Efficacy of vaccination against equine herpesvirus type 1 (EHV-1) infection: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled challenge trials.

BACKGROUND

Equid herpesvirus type 1 (EHV-1) infection can cause a range of disease syndromes of variable severity that can result in a lethal outcome and restriction of horse movements, especially in the case of outbreaks involving neurological disease. Vaccination is one of the tools used to control the infection. It is widely known that vaccination is not completely effective in ensuring protection against disease caused by this virus. In fact, the real efficacy of vaccination against EHV-1 related disease has not been measured and no systematic reviews exist on this topic.

OBJECTIVES

To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis on the efficacy of commercial or candidate vaccines against EHV-1 in randomised controlled trials (RCT) all of which involved experimental challenge of the test subjects.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

RCTs were searched using the search algorithm (([equid herpesvirus* OR equine herpesvirus* OR EHV-1]) AND vaccin*) AND (trial OR experimental OR challenge) on PubMed, Science Citation Index Expanded, Scopus, and CAB Abstracts. Where appropriate, meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4.

RESULTS

Eight studies were selected and were analysed for their respective characteristics and possible shortcomings. The results of RCTs revealed that there was a general improvement in the clinical and virological outcomes of EHV-1 infection following vaccination, but that the effects were very slight. The reduced beneficial effect is probably amplified by the paucity of detailed data reported in the studies that did not allow for the comparison of parameters in many of the cases analysed.

MAIN LIMITATIONS

The remarkable heterogeneity and the poor quality of reporting of the selected studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Meta-analysis has shown that EHV-1 vaccination generally results in a slight improvement in clinical and virological outcomes, although not to a significant extent. The cumulative results have probably been affected by the lack of information on some parameters not systematically reported in the studies. An improvement in the standard of reporting and better standardisation of the data collected would likely have improved the quality of each study and enabled more effective comparison of the studies with each other.