Porcine Pleuropneumonia - Good Protection Without Stress: COGLAPIX®

The protection of a farm against APP may combine different solutions including husbandry management measures concerning the control of the introduced animals, reasoned antibiotic use for short treatment periods only, and vaccination. Among them, the vaccination...


--> Bacterin and toxoid vaccines

--> Case No. 1: in Thailand

--> Case No. 2: in Philippins

--> Conclusion



By Dr Eric Brunier, Regional Market Manager – Swine, Ceva Animal Health Asia Pacific



A new kind of vaccine associates the Apx of containing all the adhesion antigens of importance. But these vaccines still present a high level of PVR. These undesirable and stressful reactions are due to the choice of the adjuvant and the level of lipopolysaccharids (LPS) present in the vaccine.

One of these vaccines, COGLAPIX® from Ceva Santé Animale, beside the efficiency on the clinical signs and the impact of the performances, has succeeded to overcome this obstacle for a good vaccination practice. With a high quality aluminium hydroxide adjuvant combined with a well controlled level of LPS, COGLAPIX® shows a low level of post vaccination reactions.

Field trials done recently in Asia (in Thailand and in the Philippines) have confirmed this improvement under the Asian husbandry conditions. Farms with endemic APP have been selected. A trial has been done in benchmarking with a reference commercial vaccine containing the three toxoids Apx I, Apx II, Apx III and an OMP of 42 kDa (vaccine RV). Before any trial starts, the presence of APP has been confirmed by using the test ELISA Chekit Apx IV® from IDEXX.

^ Top page


CASE No. 1

In Thailand, the trial was done in a farrow to finish farm of 7,000 sows. A batch of 600 piglets was divided in two batches of 300 piglets each, after weaning. The animals were raised in one room (closed system with cooling).

The pigs were vaccinated at 8 and 10 weeks of age. The test batch was vaccinated with COGLAPIX®, the control batch with RV. The parameters measured were the post vaccination reactions (PVR) on all the pigs; the performances (growth and feed conversion, controlled on 2 x 120 pigs) and the lung lesions at slaughter (2 x 50 pigs). On a clearly identified subgroup of 15 pigs per batch, the rectal temperature was measured at 1 hour, 3 hours and 24 hours after each vaccination.

Table 1 The efficiency on the clinical signs of the trial 1 in Thailand


PVR: the farm had implemented all the measures recommended to reduce the PVR. No shock has been noticed. In the batch vaccinated with RV however, 3 hours after vaccination, at the feed distribution, only 25% of the animals had recovered and were going to eat while 85% had recovered in the batch vaccinated with COGLAPIX® (the difference is significant p < 0.01). The temperature control highlight this fact even more: the pigs vaccinated with COGLAPIX® have on average a lower body temperature than the pigs vaccinated with RV (significant difference p < 0.01). (Graph 1)

Graph 1: Body Temperature After 2nd Vaccination

The lung lesions: are comparable between both batches except for one parameter: the severity of lung consolidation (Table 2). These lesions were less serious on animals from the COGLAPIX® batch than on animals from the RV batch.

Table 2 The lung lesions at slaughter of the trial 1 in Thailand


Economical results: they have been defined by comparing the cost per kg produced. Whatever the selling price, the benefit done is the cost difference between both batches (Table 3). The piglets from the COGLAPIX® batch provided a slightly better production cost to the farmer of 201 €. For 1 € invested in COGLAPIX®, the farmer earned 1.5 € more than by using the reference vaccine.

Table 3 Economical data of case No.1 in Thailand

^ Top page


CASE No. 2

This trial was monitored by Pr Romeo Sanchez Jr. – Associated Professor – CMV University of the Philippines – Los Baños; and his doctorate students.

The trial was done in a farrow to finish and breeding farm of 500 sows. The trial conditions and protocol were exactly the same as in the case No 1. This farm has met recent phases of clinical APP in previous batches.

In one room, 200 weaned piglets of five weeks of age were randomly shared in two batches of 100 piglets each. In each batch, one pen of 10 piglets was selected in order to measure the rectal temperature at each vaccination time during 48 hours. The piglets were vaccinated in the tested batch with COGLAPIX® and in the controlled batch with the same reference vaccine, as in the case No. 1, that we call: RV. The vaccination was done at 6 and 9 weeks of age.

They stayed in the building until 70 days before being transferred to the growing-finishing facility. The batches, identified by different ear tags, were not mixed during the transfer. The farm was used to cull the underweight piglets at the transfer. 20 piglets of the COGLAPIX® batch and 21 piglets of the RV batch were culled.

Table 4 Case No.2 In Philippines


PVR: The farm did not take any special measures to prevent the PVR. No pig died from the vaccination but some post vaccination shocks (tremor, vomiting, convulsion, generalised erythema – Photo 1) were noticed in the RV batch only: 2 pigs after the first vaccination; 1 pig after the second vaccination. The batch COGLAPIX® did not show any PVR at all.

Photo 1: Pig in PVR; erythema

The rectal temperature control showed a net difference with a lower level and a shorter time over 40oC for the batch COGLAPIX® (graph 2).

Graph 2: Rectal Temperature After 1st Vaccination (H0)

Lung lesions: At slaughter, the batch COGLAPIX® had a better lung lesion score (Table 5). In this group, there was no lesion of pleurisy when 4% of the lungs showed pleurisy in the RV group.

Table 5 Lung scoring of the trial 2 in Philippines

Economically, the COGLAPIX® batch had a slightly better cost of 375 € less then the RV batch which means a return of investment of 1:2 (1 € invested in COGLAPIX® brings 2 € more to the farmer compared with the RV vaccine). (Table 6).

Table 6 The impact of the performance of the trial 2 in Philippines

*ADG: average daily gain

**FCR: feed conversion rate

^ Top page



The protection of a farm against APP may combine different solutions including husbandry management measures concerning the control of the introduced animals, reasoned antibiotic use for short treatment periods only, and vaccination.

Different vaccines exist. The bacterin vaccines are very specific to a small number of serotypes. The toxoid vaccines containing the 3 Apx antigens allow a protection against all serotypes. Unfortunately, many vaccines are responsible for post vaccination reactions that worry the farmer and make him more reluctant to apply a vaccination policy.

COGLAPIX® provides the advantages of a universal vaccine against all serotypes but without the PVR. Trials done in the Asian field in APP contaminated farms in benchmarking with a reference vaccine containing the three Apx and an OMP 42 kDa, have confirmed that COGLAPIX® brings a true difference with the absence of PVR. At the same time the economical data were slightly better than the reference vaccine and, in each case studied, showed a better return on investment between 1 : 1.5 to 1 : 2 with COGLAPIX®.

^ Top page


(Source: "Axis Special Swine Issue - Asia Pacific” - November 2009)


<< Back to Porcine Pleuropneumonia

<< Back to Disease Informations

Back to top