Key result
Emergency FMD vaccination in Uruguay demonstrated high effectiveness against between-farm transmission within the first week, with estimates ranging from 59.75% to 78.50% across vaccination zones.
Why the study?
There is limited information on the effectiveness of emergency foot-and-mouth disease vaccination against transmission in formerly FMD-free countries to support decision-making and mathematical models.
Does emergency vaccination reduce between-farm transmission of foot-and-mouth disease in a previously FMD-free country?
Observational
Does emergency vaccination reduce between-farm transmission of foot-and-mouth disease in a previously FMD-free country?
Effect estimate: VE 77.65% (Zone Pre) (95% CI 70.53-82.94)
Emergency vaccination with bivalent FMD vaccines rapidly and effectively reduces between-farm transmission during an epidemic in a previously FMD-free country.
May inform emergency FMD vaccination models; leaves open field validation of transmission VE in cattle.
Foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) vaccines are key tools for controlling and eradicating FMD virus (FMDV) and are often used as a control measure during epidemics. Emergency vaccination decisions in previously FMD-free countries should be supported by evidence on vaccine effectiveness (VE) against transmission. Mathematical models help assess vaccination strategies but require accurate effectiveness parameters. While experimental studies have shown that FMD vaccination, particularly in cattle, effectively controls transmission, there is limited information on its effectiveness during emergency vaccination in formerly FMD-free countries. We assessed the effectiveness of emergency FMD vaccination implemented alongside other control measures such as ban on animal movements and enhanced biosecurity, estimating VE at one, two-, and three-weeks post-vaccination. VE was estimated by assessing the reduction in the between farm transmission rate parameter () following vaccination of the farms with commercial bivalent vaccines containing the O1 Campos and A24 Cruzeiro strains. To estimate, we prepared the data within an SIR modelling framework and fitted a Generalized Linear Model with a complementary log-log link (cloglog). Since vaccination was implemented by zones during the epidemic, analyses were performed separately for each zone. It was observed that VE increased over time across all vaccination zones. Notably, even within the first week post-vaccination, VE was high, with estimates of 77.65% [70.53-82.94] in zone Pre, 71.05% [21.13-87.59] in zone A, 78.50% [75.44-81.21] in zone B, 68.80% [59.55-75.83] in zone C, and 59.75% [47.68-69.12] in zone D. Evaluating vaccine performance in fully susceptible livestock populations under high-risk conditions is key to improving control strategies and preparedness. Our findings indicate that emergency vaccination, as an additional measure, effectively contributed to control the epidemic in Uruguay. These VE estimates can parameterise and refine outbreak-response models and strengthen preparedness in previously FMD-free regions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Iriarte et al. (2026) conducted an observational in Foot-and-mouth disease (FMD). Emergency FMD vaccination (bivalent O1 Campos and A24 Cruzeiro) vs. Unvaccinated/pre-vaccination baseline was evaluated on Reduction in the between farm transmission rate parameter (vaccine effectiveness) (VE 77.65% (Zone Pre), 95% CI 70.53-82.94). Emergency FMD vaccination in Uruguay demonstrated high effectiveness against between-farm transmission within the first week, with estimates ranging from 59.75% to 78.50% across vaccination zones.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: