Checklist for One Health Epidemiological Reporting of Evidence (COHERE).

One Health is defined as the intersection and integration of knowledge regarding humans, animals, and the environment, yet as the One Health scientific literature expands, there is considerable heterogeneity of approach and quality of reporting in One Health studies. In addition, many researchers who publish such studies do not include or integrate data from all three domains of human, animal, and environmental health. This points to a critical need to unify guidelines for One Health studies. This report details the Checklist for One Health Epidemiological Reporting of Evidence (COHERE) to guide the design and publication format of future One Health studies. COHERE was developed by a core writing team and international expert review group that represents multiple disciplines, including human medicine, veterinary medicine, public health, allied professionals, clinical laboratory science, epidemiology, the social sciences, ecohealth and environmental health. The twin aims of the COHERE standards are to 1) improve the quality of reporting of observational or interventional epidemiological studies that collect and integrate data from humans, animals and/or vectors, and their environments; and 2) promote the concept that One Health studies should integrate knowledge from these three domains. The 19 standards in the COHERE checklist address descriptions of human populations, animal populations, environmental assessment, spatial and temporal relationships of data from the three domains, integration of analyses and interpretation, and inclusion of expertise in the research team from disciplines related to human health, animal health, and environmental health

The African snakebite Alliance

The goal to reduce the burden of snakebite envenoming is challenged by the gaps in evidence for clinical care and public health. These evidence gaps and the absence of a strong network are illustrated by bibliometrics. The African Snakebite Alliance is a multidisciplinary group focusing on research themes which will generate evidence needed to shape policy and practice

Checklist for One Health epidemiological reporting of evidence (COHERE)

One Health is defined as the intersection and integration of knowledge regarding humans, animals, and the environment, yet as the One Health scientific literature expands, there is considerable heterogeneity of approach and quality of reporting in One Health studies. In addition, many researchers who publish such studies do not include or integrate data from all three domains of human, animal, and environmental health. This points to a critical need to unify guidelines for One Health studies. This report details the Checklist for One Health Epidemiological Reporting of Evidence (COHERE) to guide the design and publication format of future One Health studies. COHERE was developed by a core writing team and international expert review group that represents multiple disciplines, including human medicine, veterinary medicine, public health, allied professionals, clinical laboratory science, epidemiology, the social sciences, ecohealth and environmental health. The twin aims of the COHERE standards are to 1) improve the quality of reporting of observational or interventional epidemiological studies that collect and integrate data from humans, animals and/or vectors, and their environments; and 2) promote the concept that One Health studies should integrate knowledge from these three domains. The 19 standards in the COHERE checklist address descriptions of human populations, animal populations, environmental assessment, spatial and temporal relationships of data from the three domains, integration of analyses and interpretation, and inclusion of expertise in the research team from disciplines related to human health, animal health, and environmental health

Stakeholder perspectives from 15 countries in Africa on barriers in snakebite envenoming research and the potential role of research hubs

Snakebite envenoming is a debilitating neglected tropical disease disproportionately affecting the rural poor in low and middle-income countries in the tropics and sub-tropics. Critical questions and gaps in public health and policy need to be addressed if major progress is to be made towards reducing the negative impact of snakebite, particularly in the World Health Organisation (WHO) Africa region. We engaged key stakeholders to identify barriers to evidence-based snakebite decision making and to explore how development of research and policy hubs could help to overcome these barriers. We conducted an electronic survey among 73 stakeholders from ministries of health, health facilities, academia and non-governmental organizations from 15 countries in the WHO Africa region. The primary barriers to snakebite research and subsequent policy translation were limited funds, lack of relevant data, and lack of interest from policy makers. Adequate funding commitment, strong political will, building expert networks and a demand for scientific evidence were all considered potential factors that could facilitate snakebite research. Participants rated availability of antivenoms, research skills training and disease surveillance as key research priorities. All participants indicated interest in the development of research and policy hubs and 78% indicated their organization would be willing to actively participate. In conclusion, our survey affirms that relevant stakeholders in the field of snakebite perceive research and policy hubs as a promising development, which could help overcome the barriers to pursuing the WHO goals and targets for reducing the burden of snakebite

Towards an actionable One Health approach

Background Despite the increasing focus on strengthening One Health capacity building on global level, challenges remain in devising and implementing real-world interventions particularly in the Asia-Pacific region. Recognizing these gaps, the One Health Action Commission (OHAC) was established as an academic community for One Health action with an emphasis on research agenda setting to identify actions for highest impact. Main text This viewpoint describes the agenda of, and motivation for, the recently formed OHAC. Recognizing the urgent need for evidence to support the formulation of necessary action plans, OHAC advocates the adoption of both bottom-up and top-down approaches to identify the current gaps in combating zoonoses, antimicrobial resistance, addressing food safety, and to enhance capacity building for context-sensitive One Health implementation. Conclusions By promoting broader engagement and connection of multidisciplinary stakeholders, OHAC envisions a collaborative global platform for the generation of innovative One Health knowledge, distilled practical experience and actionable policy advice, guided by strong ethical principles of One Health

A novel protocol to isolate, detect and differentiate taeniid eggs in leafy greens and berries using real-time PCR with melting curve analysis.

BACKGROUND: Zoonotic taeniid cestodes are amongst the most important food-borne parasites affecting human health worldwide. Contamination of fresh produce with the eggs of Echinococcus granulosus (s.l.), Echinococcus multilocularis, and some Taenia species pose a potential food safety risk. However, very few studies have attempted to investigate the potential contamination of fresh produce with taeniid eggs and the available methods are not standardized for this purpose. Established protocols do exist for testing leafy greens and berries for contamination with protozoan parasites and are used in national surveillance programmes. This methodology could be suitable for the detection of taeniids. The objective of this project was to develop and standardize a sensitive and reliable method to detect contamination of leafy greens and berries with eggs of zoonotic taeniids and to differentiate between E. multilocularis, E. granulosus (s.l.) and Taenia spp. METHODS: We compared the efficacy of different wash solutions to remove Taenia spp. eggs from spiked produce, assessed two DNA extraction kits for their performance on Taenia spp. eggs, and adapted a published conventional multiplex PCR into a real-time PCR with fluorescence melting curve analysis (MCA) that was optimized for use on produce washes. Analytical specificity of this protocol was assessed using non-spiked produce washes as well as a variety of other potentially contaminating parasites. RESULTS: The protocol as established in this study had an analytical sensitivity of detecting five eggs per spiked sample for both romaine lettuce and strawberries. Unequivocal identification of E. multilocularis, E. granulosus (s.l.) and Taenia spp. was possible through MCA. Amplicon sequencing allowed identification of Taenia to the species level. The real-time PCR also amplified DNA from Dicrocoelium sp., but with a clearly discernable melting curve profile. CONCLUSION: The new protocol for screening produce for taeniid contamination was highly sensitive. Melting curve analysis and the possibility of amplicon sequencing made this assay very specific. Once further validated, this method could be employed for surveillance of produce for contamination with taeniid parasites to assess potential risks for consumers

Equity for health delivery: Opportunity costs and benefits among Community Health Workers in Rwanda.

Community Health Workers (CHWs) play a vital role delivering health services to vulnerable populations in low resource settings. In Rwanda, CHWs provide village-level care focused on maternal/child health, control of infectious diseases, and health education, but do not receive salaries for these services. CHWs make up the largest single group involved in health delivery in the country; however, limited information is available regarding the socio-economic circumstances and satisfaction levels of this workforce. Such information can support governments aiming to control infectious diseases and alleviate poverty through enhanced healthcare delivery. The objectives of this study were to (1) evaluate CHW opportunity costs, (2) identify drivers for CHW motivation, job satisfaction and care provision, and (3) report CHW ideas for improving retention and service delivery. In this mixed-methods study, our team conducted in-depth interviews with 145 CHWs from three districts (Kirehe, Kayonza, Burera) to collect information on household economics and experiences in delivering healthcare. Across the three districts, CHWs contributed approximately four hours of volunteer work per day (range: 0-12 hrs/day), which translated to 127 684 RWF per year (range: 2 359-2 247 807 RWF/yr) in lost personal income. CHW out-of-pocket expenditures (e.g. patient transportation) were estimated at 36 228 RWF per year (range: 3 600-364 800 RWF/yr). Participants identified many benefits to being CHWs, including free healthcare training, improved social status, and the satisfaction of helping others. They also identified challenges, such as aging equipment, discrepancies in financial reimbursements, poverty, and lack of formal workspaces or working hours. Lastly, CHWs provided perspectives on reasonable and feasible improvements to village-level health programming that could improve conditions and equity for those providing and using the CHW system

Echinococcus in wild canids in Québec (Canada) and Maine (USA).

Zoonotic Echinococcus spp. cestodes (E. canadensis and E. multilocularis) infect domestic animals, wildlife, and people in regions of Canada and the USA. We recovered and quantified Echinococcus spp. cestodes from 22 of 307 intestinal tracts of wild canids (23 wolves, 100 coyotes, 184 red and arctic foxes) in the state of Maine and the province of Québec. We identified the species and genotypes of three Echinococcus spp. cestodes per infected animal by sequencing mitochondrial DNA at two loci. We further confirmed the absence of E. multilocularis by extracting DNA from pools of all cestodes from each animal and running a duplex PCR capable of distinguishing the two species. We detected E. canadensis (G8 and G10), but not E. multilocularis, which is emerging as an important human and animal health concern in adjacent regions. Prevalence and median intensity of E. canadensis was higher in wolves (35%, 460) than coyotes (14%, 358). This parasite has historically been absent in Atlantic regions of North America, where suitable intermediate hosts, but not wolves, are present. Our study suggests that coyotes are serving as sylvatic definitive hosts for E. canadensis in Atlantic regions, and this may facilitate eastward range expansion of E. canadensis in the USA and Canada. As well, compared to wolves, coyotes are more likely to contaminate urban green spaces and peri-urban environments with zoonotic parasites