Safety and immunologic effects after inoculation of inactivated and combined live-inactivated dermatophytosis vaccines in cats

Douglas J. DeBoer Department of Medical Sciences, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706.

Search for other papers by Douglas J. DeBoer in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 DVM
,
Karen A. Moriello Department of Medical Sciences, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706.

Search for other papers by Karen A. Moriello in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 DVM
,
Jenifer L. Blum Department of Medical Sciences, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706.

Search for other papers by Jenifer L. Blum in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 BS
,
Lynn M. Volk Department of Medical Sciences, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706.

Search for other papers by Lynn M. Volk in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 BS
, and
Lars K. Bredahl Alpharma AS, Aquatic Animal Health Division, Harbitzalleen 3, Oslo, Norway.

Search for other papers by Lars K. Bredahl in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 DVM

Click on author name to view affiliation information

Abstract

Objective—To determine antidermatophyte immunologic effects of an experimental combined live-inactivated dermatophytosis vaccine (CLIDV) and a commercial inactivated dermatophytosis vaccine (IDV) in cats and to evaluate adverse effects associated with administration of these vaccines.

Animals—20 healthy juvenile domestic shorthair cats.

Procedure—Cats were injected with 2 doses of CLIDV at the standard dosage or 1 dose of CLIDV at 10 times the standard dosage; IDV was administered at the manufacturer-recommended dosage. Cats were observed for illness and reactions at inoculation sites. Periodically, samples were obtained for fungal culture, lymphocyte blastogenesis test (LBT) as an indicator of cell-mediated immunity against dermatophyte antigens, and antidermatophyte IgG titers. Following vaccination, cats were challenge-exposed by topical application of Microsporum canis macroconidia and examined weekly for clinical signs of dermatophytosis.

Results—6 of 10 cats given CLIDV developed focal crusts at the injection site that resolved without treatment; these were areas of dermatophyte infection with the vaccine strain. Antidermatophyte IgG titers increased significantly with all vaccination protocols. Cellular immunity against M canis increased slightly and variably during the vaccination period and did not differ significantly between vaccinated and control cats. All cats developed dermatophyte infection after challenge exposure. Vaccination with CLIDV or IDV was associated with slightly reduced severity of initial infection.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Inoculation with IDV or CLIDV did not provide prophylactic immunity against topical challenge exposure with M canis. Inoculation with either vaccine did not provide a more rapid cure of an established infection. (Am J Vet Res 2002;63:1532–1537)

Abstract

Objective—To determine antidermatophyte immunologic effects of an experimental combined live-inactivated dermatophytosis vaccine (CLIDV) and a commercial inactivated dermatophytosis vaccine (IDV) in cats and to evaluate adverse effects associated with administration of these vaccines.

Animals—20 healthy juvenile domestic shorthair cats.

Procedure—Cats were injected with 2 doses of CLIDV at the standard dosage or 1 dose of CLIDV at 10 times the standard dosage; IDV was administered at the manufacturer-recommended dosage. Cats were observed for illness and reactions at inoculation sites. Periodically, samples were obtained for fungal culture, lymphocyte blastogenesis test (LBT) as an indicator of cell-mediated immunity against dermatophyte antigens, and antidermatophyte IgG titers. Following vaccination, cats were challenge-exposed by topical application of Microsporum canis macroconidia and examined weekly for clinical signs of dermatophytosis.

Results—6 of 10 cats given CLIDV developed focal crusts at the injection site that resolved without treatment; these were areas of dermatophyte infection with the vaccine strain. Antidermatophyte IgG titers increased significantly with all vaccination protocols. Cellular immunity against M canis increased slightly and variably during the vaccination period and did not differ significantly between vaccinated and control cats. All cats developed dermatophyte infection after challenge exposure. Vaccination with CLIDV or IDV was associated with slightly reduced severity of initial infection.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Inoculation with IDV or CLIDV did not provide prophylactic immunity against topical challenge exposure with M canis. Inoculation with either vaccine did not provide a more rapid cure of an established infection. (Am J Vet Res 2002;63:1532–1537)

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 52 0 0
Full Text Views 426 292 12
PDF Downloads 202 96 7
Advertisement