Huber Nikolaus, Meester Marina, Sassu Elena L, Waller Elisabeth S L, Krumova-Valcheva Gergana, Aprea Giuseppe, D'Angelantonio Daniela, Zoche-Golob Veit, Scattolini Silvia, Marriott Emily, Smith Richard P, Burow Elke, Carreira Guido Correia
Unit of Veterinary Public Health and Epidemiology, Institute of Food Safety, Food Technology and Veterinary Public Health, University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, Austria.
Department of Population Health Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands.
Front Vet Sci. 2024 Dec 23;11:1494870. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2024.1494870. eCollection 2024.
spp. and hepatitis E virus (HEV) are significant foodborne zoonotic pathogens that impact the health of livestock, farmers, and the general public. This study aimed to identify biosecurity measures (BSMs) against these pathogens on swine farms in Europe, the United States, and Canada. Overall, 1,529 articles from three scientific databases were screened manually and with the artificial intelligence (AI) tool ASReview. We identified 54 BSMs from 32 articles, primarily focused on spp. control. Amongst the extracted BSMs, only five measures for spp. control, namely, 'acidification of feed', 'acidification of drinking water', 'rodent control', 'all-in and all-out production', and 'disinfection' had sufficient observations to conduct a meta-analysis. Of these five, acidification and rodent control were found to be protective measures, that is, their summary odds ratios in the corresponding meta-analyses were lower than 1, indicating lower odds of spp. presence on farms which implemented these BSM compared to farms which did not implement them (odds ratio [OR] around 0.25). All-in and all-out production showed a non-significant protective effect (OR = 0.71), while disinfection showed a statistically non-significant lack of association between disinfection and the presence of spp. on the farm (OR = 1.03). For HEV, no meta-analysis could be performed. According to multiple articles, two BSMs were significantly associated with a lower risk of HEV presence, namely, disinfecting vehicles (OR = 0.30) and quarantining pigs before introducing them on the farm (OR = 0.48). A risk of bias assessment for each included article revealed a high risk in the majority of the articles, mainly due to selection and performance bias. This emphasises the lack of standardised, high-quality study designs and robust empirical evidence linking BSM implementation to pathogen reduction. The limited data available for meta-analysis, coupled with the high risk of bias (RoB) in the literature, highlights the urgent need for more substantial evidence on the effectiveness of BSMs in mitigating the transmission and spread of zoonotic pathogens, such as spp. and HEV on pig farms.
某些猪肠道致病性大肠杆菌(spp.)和戊型肝炎病毒(HEV)是重要的食源性人畜共患病原体,会影响家畜、农民和普通公众的健康。本研究旨在确定欧洲、美国和加拿大的养猪场针对这些病原体的生物安全措施(BSMs)。总体而言,我们手动并使用人工智能(AI)工具ASReview对来自三个科学数据库的1529篇文章进行了筛选。我们从32篇文章中确定了54项生物安全措施,主要集中在spp.的控制上。在提取的生物安全措施中,只有五项针对spp.控制的措施,即“饲料酸化”、“饮用水酸化”、“鼠类控制”、“全进全出生产方式”和“消毒”有足够的观察数据来进行荟萃分析。在这五项措施中,酸化和鼠类控制被发现是保护措施,也就是说,它们在相应荟萃分析中的汇总比值比低于1,这表明与未实施这些生物安全措施的农场相比,实施这些措施的农场中spp.存在的几率更低(比值比[OR]约为0.25)。全进全出生产方式显示出不显著的保护作用(OR = 0.71),而消毒显示出消毒与农场中spp.存在之间在统计学上无显著关联(OR = 1.03)。对于HEV,无法进行荟萃分析。根据多篇文章,两项生物安全措施与HEV存在风险较低显著相关,即对车辆进行消毒(OR = 0.30)以及在将猪引入农场前进行隔离(OR = 0.48)。对每篇纳入文章的偏倚风险评估显示,大多数文章存在高风险,主要是由于选择和实施偏倚。这强调了缺乏标准化、高质量的研究设计以及将生物安全措施的实施与病原体减少联系起来的有力实证证据。可用于荟萃分析的数据有限,再加上文献中的高偏倚风险(RoB),凸显了迫切需要更多关于生物安全措施在减轻人畜共患病原体(如spp.和HEV)在养猪场传播和扩散方面有效性的实质性证据。