{Reference Type}: Journal Article
{Title}: Foot and mouth disease vaccine efficacy in Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
{Author}: Wubshet AK;Werid GM;Teklue T;Zhou L;Bayasgalan C;Tserendorj A;Liu J;Heath L;Sun Y;Ding Y;Wang W;Zaberezhny AD;Liu Y;Zhang J;
{Journal}: Front Vet Sci
{Volume}: 11
{Issue}: 0
{Year}: 2024
{Factor}: 3.471
{DOI}: 10.3389/fvets.2024.1360256
{Abstract}: <B>UNASSIGNED: </B>Several factors, such as diverse serotypes, vaccination methods, weak biosecurity, and animal movements, contribute to recurrent Foot-and-Mouth Disease Virus (FMDV) outbreaks in Africa, establishing endemicity. These outbreaks cost over $2 billion annually, prompting a high-priority focus on FMDV vaccination. Despite extensive efforts, vaccine efficacy varies. This study aims to evaluate routine foot and mouth disease (FMD) vaccines in Africa via systematic review and meta-analysis.<BR><B>UNASSIGNED: </B>A systematic review and meta-analysis were carried out following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Meta-analysis was conducted to assess the efficacy of FMDV vaccination using the meta for package of R.<BR><B>UNASSIGNED: </B>Vaccinated animals have roughly a 69.3% lower chance of FMDV infection compared to unvaccinated animals, as indicated by the pooled results from the random-effects model, which showed a risk ratio (RR) of 0.3073. There was a statistically significant heterogeneity (p < 0.05) across all of the included articles.<BR><B>UNASSIGNED: </B>Overall findings suggest that if properly planned and implemented, FMDV vaccination programs and strategies in Africa could help control the spread of the disease throughout the continent and beyond.