Invasive Species Compendium

Detailed coverage of invasive species threatening livelihoods and the environment worldwide


swine vesicular disease



swine vesicular disease


  • Last modified
  • 16 September 2020
  • Datasheet Type(s)
  • Animal Disease
  • Preferred Scientific Name
  • swine vesicular disease
  • Overview
  • Swine vesicular disease (SVD) was first observed in Italy in 1966, where it was clinically recognized as foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) (Nardelli et al., 1968). Physical and chemical analysis of the virus sh...

Don't need the entire report?

Generate a print friendly version containing only the sections you need.

Generate report


Top of page
TitleVesicular lesion on the nose.
Vesicular lesion on the nose.ID-Lelystad
TitleVesicular lesion on the coronary band.
Vesicular lesion on the coronary band.ID-Lelystad
A vesicle on the coronary band extending to the bulb of the heel.
TitleVesicular lesion in the interdigital space.
CaptionA vesicle on the coronary band extending to the bulb of the heel.
A vesicle on the coronary band extending to the bulb of the heel.
Vesicular lesion in the interdigital space.A vesicle on the coronary band extending to the bulb of the heel.ID-Lelystad
Vesicular lesions on the teats and udder.
TitleVesicular lesion.
CaptionVesicular lesions on the teats and udder.
Vesicular lesions on the teats and udder.
Vesicular lesion.Vesicular lesions on the teats and udder.ID-Lelystad
Erosions on the tongue are similar to those that can occur in FMD.
TitleExternal symptoms
CaptionErosions on the tongue are similar to those that can occur in FMD.
Copyright©USDA-2002/Foreign Animal Diseases Training Set/USDA-Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)
Erosions on the tongue are similar to those that can occur in FMD.
External symptomsErosions on the tongue are similar to those that can occur in FMD.©USDA-2002/Foreign Animal Diseases Training Set/USDA-Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)
Ruptured vesicles on the heel are indistinguishable from FMD (Foot and Mouth Disease).
TitleExternal symptoms
CaptionRuptured vesicles on the heel are indistinguishable from FMD (Foot and Mouth Disease).
Copyright©USDA-2002/Foreign Animal Diseases Training Set/USDA-Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)
Ruptured vesicles on the heel are indistinguishable from FMD (Foot and Mouth Disease).
External symptomsRuptured vesicles on the heel are indistinguishable from FMD (Foot and Mouth Disease).©USDA-2002/Foreign Animal Diseases Training Set/USDA-Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)


Top of page

Preferred Scientific Name

  • swine vesicular disease

International Common Names

  • English: swine vesicular disease - exotic
  • Spanish: enfermedad vesicular del cerdo
  • French: maladie vesiculaire du porc

Local Common Names

  • Denmark: blaeresyge hos svin
  • Germany: schweine-blaeschenkrankheit
  • Italy: malattia vescicolare dei suini; malattia vescicolare del suino
  • Netherlands: blaasjesziekte; vesiculaire varkensziekte

English acronym

  • SVD


Top of page

Swine vesicular disease (SVD) was first observed in Italy in 1966, where it was clinically recognized as foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) (Nardelli et al., 1968). Physical and chemical analysis of the virus showed that it differed from FMD, vesicular stomatitis and vesicular exanthema virus. SVD was very similar to viruses belonging to the genus Enterovirus within the family of Picornaviridae. SVD virus (SVDV) was subsequently isolated in an FMD vaccine trial in Hong Kong in 1971 (Mowat et al., 1972). Due to the similarity of its lesions to those produced by FMD, SVD was included in the list of diseases notifiable to the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE); however, the disease is often mild in nature and SVDV may infect pigs subclinically. Due to this and to the ease of laboratory differential diagnosis, it is no longer a listed disease (OIE, 2020).

Host Animals

Top of page
Animal nameContextLife stageSystem
Sus scrofa (pigs)Domesticated host; Wild hostPigs|All Stages
TayassuidaeDomesticated host; Wild host

Hosts/Species Affected

Top of page

Clinical disease after a swine vesicular disease (SVD) infection is restricted to pigs. Not only Euro-Asian pigs but also American one-toed pigs (peccaries;tayassuidae) are susceptible (Wilder et al., 1974). Relatively high titres of swine vesicular disease virus (SVDV) have been detected in the pharynx of sheep kept in close contact with SVD infected pigs (Burrows et al., 1974b). In some of the contact sheep, neutralizing antibodies were detected, indicating that the virus had replicated in the sheep.

Systems Affected

Top of page
digestive diseases of pigs
mammary gland diseases of pigs
nervous system diseases of pigs
reproductive diseases of pigs
skin and ocular diseases of pigs


Top of page

After its first detection in Italy in 1966, the disease occurred in Europe during the 1970s and 1980s and was also detected in far east Asia. Since then, it has only been sporadically reported, mainly from Italy, where it has been controlled and finally eradicated through an active virological and serological surveillance plan. Since 2019, all Italian territories have been recognised SVD-free (OIE, 2020).

The table below shows the countries that have previously reported outbreaks of SVD. North and South America are considered free of SVD, although Nicaragua (in 1986) and Bolivia (in 1991) reported outbreaks. Because SVD generally does not cause serious problems, the disease is probably under-reported. Foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) outbreaks in Italy (in 1993) and Taiwan (in 1997) coincided with increased reports of SVD diagnoses in both countries. This suggests that farmers, who are familiar with the symptoms of SVD, do not report the disease until they think it might be FMD, resulting in a slower recognition of FMD.

Outbreaks of swine vesicular disease. Based on the FAO Animal Health Yearbook (1971-1996), information obtained from the European reference laboratory for vesicular diseases in Pirbright (UK) and Niedbalski and Fitzner (2017).

RegionYear of report


Great Britain1982
Central and South America
Hong Kong1991

Outbreaks of an idiopathic vesicular disease of swine have been reported in Canada in 2007, in the U.S., Brazil and Columbia in subsequent years and since 2015 also in south east Asia (China, Thailand, Vietnam). However, the identified agent was a Senecavirus type A (SV-A), which also belongs to the Picornaviridae family (OIE, 2020).

Distribution Table

Top of page

The distribution in this summary table is based on all the information available. When several references are cited, they may give conflicting information on the status. Further details may be available for individual references in the Distribution Table Details section which can be selected by going to Generate Report.

Last updated: 10 Jan 2020
Continent/Country/Region Distribution Last Reported Origin First Reported Invasive Reference Notes


AlgeriaAbsent, No presence record(s)
AngolaAbsent, No presence record(s)
BotswanaAbsent, No presence record(s)
Burkina FasoAbsent, No presence record(s)
Cabo VerdeAbsent, No presence record(s)
CameroonAbsent, No presence record(s)
Central African RepublicAbsent, No presence record(s)
ChadAbsent, No presence record(s)
Congo, Democratic Republic of theAbsent, No presence record(s)
Côte d'IvoireAbsent, No presence record(s)
DjiboutiAbsent, No presence record(s)
EgyptAbsent, No presence record(s)
EritreaAbsent, No presence record(s)
EswatiniAbsent, No presence record(s)
EthiopiaAbsent, No presence record(s)
GhanaAbsent, No presence record(s)
GuineaAbsent, No presence record(s)
Guinea-BissauAbsent, No presence record(s)
KenyaAbsent, No presence record(s)
LibyaAbsent, No presence record(s)
MadagascarAbsent, No presence record(s)
MalawiAbsent, No presence record(s)
MaliAbsent, No presence record(s)
MauritiusAbsent, No presence record(s)
MoroccoAbsent, No presence record(s)
MozambiqueAbsent, No presence record(s)
NamibiaAbsent, No presence record(s)
NigeriaAbsent, No presence record(s)
RéunionAbsent, No presence record(s)
São Tomé and PríncipeAbsent, No presence record(s)
SenegalAbsent, No presence record(s)
SeychellesAbsent, No presence record(s)
SomaliaAbsent, No presence record(s)
South AfricaAbsent, No presence record(s)
SudanAbsent, No presence record(s)
TanzaniaAbsent, No presence record(s)
TogoAbsent, No presence record(s)
TunisiaAbsent, No presence record(s)
UgandaAbsent, No presence record(s)
ZambiaAbsent, No presence record(s)
ZimbabweAbsent, No presence record(s)


AfghanistanAbsent, No presence record(s)
AzerbaijanAbsent, No presence record(s)
BahrainAbsent, No presence record(s)
BangladeshAbsent, No presence record(s)
BhutanAbsent, No presence record(s)
BruneiAbsent, No presence record(s)
GeorgiaAbsent, No presence record(s)
IndiaAbsent, No presence record(s)
IndonesiaAbsent, No presence record(s)
IranAbsent, No presence record(s)
IraqAbsent, No presence record(s)
IsraelAbsent, No presence record(s)
JordanAbsent, No presence record(s)
KazakhstanAbsent, No presence record(s)
KuwaitAbsent, No presence record(s)
-Peninsular MalaysiaAbsent, No presence record(s)
-SabahAbsent, No presence record(s)
-SarawakAbsent, No presence record(s)
MongoliaAbsent, No presence record(s)
MyanmarAbsent, No presence record(s)
NepalAbsent, No presence record(s)
North KoreaAbsent, No presence record(s)
OmanAbsent, No presence record(s)
PhilippinesAbsent, No presence record(s)
QatarAbsent, No presence record(s)
Saudi ArabiaAbsent, No presence record(s)
SingaporeAbsent, No presence record(s)
South KoreaAbsent, No presence record(s)
Sri LankaAbsent, No presence record(s)
SyriaAbsent, No presence record(s)
TajikistanAbsent, No presence record(s)
ThailandAbsent, No presence record(s)
TurkeyAbsent, No presence record(s)
TurkmenistanAbsent, No presence record(s)
United Arab EmiratesAbsent, No presence record(s)
UzbekistanAbsent, No presence record(s)
VietnamAbsent, No presence record(s)
YemenAbsent, No presence record(s)


AndorraAbsent, No presence record(s)
BelarusAbsent, No presence record(s)
Bosnia and HerzegovinaAbsent, No presence record(s)
BulgariaAbsent, No presence record(s)
CroatiaAbsent, No presence record(s)
CyprusAbsent, No presence record(s)
CzechiaAbsent, No presence record(s)
DenmarkAbsent, No presence record(s)
EstoniaAbsent, No presence record(s)
Federal Republic of YugoslaviaAbsent, No presence record(s)
FinlandAbsent, No presence record(s)
HungaryAbsent, No presence record(s)
IcelandAbsent, No presence record(s)
IrelandAbsent, No presence record(s)
Isle of ManAbsent, No presence record(s)
JerseyAbsent, No presence record(s)
LatviaAbsent, No presence record(s)
LiechtensteinAbsent, No presence record(s)
LithuaniaAbsent, No presence record(s)
LuxembourgAbsent, No presence record(s)
MoldovaAbsent, No presence record(s)
North MacedoniaAbsent, No presence record(s)
NorwayAbsent, No presence record(s)
RussiaAbsent, No presence record(s)
Serbia and MontenegroAbsent, No presence record(s)
SlovakiaAbsent, No presence record(s)
SloveniaAbsent, No presence record(s)
SwedenAbsent, No presence record(s)
United Kingdom
-Northern IrelandAbsent, No presence record(s)

North America

BarbadosAbsent, No presence record(s)
BelizeAbsent, No presence record(s)
BermudaAbsent, No presence record(s)
British Virgin IslandsAbsent, No presence record(s)
CanadaAbsent, No presence record(s)
Cayman IslandsAbsent, No presence record(s)
Costa RicaAbsent, No presence record(s)
CubaAbsent, No presence record(s)
CuraçaoAbsent, No presence record(s)
DominicaAbsent, No presence record(s)
Dominican RepublicAbsent, No presence record(s)
El SalvadorAbsent, No presence record(s)
GuadeloupeAbsent, No presence record(s)
GuatemalaAbsent, No presence record(s)
HaitiAbsent, No presence record(s)
HondurasAbsent, No presence record(s)
JamaicaAbsent, No presence record(s)
MartiniqueAbsent, No presence record(s)
MexicoAbsent, No presence record(s)
NicaraguaAbsent, No presence record(s)
PanamaAbsent, No presence record(s)
Saint Kitts and NevisAbsent, No presence record(s)
Saint Vincent and the GrenadinesAbsent, No presence record(s)
Trinidad and TobagoAbsent, No presence record(s)
United StatesAbsent, No presence record(s)


AustraliaAbsent, No presence record(s)
French PolynesiaAbsent, No presence record(s)
New CaledoniaAbsent, No presence record(s)
New ZealandAbsent, No presence record(s)
SamoaAbsent, No presence record(s)
VanuatuAbsent, No presence record(s)

South America

ArgentinaAbsent, No presence record(s)
BoliviaAbsent, No presence record(s)
BrazilAbsent, No presence record(s)
ChileAbsent, No presence record(s)
ColombiaAbsent, No presence record(s)
EcuadorAbsent, No presence record(s)
Falkland IslandsAbsent, No presence record(s)
French GuianaAbsent, No presence record(s)
GuyanaAbsent, No presence record(s)
ParaguayAbsent, No presence record(s)
PeruAbsent, No presence record(s)
UruguayAbsent, No presence record(s)
VenezuelaAbsent, No presence record(s)


Top of page

In typical cases, lesions are first noticed at the junction of the heel and the coronary band. The whole of the coronary band may eventually be involved and the lesions may spread to the metatarsal and metacarpal regions. The horn and sole may be underrun so extensively that the claw(s) slough off. In lactating sows, lesions on the udder and teats can also be seen. Occasionally, the skin of the thorax and abdomen is involved. Lesions in the mouth, on the lips and snout (see pictures) occur in up to 10% of cases. Those on the snout are mostly on the dorsal face of the rostrum and may be haemorrhagic in appearance. Tongue lesions are transient and heal rapidly (Hedger and Mann, 1989). In experimentally infected animals a nonsuppurative meningo-encephalitis may occur, but this does not result in signs of impaired central nervous system function (Chu et al., 1979).


Top of page

After suspect signs of a vesicular disease in pigs, the farm should be treated as suspected of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) until proven otherwise. Although virus isolation on IBRS-2 cells (De Castro, 1964) is considered the most sensitive method for virus identification (Dawe et al., 1973). The amount of virus in vesicular material is very high and can therefore easily be identified by antigen detection using an ELISA (Hamblin et al., 1984). In addition to IBRS-2 cells, SK6, PK-15 and primary or secondary porcine kidney cells are also susceptible to SVDV (Nardelli et al., 1968; Callens and De Clercq, 1999). High amounts (> 103.5 plaque forming units) of swine vesicular disease virus (SVDV) induce nervous signs leading to paralysis and death in 1-day-old mice inoculated intracerebrally or intraperitoneally (Nardelli et al., 1968). Virus isolation takes one to several days, in contrast to antigen detection using the complement fixation test or ELISA, which can be performed within 4 h (Hamblin et al., 1984). Both the complement fixation test as well as the ELISA can be used on vesicular material from suspected pigs or they can be used to type virus isolated in cell cultures; the ELISA is much more sensitive than the complement fixation test. Using a RT-PCR (Lin et al., 1997; Núñez et al., 1998; Callens and De Clercq, 1999) the viral genome can be detected. This technique sometimes produces false positive results due to contamination with the product of previous PCR reactions. RT-PCR, however, can be the test of choice if large numbers of faeces samples have to be tested. ELISA and virus isolation are preferred techniques for the laboratory diagnosis of suspected vesicular material (OIE, 1996).

In the aftermath of an outbreak, detection of specific antibodies is essential to prove that no infected farms have been missed. After an SVDV infection, high titres of neutralising antibodies are found (Nardelli et al., 1968). Neutralisation tests, however, are laborious and therefore radial immunodiffusion and ELISA tests have been developed (Golding et al. 1976; Hamblin and Crowther, 1982; Armstrong and Barnett, 1989). Both tests are easier to perform than the neutralisation test, but produce more false positive results. It has been shown that the specificity of the ELISA could be increased by using monoclonal antibodies (MAbs) (Brocchi et al., 1995; Chénard et al., 1998). A MAb based test was therefore adopted as a standard test for international trade by the OIE (1996).

For detailed information regarding laboratory diagnostic methodologies, refer to the OIE Manual of Diagnostic Tests and Vaccines for Terrestrial Animals.

List of Symptoms/Signs

Top of page
SignLife StagesType
Digestive Signs / Anorexia, loss or decreased appetite, not nursing, off feed Sign
Digestive Signs / Oral mucosal ulcers, vesicles, plaques, pustules, erosions, tears Sign
Digestive Signs / Tongue ulcers, vesicles, erosions, sores, blisters, cuts, tears Sign
General Signs / Fever, pyrexia, hyperthermia Pigs|All Stages Sign
General Signs / Forelimb lameness, stiffness, limping fore leg Sign
General Signs / Generalized lameness or stiffness, limping Sign
General Signs / Hindlimb lameness, stiffness, limping hind leg Sign
General Signs / Lameness, stiffness, stilted gait in birds Pigs|All Stages Sign
Nervous Signs / Dullness, depression, lethargy, depressed, lethargic, listless Sign
Pain / Discomfort Signs / Forefoot pain, front foot Sign
Pain / Discomfort Signs / Hindfoot pain, rear foot Sign
Skin / Integumentary Signs / Defective growth of nail, claw, hoof Pigs|All Stages Sign
Skin / Integumentary Signs / Nail, claw, hoof sloughing, separation Pigs|All Stages Diagnosis
Skin / Integumentary Signs / Nail, claw, hoof, abscess, ulcer, under-run Pigs|All Stages Diagnosis
Skin / Integumentary Signs / Skin erythema, inflammation, redness Pigs|All Stages Sign
Skin / Integumentary Signs / Skin ulcer, erosion, excoriation Sign
Skin / Integumentary Signs / Skin vesicles, bullae, blisters Pigs|All Stages Diagnosis

Disease Course

Top of page

The disease

Strains of swine vesicular disease virus (SVDV) vary in virulence, and the disease may be subclinical, mild or severe. The latter is usually only seen when pigs are housed on a concrete floor in humid conditions (Kodama et al., 1980; Hedger and Mann, 1989; Kanno et al., 1999). Clinical signs also tend to be more severe in young pigs. However, most recent outbreaks have been caused by less virulent strains of SVDV (Spickler, 2017). Clinical disease after an SVD infection is restricted to pigs. The first sign of disease may be sudden appearance of lameness in several animals in a group in close contact and a transient fever of up to 41°C (OIE, 2020). Vesicles appear around the coronary bands (see pictures), on the skin of the metacarpus and metatarsus, and to a lesser extent on the snout, tongue and lips. Lesions are indistinguishable from those induced by a foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) infection. This is the main reason why SVD is considered important, and any outbreak of vesicular disease in pigs must be assumed to be FMD until proven otherwise.

Sudden death, due to heart degeneration, which is often observed in young piglets affected with FMD, is not seen in SVD. Clinical signs are only seen on the skin of the feet and the mammary gland. SVDV can however be isolated from faeces (it is an enterovirus) so viral replication is found in the digestive tract. SVDV can be found in semen (reproductive tract); however, infection with virologically positive semen is not possible. Clinical signs of the nervous system are always absent.


It has been suggested that SVDV enters the pig through the skin or the mucosa of the digestive tract (Chu et al., 1979; Lai et al., 1979; Mann and Hutchings, 1980). Experimental SVDV infection can lead to clinical signs within 2 days and the virus has been isolated from a wide range of tissues (Burrows et al., 1974a; Chu et al., 1979; Lai et al., 1979, Dekker et al., 1995). SVDV has a strong tropism for epithelial tissues, but also in the myocardium and the brain SVDV titres significantly exceed those detected in plasma. Therefore, epithelial tissues, myocardium and brain are probably the main sites of virus replication (Chu et al., 1979; Lai et al., 1979). Lymph nodes may also contain high titres of SVDV after experimental infection. It is not known, however, whether these tissues were merely positive, because of the drainage of virus or because of virus replication. Immunofluorescence staining and histological studies have demonstrated that SVDV first replicates in epithelial cells of the stratum spinosum of the epidermis, and then in a later stage also in cells of the stratum granulosum (Chu et al., 1979; Lai et al., 1979). Using the immunofluorescence test, no antigen has been detected in the epidermis of the ventral part of the tongue. This is consistent with the fact that lesions in the thin epithelium on the ventral part of the tongue are not seen in SVD infections. The same applies to FMD infections. In-situ hybridisation has demonstrated that FMDV genome was present in a large number of epidermal tissues after FMD infection, irrespective of whether or not it was a predilection site of vesicular lesions (Brown et al., 1995). This demonstrates that FMD grows in more cells than those previously identified, but the ventral part of the tongue has not been studied. In-situ hybridisation has been developed for SVD (Mulder et al., 1997), but has not extensively been used in pathogenesis studies. It can be expected that if an SVDV infection is also studied using in-situ hybridisation, more tissues can be identified which can propagate the virus.


Top of page

An epidemiological field study in the UK revealed that the main source of infection was movement of pigs (48%), partly because infected pigs were transported (16%), contaminated transport vehicles were used (21%) or due to contacts at markets (11%). A second source of infection (15%) was feeding of contaminated waste food (Hedger and Mann, 1989). The exceptionally high stability of the virus outside the host is the reason that indirect contacts, like transport vehicles or waste food, play an essential role in the epidemiology of swine vesicular disease (SVD). Studies on swine vesicular disease virus (SVDV) transmission within a farm showed that spread from one pen to another may not occur in the absence of a shared open drainage system, or without frequent movement of pigs between pens; SVD is a 'pen disease' rather than a farm disease (Hedger and Mann, 1989). In the 1992 outbreaks in the Netherlands, the distribution of serologically positive pigs in both fattening farms and two of the three breeding farms confirmed the previous description, because serologically positive pigs were mostly located in a few adjacent pens (Dekker and Terpstra, 1996; Dekker et al., 2000b). In one breeding farm, however, a more or less random distribution of serologically positive pigs was found.

Because infected pigs are instantly culled it is not easy to study the transmission of SVD in the field. IgM and IgG ELISAs have been developed to study the time the virus was introduced (Brocchi et al., 1995; Dekker et al., 2000b). With these ELISAs, however, the exact time of introduction can not be assessed, when the infection has taken place more than 4 weeks before the collection of samples. Analysis of the Dutch 1992 and 1994 outbreaks, however, revealed that infection had been on most farms for a longer period than was previously thought (Dekker et al., 2000b). In contrast to foot-and-mouth disease virus (FMDV) infections in ruminants, persistence of SVD in infected pigs is not common, there is one report that the virus can be recovered up to 126 days after infection (Lin et al., 1998), but it has been difficult to reproduce these findings (World Reference Laboratory for foot-and-mouth, Pirbright, Woking, UK, personal communication, 2000). FMDV can persist up to 3 years in cattle and up to 9 months in sheep. These FMDV carriers are thought to play a role in the epidemiology of FMD (Salt, 1993). There has also been a report on the persistence of FMDV in pigs (Mezencio et al., 1999).

Impact: Economic

Top of page

Outbreaks of swine vesicular disease (SVD) in the Netherlands in 1992 and subsequent complaints from Italy, accusing the Netherlands of exporting the disease to their country, led to an export ban of live pigs and pigmeat for one month. This export ban imposed by the EU led to a loss of income of approximately US $17 million. To prevent more unjustified export bans the Netherlands started a nation-wide surveillance programme in 1993 costing approximately US $3 million per year. Italy also has a surveillance program, with slightly higher costs. These economic costs are in most cases the only costs, the clinical signs do not have a very high economic impact.

Zoonoses and Food Safety

Top of page

Humans have been infected with SVDV while working with this virus in the laboratory. However, there are no reports of seroconversion or disease in farmers or veterinarians after contact with infected pigs (Spickler, 2017).

Disease Treatment

Top of page

Treatment of SVD is not necessary or possible. Most lesions heal completely. Secondary bacterial infections can be treated with antibiotics.

Prevention and Control

Top of page

When swine vesicular disease (SVD) was first recognized, differentiating it from foot-and-mouth disease (FMD), vesicular stomatitis and vesicular exanthema was not very easy. Therefore it was generally accepted that SVD could not be tolerated in countries normally free from the other diseases. For this reason, SVD was placed on the list of notifiable diseases of the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE). However, it was delisted by OIE in 2014. SVD is a notifiable disease in the European Union (EU) and in case of an outbreak, it is strictly controlled both by 'stamping out' and restrictions on livestock movement. Stamping out involves slaughter and destruction of the infected herds, followed by tracing and surveillance of pigs on other premises that may have been exposed to infection. Following slaughter and disposal of pigs, the premises are cleaned and disinfected. Good disinfection is difficult, especially in farms with a lot of crevasses in the floors and walls. Several cases of recurring infection have been reported after stamping out, and sometimes the infection only occurred in the pens where the infected pigs were housed the first time (A Berlinzani, Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale della Lombardia e dell'Emilia, Italy, personal communication, 2000). The costs of control measures and trade restrictions can be very high. In 1993 the export of Dutch pigs was blocked for one month (decision 93/128/EEC), the cost of loss of export was estimated to be approximately 16 million Euro (Terpstra et al., 1995). Because of the economic losses, or the public health consequences, all list-A diseases should be rapidly recognized, diagnosed and reported.

SVD, however, can be mild and the first cases may be missed. If the farmer or the veterinary practitioner does not recognize the disease, a large proportion of the pigs might become infected, and the disease might spread to other farms. Therefore serosurveillance is essential, especially in the aftermath of an outbreak, to detect subclinical- or undisclosed clinical infections, or to prove the absence of virus (Tokui et al., 1975; Hendrie et al., 1978; Pappous et al., 1980; Larenaudie et al., 1982). Routine surveillance and pre- and post-export testing are conducted in some countries, particularly in Europe (OIE, 2020).

SVD vaccines have been developed for the control of clinical disease (Delagneau et al., 1974; Mowat et al., 1974; Gourreau et al., 1975; McKercher and Graves, 1976). Apart from monovalent SVD vaccines, there are also combinations with FMD (McKercher and Graves, 1976; Mitev et al., 1978) and recently a SVD sub-unit vaccine has been described. This latter vaccine was not very efficacious (Jiménez-Clavero et al., 1998). Although the inactivated virus vaccines were efficacious in protection against clinical signs, it has not been evaluated whether it can reduce wild-type virus transmission. No SVD vaccine is commercially available and to date vaccination of pigs has not been undertaken in the field.


Top of page

Armstrong RM, Barnett ITR, 1989. An enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) for the detection and quantification of antibodies against swine vesicular disease virus (SVDV). Journal of Virological Methods, 25(1):71-79; 10 ref

Brocchi E, Berlinzani A, Gamba D, Simone Fde, 1995. Development of two novel monoclonal antibody-based ELISAs for the detection of antibodies and the identification of swine isotypes against swine vesicular disease virus. Journal of Virological Methods, 52(1/2):155-167; 20 ref

Brocchi E, Zhang G, Knowles NJ, Wilsden G, McCauley JW, Marquardt O, Ohlinger VF, Simone Fde, 1997. Molecular epidemiology of recent outbreaks of swine vesicular disease: two genetically and antigenically distinct variants in Europe, 1987-94. Epidemiology and Infection, 118(1):51-61; 32 ref

Brown CC, Olander HJ, Meyer RF, 1995. Pathogenesis of foot-and-mouth disease in swine, studied by in situ hybridization. Journal of Comparative Pathology, 113(1):51-58; 6 ref

Brown F, Goodridge D, Burrows R, 1976. Infection of man by swine vesicular disease virus. Journal of Comparative Pathology, 86:409-414

Brown F, Talbot P, Burrows R, 1973. Antigenic differences between isolates of swine vesicular disease virus and their relationship to Coxsackie B5 virus. Nature, 245:315-316

Burrows R, Mann JA, Goodridge D and Chapman WG, 1974. Swine vesicular disease: attempts to transmit infection to cattle and sheep. Journal of Hygiene, 73:101-107

Burrows R, Mann JA, Goodridge D, 1974. Swine vesicular disease: virological studies of experimental infections produced by the England/72 virus. Journal of Hygiene, 72:135-143

Callens M, Clercq Kde, 1999. Highly sensitive detection of swine vesicular disease virus based on a single tube RT-PCR system and DIG-ELISA detection. Journal of Virological Methods, 77(1):87-99; 32 ref

Chénard G, Bloemraad M, Kramps JA, Terpstra C, Dekker A, 1998. Validation of a monoclonal antibody-based ELISA to detect antibodies directed against swine vesicular disease virus. Journal of Virological Methods, 75(1):105-112; 17 ref

Chu RM, Moore DM, Conroy JD, 1979. Experimental swine vesicular disease, pathology and immunofluorescence studies. Canadian Journal of Comparative Medicine, 43:29-38

Dawe PS, Forman AJ, Smale CJ, 1973. A preliminary investigation of the swine vesicular disease epidemic in Britain. Nature, 241:540-542

de Castro MP, 1964. Behaviour of the foot-and-mouth disease virus in cell cultures: susceptibility of the IB-RS-2 line. Archivos do Instituto Biologico São Paulo, 31:63-78

Dekker A, Leendertse CH, Poelwijk F et al. , 2000. Chimeric SVD viruses produced by fusion PCR. A new method for epitope mapping. Journal of virological methods, 86:131-141

Dekker A, Moonen P, Boer-Luijtze EAde, Terpstra C, 1995. Pathogenesis of swine vesicular disease after exposure of pigs to an infected environment. Veterinary Microbiology, 45(2/3):243-250; 12 ref

Dekker A, Terpstra C, 1996. Aspects of the epidemiology of swine vesicular disease. Collection of samples as part of herd surveillance. Tijdschrift voor Diergeneeskunde, 121(12):347-349; 4 ref

Dekker A, van Hemert-Kluitenberg F, Baars C et al. , 2000. Isotype specific ELISAs to detect antibodies against swine vesicular disease virus and their use in epidemiology. Epidemiology and Infection (submitted)

Delagneau JF, Guerche J, Adamowicz P, Prunet P, 1974. Swine vesicular disease: physicochemical and immunogenic properties of the virus strain France 1/73. Annales de Microbiologie, 125B:559-574

FAO Animal Health Yearbook, 1971-1996. Rome, Italy: FAO publisher

Golding SM, Hedger RS, Talbot P, Watson J, 1976. Radial immuno diffusion and serum neutralisation techniques for the assay of antibodies to swine vesicular disease. Research in Veterinary Science, 20:142-147

Gourreau JM, Dhennin L, Labie J, 1975. Preparation of an inactivated virus vaccine against swine vesicular disease. Recueil de Medecine Veterinaire, 151:85-89

Graves JH, 1973. Serological realtionship of swine vesicular disease and Coxsackie B5 virus. Nature, 245:314-315

Hamblin C, Armstrong RM, Hedger RS, 1984. A rapid enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for the detection of foot-and-mouth disease virus in epithelial tissues. Veterinary Microbiology, 9:435-443

Hamblin C, Crowther JR, 1982. A rapid enzyme linked immunosorbent assay for the serological confirmation of swine vesicular disease. British Veterinary Journal, 138:247-252

Hedger RS, Mann JA, 1989. Swine vesicular disease virus. Virus infections of porcines., 241-250; 30 ref

Hendrie EW, Baker K, Hedger R et al. , 1978. Swine vesicular disease: serum surveys 5 and 6. Veterinary Record, 102:126-127

Inoue T, Suzuki T, Sekiguchi K, 1989. The complete nucleotide sequence of swine vesicular disease virus. Journal of General Virology, 70(4):919-934; 53 ref

Jiménez-Clavero MA, Escribano-Romero E, Sánchez-Vizcaíno JM, Ley V, 1998. Molecular cloning, expression and immunological analysis of the capsid precursor polypeptide (P1) from swine vesicular disease virus. Virus Research, 57(2):163-170; 16 ref

Kanno T, Inoue T, Wang YiFei, Sarai A, Yamaguchi S, 1995. Identification of the location of antigenic sites of swine vesicular disease virus with neutralization-resistant mutants. Journal of General Virology, 76(12):3099-3106; 28 ref

Kanno T, Mackay D, Inoue T, Wilsden G, Yamakawa M, Yamazoe R, Yamaguchi S, Shirai J, Kitching P, Murakami Y, 1999. Mapping the genetic determinants of pathogenicity and plaque phenotype in swine vesicular disease virus. Journal of Virology, 73(4):2710-2716; 53 ref

Knowles NJ, McCauley JW, 1997. Coxsackievirus B5 and the relationship to swine vesicular disease virus. Current Topics in Microbiology and Immunology; Coxsackie B viruses, 223: 153-167

Kodama M, Ogawa T, Saito T et al. , 1980. Swine vesicular disease viruses isolated from healthy pigs in non epizootic period. I. Isolation and identification. National Institute of Animal Health Quarterly, Japan, 20:1-10

Lai SS, McKercher PD, Moore DM, Gillespie JH, 1979. Pathogenesis of swine vesicular disease in pigs. American Journal of Veterinary Research, 40:463-468

Larenaudie B, Remond M, Gourreau JM, 1982. Swine vesicular disease in France. Results of a serological survey. Proceedings of the 10th Conference of the OIE Regional Commission for Europe. London, UK, 28 September to 1 October 1982, 27-30

Lin F, Mackay DKJ, Knowles NJ, 1997. Detection of swine vesicular disease virus RNA by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction. Journal of Virological Methods, 65(1):111-121; 25 ref

Lin F, Mackay DKJ, Knowles NJ, 1998. The persistence of swine vesicular disease virus infection in pigs. Epidemiology and Infection, 121(2):459-472; 38 ref

Mann JA, Hutchings GH, 1980. Swine vesicular disease: pathways of infection. Journal of Hygiene, 84:355-363

McKercher PD, Graves JH, 1976. A mixed vaccine for swine: an aid for control of foot-and-mouth and swine vesicular diseases. Boletin del Centro Panamericano de Fiebre Aftosa, 23/24:37-49

Mezencio JMS, Babcock GD, Kramer E, Brown F, 1999. Evidence for the persistence of foot-and-mouth disease virus in pigs. Veterinary Journal, 157(3):213-217; 5 ref

Mitev G, Tekerlekov P, Dilovsky M et al. , 1978. Experiments on the preparation and testing of associated vaccine against foot and mouth disease and vesicular disease in swine. Archiv fur Experimentelle Veterinarmedizin, 32:29-33

Mowat GN, Darbyshire JH, Huntley JF, 1972. Differentiation of a vesicular disease of pigs in Hong Kong from foot-and-mouth disease. The Veterinary Record, 90:618-621

Mowat GN, Prince MJ, Spier RE, Staple RF, 1974. Preliminary studies on the development of a swine vesicular disease vaccine. Archiv fur die Gesamte Virusforschung, 44:350-360

Mulder WAM, Poelwijk Fvan, Moormann RJM, Reus B, Kok GL, Pol JMA, Dekker A, 1997. Detection of early infection of swine vesicular disease virus in porcine cells and skin sections. A comparison of immunohistochemistry and in-situ hybridization. Journal of Virological Methods, 68(2):169-175; 20 ref

Nardelli L, Lodetti E, Gualandi FL et al. , 1968. A foot-and-mouth disease syndrome in pigs caused by an enterovirus. Nature, 219:1275-1276

Niedbalski, W., Fitzner, A., 2017. Occurrence and diagnosis of swine vesicular disease: past and present status. Medycyna Weterynaryjna, 73(4), 197-201. doi: 10.21521/mw.5678

Nijhar SK, Mackay DKJ, Brocchi E, Ferris NP, Kitching RP, Knowles NJ, 1999. Identification of neutralizing epitopes on a European strain of swine vesicular disease virus. Journal of General Virology, 80(2):277-282; 22 ref

Núñez JI, Blanco E, Hernández T, Gómez-Tejedor C, Martín MJ, Dopazo J, Sobrino F, 1998. A RT-PCR assay for the differential diagnosis of vesicular viral diseases of swine. Journal of Virological Methods, 72(2):227-235; 37 ref

Office International des Epizooties, 1996. Manual of standards for diagnostic tests and vaccines: lists A and B diseases of mammals, birds and bees. Manual of standards for diagnostic tests and vaccines: lists A and B diseases of mammals, birds and bees., Ed. 3:xxxii + 723 pp.; [Bdo]

Office International des Epizooties, 1999. World Animal Health in 1999. Paris, France: OIE

Office International des Epizooties, 2000. Disease Information, 13(50)

OIE Handistatus, 2002. World Animal Health Publication and Handistatus II (dataset for 2001). Paris, France: Office International des Epizooties

OIE Handistatus, 2003. World Animal Health Publication and Handistatus II (dataset for 2002). Paris, France: Office International des Epizooties

OIE Handistatus, 2004. World Animal Health Publication and Handistatus II (data set for 2003). Paris, France: Office International des Epizooties

OIE Handistatus, 2005. World Animal Health Publication and Handistatus II (data set for 2004). Paris, France: Office International des Epizooties

OIE, 2004. Swine vesicular disease in Portugal. Disease Information, 17, No. 3

OIE, 2020. Swine vesicular disease (updated January 2020). In: OIE Technical disease cards Paris, France: World Organisation for Animal Health.

Pappous C, Dimitriadis I, Giannakidis D et al. , 1980. Serological survey of swine for neutralizing antibodies to swine vesicular disease. Deltion tes Hellenikes Kteniatrikes Hetaireias. Bulletin of the Hellenic Veterinary Medical Society, 31:244-252

Rueckert RR, 1996. Picornaviridae: The viruses and their replication. In: Fields BN, Knipe DM, Howley PM et al., eds. Virology. Philadelphia, USA: Lipincot-Raven publishers, 609-654

Salt JS, 1993. The carrier state in foot-and-mouth disease - an immunological review. British Veterinary Journal, 149:207-223

Spickler, A. R., 2017. Swine vesicular disease (updated December 2017). Iowa, USA: Center for Food Security and Public Health (CFSPH), Iowa State University.

Terpstra C, Dekker A, Reek FH, Chenard G, 1995. Swine vesicular disease: threat or challenge to the Dutch pig industry. Tijdschrift voor Diergeneeskunde, 120(9):267-270; 6 ref

Tokui T, Kono M, Tokuda G et al. , 1975. Outbreaks of swine vesicular disease in Japan: virus isolation and epizootiological survey. National Institute of Animal Health Quarterly, Japan, 15:165-173

Wilder FW, Dardiri AH, Gay JG et al. , 1974. Susceptibility of one toed pigs to certain diseases exotic to the United States. Proceedings Annual Meeting of the United States Animal Health Association, 78:195-199

Zhang G, Haydon DT, Knowles NJ, McCauley JW, 1999. Molecular evolution of swine vesicular disease virus. Journal of General Virology, 80(3):639-651; 54 ref

Distribution References

CABI, Undated. Compendium record. Wallingford, UK: CABI

CABI, Undated a. CABI Compendium: Status as determined by CABI editor. Wallingford, UK: CABI

OIE Handistatus, 2005. World Animal Health Publication and Handistatus II (dataset for 2004)., Paris, France: Office International des Epizooties.

Distribution Maps

Top of page
You can pan and zoom the map
Save map
Select a dataset
Map Legends
  • CABI Summary Records
Map Filters
Third party data sources: