Department of Farm Animal Health, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Utrecht University, PO Box 80151, 3508, TD Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Department of Farm Animal Health, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Utrecht University, PO Box 80151, 3508, TD Utrecht, the Netherlands; GD Animal Health, PO Box 9, 7400 AA, Deventer, the Netherlands.
J Dairy Sci. 2020 May;103(5):4654-4671. doi: 10.3168/jds.2019-16915. Epub 2020 Mar 5.
For endemic infections in cattle that are not regulated at the European Union level, such as bovine viral diarrhea virus (BVDV), European Member States have implemented control or eradication programs (CEP) tailored to their specific situations. Different methods are used to assign infection-free status in CEP; therefore, the confidence of freedom associated with the "free" status generated by different CEP are difficult to compare, creating problems for the safe trade of cattle between territories. Safe trade would be facilitated with an output-based framework that enables a transparent and standardized comparison of confidence of freedom for CEP across herds, regions, or countries. The current paper represents the first step toward development of such a framework by seeking to describe and qualitatively compare elements of CEP that contribute to confidence of freedom. For this work, BVDV was used as a case study. We qualitatively compared heterogeneous BVDV CEP in 6 European countries: Germany, France, Ireland, the Netherlands, Sweden, and Scotland. Information about BVDV CEP that were in place in 2017 and factors influencing the risk of introduction and transmission of BVDV (the context) were collected using an existing tool, with modifications to collect information about aspects of control and context. For the 6 participating countries, we ranked all individual elements of the CEP and their contexts that could influence the probability that cattle from a herd categorized as BVDV-free are truly free from infection. Many differences in the context and design of BVDV CEP were found. As examples, CEP were either mandatory or voluntary, resulting in variation in risks from neighboring herds, and risk factors such as cattle density and the number of imported cattle varied greatly between territories. Differences were also found in both testing protocols and definitions of freedom from disease. The observed heterogeneity in both the context and CEP design will create difficulties when comparing different CEP in terms of confidence of freedom from infection. These results highlight the need for a standardized practical methodology to objectively and quantitatively determine confidence of freedom resulting from different CEP around the world.
对于欧盟层面未加以规范的地方性牛传染病,如牛病毒性腹泻病毒(BVDV),欧洲成员国已针对各自的具体情况,实施了控制或根除规划(CEP)。CEP 采用不同方法来确定无感染状态;因此,不同 CEP 生成的“无”状态相关的无感染信心难以进行比较,给不同地区之间的牛安全贸易带来了困难。通过采用基于结果的框架,能够对不同牛群、地区或国家的 CEP 无感染信心进行透明且标准化的比较,从而促进安全贸易。本文是朝着制定此类框架迈出的第一步,旨在寻求描述和定性比较对无感染信心产生影响的 CEP 要素。为此,选用 BVDV 作为案例研究。我们对德国、法国、爱尔兰、荷兰、瑞典和苏格兰这 6 个欧洲国家的不同 BVDV CEP 进行了定性比较。使用现有工具收集了 2017 年实施的 BVDV CEP 信息以及影响 BVDV 传入和传播风险的因素(背景),并进行了修改以收集有关控制和背景方面的信息。对于这 6 个参与国,我们对 CEP 及其背景中可能影响无 BVDV 感染风险的所有单个要素进行了排名,这些要素会影响被归类为无 BVDV 感染的牛群是否真的无感染。发现 BVDV CEP 在背景和设计方面存在许多差异。例如,CEP 可以是强制性的也可以是自愿性的,这会导致来自相邻牛群的风险不同,并且风险因素,如牛群密度和进口牛的数量在不同地区之间差异很大。在测试协议和疾病无感染定义方面也存在差异。在背景和 CEP 设计方面观察到的这种异质性将在比较不同地区的不同 CEP 时造成困难。这些结果突出表明,需要采用标准化的实用方法,在全球范围内客观、定量地确定来自不同 CEP 的无感染信心。