van der Giessen Joke, Deksne Gunita, Gómez-Morales Maria Angeles, Troell Karin, Gomes Jacinto, Sotiraki Smaragda, Rozycki Miroslaw, Kucsera István, Djurković-Djaković Olgica, Robertson Lucy J
National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Antonie van Leeuwenhoeklaan 9, 3721 MA Bilthoven, P.O. Box 1, Bilthoven 3720 BA, Netherlands.
Institute of Food Safety, Animal Health and Environment "BIOR", Lejupes Str. 3, Riga LV-1076, Latvia.
Parasite Epidemiol Control. 2021 Feb 3;13:e00205. doi: 10.1016/j.parepi.2021.e00205. eCollection 2021 May.
In 2012, WHO/FAO ranked 24 foodborne parasites (FBP) using multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) to provide risk assessors with a basis for prioritising control of highly ranked FBP on the global level. One conclusion was that ranking may differ substantially per region. In Europe, the same methodology was used to rank FBP of relevance for Europe. Of the 24 FBP, the top-five prioritised FBP were identified for Europe as , , , , and spp., all of which are zoonotic. The objective of the present study was to provide an overview of surveillance and reporting systems in Europe for these top five prioritised FBP in the human and animal populations, to identify gaps, and give recommendations for improvement. Information on the surveillance systems was collected from 35 European countries and analysed according to the five different regions. For most FBP, human surveillance is passive in most countries and regions in Europe and notification differs between countries and regions. Adequate surveillance programmes for these FBP are lacking, except for , which is notifiable in 34 countries with active surveillance in susceptible animals under EU directive. Although human and animal surveillance data are available for the five prioritised FBP, we identified a lack of consistency in surveillance and reporting requirements between national experts and European bodies. Recommendations for improved surveillance systems are discussed.
2012年,世界卫生组织/联合国粮食及农业组织运用多标准决策分析(MCDA)对24种食源性寄生虫(FBP)进行了排名,为风险评估人员在全球层面优先控制排名靠前的食源性寄生虫提供依据。一个结论是,不同地区的排名可能有很大差异。在欧洲,采用了相同的方法对欧洲相关的食源性寄生虫进行排名。在这24种食源性寄生虫中,确定了欧洲排名前五的优先食源性寄生虫为……属、……属、……属、……属和……属,所有这些都是人畜共患的。本研究的目的是概述欧洲针对人类和动物群体中这五种优先食源性寄生虫的监测和报告系统,找出差距,并提出改进建议。从35个欧洲国家收集了有关监测系统的信息,并根据五个不同地区进行了分析。对于大多数食源性寄生虫而言,欧洲大多数国家和地区的人类监测是被动的,而且各国和各地区的通报情况也有所不同。除了……之外,缺乏针对这些食源性寄生虫的充分监测方案,根据欧盟指令,……在34个国家是应通报的,且对易感动物进行主动监测。尽管有这五种优先食源性寄生虫的人类和动物监测数据,但我们发现国家专家和欧洲机构之间在监测和报告要求方面缺乏一致性。讨论了改进监测系统的建议。