de Vos Clazien J, Taylor Rachel A, Simons Robin R L, Roberts Helen, Hultén Cecilia, de Koeijer Aline A, Lyytikäinen Tapani, Napp Sebastian, Boklund Anette, Petie Ronald, Sörén Kaisa, Swanenburg Manon, Comin Arianna, Seppä-Lassila Leena, Cabral Maria, Snary Emma L
Department of Bacteriology and Epidemiology, Wageningen Bioveterinary Research (WBVR), Wageningen University & Research, Lelystad, Netherlands.
Department of Epidemiological Sciences, Animal and Plant Health Agency (APHA), Weybridge, United Kingdom.
Front Vet Sci. 2020 Feb 18;7:56. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2020.00056. eCollection 2020.
In recent years, several generic risk assessment (RA) tools have been developed that can be applied to assess the incursion risk of multiple infectious animal diseases allowing for a rapid response to a variety of newly emerging or re-emerging diseases. Although these tools were originally developed for different purposes, they can be used to answer similar or even identical risk questions. To explore the opportunities for cross-validation, seven generic RA tools were used to assess the incursion risk of African swine fever (ASF) to the Netherlands and Finland for the 2017 situation and for two hypothetical scenarios in which ASF cases were reported in wild boar and/or domestic pigs in Germany. The generic tools ranged from qualitative risk assessment tools to stochastic spatial risk models but were all parameterized using the same global databases for disease occurrence and trade in live animals and animal products. A comparison of absolute results was not possible, because output parameters represented different endpoints, varied from qualitative probability levels to quantitative numbers, and were expressed in different units. Therefore, relative risks across countries and scenarios were calculated for each tool, for the three pathways most in common (trade in live animals, trade in animal products, and wild boar movements) and compared. For the 2017 situation, all tools evaluated the risk to the Netherlands to be higher than Finland for the live animal trade pathway, the risk to Finland the same or higher as the Netherlands for the wild boar pathway, while the tools were inconclusive on the animal products pathway. All tools agreed that the hypothetical presence of ASF in Germany increased the risk to the Netherlands, but not to Finland. The ultimate aim of generic RA tools is to provide risk-based evidence to support risk managers in making informed decisions to mitigate the incursion risk of infectious animal diseases. The case study illustrated that conclusions on the ASF risk were similar across the generic RA tools, despite differences observed in calculated risks. Hence, it was concluded that the cross-validation contributed to the credibility of their results.
近年来,已开发出几种通用风险评估(RA)工具,可用于评估多种动物传染病的传入风险,以便对各种新出现或再次出现的疾病做出快速反应。尽管这些工具最初是为不同目的而开发的,但它们可用于回答相似甚至相同的风险问题。为探索交叉验证的机会,使用七种通用RA工具评估了2017年非洲猪瘟(ASF)传入荷兰和芬兰的风险,以及两种假设情景下的风险,即德国野猪和/或家猪中报告了ASF病例的情景。这些通用工具从定性风险评估工具到随机空间风险模型不等,但都使用相同的全球数据库对疾病发生情况以及活体动物和动物产品贸易进行参数化。由于输出参数代表不同的终点,从定性概率水平到定量数字各不相同,且以不同单位表示,因此无法进行绝对结果的比较。因此,针对每种工具,计算了三个最常见途径(活体动物贸易、动物产品贸易和野猪移动)在各国和各情景下的相对风险并进行比较。对于2017年的情况,所有工具评估得出,在活体动物贸易途径方面,荷兰面临的风险高于芬兰;在野猪途径方面,芬兰面临的风险与荷兰相同或更高;而在动物产品途径方面,各工具得出的结论尚无定论。所有工具都认为,德国假设存在ASF会增加荷兰面临的风险,但不会增加芬兰面临的风险。通用RA工具的最终目标是提供基于风险的证据,以支持风险管理者做出明智决策,降低动物传染病的传入风险。该案例研究表明,尽管计算出的风险存在差异,但通用RA工具对ASF风险的结论相似。因此,得出结论认为交叉验证有助于提高其结果的可信度。