Despite decades of research, no vaccines currently exist.

Recombinant technology has however been used to target the formation of vaccines for HPIV-1, -2 and -3 and has taken the form of several live-attenuated intranasal vaccines. Two vaccines in particular were found to be immunogenic and well tolerated against HPIV-3 in phase I trials. HPIV-1 and -2 vaccine candidates remain less advanced.

Vaccine techniques which have been used against HPIVs are not limited to intranasal forms, but also viruses attenuated by cold passage, host range attenuation, chimeric construct vaccines and also introducing mutations with the help of reverse genetics to achieve attenuation.

Maternal antibodies may offer some degree of protection against HPIVs during the early stages of life via the colostrum in breast milk.

Parainfluenza viruses last only a few hours in the environment and are inactivated by soap and water. Furthermore, the virus can also be easily destroyed using common hygiene techniques and detergents, disinfectants and antiseptics.

Environmental factors which are important for HPIV survival are pH, humidity, temperature and the medium the virus in found within. The optimal pH is around the physiologic pH values (7.4 to 8.0), whilst at high temperatures (above 37 °C) and low humidity, infectivity reduces.

The majority of transmission has been linked to close contact, especially in nosocomial infections. Chronic care facilities and doctors' surgeries are also known to be transmission 'hotspots' with transmission occurring via aerosols, large droplets and also fomites (contaminated surfaces).

The exact infectious dose remains unknown.

Infection with Japanese encephalitis confers lifelong immunity. There are currently three vaccines available: SA14-14-2, IC51 (marketed in Australia and New Zealand as JESPECT and elsewhere as IXIARO) and ChimeriVax-JE (marketed as IMOJEV). All current vaccines are based on the genotype III virus.

A formalin-inactivated mouse-brain derived vaccine was first produced in Japan in the 1930s and was validated for use in Taiwan in the 1960s and in Thailand in the 1980s. The widespread use of vaccine and urbanization has led to control of the disease in Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore. The high cost of this vaccine, which is grown in live mice, means that poorer countries have not been able to afford to give it as part of a routine immunization program.

The most common adverse effects are redness and pain at the injection site. Uncommonly, an urticarial reaction can develop about four days after injection. Vaccines produced from mouse brain have a risk of autoimmune neurological complications of around 1 per million vaccinations. However where the vaccine is not produced in mouse brains but in vitro using cell culture there is little adverse effects compared to placebo, the main side effects are headache and myalgia.

The neutralizing antibody persists in the circulation for at least two to three years, and perhaps longer. The total duration of protection is unknown, but because there is no firm evidence for protection beyond three years, boosters are recommended every three years for people who remain at risk. Furthermore, there is also no data available regarding the interchangeability of other JE vaccines and IXIARO.

In September 2012 the Indian firm Biological E. Limited has launched an inactivated cell culture derived vaccine based on SA 14-14-2 strain which was developed in a technology transfer agreement with Intercell and is a thiomersal-free vaccine.

Viral entry is the earliest stage of infection in the viral life cycle, as the virus comes into contact with the host cell and introduces viral material into the cell. The major steps involved in viral entry are shown below. Despite the variation among viruses, there are several shared generalities concerning viral entry.

The mainstay of eradication is the identification and removal of persistently infected animals. Re-infection is then prevented by vaccination and high levels of biosecurity, supported by continuing surveillance. PIs act as viral reservoirs and are the principal source of viral infection but transiently infected animals and contaminated fomites also play a significant role in transmission.

Leading the way in BVD eradication, almost 20 years ago, were the Scandinavian countries. Despite different conditions at the start of the projects in terms of legal support, and regardless of initial prevalence of herds with PI animals, it took all countries approximately 10 years to reach their final stages.

Once proven that BVD eradication could be achieved in a cost efficient way, a number of regional programmes followed in Europe, some of which have developed into national schemes.

Vaccination is an essential part of both control and eradication. While BVD virus is still circulating within the national herd, breeding cattle are at risk of producing PI neonates and the economic consequences of BVD are still relevant. Once eradication has been achieved, unvaccinated animals will represent a naïve and susceptible herd. Infection from imported animals or contaminated fomites brought into the farm, or via transiently infected in-contacts will have devastating consequences.

Vaccines are available (ATCvet codes: for the inactivated vaccine, for the live vaccine, plus various combinations).

Given that avian reovirus infections are widespread, the viruses are relatively resistant outside the host, and that vertical and horizontal transmission occurs, eradicating avian reovirus infection in commercial chicken flocks is very unlikely. In addition, absence of detectable seroconversion and failure to detect virus in cloacal swabs are unreliable indicators of resisting infection, or transmission via the egg. Thus, the most proactive and successful approach to controlling this disease is through vaccination. Since chicks are more prone to being detrimentally affected by the disease right after hatching, vaccine protocols that use live and killed vaccines are designed to provide protection during the very early stages of life. This approach has been accomplished through active immunity after early vaccination and a live vaccine or passive immunity from maternal antibodies followed with vaccination of the breeder hens. Currently, efforts toward administering inactivated or live vaccines to breeding stock to allow passive immunity to the offspring via the yolk are being taken.

There are currently no Food and Drug Administration-approved vaccines for the prevention of MVD. Many candidate vaccines have been developed and tested in various animal models. Of those, the most promising ones are DNA vaccines or based on Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus replicons, vesicular stomatitis Indiana virus (VSIV) or filovirus-like particles (VLPs) as all of these candidates could protect nonhuman primates from marburgvirus-induced disease. DNA vaccines have entered clinical trials. Marburgviruses are highly infectious, but not very contagious. Importantly, and contrary to popular belief, marburgviruses do not get transmitted by aerosol during natural MVD outbreaks. Due to the absence of an approved vaccine, prevention of MVD therefore relies predominantly on behavior modification, proper personal protective equipment, and sterilization/disinfection.

Modern vaccination programmes aim not only to provide a high level of protection from clinical disease for the dam, but, crucially, to protect against viraemia and prevent the production of PIs. While the immune mechanisms involved are the same, the level of immune protection required for foetal protection is much higher than for prevention of clinical disease.

While challenge studies indicate that killed, as well as live, vaccines prevent foetal infection under experimental conditions, the efficacy of vaccines under field conditions has been questioned. The birth of PI calves into vaccinated herds suggests that killed vaccines do not stand up to the challenge presented by the viral load excreted by a PI in the field.

Marburgviruses are World Health Organization Risk Group 4 Pathogens, requiring Biosafety Level 4-equivalent containment, laboratory researchers have to be properly trained in BSL-4 practices and wear proper personal protective equipment.

Avian reoviruses belong to the genus "Orthoreovirus", and "Reoviridae" family. They are non-enveloped viruses that undergo replication in the cytoplasm of infected cells. It has icosahedral symmetry and contains a double-shelled arrangement of surface protein. Virus particles can range between 70–80 nm. Morphologically, the virus is a double stranded RNA virus that is composed of ten segments. The genome and proteins that are encoded by the genome can be separated into three different sizes ranging from small, medium, or large. Of the eleven proteins that are encoded for by the genome, two are nonstructural, while the remaining nine are structural.

Avian reoviruses can withstand a pH range of 3.0–9.0. Ambient temperatures are suitable for the survival of these viruses, which become inactive at 56 °C in less than an hour. Common areas where this virus can survive include galvanized metal, glass, rubber, feathers, and wood shavings. Avian reovirus can survive for up to ten days on these common areas in addition to up to ten weeks in water.

Cultivation and observation of the effects of avian reovirus is most often performed in chicken embryos. If infected into the yolk sac, the embryo will succumb to death accompanied by hemorrhaging of the embryos and cause the foci on the liver to appear yellowish-green. There are several primary chicken cell cultures/areas that are susceptible to avian reoviruses, which include the lungs, liver, kidney, and fibroblasts of the chick embryo. Of the following susceptible areas, liver cells from the chick embryo have been found to be the most sensitive for primary isolation from clinical material.

Typically, the CPE effect of avian reoviruses is the production of syncytia. CPE, or cytopathic effects are the visible changes in a host cell that takes place because of viral infection. Syncytia is a single cell or cytoplasmic mass containing several nuclei, formed by fusion of cells or by division of nuclei.

The virus is most often spread by person to person contact with the stool or saliva of the infected person. Two types of vaccines have been developed to prevent the occurrence and spread of the poliomyelitis virus. The first is an inactivated, or killed, form of the virus and the second is an attenuated, or weakened, form of the virus. The development of vaccines has successfully eliminated the disease from the United States. There are continued vaccination efforts in the U.S. to maintain this success rate as this disease still occurs in some areas of the world.

A vaccine has been conditionally approved for use in animals in the US. It has been shown that knockout of the NSs and NSm nonstructural proteins of this virus produces an effective vaccine in sheep as well.

There is no specific treatment for Japanese encephalitis and treatment is supportive, with assistance given for feeding, breathing or seizure control as required. Raised intracranial pressure may be managed with mannitol. There is no transmission from person to person and therefore patients do not need to be isolated.

A breakthrough in the field of Japanese encephalitis therapeutics is the identification of macrophage receptor involvement in the disease severity. A recent report of an Indian group demonstrates the involvement of monocyte and macrophage receptor CLEC5A in severe inflammatory response in Japanese Encephalitis infection of the brain. This transcriptomic study provides a hypothesis of neuroinflammation and a new lead in development of appropriate therapeutic against Japanese encephalitis.

There is no cure for polioencephalitis so prevention is essential. Many people that become infected will not develop symptoms and their prognosis is excellent. However, the prognosis is dependent on the amount of cellular damage done by the virus and the area of the brain affected. Many people that develop more severe symptoms can have lifelong disabilities or it can lead to death. Supportive treatments include bed rest, pain relievers, and a nutritious diet. Many drugs have been used to treat psychiatric symptoms such as Clonazepam for insomnia and Desvenlafaxine or Citalopram for depressed mood.

Unfortunately a vaccine for malignant catarrhal fever (MCF) has not yet been developed. Developing a vaccine has been difficult because the virus will not grow in cell culture and until recently it was not known why. Researchers at the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) found that the virus undergoes changes within the animal's body, a process known as "cell tropism switching". In cell tropism switching, the virus targets different cells at different points in its life cycle. This phenomenon explains why it has been impossible to grow the virus on any one particular cell culture.

Because the virus is transmitted from sheep to bison and cattle, researchers are first focusing on the viral life cycle in sheep. The viral life cycle is outlined in three stages: entry, maintenance, and shedding. Entry occurs through the sheep's nasal cavity and enters into the lungs where it replicates. The virus undergoes a tropic change and infects lymphocytes, also known as white blood cells, which play a role in the sheep's immune system. In the maintenance stage the virus remains on the sheep's lymphocytes and circulates the body. Finally, during the shedding stage, the virus undergoes another change and shifts its target cells from lymphocytes to nasal cavity cells, where it is then shed through nasal secretions. This discovery undoubtedly puts scientists on the right track for developing a vaccine – starting with the correct cell culture for each stage of the virus lifecycle – but ARS researchers are also looking into alternative methods to develop a vaccine. Researchers are experimenting with the MCF virus that infects topi (an African antelope) because it will grow in cell culture and does not infect cattle. Researchers hope that inserting genes from the sheep MCF virus into the topi MCF virus will ultimately be an effective MCF vaccine for cattle and bison. While there is much ground left to cover, scientists are getting closer and closer to developing a vaccine.

Key measures to prevent outbreaks of the disease are maintaining hygiene standards and using screening to exclude persons with suspicious infections from engaging in contact sports. A skin check performed before practice or competition takes place can identify individuals who should be evaluated, and if necessary treated by a healthcare professional. In certain situations, i.e. participating in wrestling camps, consider placing participants on valacyclovir 1GM daily for the duration of camp. 10-year study has shown 89.5% reduction in outbreaks and probable prevention of contracting the virus. Medication must be started 5 days before participation to ensure proper concentrations exist.

Herpes outbreaks should be treated with antiviral medications like Acyclovir, Valacyclovir, or Famcyclovir, each of which is available in tablet form.

Oral antiviral medication is often used as a prophylactic to suppress or prevent outbreaks from occurring. The recommended dosage for suppression therapy for recurrent outbreaks is 1,000 mg of valacyclovir once a day or 400 mg Acyclovir taken twice a day. In addition to preventing outbreaks, these medications greatly reduce the chance of infecting someone while the patient is not having an outbreak.

Often, people have regular outbreaks of anywhere from 1 to 10 times per year, but stress (because the virus lies next to the nerve cells), or a weakened immune system due to a temporary or permanent illness can also spark outbreaks. Some people become infected but fail to ever have a single outbreak, although they remain carriers of the virus and can pass the disease on to an uninfected person through asymptomatic shedding (when the virus is active on the skin but rashes or blisters do not appear).

The use of antiviral medications has been shown to be effective in preventing acquisition of the herpes virus. Specific usage of these agents focus on wrestling camps where intense contact between individuals occur on a daily basis over several weeks. They have also been used for large outbreaks during seasonal competition, but further research needs to be performed to verify efficacy.

Marburg virus is a hemorrhagic fever virus of the "Filoviridae" family of viruses and a member of the species "Marburg marburgvirus", genus "Marburgvirus". Marburg virus (MARV) causes Marburg virus disease in humans and nonhuman primates, a form of viral hemorrhagic fever. Considered to be extremely dangerous, the WHO rates it as a Risk Group 4 Pathogen (requiring biosafety level 4-equivalent containment). In the United States, the NIH/National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases ranks it as a Category A Priority Pathogen and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention lists it as a Category A Bioterrorism Agent. It is also listed as a biological agent for export control by the Australia Group.

The virus can be transmitted by exposure to one species of fruit bats or it can be transmitted between people via body fluids through unprotected copulation and broken skin. The disease can cause bleeding (haemorrhage), fever and other symptoms much like Ebola. Funeral rituals are a particular risk. Actual treatment of the virus after infection is not possible but early, professional treatment of symptoms like dehydration considerably increase survival chances.

In 2009, expanded clinical trials of an Ebola and Marburg vaccine began in Kampala, Uganda.

West Nile virus (WNV) is a single-stranded RNA virus that causes West Nile fever. It is a member of the family Flaviviridae, specifically from the genus Flavivirus which also contain the Zika virus, dengue virus, and the yellow fever virus. The West Nile virus is primarily transmitted through mosquitoes, mostly by the Culex species. However, ticks have been found to carry the virus. The primary hosts of WNV are birds, so that the virus remains within a "bird-mosquito-bird" transmission cycle.

Bovine malignant catarrhal fever (BMCF) is a fatal lymphoproliferative disease caused by a group of ruminant gamma herpes viruses including Alcelaphine gammaherpesvirus 1 (AlHV-1) and Ovine gammaherpesvirus 2 (OvHV-2) These viruses cause unapparent infection in their reservoir hosts (sheep with OvHV-2 and wildebeest with AlHV-1), but are usually fatal in cattle and other ungulates such as deer, antelope, and buffalo.

BMCF is an important disease where reservoir and susceptible animals mix. There is a particular problem with Bali cattle in Indonesia, bison in the US and in pastoralist herds in Eastern and Southern Africa.

Disease outbreaks in cattle are usually sporadic although infection of up to 40% of a herd has been reported. The reasons for this are unknown. Some species appear to be particularly susceptible, for example Pére Davids deer, Bali cattle and bison, with many deer dying within 48 hours of the appearance of the first symptoms and bison within three days. In contrast, post infection cattle will usually survive a week or more.

Attempts are ongoing to infect the mosquito population with bacteria of the "Wolbachia" genus, which makes the mosquitoes partially resistant to dengue virus. While artificially induced infections with "Wolbachia" is effective, it is unclear if naturally acquired infections are protective. Working is still ongoing as of 2015 to determine the best type of "Wolbachia" to use.

Rotavirus is highly contagious and cannot be treated with antibiotics or other drugs. Because improved sanitation does not decrease the prevalence of rotaviral disease, and the rate of hospitalisations remains high despite the use of oral rehydrating medicines, the primary public health intervention is vaccination. In 1998, a rotavirus vaccine was licensed for use in the United States. Clinical trials in the United States, Finland, and Venezuela had found it to be 80 to 100% effective at preventing severe diarrhoea caused by rotavirus A, and researchers had detected no statistically significant serious adverse effects. The manufacturer, however, withdrew it from the market in 1999, after it was discovered that the vaccine may have contributed to an increased risk for intussusception, a type of bowel obstruction, in one of every 12,000 vaccinated infants. The experience provoked intense debate about the relative risks and benefits of a rotavirus vaccine.

In 2006, two new vaccines against infection were shown to be safe and effective in children, and in 2009, the WHO recommended that rotavirus vaccine be included in all national immunisation programmes.

The incidence and severity of rotavirus infections has declined significantly in countries that have acted on this recommendation. A 2014 review of available clinical trial data from countries routinely using rotavirus vaccines in their national immunisation programs found that rotavirus vaccines have reduced rotavirus hospitalisations by 49–92 percent and all cause diarrhoea hospitalisations by 17–55 percent. In Mexico, which in 2006 was among the first countries in the world to introduce rotavirus vaccine, diarrhoeal disease death rates dropped during the 2009 rotavirus season by more than 65 percent among children age two and under. In Nicaragua, which in 2006 became the first developing country to introduce a rotavirus vaccine, severe rotavirus infections were reduced by 40 percent and emergency room visits by a half. In the United States, rotavirus vaccination since 2006 has led to drops in rotavirus-related hospitalisations by as much as 86 percent. The vaccines may also have prevented illness in non-vaccinated children by limiting the number of circulating infections. In developing countries in Africa and Asia, where the majority of rotavirus deaths occur, a large number of safety and efficacy trials as well as recent post-introduction impact and effectiveness studies of Rotarix and RotaTeq have found that vaccines dramatically reduced severe disease among infants. In September 2013, the vaccine was offered to all children in the UK, aged between two and three months, and it is expected to halve the cases of severe infection and reduce the number of children admitted to hospital because of the infection by 70 percent. In Europe, hospitalisation rates following infection by rotavirus have decreased by 65% to 84% following the introduction of the vaccine. Globally, vaccination has reduced hospital admissions and emergency department visits by a median of 67%.

Rotavirus vaccines are licensed in over 100 countries, and more than 80 countries have introduced routine rotavirus vaccination, almost half with the support of Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance. To make rotavirus vaccines available, accessible, and affordable in all countries—particularly low- and middle-income countries in Africa and Asia where the majority of rotavirus deaths occur, PATH (formerly Program for Appropriate Technology in Health), the WHO, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Gavi have partnered with research institutions and governments to generate and disseminate evidence, lower prices, and accelerate introduction.

Rotaviruses infect the young of many species of animals and they are a major cause of diarrhoea in wild and reared animals worldwide. As a pathogen of livestock, notably in young calves and piglets, rotaviruses cause economic loss to farmers because of costs of treatment associated with high morbidity and mortality rates. These rotaviruses are a potential reservoir for genetic exchange with human rotaviruses. There is evidence that animal rotaviruses can infect humans, either by direct transmission of the virus or by contributing one or several RNA segments to reassortants with human strains.

The viral strains fall into two clades — Ravn virus and Marburg virus. The Marburg strains can be divided into two — A and B. The A strains were isolated from Uganda (five from 1967), Kenya (1980) and Angola (2004–2005) while the B strains were from the Democratic Republic of the Congo epidemic (1999–2000) and a group of Ugandan isolates isolated in 2007-2009.

The mean evolutionary rate of the whole genome was 3.3 × 10 substitutions/site/year (credibility interval 2.0–4.8).The Marburg strains had a mean root time of the most recent common ancestor of 177.9 years ago (95% highest posterior density 87–284) suggesting an origin in the mid 1800s. In contrast the Ravn strains origin dated back to a mean 33.8 years ago (early 1980s). The most probable location of the Marburg virus ancestor was Uganda whereas that of the RAVV ancestor was Kenya.

With regards to vector control, a number of novel methods have been used to reduce mosquito numbers with some success including the placement of the guppy ("Poecilia reticulata") or copepods in standing water to eat the mosquito larvae. There are also trials with genetically modified male "A. aegypti" that after release into the wild mate with females, and render their offspring unable to fly.