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

How Human Brucellosis Incidence in Urban Kampala Can Be Reduced Most Efficiently? A Stochastic Risk Assessment of Informally-Marketed Milk

In Kampala, Uganda, studies have shown a significant incidence of human brucellosis. A stochastic risk assessment involving two field surveys (cattle farms and milk shops) and a medical record survey was conducted to assess the risk of human brucellosis infection through consumption of informally marketed raw milk potentially infected with Brucella abortus in Kampala and to identify the best control options.In the cattle farm survey, sera of 425 cows in 177 herds in the Kampala economic zone were sampled and tested for brucellosis using a competitive enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (CELISA). Farmers were interviewed for dairy information. In the milk shop surveys, 135 milk sellers in the urban areas were interviewed and 117 milk samples were collected and tested using an indirect enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (IELISA). A medical record survey was conducted in Mulago National Referral Hospital for serological test results. A risk model was developed synthesizing data from these three surveys. Possible control options were prepared based on the model and the reduction of risk was simulated for each scenario. Overall, 12.6% (6.8-18.9: 90%CI) of informally marketed milk in urban Kampala was contaminated with B.abortus at purchase and the annual incidence rate was estimated to be 5.8 (90% CI: 5.3-6.2) per 10,000 people. The best control option would be the construction of a milk boiling centre either in Mbarara, the largest source of milk, or in peri-urban Kampala and to ensure that milk traders always sell milk to the boiling centre; 90% success in enforcing these two options would reduce risk by 47.4% (21.6-70.1: 90%CI) and 82.0% (71.0-89.0: 90%CI), respectively.This study quantifies the risk of human brucellosis infection through informally marketed milk and estimates the incidence rate in Kampala for the first time; risk-based mitigation strategies are outlined to assist in developing policy