Foot and mouth disease vaccine efficacy in Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis

• Published in: Frontiers in veterinary science 2024-06, Vol.11, p.1360256
• Main Authors: Wubshet, Ashenafi Kiros, Werid, Gebremeskel Mamu, Teklue, Teshale, Zhou, Luoyi, Bayasgalan, Chimedtseren, Tserendorj, Ariunaa, Liu, Jinjin, Heath, Livio, Sun, Yuefeng, Ding, Yaozhong, Wang, Wenxiu, Zaberezhny, Alexei D, Liu, Yongsheng, Zhang, Jie
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Africa; effectiveness; efficacy; FMD vaccine; FMDV; Veterinary Science
• ISSN: 2297-1769; 2297-1769
• DOI: 10.3389/fvets.2024.1360256

Several factors, such as diverse serotypes, vaccination methods, weak biosecurity, and animal movements, contribute to recurrent Foot-and-Mouth Disease Virus (FMDV) outbreaks in Africa, establishing endemicity. These outbreaks cost over $2 billion annually, prompting a high-priority focus on FMDV vaccination. Despite extensive efforts, vaccine efficacy varies. This study aims to evaluate routine foot and mouth disease (FMD) vaccines in Africa via systematic review and meta-analysis. A systematic review and meta-analysis were carried out following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Meta-analysis was conducted to assess the efficacy of FMDV vaccination using the meta for package of R. Vaccinated animals have roughly a 69.3% lower chance of FMDV infection compared to unvaccinated animals, as indicated by the pooled results from the random-effects model, which showed a risk ratio (RR) of 0.3073. There was a statistically significant heterogeneity (