Field efficacy of Porcilis® PCV M Hyo versus a licensed commercially available vaccine and placebo in the prevention of PRDC in pigs on a French farm: a randomized controlled trial
© The Author(s). 2017
Received: 18 October 2016
Accepted: 20 December 2016
Published: 1 February 2017
A controlled, randomised, and blinded trial performed on a conventional French farrow-to-finish farm compared the efficacy of a one-shot bivalent ready to use vaccine, Porcilis® PCV M. Hyo (group PCVM), to that of two commercial vaccines (Ingelvac® Circoflex® + Ingelvac® Mhyo, group ICIM), and to a placebo (group CTL), in preventing the health and economic impacts of Porcine Respiratory Disease Complex (PRDC).
Material & Methods
In this small-scale clinical study, all piglets in each group were administered the vaccine/placebo at weaning age (27 days old). Piglets from either of the three groups were bled at regular intervals from 3 weeks of age until slaughter, in order to assess the infection by the main PRDC infectious agents: Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae, PCV2 and PRRSV. Performance, lung checks and slaughter data were collected and analysed.
PCV2 viremia was significantly reduced in both vaccinated groups as compared to the placebo group. Lung lesion score was significantly lower in group PCVM, as compared to groups CTL and ICIM. Average daily weight gain during the finishing period was not significantly different between both vaccinated groups and was significantly higher than in the placebo group (849 g/d in the latter). Carcass results provided a numerical advantage to PCVM group, through improved part of production eligible for premium payment, and superior farmer income; this was a trend and did not reach significance.
The one-shot bivalent vaccine Porcilis® PCV M Hyo proved to be efficacious and convenient to use in a field context of active PCV2 and M. hyopneumoniae infections.
KeywordsPCV2 Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae Vaccine Randomised controlled field trial
Background and regional context
The term Porcine Respiratory Disease Complex (PRDC) describes pneumonia of multiple, combined causal factors (environmental, management and infectious risk factors play variable roles), resulting in clinical disease and reduced growth over the finishing phase of pig farming (15 to 20 weeks of age) . This multifaceted respiratory condition in fattening pigs can be controlled through the efficient prevention and correction of the relevant risk factors identified by the practitioner of the corresponding farm. In Western France (Brittany), where 60% of the national swine production is concentrated, PRDC components have been extensively studied, regarding both non-infectious  and infectious  risk factors. The former cross-sectional study evidenced that-under French farming conditions, pneumonia and pleuritis risk factors are mostly different, except for an inappropriate ventilation programme . Regarding infectious risk factors, the respective part of pathogens in PRDC can vary with geographic locations, for instance most of France, with the exception of its Western part, is free of PRRS, while Switzerland is free of Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae. For Western France, pathogens found to have a prominent role in PRDC were: Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae, Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome Virus (PRRSV) and Swine influenza virus (SIV) H1N1, with porcine circovirus type 2 (PCV2) seeming less dominant in the pneumonia-like gross lesions, although it might play a role . Extensive pleuritis lesions were solely found significantly associated with the combination of Actinobacillus pleuropneumoniae serotype 2 and PRRSV. In well-performing French farms, the ventilation programme is checked daily by the farmer, and controlled on a monthly basis by trained technicians. The control of infectious risk factors is mostly performed through vaccination (see  for a review). However, even though vaccination against enzootic pneumonia is widely implemented, pneumonia-like lesions frequency and detection of M. hyopneumoniae remain elevated . Also, it has been assessed that, under Brittany’s farming conditions, there is a significant (p < 0.001) negative correlation between pneumonia score and growth , with a 0.7% loss of average daily weight gain (ADWG) for each point of pneumonic lung score increase (“Madec” lung scoring is performed on a 1–28 scale) . Farmers are aware of these facts and are therefore eager to challenge the respiratory disease vaccine strategy implemented in their farm in order to benefit from any possible improvement of PRDC control.
Several vaccines against respiratory/systemic infectious agents, which have been evaluated by the European medicines agency (EMA), have recently reached the European market. Among those is, the first ready-to-use bivalent vaccine against PCV2 and Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae, Porcilis® PCV M Hyo, with efficacy data published by EMA in its European public assessment report.1
The present clinical study provides further evidence of the field efficacy of this vaccine.
Case farm and trial setting
In December 2014, a conventional 450-sow French farrow-to-finish swine farm with no history of clinical PCV2-associated disease was suggested by its practitioner to our clinical study team as being eligible for a field trial on PCV2 and Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae vaccine efficacy. The farm is located in Brittany, in a high-density farming area (Côtes-d’Armor). A pilot survey was implemented to assess the circulation of PCV2 and M. hyopneumoniae in the herd.
PCV2 serology (in-house test, Laboratory for Diagnostic Solutions Intervet Boxmeer, the Netherlands) was performed on fifteen piglets of three age classes: 4, 12 and 22 weeks of age. Seropositivity rate was found to be increasing with age, i.e. 28–35%, 38–80% and 67–89% respectively, which was suggestive of an active post-weaning PCV2 circulation (the herd did not vaccinate sows against PCV2).
M. hyopneumoniae serology (IDEXX M. hyo Ab Test) was performed on fifteen 21-week old pigs, of which 87% were found positive. Although enzootic pneumonia vaccination was routinely performed at weaning on this farm, such high seropositivity rate is strongly suggestive of active M. hyopneumoniae infection in the fattening period, on a one-site production system . Furthermore, a lung check was performed at the slaughterhouse in December 2014, which confirmed that 83% of the 23 controlled pigs had pneumonia lesions, a mean lung lesion score (LLS) of 8.4 (‘Madec’ scoring method, on 28, see ) and a median LLS of 8.0. Together, these results supported an active M. hyopneumoniae infection in the fattening unit.
The PRRS status of the farm had been recently determined by the farm veterinarian, with seropositive sows and pigs becoming infected from 10 weeks of age onwards. PRRSV infection was controlled in the female herd by priming gilts (quarantine) with a modified live vaccine, and boosts at regular intervals with an inactivated vaccine. Serology performed during the trial later confirmed that all piglets seroconverted by 14 weeks of age (data not shown). The same was true for Haemophilus parasuis (all pigs seroconverted by week 22), while no seroconversion was measured against Actinobacillus pleuropneumoniae, nor SIV (H1N1, H1N2 and H3N2).
Comparative performance results for the trial farm, with reference to the production cooperative it belongs to, and to swine producers in the same region (farm's data are in bold)
Study farm, average 2015 performance
Average performance of all members of the same cooperative, 2015
Average performance of all producers in Brittany, 2015
Number of pigs produced per sow per year
Number of kg liveweight produced per sow per year
Feed conversion ratio (wean to finish)
Mortality rate (includes condemnation at slaughterhouse)
Normalised ADWG 8–30 kg liveweight (g/d)
Normalised ADWG 30–115 kg liveweight (g/d)
Four days before the start of the trial (d-4), 498 healthy suckling piglets within the same farrowing batch were weighed, sexed and individually identified. On d0, these piglets were on average 26.6 days old; they were randomly assigned to one of three treatment groups (see below) taking into account the sex (one randomisation list for each sex), the litter, and the weight (sorted in a random list by sow and weight). They were allocated as they came to hand, until the required number of piglets was reached. In 15 litters, three of the selected piglets (one per treatment group) of comparable girth (corpulence) were further selected for blood sampling and received an additional ear tag, of a different shape and colour. Individual identification of each included piglet allows considering the animal as a statistical unit.
Group CTL (control): piglets (n = 165) were injected in the neck with saline as placebo (2 ml, via the intramuscular route).
Group PCVM: piglets (n = 166) were injected in the neck with the one-shot bivalent RTU vaccine Porcilis® PCV M Hyo (2 ml, via the intramuscular route).
Group ICIM: piglets (n = 167) were injected with both vaccines Ingelvac® CircoFLEX® and Ingelvac® M Hyo, in compliance with the product’s specifications2: two injections (1 and 2 ml, respectively) were administered via the IM route on the same side of the neck of the piglets.
All vaccine injections, blood sampling and weighing manipulations of piglets/pigs were performed by trained investigators, from a dedicated intervention team. All other farm routines were performed-without change, by stockmen.
Assessment of vaccine efficacy
To assess the efficacy of vaccination, the following primary parameters were used: for PCV2 protection, PCV2 viremia (quantitative PCR genomic load); for M. hyopneumoniae infection, lung lesion score (LLS) at slaughter; for both pathogens, average daily weight gain (ADWG) over the finishing period (pigs were individually weighed on the farm before departure to slaughter, on the 15th and 16th of July). The secondary efficacy parameters included overall ADWG and mortality (between vaccination and slaughter, including total condemnation).
Numeric data, results, and statistical analysis for each trial group, measures performed over the production period
Weight at inclusion (kg) (number included)
Weight at transfer to fattening (kg)
Weight before departure (kg)
ADWG, nursery (g/d)
ADWG, fattening (g/d)
Mortality rate incl. condemnations (number of dead pigs)
Lung check was performed at the slaughterhouse for a subset of pigs in each group (55 to 69 pigs per group).3
Parameters measured at slaughterhouse, for a subset of each treatment group
Number of lung checks
Average lung score (on 55)
Frequency of pneumonic lungs (%)
Age at slaughter (d)
Net carcass weight (kg)
Quality premium (€ cent per kg)
Income per piga (€/head)
Pigs in the control group presented an elevated PCV2 viremia between 11 and 22 weeks of age. Upon slaughter, more than 80% of them presented M. hyopneumoniae-like lung lesions, with average LLS of 5.9. These elements confirm that both PRDC pathogens were actively circulating in the trial farm. A highly significant prevention of PCV2 viremia was observed in both vaccinated groups.
Compared to the group ICIM, the group PCVM had significantly better outcome regarding the frequency of pneumonia (−20%) and LLS (3.1 vs. 6.3). Furthermore, the group PCVM also produced an improved ADWG in fattening (+13 g/d), carcasses quality premium (+1,8 € cts/kg) and average per-pig income (+2,6 €); these favorable results neared significance. In this field trial, Porcilis® PCV M Hyo proved to be efficacious in protecting piglets against both PCV2 viremia and the impact of M. hyopneumoniae infection, in a context of active PRDC and PCV2 infection.
This EPAR is freely available online on the website of EMA: http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pages/medicines/veterinary/medicines/003796/vet_med_000307.jsp&mid=WC0b01ac058008d7a8.
For CircoFLEX®, see at http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/EPAR_-_Product_Information/veterinary/000126/WC500062388.pdf. For Ingelvac® M. Hyo, see French SPCs at http://www.ircp.anmv.anses.fr/rcp.aspx?NomMedicament=INGELVAC+M.HYO
Due to social contemporary social disruption at the time of the trial, slaughterhouse of destination of some batches has been changed at the last minute, without the lung check personnel being warned. Some animals have been missed, in each trial group.
Average daily weight gain
Area under the curve
Lung lesion score
Polymerase chain reaction
Porcine Circovirus type 2
Porcine respiratory disease complex
porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome
Porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus
Swine influenza virus
The authors are grateful to the farm owner and his stockmen, for agreeing to engage in the trial and for working in good cooperation with the investigation team, and to Evelyne Gaillard, DVM, in charge of the health supervision of the trial farm, for helping with the implementation of the trial and the interpretation of most results.
MSD Animal Health France funded the study.
Availability of data and material
The data that support the findings of this study are available from Eric Pagot, but restrictions apply to the availability of these data, which were used under license for the current study, and so are not publicly available. Data are however available from the authors upon reasonable request and with permission of Rika Jolie (corresponding author).
DD was Clinical Research Manager; RM, RD and PL participated in animal manipulations and data collection; PE was investigator of the study, wrote results section, performed the statistical study; DD, RM and JR wrote the manuscript; JR reviewed the manuscript and wrote the conclusion. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
With the exception of the primary author, all other authors of this case report are employees from the company sponsor.
Consent for publication
All authors consent to the publication of the present manuscript.
Ethics approval and consent to participate
An owner consent was completed by the farmer prior to the enrolment of his animals in the study. This study was conducted in compliance with the Good Clinical Practice Guidance Document #85, May 9, 2001 (VICH GL9).
Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
- Brockmeier SL, Halbur PG, Thacker EL. Chapter 13: Porcine Respiratory Disease Complex. In: Brogden KA, Guthmiller JM, editors. Polymicrobial Diseases. ASM Press: Washington; 2002.Google Scholar
- Fablet C, Dorenlor V, Eono F, Eveno E, Jolly JP, Portier F, Bidan F, Madec F, Rose N. Noninfectious factors associated with pneumonia and pleuritis in slaughtered pigs from 143 farrow-to-finish pig farms. Prev Vet Med. 2012;104(3–4):271–80.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Fablet C, Marois-Créhan C, Simon G, Grasland B, Jestin A, Kobisch M, Madec F, Rose N. Infectious agents associated with respiratory diseases in 125 farrow-to-finish pig herds: a cross-sectional study. Vet Microbiol. 2012;157(1–2):152–63.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Chae C. Porcine Respiratory Disease Complex: Interaction of vaccination and porcine circovirus type 2, porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus and Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae. Vet J. 2016;212:1–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Fablet C, Marois C, Dorenlor V, Eono F, Eveno E, Jolly JP, Le Devendec L, Kobisch M, Madec F, Rose N. Bacterial pathogens associated with lung lesions in slaughter pigs from 125 herds. Res Vet Sci. 2012;93(2):627–30.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Pagot E, Pommier P, Keïta A. Relationship between growth during fattening and pulmonary lung lesions at the slaughterhouse in swine. [in French] Rev Méd Vét. 2007;158(5):253–59. http://www.revmedvet.com/2007/RMV158_253_259.pdf
- Madec F, Kobisch M. Lung lesion scoring of finisher pigs at the slaughterhouse [in French]. Journées de la Recherche Porcine. 1982;14:405–12.Google Scholar
- Giacomini E, Ferrari N, Pitozzi A, Remistani M, Giardiello D, Maes D, Alborali GL. Dynamics of Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae seroconversion and infection in pigs in the three main production systems. Vet Res Commun. 2016;40(2):81–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Goodwin RF, Hodgson RG, Whittlestone P, Woodhams RL. Some experiments relating to artificial immunity in enzootic pneumonia of pigs. J Hyg (Lond). 1969;67(3):465–76. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2130744/pdf/jhyg00097-0090.pdf.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Herbich E, Heissenberger B, Ladinig A, Griessler A, Ritzmann M, Weissenbacher-Lang C, Hennig-Pauka I. Field trial on the simultaneous vaccination against porcine circovirus type 2 (PCV2) and Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae. Tierarztl Prax Ausg G Grosstiere Nutztiere. 2013;41(5):279–88. Article in German.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Park C, Seo HW, Han K, Chae C. Comparison of four commercial one-dose porcine circovirus type 2 (PCV2) vaccines administered to pigs challenged with PCV2 and porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus at 17 weeks postvaccination to control porcine respiratory disease complex under Korean field conditions. Clin Vaccine Immunol. 2014;21(3):399–406. http://cvi.asm.org/content/21/3/399.full.pdf+html Erratum in: Clin Vaccine Immunol. 2014;21(7):1021.
- Ramirez CR, Harding AL, Forteguerri EB, Aldridge BM, Lowe JF. Limited efficacy of antimicrobial metaphylaxis in finishing pigs: A randomized clinical trial. Prev Vet Med. 2015;121(1–2):176–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar