Conceptualising the technical relationship of animal disease surveillance to intervention and mitigation as a basis for economic analysis

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Surveillance and intervention are resource-using activities of strategies to mitigate the unwanted effects of disease. Resources are scarce, and allocating them to disease mitigation instead of other uses necessarily involves the loss of alternative sources of benefit to people. For society to obtain the maximum benefits from using resources, the gains from disease mitigation must be compared to the resource costs, guiding decisions made with the objective of achieving the optimal net outcome.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>Economics provides criteria to guide decisions aimed at optimising the net benefits from the use of scarce resources. Assessing the benefits of disease mitigation is no exception. However, the technical complexity of mitigation means that economic evaluation is not straightforward because of the technical relationship of surveillance to intervention. We argue that analysis of the magnitudes and distribution of benefits and costs for any given strategy, and hence the outcome in net terms, requires that mitigation is considered in three conceptually distinct stages. In Stage I, 'sustainment', the mitigation objective is to sustain a free or acceptable status by preventing an increase of a pathogen or eliminating it when it occurs. The role of surveillance is to document that the pathogen remains below a defined threshold, giving early warning of an increase in incidence or other significant changes in risk, and enabling early response. If a pathogen is not contained, the situation needs to be assessed as Stage II, 'investigation'. Here, surveillance obtains critical epidemiological information to decide on the appropriate intervention strategy to reduce or eradicate a disease in Stage III, 'implementation'. Stage III surveillance informs the choice, timing, and scale of interventions and documents the progress of interventions directed at prevalence reduction in the population.</p> <p>Summary</p> <p>This article originates from a research project to develop a conceptual framework and practical tool for the economic evaluation of surveillance. Exploring the technical relationship between mitigation as a source of economic value and surveillance and intervention as sources of economic cost is crucial. A framework linking the key technical relationships is proposed. Three conceptually distinct stages of mitigation are identified. Avian influenza, salmonella, and foot and mouth disease are presented to illustrate the framework.</p

A new porcine coronavirus in french pig herds

International audienc

Estimating the risk of importation of foot-and-mouth disease into Europe

The opinions of a number of recognised world experts on foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) were sought in order to answer key questions relating to the importation of the disease into European countries from countries outside Europe. In addition, their opinions were sought on where in Europe a primary outbreak of FMD was most likely to occur and the number of outbreaks likely to occur within European countries in the next five years. The Balkans group of countries was considered to be the most likely group within Europe to have a primary outbreak of FMD and also most likely to have the highest number of primary outbreaks. Turkey was considered to be the country outside Europe which was most likely to be the source of an outbreak within Europe as a whole, and the illegal importation of livestock was considered to be the most likely route of introduction of FMD into Europe. Results specific to the Islands group of countries, which included the UK and Ireland, suggested that this group was likely to have a mean of one primary outbreak of FMD in the five years from September 2000, and that the importation of foodstuffs by people entering those countries from Turkey was the most likely source of an outbreak

Epidemiological patterns of Foot-and-Mouth Disease worldwide

Foot-and-Mouth Disease (FMD) is a clinical syndrome in animals due to FMD virus that exists in seven serotypes, whereby recovery from one sero-type does not confer immunity against the other six. So when considering intervention strategies in endemic settings, it is important to take account of the characteristics of the different serotypes in different ecological systems. FMD serotypes are not uniformly distributed in the regions of the world where the disease still occurs. For example, the cumulative incidence of FMD serotypes show that six of the seven serotypes of FMD (O, A, C, SAT-1, SAT-2, SAT-3) have occurred in Africa, while Asia contends with four sero-types (O, A, C, Asia-1), and South America with only three (O, A, C). Periodically there have been incursions of Types SAT-1 and SAT-2 from Africa into the Middle East. This paper describes the global dynamics for the seven sero-types and attempts to define FMD epidemiological clusters in the different regions of the world. These have been described on a continent by continent basis. The review has reaffirmed that the movement of infected animals is the most important factor in the spread of FMD within the endemically infected regions. It also shows that the eco-system based approach for defining the epidemiological patterns of FMD in endemic, which was originally described in South America, can apply readily to other parts of the world. It is proposed that any coordinated regional or global strategy for FMD control should be based on a sound epidemiological assessment of the incidence and distribution of FMD, identifying risk sources as either primary or secondary endemic eco-systems

Incursions of foot-and-mouth disease virus into Europe between 1985 and 2006

Foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) is one of the biggest threats to animal health in European countries. In the last 22 years (1985-2006), FMD has occurred 37 times in 14 European countries. Serotype 0 was most frequently involved in these outbreaks followed by A, C and Asia 1. Sometimes, epidemics were very limited and at other times, they were the cause of devastating economic losses. In most cases (22/37), the origin of the outbreaks could not be determined. For some of these outbreaks, however, routes of introduction and spread were identified through epidemiological inquiries. Moreover, in some cases, the origin of the virus was also traced by phylogenetic analysis of the partial or complete sequences of VP1 genes. Lessons learned from the outbreaks are still useful as most of the same risk factors persist. However, efforts made by FMD-free countries to help those where the disease is endemic are a valuable strategy for the reduction of the global risk. The present and the future potential sources of FMD infection need to be identified to best focus European efforts