Assessing freedom from chronic wasting disease in semi-domesticated reindeer in Norway and Sweden.

Disease management Prion diseases Relative risks Scenario tree model Transboundary surveillance Weighted surveillance

Journal

Preventive veterinary medicine
ISSN: 1873-1716
Titre abrégé: Prev Vet Med
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 8217463

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
14 Jun 2024
Historique:
received: 01 11 2023
revised: 23 05 2024
accepted: 02 06 2024
medline: 27 6 2024
pubmed: 27 6 2024
entrez: 26 6 2024
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

Establishing freedom from disease is a key component of surveillance and may have direct consequences for trade and economy. Transboundary populations pose challenges in terms of variable legislation, efforts, and data availability between countries, often limiting surveillance efficiency. Chronic wasting disease (CWD) is a contagious prion disease of cervids. The long incubation period and slow initial epidemic growth make it notoriously difficult to detect CWD in the early phase of an epidemic. The recent emergence of CWD in wild reindeer in Norway poses a threat to approximately 250,000 semi-domesticated reindeer in Norway and 250,000 in Sweden, including transboundary populations. Here, we provide a first analysis of surveillance data (2016-2022) from all reindeer districts in Norway and Sweden to determine the probability of freedom from CWD infection. During the six years, 6017 semi-domesticated reindeer were tested in Sweden and 51,974 in Norway. Most samples came from healthy slaughtered animals (low risk). Reindeer use large and remote areas and (high risk) samples from fallen stock and animals with clinical signs were difficult to obtain. A scenario tree model was run for seven different set of values for the input parameters (design prevalence within and between districts, probability of introduction, and relative risks) to determine the effect on surveillance sensitivity. At the national level, the mean probability of disease freedom was 59.0 % in Sweden and 87.0 % in Norway by 2021. The most marked effect on sensitivity was varying the design prevalence both within and between districts. Uncertainty about relative risk ratios affected sensitivity for Sweden more than for Norway, due to the higher proportion of animals in the high-risk group in the former (13.8 % vs. 2.1 %, respectively). A probability of disease freedom of 90 % or higher was reached in 8.2 % of the 49 districts in Sweden and 43.5 % of the 46 districts in Norway for a design prevalence of 0.5 %. The probability of freedom remained below 60 % in 29 districts (59.2 %) in Sweden and 10 districts (21.7 %) in Norway. At the national level, only Norway had a sufficiently large number of samples to reach a probability of more than 95 % of disease freedom within a period of 10 years. Our cross-border assessment forms an important knowledge base for designing future surveillance efforts depending on the spatial pattern of prevalence of CWD and risk of spread.

Identifiants

pubmed: 38924869
pii: S0167-5877(24)00128-4
doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2024.106242
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

106242

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Declaration of Competing Interest We confirm that our work has not been submitted, published or accepted for publication, nor is being considered for publication elsewhere, either in whole or substantial part. The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest. All authors have seen and approved the manuscript being submitted.

Auteurs

Jerome N Baron (JN)

Department of Epidemiology, Surveillance and Risk Assessment, Swedish Veterinary Agency (SVA), Uppsala SE-751 89, Sweden.

Atle Mysterud (A)

Centre for Ecological and Evolutionary Synthesis (CEES), Department of Biosciences, University of Oslo, P.O. Box 1066 Blindern, Oslo NO-0316, Norway; Norwegian Institute for Nature Research, Trondheim NO-7485, Norway.

Petter Hopp (P)

Norwegian Veterinary Institute (NVI), P.O. Box 64, Ås NO-1431, Norway.

Thomas Rosendal (T)

Department of Epidemiology, Surveillance and Risk Assessment, Swedish Veterinary Agency (SVA), Uppsala SE-751 89, Sweden.

Jenny Frössling (J)

Department of Epidemiology, Surveillance and Risk Assessment, Swedish Veterinary Agency (SVA), Uppsala SE-751 89, Sweden; Department of Animal Environment and Health, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, PO Box 234, Skara SE-532 23, Sweden.

Sylvie L Benestad (SL)

Norwegian Veterinary Institute (NVI), P.O. Box 64, Ås NO-1431, Norway.

Jørn Våge (J)

Norwegian Veterinary Institute (NVI), P.O. Box 64, Ås NO-1431, Norway.

Maria Nöremark (M)

Department of Epidemiology, Surveillance and Risk Assessment, Swedish Veterinary Agency (SVA), Uppsala SE-751 89, Sweden. Electronic address: maria.noremark@sva.se.

Hildegunn Viljugrein (H)

Norwegian Veterinary Institute (NVI), P.O. Box 64, Ås NO-1431, Norway. Electronic address: hildegunn.viljugrein@vetinst.no.

Classifications MeSH