abstract

Objective—To compare protection against FeLV challenge obtained following administration of 2 doses of an adjuvanted, chemically inactivated, whole FeLV (FeLV-k) vaccine with protection obtained following administration of 1 dose of an FeLV-k vaccine followed by 1 dose of a canarypox virus–vectored recombinant FeLV (rCP-FeLV) vaccine.

Design—Prospective study.

Animals—Thirty-two 9-week-old domestic shorthair cats.

Procedure—Cats received 2 doses of the FeLV-k vaccine SC, 21 days apart (n = 11); 1 dose of the FeLV-k vaccine SC and, 21 days later, 1 dose of the rCP-FeLV vaccine transdermally (11); or 2 doses of physiologic saline (0.9% NaCl) solution (control; 10). Four weeks after the second vaccine dose, all cats were challenged with FeLV by means of oronasal administration. Blood samples were collected at weekly intervals beginning 21 days after challenge, and serum was tested for FeLV antigen.

Results—All 10 control cats became persistently infected (ie, FeLV antigen detected in ≥ 3 consecutive serum samples) following FeLV challenge, whereas only 1 of 11 cats that received 2 doses of the FeLV-k vaccine and none of the 11 cats that received 1 dose of the FeLV-k vaccine and 1 dose of the rCP-FeLV vaccine did.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Results suggest that protection against FeLV challenge obtained following SC administration of a single dose of an FeLV-k vaccine followed, 21 days later, by transdermal administration of a single dose of an rCP-FeLV vaccine was similar to that obtained following SC administration of 2 doses of the FeLV-k vaccine 21 days apart.

Contributor Notes

The authors thank Marsha Royston and Anita Norman for technical assistance.

Dr. Grosenbaugh.