Food animal economics: Financial evaluation of vaccination and testing alternatives for control of parvovirus-induced reproductive failure in swine

Ian Gardner, Tim Carpenter, Leonidas Leontides, Thomas D. Parsons

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

19 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective - To identify the preferable testing and vaccination strategy for control of porcine parvovirus (PPV) during a 6-month period. Design - Decision-tree analysis and computer simulations. Sample Population - Computer modeling of 300-sow farrow-to-finish herd. Procedure-Serologic testing of 30 females to estimate herd PPV prevalence versus not testing any females was the initial decision alternative. On the basis of serologic test results, herds were classified into 1 of 3 PPV-risk categories: low (≥ 80% seropositive females), moderate (40 to < 80% seropositive females), or high (< 40% seropositive females). Vaccinating all females, only gilts, or not vaccinating was the second decision alternative. Results - For initial model assumptions (test sensitivity and specificity = 0.95; test cost = $5/female; vaccination cost = $0.30/dose; vaccination efficacy = 0.95; and foregone gross margin = $10.85/pig), vaccination of all females (with or without serologic testing) was preferable, but the financially preferable option was to omit serologic testing. Most profitable vaccination option varied with foregone gross margin, vaccination cost, and efficacy. For herds in which all sows were known to be immune, vaccinating only gilts was financially preferable, and serologic testing was not warranted. Variation in expected monetary losses was less in vaccination options than with nonvaccination. Clinical Implications - For most herds in the United States, serologic screening for PPV prior to selection of a vaccination program is unlikely to be cost-effective, because vaccination is inexpensive ($0.30/dose) and effective (95%). At current profit margins ($10.85/pig), vaccination of all females has the least-risk and is the preferred option.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)863-869
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of the American Veterinary Medical Association
Volume208
Issue number6
StatePublished - Mar 15 1996

Fingerprint

financial economics
Parvovirus
Protoparvovirus
food animals
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Vaccination
Swine
vaccination
Food
Porcine Parvovirus
swine
Ungulate protoparvovirus 1
herds
testing
Costs and Cost Analysis
gilts
sows
Decision Trees
Decision Support Techniques
Serologic Tests

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • veterinary(all)

Cite this

@article{e8e4b793df5c4cb183aede86d10b040a,
title = "Food animal economics: Financial evaluation of vaccination and testing alternatives for control of parvovirus-induced reproductive failure in swine",
abstract = "Objective - To identify the preferable testing and vaccination strategy for control of porcine parvovirus (PPV) during a 6-month period. Design - Decision-tree analysis and computer simulations. Sample Population - Computer modeling of 300-sow farrow-to-finish herd. Procedure-Serologic testing of 30 females to estimate herd PPV prevalence versus not testing any females was the initial decision alternative. On the basis of serologic test results, herds were classified into 1 of 3 PPV-risk categories: low (≥ 80{\%} seropositive females), moderate (40 to < 80{\%} seropositive females), or high (< 40{\%} seropositive females). Vaccinating all females, only gilts, or not vaccinating was the second decision alternative. Results - For initial model assumptions (test sensitivity and specificity = 0.95; test cost = $5/female; vaccination cost = $0.30/dose; vaccination efficacy = 0.95; and foregone gross margin = $10.85/pig), vaccination of all females (with or without serologic testing) was preferable, but the financially preferable option was to omit serologic testing. Most profitable vaccination option varied with foregone gross margin, vaccination cost, and efficacy. For herds in which all sows were known to be immune, vaccinating only gilts was financially preferable, and serologic testing was not warranted. Variation in expected monetary losses was less in vaccination options than with nonvaccination. Clinical Implications - For most herds in the United States, serologic screening for PPV prior to selection of a vaccination program is unlikely to be cost-effective, because vaccination is inexpensive ($0.30/dose) and effective (95{\%}). At current profit margins ($10.85/pig), vaccination of all females has the least-risk and is the preferred option.",
author = "Ian Gardner and Tim Carpenter and Leonidas Leontides and Parsons, {Thomas D.}",
year = "1996",
month = "3",
day = "15",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "208",
pages = "863--869",
journal = "Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association",
issn = "0003-1488",
publisher = "American Veterinary Medical Association",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Food animal economics

T2 - Financial evaluation of vaccination and testing alternatives for control of parvovirus-induced reproductive failure in swine

AU - Gardner, Ian

AU - Carpenter, Tim

AU - Leontides, Leonidas

AU - Parsons, Thomas D.

PY - 1996/3/15

Y1 - 1996/3/15

N2 - Objective - To identify the preferable testing and vaccination strategy for control of porcine parvovirus (PPV) during a 6-month period. Design - Decision-tree analysis and computer simulations. Sample Population - Computer modeling of 300-sow farrow-to-finish herd. Procedure-Serologic testing of 30 females to estimate herd PPV prevalence versus not testing any females was the initial decision alternative. On the basis of serologic test results, herds were classified into 1 of 3 PPV-risk categories: low (≥ 80% seropositive females), moderate (40 to < 80% seropositive females), or high (< 40% seropositive females). Vaccinating all females, only gilts, or not vaccinating was the second decision alternative. Results - For initial model assumptions (test sensitivity and specificity = 0.95; test cost = $5/female; vaccination cost = $0.30/dose; vaccination efficacy = 0.95; and foregone gross margin = $10.85/pig), vaccination of all females (with or without serologic testing) was preferable, but the financially preferable option was to omit serologic testing. Most profitable vaccination option varied with foregone gross margin, vaccination cost, and efficacy. For herds in which all sows were known to be immune, vaccinating only gilts was financially preferable, and serologic testing was not warranted. Variation in expected monetary losses was less in vaccination options than with nonvaccination. Clinical Implications - For most herds in the United States, serologic screening for PPV prior to selection of a vaccination program is unlikely to be cost-effective, because vaccination is inexpensive ($0.30/dose) and effective (95%). At current profit margins ($10.85/pig), vaccination of all females has the least-risk and is the preferred option.

AB - Objective - To identify the preferable testing and vaccination strategy for control of porcine parvovirus (PPV) during a 6-month period. Design - Decision-tree analysis and computer simulations. Sample Population - Computer modeling of 300-sow farrow-to-finish herd. Procedure-Serologic testing of 30 females to estimate herd PPV prevalence versus not testing any females was the initial decision alternative. On the basis of serologic test results, herds were classified into 1 of 3 PPV-risk categories: low (≥ 80% seropositive females), moderate (40 to < 80% seropositive females), or high (< 40% seropositive females). Vaccinating all females, only gilts, or not vaccinating was the second decision alternative. Results - For initial model assumptions (test sensitivity and specificity = 0.95; test cost = $5/female; vaccination cost = $0.30/dose; vaccination efficacy = 0.95; and foregone gross margin = $10.85/pig), vaccination of all females (with or without serologic testing) was preferable, but the financially preferable option was to omit serologic testing. Most profitable vaccination option varied with foregone gross margin, vaccination cost, and efficacy. For herds in which all sows were known to be immune, vaccinating only gilts was financially preferable, and serologic testing was not warranted. Variation in expected monetary losses was less in vaccination options than with nonvaccination. Clinical Implications - For most herds in the United States, serologic screening for PPV prior to selection of a vaccination program is unlikely to be cost-effective, because vaccination is inexpensive ($0.30/dose) and effective (95%). At current profit margins ($10.85/pig), vaccination of all females has the least-risk and is the preferred option.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0030584452&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0030584452&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Review article

C2 - 8617643

AN - SCOPUS:0030584452

VL - 208

SP - 863

EP - 869

JO - Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association

JF - Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association

SN - 0003-1488

IS - 6

ER -