Cevac IBD L comparison to competitors

Comparative studies of Cevac IBD L and some

of its main competitors

Results

C. Cazaban
International Technical Manager

Cevac IBD L comparison to competitors

Study No.1 (DV-016-2003, K. Forgach) : safety and serology response
in SPF birds
10-day old SPF birds.
Ocular vaccination with
Nobilis 228E (competitor 1), or
MB (competitor 2),
Cevac IBD L.
60 birds per group (incl. control group)

Cevac IBD L comparison to competitors

Kinetics of virus replication in the bursa of Fabricius in 10-day old
SPF birds (study no.1)

Bursa histology score (Eur Ph)

6
5
4
3
2
1
0
2

15

21

Days of the study

Competitor 1

Competitor 2

Cevac IBD L

Controls

Cevac IBD L comparison to competitors

B:B index in 10-day old SPF birds on D28 (study no.1)
0,7
0,6
0,5
Intermediate

0,4
0,3

Hot

0,2
0,1
0

BB index
Competitor 1

Competitor 2

Cevac IBD L

Cevac IBD L comparison to competitors

IBD VN titre (in log2)

Serology curve in 10-day old SPF birds (study no.1)

*

13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0

*: statistical difference

15

21

28

Days of the study

Competitor 1

Competitor 2

Cevac IBD L

Controls

Cevac IBD L comparison to competitors

Study No.1: safety and serology response in SPF birds

Main conclusions:
Cevac IBD L is the fastest to colonize the bursa; 228E was late.
Such colonization of the bursa by Cevac IBD L remained safer and of
shorter duration than MB. MB showed no signs of bursa regeneration
(still low BB index on D28).
Cevac IBD L is the fastest to replicate in the bursa, as evidenced by the
quickest and highest serological conversion (7 days p-v).

Cevac IBD L comparison to competitors

Study No.2 Immunosuppression study (DV/015/2003, V. Palya)
11-day old SPF birds. 50 birds per group.
Ocular vaccination (Day 0) with:
Nobilis 228E (competitor 1),
MB (competitor 2),
Poulvac Bursa Plus (competitor 3),
IBD Blen (competitor 4), or
Cevac IBD L.
Ocular vaccination with Cevac Uni L: day 4.
ND challenge (Herts 33 strain, 106 EID50 per bird, by im): day 18.
ND challenge assessment: day 32.

Cevac IBD L comparison to competitors

B:B index in 11-day old SPF birds on D32 (study no.2)
0,7
0,6
0,5
Intermediate

0,4
0,3

Hot

0,2
0,1
0

BB index
Competitor 1

Competitor 2

Competitor 3

Competitor 4

Cevac IBD L

Cevac IBD L comparison to competitors

IBD VN titre (in log2)

IBD Serology curve in 11-day old SPF birds (study no.2)

13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0

IBD vaccination

*
*

*: statistical difference

18

32

Days of the study

Competitor 1

Competitor 2

Competitor 3

Competitor 4

Cevac IBD L

10

Controls

Cevac IBD L comparison to competitors

ND Serology curve in 11-day old SPF birds
7

ND HI titre (in log2)

6
5
IBD vaccination

ND vaccination

3
2
*: statistical difference

1
0
0

18

Days of the study

Comp 1 + Uni L

Comp 2 + Uni L

Comp 3 + Uni L

Comp 4 + Uni L

Cevac IBD L + Uni L

32

11

Cevac Uni L

Controls

Cevac IBD L comparison to competitors

ND challenge in 11-day old SPF birds
100

100

100

100

100

100

90
80

100

D0: IBD vaccination

D4: ND vaccination
D18: ND challenge
D32: ND challenge
assessment

Protection rate (%)

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Comp 1 + Uni L

Comp 2 + Uni L

Comp 3 + Uni L

Comp 4 + Uni L

Cevac IBD L + Uni L

Cevac Uni L

SPF controls

12

Cevac IBD L comparison to competitors

Rise in HI titre following ND challenge in 11-day old SPF birds
D0: IBD vaccination
D4: ND vaccination
D18: ND challenge
D32: ND challenge assessment

3,5

D32 titre in challenged - D32 titre in unchallenged birds

2,5

1,5

0,5

0
Comp 1 + Uni L

Comp 2 + Uni L

Comp 3 + Uni L

Comp 4 + Uni L

Cevac IBD L + Uni L

Cevac Uni L

13

Cevac IBD L comparison to competitors

Study No.2 Immunosuppression study

Main conclusions:
Cevac IBD L is safe upon the ability of broilers to satisfactorily
aswer to any immunisation by other vaccines.
On the contrary, MB vaccine showed some immunosuppressive
signs (big rise in ND titres following challenge evoking a lack of
protection against infection); 228E was average.

14

Cevac IBD L comparison to competitors

Study No.3 (DV-23/2003 V. Palya): safety and efficacy in commercial
broilers
Commercial broilers, ocularly vaccinated at 17 days of age (MDA VN
titre: hatch: 12.8, and 17 d: 9 log2) with (125 birds per group; 165
controls):
Nobilis 228E (competitor 1)
Abic MB (competitor 2)
Poulvac Bursa Plus (competitor 3)
IBD Blen (competitor 4)
Cevac IBD L
vvIBD challenge, MOH94 strain, 103 EID50 per bird (20 birds per group),
oral route.
15

Cevac IBD L comparison to competitors

3000

Cevac IBD L in broilers: comparison to competitors: growth

Average body weight (g)

2500
2000

Vaccination at 17 days
of age

1500
1000
500
0
14

21

28

35

42

Age of the chickens (days)

Competitor 1

Competitor 2

Competitor 3

Competitor 4

Cevac IBD L

Control

16

Cevac IBD L comparison to competitors

Extent of bursa
involvement in %)

Cevac IBD L in broilers: comparison to competitors: vvIBD challenge

results

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

1st challenge (D24)

2nd challenge (D32)

Virus replication in the bursa 4 days after challenge

Competitor 1

Competitor 2

Competitor 3

Competitor 4

Cevac IBD L

Control

17

Cevac IBD L comparison to competitors

Main conclusions:
Cevac IBD L is safe on the growth of the commercial broilers.
Following the earliest challenge (7 days p-v, birds aged 24 days),
Cevac IBD L (and IBD Blen) protected the bursa; 228E, MB, or
Poulvac Bursa Plus did not.
Following the late challenge (15 days p-v, birds aged 32 days),
Cevac IBD L (and MB and Poulvac Bursa Plus) protected against
illness, as evidenced by the body weight gain; IBD Blen or 228E
did not. All vaccines similarly protected the bursa.
19