Cargando…
Expected Net Benefit of Vaccinating Rangeland Sheep against Bluetongue Virus Using a Modified-Live versus Killed Virus Vaccine
Recurring outbreaks of bluetongue virus in domestic sheep of the US Intermountain West have prompted questions about the economic benefits and costs of vaccinating individual flocks against bluetongue (BT) disease. We estimate the cost of a BT outbreak on a representative rangeland sheep operation i...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5641540/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29075635 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2017.00166 |
_version_ | 1783271242885758976 |
---|---|
author | Munsick, Tristram R. Peck, Dannele E. Ritten, John P. Jones, Randall Jones, Michelle Miller, Myrna M. |
author_facet | Munsick, Tristram R. Peck, Dannele E. Ritten, John P. Jones, Randall Jones, Michelle Miller, Myrna M. |
author_sort | Munsick, Tristram R. |
collection | PubMed |
description | Recurring outbreaks of bluetongue virus in domestic sheep of the US Intermountain West have prompted questions about the economic benefits and costs of vaccinating individual flocks against bluetongue (BT) disease. We estimate the cost of a BT outbreak on a representative rangeland sheep operation in the Big Horn Basin of the state of Wyoming using enterprise budgets and stochastic simulation. The latter accounts for variability in disease severity and lamb price, as well as uncertainty about when an outbreak will occur. We then estimate the cost of purchasing and administering a BT vaccine. Finally, we calculate expected annual net benefit of vaccinating under various outbreak intervals. Expected annual net benefit is calculated for both a killed virus (KV) vaccine and modified-live virus vaccine, using an observed price of $0.32 per dose for modified-live and an estimated price of $1.20 per dose for KV. The modified-live vaccine’s expected annual net benefit has a 100% chance of being positive for an outbreak interval of 5, 10, or 20 years, and a 77% chance of being positive for a 50-year interval. The KV vaccine’s expected annual net benefit has a 97% chance of being positive for a 5-year outbreak interval, and a 42% chance of being positive for a 10-year interval. A KV vaccine is, therefore, unlikely to be economically attractive to producers in areas exposed less frequently to BT disease. A modified-live vaccine, however, requires rigorous authorization before legal use can occur in Wyoming. To date, no company has requested to manufacture a modified-live vaccine for commercial use in Wyoming. The KV vaccine poses less risk to sheep reproduction and less risk of unintentional spread, both of which facilitate approval for commercial production. Yet, our results show an economically consequential tradeoff between a KV vaccine’s relative safety and higher cost. Unless the purchase price is reduced below our assumed $1.20 per dose, producer adoption of a KV vaccine for BT is likely to be low in the study area. This tradeoff between cost and safety should be considered when policymakers regulate commercial use of the two vaccine types. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5641540 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-56415402017-10-26 Expected Net Benefit of Vaccinating Rangeland Sheep against Bluetongue Virus Using a Modified-Live versus Killed Virus Vaccine Munsick, Tristram R. Peck, Dannele E. Ritten, John P. Jones, Randall Jones, Michelle Miller, Myrna M. Front Vet Sci Veterinary Science Recurring outbreaks of bluetongue virus in domestic sheep of the US Intermountain West have prompted questions about the economic benefits and costs of vaccinating individual flocks against bluetongue (BT) disease. We estimate the cost of a BT outbreak on a representative rangeland sheep operation in the Big Horn Basin of the state of Wyoming using enterprise budgets and stochastic simulation. The latter accounts for variability in disease severity and lamb price, as well as uncertainty about when an outbreak will occur. We then estimate the cost of purchasing and administering a BT vaccine. Finally, we calculate expected annual net benefit of vaccinating under various outbreak intervals. Expected annual net benefit is calculated for both a killed virus (KV) vaccine and modified-live virus vaccine, using an observed price of $0.32 per dose for modified-live and an estimated price of $1.20 per dose for KV. The modified-live vaccine’s expected annual net benefit has a 100% chance of being positive for an outbreak interval of 5, 10, or 20 years, and a 77% chance of being positive for a 50-year interval. The KV vaccine’s expected annual net benefit has a 97% chance of being positive for a 5-year outbreak interval, and a 42% chance of being positive for a 10-year interval. A KV vaccine is, therefore, unlikely to be economically attractive to producers in areas exposed less frequently to BT disease. A modified-live vaccine, however, requires rigorous authorization before legal use can occur in Wyoming. To date, no company has requested to manufacture a modified-live vaccine for commercial use in Wyoming. The KV vaccine poses less risk to sheep reproduction and less risk of unintentional spread, both of which facilitate approval for commercial production. Yet, our results show an economically consequential tradeoff between a KV vaccine’s relative safety and higher cost. Unless the purchase price is reduced below our assumed $1.20 per dose, producer adoption of a KV vaccine for BT is likely to be low in the study area. This tradeoff between cost and safety should be considered when policymakers regulate commercial use of the two vaccine types. Frontiers Media S.A. 2017-10-11 /pmc/articles/PMC5641540/ /pubmed/29075635 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2017.00166 Text en Copyright © 2017 Munsick, Peck, Ritten, Jones, Jones and Miller. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. |
spellingShingle | Veterinary Science Munsick, Tristram R. Peck, Dannele E. Ritten, John P. Jones, Randall Jones, Michelle Miller, Myrna M. Expected Net Benefit of Vaccinating Rangeland Sheep against Bluetongue Virus Using a Modified-Live versus Killed Virus Vaccine |
title | Expected Net Benefit of Vaccinating Rangeland Sheep against Bluetongue Virus Using a Modified-Live versus Killed Virus Vaccine |
title_full | Expected Net Benefit of Vaccinating Rangeland Sheep against Bluetongue Virus Using a Modified-Live versus Killed Virus Vaccine |
title_fullStr | Expected Net Benefit of Vaccinating Rangeland Sheep against Bluetongue Virus Using a Modified-Live versus Killed Virus Vaccine |
title_full_unstemmed | Expected Net Benefit of Vaccinating Rangeland Sheep against Bluetongue Virus Using a Modified-Live versus Killed Virus Vaccine |
title_short | Expected Net Benefit of Vaccinating Rangeland Sheep against Bluetongue Virus Using a Modified-Live versus Killed Virus Vaccine |
title_sort | expected net benefit of vaccinating rangeland sheep against bluetongue virus using a modified-live versus killed virus vaccine |
topic | Veterinary Science |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5641540/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29075635 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2017.00166 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT munsicktristramr expectednetbenefitofvaccinatingrangelandsheepagainstbluetonguevirususingamodifiedliveversuskilledvirusvaccine AT peckdannelee expectednetbenefitofvaccinatingrangelandsheepagainstbluetonguevirususingamodifiedliveversuskilledvirusvaccine AT rittenjohnp expectednetbenefitofvaccinatingrangelandsheepagainstbluetonguevirususingamodifiedliveversuskilledvirusvaccine AT jonesrandall expectednetbenefitofvaccinatingrangelandsheepagainstbluetonguevirususingamodifiedliveversuskilledvirusvaccine AT jonesmichelle expectednetbenefitofvaccinatingrangelandsheepagainstbluetonguevirususingamodifiedliveversuskilledvirusvaccine AT millermyrnam expectednetbenefitofvaccinatingrangelandsheepagainstbluetonguevirususingamodifiedliveversuskilledvirusvaccine |