ARTICLE ORIGINAL
Passive antibody therapy revisited in light
of the increasing antibiotic resistance : serum
prepared within a farm reduces mortality of
dystrophic neonate piglets
.
^
^
.
T. NORMANTIENE, V. ZUKAITE and G. A. BIZIULEVICIUS *
Sector of Immunobiotechnology, Institute of Immunology, 29 Moletu plentas, LT-2021 Vilnius, Lithuania
* Correspondence and reprints - Tel : (370) 2589230 ; fax : (370) 2589210
,
SUMMARY
RÉSUMÉ
An attempt was made to reevaluate possibilities of passive antibody therapy in veterinary medicine as alternative for antibiotic usage since undesired after-effects of the latter became evident. A narrow, but problematic area
of animal husbandry was chosen and a trial was conducted to compare the
efficacy of swine serum prepared within a farm coupled with good supervision (study group) versus good supervision only (control group) in combat
with infectious diseases in dystrophic neonate piglets. 374 piglets (224
study and 150 control ones) were involved in the trial and application of
antibiotics in study groups was completely excluded. It was shown that such
a serum turned out to be an effective measure for increasing dystrophic
piglet survival. When used for prophylaxis and treatment of infectious
diseases it reduced the mortality rate of low-viability neonates for about
20 % in both cases (statistically significant, P < 0.01). Production and application of the serum within a farm was cost-effective.
Utilisation d’un immunsérum préparé à la ferme pour réduire la mortalité des porcelets. Une
. alternative. à l’utilisation des antibiotiques. Par
T. NORMANTIENE, V. ZUKAITE et G.A. BIZIULEVICIUS.
KEY-WORDS : antibiotic resistance - serum - therapy farm - mortality reducing - neonate piglet.
MOTS-CLÉS : immunité passive - résistance aux antibiotiques - traitement - porcelets.
Introduction
priate and excessive use of antibiotics, including development of alternative therapies such as probiotics, antibodybased products and immunomodulators [1-3, 8,14, 15, 18, 19,
38]. Some old methodologies of combating infectious
diseases are revisited, an instance being serum therapy.
Large swine-breeding farms (complexes) are often characterized by a high death-rate (50 % and more) of neonates
[10]. The high density of animals, the worsening of hygienic
and sanitary conditions, inadequate management cause metabolic disorders in sows, which have an impact on foetal deve-
^
Revue Méd. Vét., 2000, 151, 2, 105-108
^
Recently quite a number of articles appeared [6, 9,11,16,
24, 27-32, 34-36] alarming the global community about the
spread of antibiotic-resistant pathogens in veterinary medicine and about the implications of antibiotic usage in animals
for public health. Slaughterhouse staff and veterinarians are
considered to be a possible risk group [4, 21-23, 26]. Those
who are interested in the future of both human and animal
health aim at new strategies that will diminish the inappro-
Afin de réduire la mortalité des porcelets, les auteurs de cette étude envisagent l’utilisation de l’immunité passive comme une alternative à l’utilisation des antibiotiques. Trois cent soixante quatorze porcelets dont 150 animaux témoins, ne recevant aucun antibiotique, ont fait l’objet de cette étude.
Les 224 animaux ayant reçu un immunsérum, préparé à la ferme, à titre prophylactique ou thérapeutique, présentent un taux de mortalité inférieur de
20 % par rapport aux animaux témoins. Cette technique s’avère efficace et
rentable.
106
lopment [12]. Piglets are born weak, they become susceptible
to mixed (bacterial, fungal, viral) infections [17]. Antibioticresistant bacterial pathogens are of special importance to
neonate [20, 37].
In such a situation immunological protection of newborn
piglets in regard to infectious diseases is very important. Two
different measures can be taken. First, vaccination of sows
with consequent delivery of specific antibodies to neonate
via the colostrum. Second, administering specially prepared
broad-spectrum action (heterologous) immune sera directly
to neonate piglets within the first few days of their lives.
Even if active or passive antibody therapy is applied, the preparations obtained from bioenterprises do not always allow
to achieve the desired results because the strains of microorganisms causing piglet diseases that prevail in several farms
are not identical to the strains used for the production of vaccines and sera in industry.
On the territory of the former Soviet Union, in large swinebreeding complexes for some years alogene immune swine
serum was produced according to the principle 'farm-production-farm' [33]. The principle implies the production of the
serum from the blood of adult swine, grown in a specific
farm, and its application in the same farm for the prophylaxis
and treatment of neonate piglets. Thus, it seems that non-specific immune serum becomes specific in regard to animals of
that farm.
The application of such serum was a successs, but low-viability piglets, reffered to as 'dystrophics', were traditionally
culled or left on their own without immunological support
and proper supervision. Most of them died within a few days
or even hours. Therefore, the objective of this trial was to
determine if immune serum prepared within a farm coupled
with up-to-date supervision is effective for increasing dystrophic piglet survival.
Materials and methods
Experimental protocols in the form as described below
were coordinated with the State Veterinary Service of
Lithuania. Moreover, criteria for selection of low-viability
piglets, application of antibiotics in treatment control group
and otherwise in prophylaxis control group, efficacy evaluation (as well as its timing) of serum therapy/prophylaxis as a
difference in mortality rates of control and study group animals were recommended by this organization.
The study was carried out on a 1300-sow commercial
swine-breeding complex in the suburbs of Vilnius
(Lithuania). The serum was prepared according to SMIRNOV
et al. [33] within the farm from swine blood taken in the farm
sloughterhouse in separate premises with specialized equipment. The production cycle included operations of blood clot
formation, removal of a clot, separation of other ballast substances, preservation of the serum, germ filtration, packaging
and quality control.The finished serum was stored in refrigerator at 4°C and warmed up till body temperature before
application.
NORMANTIENE (T.) AND COLLABORATORS
Low-viability German-Swedish Landrace and Lithuanian
Large White crossbred piglets were used for the experiment
and were supervised as recommended by HOLYOAKE et al.
[13]. Piglets were placed in heated cribs away from sows, fed
with a total of 100 ml of colostrum at 3-h intervals using a
stomach tube and taken back to the sows on the subjective
assessment that they were viable and then managed routinely.
Litters of 12 or more piglets were 'split-suckled' or 'cross-fostered'. At 3 days of age piglets were treated with an 4 ml
intramuscular injection of iron dextran coupled with vitamin
B to prevent anaemia.
The first part of the experiment comprised 195 piglets with
no signs of infection pursuing the aim of determining the prophylactic efficacy of the serum. Piglets were randomly divided into two groups - one study and one control - and marked
differently. The study group piglets (n = 120) at 2 days of age
were administered 5 ml of the serum per kg of body weight
intramuscularly. The control group piglets (n = 75) remained
without immunological support. No other antimicrobial
medication was used for the piglets of both groups until the
end of the experiment, i. e. for two months, even if they
caught a disease.
For the determination of the therapeutic efficacy of the
serum (second part of the experiment) 179 piglets, in which
the signs of infection were noticed within the first week of
lives, were used. Subdivision into groups was random and
two more different markings for piglets were introduced. The
study group piglets (n = 104) were immediately administered
5 ml of the serum per kg of body weight intramuscularly and
injections were repeated after 1 and 3 days. The control
group piglets (n = 75) were treated in a usual way with oral
antibiotics [20]. Fluids were administered to dehydrated
piglets orally.
Chi-square test was used to evaluate the significant differences between the mortality rates of piglets of the study and
control groups. P < 0.01 was considered statistically significant.
Results
The results presented in Table I show that the swine serum
prepared within the farm turned out to be an effective measure for increasing dystrophic piglet survival. When used in
couple with good supervision for prophylaxis or treatment of
infectious diseases it reduced the mortality rate of low-viability neonates for about 20 % in both cases (statistically significant, P < 0.01).
Discussion
According to FRASER et al. [12] once the piglet is born,
its survival during the first few days depends on 3 major factors : 1) adequate intake of energy ; 2) suitable environmental temperature ; and 3) immunity to intestinal colibacillosis,
the major infectious cause of diarrhea in neonate piglets.
Good supervision techniques described by HOLYOAKE et
al. [13], fulfilling the requirements of the first two items of
Revue Méd. Vét., 2000, 151, 2, 105-108
PASSIVE ANTIBODY THERAPY REVISITED IN LIGHT OF THE INCREASING ANTIBIOTIC RESISTANCE
107
* See Materials and Methods for experimental protocols.
TABLE I. — Efficacy of the serum prepared within a farm coupled with good supervision (study group) for
prophylaxis and treatment of infectious diseases in dystrophic neonate piglets when compared with good
supervision only (control group).
this postulate, gave us a chance to reduce perinatal piglet
mortality (it has already been mentioned, that almost all dystrophic piglets die without adequate supervision and immunological support) twice. The beneficial effect of iron dextran, included in these techniques, and vitamin B complex for
the prevention of anaemia in piglets was recently once more
confirmed by DEY et al. [7].
Successful application of the swine serum prepared within
the farm facilitated the reduction of mortality rate for 20 %
more (statistically significant, P < 0.01) and this may be attributed to the third statement of the postulate. One more
advantage of the serum is that in this case the application of
antibiotics was excluded. A strong emphasis on undesirable
after-effects of these substances was made in the Introduction
to this paper. It must be also mentioned that the serum prepared in such a way was really specific for that farm. When it
was sent to be tested in another region of Lithuania the results
were negligible.
OTT et al. [25] proposed a mathematical model which
shows how many additional resources can be applied to prevent preweaning piglet mortality. On a per piglet born alive
basis the model estimates that producers could afford to
spend USD 1.42 to eliminate all mortality. Our calculations
show that resources needed for the production and application of swine serum within a farm are markedly (approx.
50 %) below this quantity.
All laid out in this paper speaks for the application of passive antibody therapy in this narrow area of animal husbandry. Recently serum therapy was revisited in regard to
humans [5]. We may have come to the point of applying the
idea to animals.
Acknowledgements
We thank the veterinarians and technicians involved.
Revue Méd. Vét., 2000, 151, 2, 105-108
References
1. — ANONYMOUS : Bacterial resistance to antimicrobial agents. Bull.
WHO, 1996, 74, 335.
2. — ARANEO B.A., CEBRA J.J., BEUTH J., FULLER R., HEIDT P.J.,
MIDVEDT T., NORD C.E., NIEUWENHUIS P., MANSON W.I.,
PULVERER G., RUSCH V.C., TANAKA R., VAN DER WAIJ D.,
WALKER R.J. and WELLS C.L. : Problems and priorities for
controlling opportunistic pathogens with new antimicrobial strategies: an overview of current literature. Zbl. Bakt., 1996, 283,
431-465.
3. — BLAHA Th. : Gesundheits - und Umweltrisiken nach Anwendung
von Antiinfektiva und Antiparasitika in der Nutztierhaltung Vermeidungsstrategien und Auswege. Dtsch. Tierärztl. Wschr., 1996,
103, 278-280.
4. — BONGERS J.H., FRANSSEN F., ELBERS A.R.W. and TIELEN
M.J.M. : Antimicrobial resistance of Escherichia coli isolates from
faecal flora of veterinarians with different professional specialties.
Vet. Quart., 1995, 17, 146-149.
5. — CASADEVALI A. and SCHARFF M.D. : Serum therapy revisited :
Animal models of infection and development of passive antibody
therapy. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother., 1994, 38, 1695-1702.
6. — CORPET D.E. and BRUGERE H.B.: Résidus antibiotiques dans les
aliments d'origine animale : conséquences microbiologiques, évaluation de la dose sans effet chez l'homme. Revue Méd. Vét., 1995, 146,
73-82.
7. — DEY S., DWIVELI S.K. and CHHABRA A.K. : Evaluation of iron
dextran and vitamin B - complex for the prevention of anaemia in
piglets. Indian J. Anim. Sci., 1996, 66, 355-356.
8. — DOWLING P.M.: Rational antimicrobial therapy. Can. Vet. J.,1996,
37, 246-249.
9. — DU PONT H.L. and STEELE J.H. : Use of antimicrobial agents in
animal feeds : implications for human health. Rev. Infect. Dis., 1987,
9, 447-460.
10. — ENGLISH P.R. and MORRISON P. : Causes and prevention of piglet
mortality. Pig News Info., 1984, 5, 369-376.
11. — ESPINASSE J.: Responsible use of antimicrobials in veterinary
medicine. Vet. Microbiol.,1993, 35, 289-301.
12. — FRASER C.M., BERGERON J.A., MAYS A. and AIELLO S.E.
(eds.) : The Merck Veterinary Manual. A Handbook of Diagnosis,
Therapy, and Disease Prevention and Control for the Veterinarian,
7 th ed., Merck and Co Inc, Rahway, New Jersey, 1991, pp.
1120-1122.
13. — HOLYOAKE P.K., DIAL G.D., TRIGG T. and KING V.L .: Reducing
pig mortality trough supervision during the perinatal period. J.
Anim.Sci., 1995, 73, 3543-3551.
108
14. — IMBERECHTS H., DEPREZ P., VAN DRIESSHE E. and POHL P. :
Chicken egg yolk antibodies against F18 ab fimbriae of Escherichia
coli inhibit shedding of F18 positive E. coli by experimentally infected pigs. Vet. Microbiol., 1997, 54, 329-341.
15. — JIN L. Z., BAIDOO S.K., MARQUARDT R.R. and FROHLICH
A.A. : In vitro inhibition of adhesion of enterotoxigenic Esherichia
coli K 88 to piglet intestinal mucus by egg - yolk antibodies. FEMS
Immunol. Med. Microbiol., 1998, 22, 313-321.
16. — KÜPPER C. : Antibiotikaresistenz - Auch ein ernährungsbedingtes
Problem? Ernähr. Umsch., 1995, 42, 326-327.
17. — LEMAN A.D., STRAW B.E. and MENGELING W.L. (eds.) :
Diseases of Swine, 7 th ed., Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa,
1992.
18. — MINISTRY OF HEALTH, MINISTRY OF FOOD, AGRICULTURE
and FISHERIES : Conclusions of the European Union Conference on
'The Microbial Threat', 9-10 September 1998. The Copenhagen
Recommendation. Vet. Res., 1999, 30, 119-122.
19. — MOELLERING R.C., Jr. : Antibiotic resistance : Lessons for the
future. Clin. Infect. Dis., 1998, 27 (Suppl 1), S 135-S 140.
20. — NAGY B. and FEKETE P. Zs. : Enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli
(ETEC) in farm animals. Vet. Res., 1999, 30, 259-284.
21. — NIJSTEN R., LONDON N., VAN DEN BOGAARD A.E.J.M. and
STOBBERINGH E. : Resistance in faecal Escherichia coli isolates
from pig farmers and abattoir workers. Epidemiol. Infect., 1994, 113,
45-52.
22. — NIJSTEN R., LONDON N., VAN DEN BOGAARD A. and
STOBBERINGH E. : Antibiotic resistance among Escherichia coli
isolated from faecal samples of pig farmers and pigs. J. Antimicrob.
Chemother., 1996, 37, 1131-1140.
23. — NIJSTEN R., LONDON N., VAN DEN BOGAARD A. and
STOBBERINGH E. : In vitro transfer of antibiotic resistance between faecal Escherichia coli strains isolated from pig farmers and
pigs. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 1996, 37, 1141-1154.
24. — NORD C.E. : The effect of antimicrobial agents on the ecology of the
human intestinal microflora. Vet. Microbiol., 1993, 35, 193-197.
25. — OTT S.L., SEITZINGER A.H. and HUESTON W.D. : Measuring the
national economic benefits of reducing livestock mortality. Prevent.
Vet. Med., 1995, 24, 203-211.
26. — OZANNE G., BEDARD P., DUSIC S. and PANISSET J.C. :
Antibiotic multiresistance among coliforms isolates from the gut of
swine and abattoir workers: evidence of transfer from animal to man.
Can. J. Publ. Health, 1987, 78, 340-344.
NORMANTIENE (T.) AND COLLABORATORS
27. — PEREZ-TRALLERO E., URBIETA M., LOPATEGUI C.L.,
ZIGORRAGA C. and AYESTERAN L. : Antibiotics in veterinary
medicine and public health. Lancet, 1993, 342, 1371-1372.
28. — PEREZ-TRALLERO E. and ZIGORRAGA C. : Resistance to antimicrobial agents as a public health problem : importance of the use of
antibiotics in animals. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents, 1995, 6, 59-63.
29. — PIDDOCK L.J.V. : Does the use of antimicrobial agents in veterinary
medicine and animal husbandry select antibiotic-resistant bacteria
that infect man and compromise antimicrobial chemotherapy ? J.
Antimicrob. Chemother., 1996, 38, 1-3.
30. — RICHTER A., LÖSCHER W. and WITTE W. : Leistungsförderer mit
antibakterieller Wirkung : Probleme aus pharmakologisch - toxikologischer und mikrobiologischer Sicht. Prakt. Tierarzt., 1996, 7,
603-624.
31. — SCHLATTERER B. : Bakterielle Resistenzen - Stand und
Enwicklungen bei Isolaten aus Mensch und Tier. Dtsch. Tierärztl.
Wschr., 1995, 102, 251-256.
32. — SHAH P.M., SCHÄFER V. and KNOTHE H. : Medical and veterinary use of antimicrobial agents : implications for public health. A
clinician's view on antimicrobial resistance. Vet. Microbiol., 1993, 35,
269-274.
33. — SMIRNOV P. N., ZASEPSKII N.Kh. and PROSTYAKOV A.P. :
Immunological Protection of Piglets in Conditions of Industrial
Technology of Breeding. SO VASKhNIL, Novosibirsk, 1985 (in
Russian).
34. — TROLLDENIER H. : Zum Resistenzverhalten veterinärmedizinisch
bedeutsamer bakterieller Erreger aus dem Jahr 1992 (RangReihenfolgen). Berl. Münch. Tierärztl. Wschr.,1995, 108, 127-132.
35. — TROLLDENIER H. : Resistenzentwicklungen von Infektionserregern landwirtschaftlicher Nutztiere in Deutchland (1990-1994) - ein
Überblick. Dtsch. Tierärztl. Wschr., 1996, 103, 256-260.
36. — WALTON J.R. : Antibiotic resistance : an overview. Vet. Rec., 1988,
122, 249-251.
37. — WANNEMUEHLER M.J. and GALVIN J.E. : Bacterial immunogens
and protective immunity in swine. Vet. Immunol. Immunopathol.,
1994, 43, 117-126.
38. — ZUNIGA A., YOKIYAMA H., ALBICKER-RIPPINGER P.,
EGGENBERGER E. and BERTSCHINGER H.U. : Reduced intestinal colonisation with F 18-positive Escherichia coli in weaned pigs
fed chicken egg antibody against the fimbriae. FEMS Immunol. Med.
Microbiol., 1997, 18, 153-161.
Revue Méd. Vét., 2000, 151, 2, 105-108