Assessment of the control measures of the category A diseases of Animal Health Law: Classical Swine Fever.
CSF
disease control
intervention
monitoring period
protection zone
sampling procedures
surveillance zone
Journal
EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority
ISSN: 1831-4732
Titre abrégé: EFSA J
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101642076
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jul 2021
Jul 2021
Historique:
entrez:
26
7
2021
pubmed:
27
7
2021
medline:
27
7
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
EFSA received a mandate from the European Commission to assess the effectiveness of some of the control measures against diseases included in the Category A list according to Regulation (EU) 2016/429 on transmissible animal diseases ('Animal Health Law'). This opinion belongs to a series of opinions where these control measures will be assessed, with this opinion covering the assessment of control measures for Classical swine fever (CSF). In this opinion, EFSA and the AHAW Panel of experts review the effectiveness of: (i) clinical and laboratory sampling procedures, (ii) monitoring period and (iii) the minimum radii of the protection and surveillance zones, and the minimum length of time the measures should be applied in these zones. The general methodology used for this series of opinions has been published elsewhere; nonetheless, details of the model used for answering these questions are presented in this opinion as well as the transmission kernels used for the assessment of the minimum radius of the protection and surveillance zones. Several scenarios for which these control measures had to be assessed were designed and agreed prior to the start of the assessment. Here, several recommendations are given on how to increase the effectiveness of some of the sampling procedures. Based on the average length of the period between virus introduction and the reporting of a CSF suspicion, the monitoring period was assessed as non-effective. In a similar way, it was recommended that the length of the measures in the protection and surveillance zones were increased from 15 to 25 days in the protection zone and from 30 to 40 days in the surveillance zone. Finally, the analysis of existing Kernels for CSF suggested that the radius of the protection and the surveillance zones comprise 99% of the infections from an affected establishment if transmission occurred. Recommendations provided for each of the scenarios assessed aim to support the European Commission in the drafting of further pieces of legislation, as well as for plausible ad hoc requests in relation to CSF.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34306220
doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2021.6707
pii: EFS26707
pmc: PMC8294054
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e06707Informations de copyright
© 2021 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.
Références
EFSA J. 2018 Jan 24;16(1):e05123
pubmed: 32625671
PLoS One. 2014 Apr 18;9(4):e95278
pubmed: 24748233
Vet Microbiol. 2014 Dec 5;174(3-4):353-361
pubmed: 25465177
Sci Rep. 2017 Mar 07;7:43871
pubmed: 28266576
Virology. 2004 Apr 25;322(1):143-57
pubmed: 15063124
J Vet Med B Infect Dis Vet Public Health. 2001 Mar;48(2):143-9
pubmed: 11315525
Transbound Emerg Dis. 2017 Dec;64(6):1709-1719
pubmed: 27619421
J Wildl Dis. 2009 Oct;45(4):1089-103
pubmed: 19901383
Vet Microbiol. 2009 Oct 20;139(1-2):165-9
pubmed: 19576704
Vet Microbiol. 2001 Nov 8;83(2):85-106
pubmed: 11557151
Front Vet Sci. 2017 Feb 28;4:16
pubmed: 28293559
Vet Microbiol. 2001 Nov 8;83(2):107-20
pubmed: 11557152
J R Soc Interface. 2009 Oct 6;6(39):849-61
pubmed: 19054739
Vet J. 2011 Nov;190(2):e146-e149
pubmed: 21592830
Vaccine. 2007 Apr 30;25(17):3391-9
pubmed: 17257713
PLoS One. 2012;7(1):e29310
pubmed: 22235283
Vet Microbiol. 2011 Jan 27;147(3-4):262-73
pubmed: 20674195
Vet Res. 2009 Nov-Dec;40(6):59
pubmed: 19631033
Vaccine. 2012 Apr 19;30(19):2928-36
pubmed: 22406108
Vet Microbiol. 1999 Jul 1;67(4):239-49
pubmed: 10466500
Vaccine. 2008 Feb 26;26(9):1235-42
pubmed: 18242794
Vaccine. 2009 Nov 5;27(47):6522-9
pubmed: 19732859
Vet Microbiol. 2002 Apr 2;85(4):323-32
pubmed: 11856582
Vet Q. 1998 Apr;20(2):46-9
pubmed: 9563159
Vet Microbiol. 2014 Nov 7;174(1-2):27-38
pubmed: 25265929
Prev Vet Med. 1999 Dec 1;42(3-4):201-18
pubmed: 10619156
Vet Microbiol. 2009 Mar 30;135(3-4):196-204
pubmed: 18986777
BMC Vet Res. 2016 Sep 09;12(1):197
pubmed: 27612954
Vet Microbiol. 2009 Jan 1;133(1-2):9-22
pubmed: 18635323
J Gen Virol. 2007 Feb;88(Pt 2):481-486
pubmed: 17251566
Vet Res. 2013 Feb 11;44:9
pubmed: 23398967
Vet Res. 2011 Dec 01;42:115
pubmed: 22129109
Prev Vet Med. 1999 Dec 1;42(3-4):157-84
pubmed: 10619154
Berl Munch Tierarztl Wochenschr. 2012 Jan-Feb;125(1-2):21-6
pubmed: 22372320
Vet Microbiol. 2018 Mar;216:72-78
pubmed: 29519529
Epidemiol Infect. 2002 Apr;128(2):293-9
pubmed: 12002548
Vet Microbiol. 2014 Feb 21;169(1-2):8-17
pubmed: 24411658