Double Whammy

[76 Bar]

I cannot confirm that there is currently any vaccine available in the United States for anaplasmosis.

A couple years ago, this vaccine was available:
......there is only one vaccine available for the disease, manufactured by University Products LLC, Louisiana State University (LSU), Baton Rouge, La.
I am not sure that is the case.

I can assure you its available. First purchase was in 2000 and most recent a few months ago. Efficacy has been positive.

 

[Bright Raven]

I cannot confirm that there is currently any vaccine available in the United States for anaplasmosis.

A couple years ago, this vaccine was available:
......there is only one vaccine available for the disease, manufactured by University Products LLC, Louisiana State University (LSU), Baton Rouge, La.
I am not sure that is the case.

I can assure you its available. First purchase was in 2000 and most recent a few months ago. Efficacy has been positive.

Is there any data on the efficacy? I have wondered why the major drug companies are not producing a vaccine for anaplasmosis. Several have experimented with a vaccine in both killed and inactivated forms. I assume it is because of the liability associated with some of the problems experienced with the vaccine as stated by Merck. A big drug company makes a much bigger target than a LLC such as University Products. I know that even University Products stated that the drug is experimental. The website for University Products LLC states that the vaccine is sold without being licensed by USDA.

If you have evidence other than "it seems like it works", please post a link.

 

[Lucky_P]

OK; here's the deal. 'Experimental' is government regulatory beaureaucratic speak... not that it's 'experimental'.
As best I recall from discussions with Dr. Luther a number of years ago... he and his group of researchers at LSU developed the vaccine back in the 1980s, sold it to Pitman-Moore, Inc., and shepherded it through the rigorous USDA licensure process. P-M was then bought out by Malinckrodt, which was subsequently purchased by Schering-Plough (which was later bought out by Merck, which is now Merial). S-P had previously had an Anaplasmosis vaccine which was a disaster, and they essentially said, "We are not going to offer another Anaplasmosis vaccine!", and released it back to the folks at LSU.
So, Dr. Luther and crew at University Products have been making & marketing it as an 'Experimental'/provisionally-licensed product, on a state-by-state basis(has to be approved for sale in a given state by its State Veterinarian) for many years.
Last time I spoke with him, he indicated that they were again working their way through the maze of USDA requirements in order to get the vaccine fully licensed again.

As previously discussed in this thread, the vaccine(above), if properly administered, does not prevent infection... it prevents clinical disease... vaccinated animals can become infected - but will not become clinically ill - and may serve as a source of infection for ticks feeding upon them, which may then amplify parasite numbers and infect naive animals in the herd upon subsequent feeding.

The A.marginale organism changes two of its six major surface proteins every 6 weeks or so, so infected animals are continually exposed to a 'new' strain of the organism. After that initial exposure and response, they're able to respond (immunologically) rapidly enough that no clinical illness is evident.

 

[Bright Raven]

OK; here's the deal. 'Experimental' is government regulatory beaureaucratic speak... not that it's 'experimental'.
As best I recall from discussions with Dr. Luther a number of years ago... he and his group of researchers at LSU developed the vaccine back in the 1980s, sold it to Pitman-Moore, Inc., and shepherded it through the rigorous USDA licensure process. P-M was then bought out by Malinckrodt, which was subsequently purchased by Schering-Plough (which was later bought out by Merck, which is now Merial). S-P had previously had an Anaplasmosis vaccine which was a disaster, and they essentially said, "We are not going to offer another Anaplasmosis vaccine!", and released it back to the folks at LSU.
So, Dr. Luther and crew at University Products have been making & marketing it as an 'Experimental'/provisionally-licensed product, on a state-by-state basis(has to be approved for sale in a given state by its State Veterinarian) for many years.
Last time I spoke with him, he indicated that they were again working their way through the maze of USDA requirements in order to get the vaccine fully licensed again.

As previously discussed in this thread, the vaccine(above), if properly administered, does not prevent infection... it prevents clinical disease... vaccinated animals can become infected - but will not become clinically ill - and may serve as a source of infection for ticks feeding upon them, which may then amplify parasite numbers and infect naive animals in the herd upon subsequent feeding.

The A.marginale organism changes two of its six major surface proteins every 6 weeks or so, so infected animals are continually exposed to a 'new' strain of the organism. After that initial exposure and response, they're able to respond (immunologically) rapidly enough that no clinical illness is evident.

I was "praying" you would come along.

My big question on the use of the vaccine (directed to Lucky_P):

1. Given that it has the issues regarding approval.
2. It does not protect the cow from contracting the disease although it does prevent clinical disease.
3. The cow still functions as a reservoir for the infection of the vector (ticks).
4. Top that off with the fact that I don't have a case and never have.

And LAST. If it changes so fast that you get no immune response after 6 weeks, the protection is ephemeral.


Why would I use a pan with so many holes in it?

Would not it be better to treat the disease as it occurs with Chlortetracycline? I know it is in the area but maybe my use of UltraBoss and permethrin products has knocked down the tick population.

Just a note: Boehringer Ingelheim group now owns Merial.

PS: There is a PM that I addressed to you on another matter. At your convenience. Thank you.

 

[76 Bar]

LuckyP...glad you stepped in to shed light on Dr Luther's product. Bright Raven apparently didn't bother to educate himself regarding the Luther vaccine link I provided.

S-P had previously had an Anaplasmosis vaccine which was a disaster

Understatment!
Having dealt with the negative repercussions of unvaccinated naive bulls for years, I happily embraced UC Davis Dr John Maas's green light for the Luther vaccine. Indigenous females wasn't a concern, incoming naive bulls were.

Ron wrote:

Would not it be better to treat the disease as it occurs with Chlortetracycline?

Depends. Perhaps if you have the luxury of seeing them on a daily basis in a hobbyist environment yes. All but impossible when they're managed commercially & scattered over 1000's or more acres and seen a few times/yr.

 

[Bright Raven]

LuckyP...glad you stepped in to shed light on Dr Luther's product. Bright Raven apparently didn't bother to educate himself regarding the Luther vaccine link I provided.

S-P had previously had an Anaplasmosis vaccine which was a disaster

Understatment!
Having dealt with the negative repercussions of unvaccinated naive bulls for years, I happily embraced UC Davis Dr John Maas's green light for the Luther vaccine. Indigenous females wasn't a concern, incoming naive bulls were.

Ron wrote:

Would not it be better to treat the disease as it occurs with Chlortetracycline?

Depends. Perhaps if you have the luxury of seeing them on a daily basis in a hobbyist environment yes. All but impossible when they're managed commercially & scattered over 1000's or more acres and seen a few times/yr.

Nice tap dance. Do you sing?

When the vaccine is approved and licensed, then you can crow. All you got now is the tap dance.

 

[TCRanch]

Lucky P, as always, your input is very much appreciated!

76 Bar, I guess I qualify as a hobbyist. I do see my herd at least once a day, multiple times during calving. And I am therefore (usually!) able to quickly notice if something's just not right or a little off with one of my cows (or bulls or calves). Which goes back to whether a vaccine would be worth considering for my operation and it appears the answer is No. That said, my herd does not qualify as a large operation on 1000's of acres, in which case I agree the vaccine (experimental or not) would be warranted.

 

[Lucky_P]

BR, I provided the info about constantly changing surface proteins in response to an earlier reference to multiple strains. Vaccine efficacy is good in preventing clinical disease, to my knowledge, despite this capability of the pathogen.

I no longer have cattle, (as of the last 2 weeks) but if faced with anaplasmosis...we would manage by vaccinating. Only had 80 broodcows and a bull, but most years, "Anaplas season" would be during the grazing season, with no good way to provide daily feeding of a medicated ration containing sufficient CTC to provide effective control.
That said, as I never had a case, nor did my neighbor, I felt no need to vaccinate or feed a medicated mineral in an attempt to control clinical anaplasmosis.

 

[Lucky_P]

Re: Vaccine status...this is the same vaccine and production process that was fully licensed by USDA 30 years ago. It matters not to me that USDA relegated it to 'Experimental' status just because S-P opted not to market it and released it back to the original developers, who have not jumped through all the regulatory hoops (yet) to regain full USDA licensure.

 

[Bright Raven]

BR, I provided the info about constantly changing surface proteins in response to an earlier reference to multiple strains. Vaccine efficacy is good in preventing clinical disease, to my knowledge, despite this capability of the pathogen.

I no longer have cattle, (as of the last 2 weeks) but if faced with anaplasmosis...we would manage by vaccinating. Only had 80 broodcows and a bull, but most years, "Anaplas season" would be during the grazing season, with no good way to provide daily feeding of a medicated ration containing sufficient CTC to provide effective control.
That said, as I never had a case, nor did my neighbor, I felt no need to vaccinate or feed a medicated mineral in an attempt to control clinical anaplasmosis.

Thanks.

I fit the same circumstances. To my knowledge, there have been no confirmed cases in Robertson County. There have been cases in Mason County and Rowan County. Not long ago, Rollinhills had a cow die with anaplasmosis which is a few counties away. I feel the same way you do - unless I have a case or I hear of a case nearby, I don't feel the need to vaccinate or feed CTC. I do see my cattle daily. I would know if one is sick. I keep LA 300 available which is Oxytetracycline, one of the tetracyclines.

For a seedstock producer like myself, it is a significant problem if a vaccine only protects against clinical disease and leaves the animal as a carrier. It is difficult if not unethical to sell seedstock that is a carrier of Anaplasma marginale, even if the animal is protected from clinical disease. There does not seem to be any solution to that problem.

 

[Lucky_P]

IDK... I've occasionally argued with myself that, if I had a herd known to have endemic anaplasmosis... one might be better off testing and removing all seronegative animals... they're the ones that are gonna get sick and possibly die. The seropositive carriers will not. I'm not saying that this is a good plan... just something I've turned over in my mind on occasion.

Commercial herd... I'd probably just recommend vaccination.
Seedstock operation is a bit different, as more buyers are becoming aware of the issue and requiring test-negative status on purchases. Vaccinated animals will be seropositive, and unless you run PCR on whole blood samples, you can't differentiate between persistently-infected carriers and animals that just have an antibody titer to the vaccine.

 

[Bright Raven]

IDK... I've occasionally argued with myself that, if I had a herd known to have endemic anaplasmosis... one might be better off testing and removing all seronegative animals... they're the ones that are gonna get sick and possibly die. The seropositive carriers will not. I'm not saying that this is a good plan... just something I've turned over in my mind on occasion.

Commercial herd... I'd probably just recommend vaccination.
Seedstock operation is a bit different, as more buyers are becoming aware of the issue and requiring test-negative status on purchases. Vaccinated animals will be seropositive, and unless you run PCR on whole blood samples, you can't differentiate between persistently-infected carriers and animals that just have an antibody titer to the vaccine.

There is not an easy remedy to the problem presented by parasites/pathogens like Anaplasma, Neospora, etc. However, everyone is in the same boat. I have talked to other Simmental breeders. You can open a nasty can of worms depending on how you handle it. As it stands now, I am going to watch for it and continue an aggressive program of tick control through the use of topicals like UltraBoss and Martin's 1 % synergized permethrin.

Perish the thought of creating a herd of seropositive animals. I would not want to run a full PCR on blood for every animal I sell. Vaccination under the circumstances that Anaplasma marginale presents is not attractive to me. To each, his own.

Edited to add:

One of the most simple and inexpensive practices to fend off anaplasmosis!!! CHANGE NEEDLES! And a close second, keep the ticks off.

 

[Bright Raven]

I was at the Veterinarian Clinic today for BSE tests. I ask what the vets are seeing right now. The first thing mentioned was anaplasmosis.

They said they only have two clients who use the vaccine made available by Dr. Luther. The vet said that anaplasmosis is more prevalent than many believe. In small herds, a producer may only lose one cow a year so they don't bother to determine the cause. He thinks it hides because young cattle that contract the pathogen never show symptoms. Then they develop immunity but remain carriers in the herd and the producer never suspects anything. Thus, he believes there are carriers in a lot of local herds. Thus, a producer should always change needles even if he thinks his herd is healthy.

He said that both operators tried Aureomycin in mineral before going to vaccination, the Aureomycin did not have any positive effects. He said that the use of a vaccine makes about a 75 % reduction in mortality rate.

 

[TCRanch]

I was at the Veterinarian Clinic today for BSE tests. I ask what the vets are seeing right now. The first thing mentioned was anaplasmosis.

They said they only have two clients who use the vaccine made available by Dr. Luther. The vet said that anaplasmosis is more prevalent than many believe. In small herds, a producer may only lose one cow a year so they don't bother to determine the cause. He thinks it hides because young cattle that contract the pathogen never show symptoms. Then they develop immunity but remain carriers in the herd and the producer never suspects anything. Thus, he believes there are carriers in a lot of local herds. Thus, a producer should always change needles even if he thinks his herd is healthy.

He said that both operators tried Aureomycin in mineral before going to vaccination, the Aureomycin did not have any positive effects. He said that the use of a vaccine makes about a 75 % reduction in mortality rate.

Well, thanks for the additional info. But dangit, now I'm back to wondering if I should seriously consider the vaccine. Will def have a lengthy discussion w/the new vet and see what he thinks. Although my mortality rate is relatively low (specifically adults) and only one cause was unknown.

 

[Bright Raven]

:|

I was at the Veterinarian Clinic today for BSE tests. I ask what the vets are seeing right now. The first thing mentioned was anaplasmosis.

They said they only have two clients who use the vaccine made available by Dr. Luther. The vet said that anaplasmosis is more prevalent than many believe. In small herds, a producer may only lose one cow a year so they don't bother to determine the cause. He thinks it hides because young cattle that contract the pathogen never show symptoms. Then they develop immunity but remain carriers in the herd and the producer never suspects anything. Thus, he believes there are carriers in a lot of local herds. Thus, a producer should always change needles even if he thinks his herd is healthy.

He said that both operators tried Aureomycin in mineral before going to vaccination, the Aureomycin did not have any positive effects. He said that the use of a vaccine makes about a 75 % reduction in mortality rate.

Well, thanks for the additional info. But dangit, now I'm back to wondering if I should seriously consider the vaccine. Will def have a lengthy discussion w/the new vet and see what he thinks. Although my mortality rate is relatively low (specifically adults) and only one cause was unknown.

You are welcome.

CTC in feed or mineral did not work in the two cases mentioned above. Both of these producers are large operators. One is a combination commercial/seedstock producer and the other is entirely commercial. Both operations had anaplasmosis mortality for several years. The seedstock operator was concerned about his cattle being seropositive but deals with it by disclosing that his cattle are seropositive for Anaplasma marginale and that it is due to a vaccination program. He does not run a blood panel to distinguish between whether the titers are due to the animal being a carrier or vaccination.

 

[Bright Raven]

A very important concern is cost in a commercial herd. If you are running 100 cows. The cost for the initial immunization is as follows:

$8.50 per dose.
Intial immunization requires 2 doses.
$17 dollars per cow.
$17 × 100 = $1700.00

The commercial producer was losing 3 to 4 cows a year to anaplasmosis. Even with vaccination, he is losing one cow per year to anaplasmosis. So the cost benefit is not astronomical.

 

[Lucky_P]

One could, alternatively, blood test all catle over 1 yr. of age and only vaccinate at-risk seronegative cows.
cost of serologic test is less than that of a dose of vaccine.

 

[Bright Raven]

One could, alternatively, blood test all catle over 1 yr. of age and only vaccinate at-risk seronegative cows.
cost of serologic test is less than that of a dose of vaccine.

You and Darin must be in collusion. He said the same thing.