Vaccination with Bacillus Calmette–Guérin (BCG) constituted a major advance in the prevention of human tuberculosis (TB) in the beginning of the past century. BCG has also a clear potential for use in animals and, in particular, in the main domestic species subjected to TB control programs, cattle. Nowadays, the use of BCG vaccination against TB in cattle is not permitted by European Union legislation because BCG can induce a cellular immune response producing diagnostic interference in the eradication programs based on tuberculin single and comparative intradermal tests imposed worldwide. In this review, we recall the history of TB vaccination as well as different vaccine trials and the response to vaccination in both domestic and wild animals. Promising potential inactivated vaccines are also reviewed. Research studies are mainly focused to improve vaccine efficacy, and at the same time to ensure its easy administration, safety and stability in the environment. Great challenges remain, particularly in terms of vaccine candidates and also in the acceptance of vaccination. Vaccination should be included in a strategic plan for integrated control of TB under a "one health" perspective, which also includes other measures such as improved biosafety on farms to avoid or decrease contact between domestic and wild animals or control of wildlife reservoirs to avoid overabundance that may favor infection maintenance.
Vaccination with Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) constituted a major advance in the prevention of human tuberculosis (TB) in the beginning of the past century. BCG has also a clear potential for use in animals and, in particular, in the main domestic species subjected to TB control programs, cattle. Nowadays, the use of BCG vaccination against TB in cattle is not permitted by European Union legislation because BCG can induce a cellular immune response producing diagnostic interference in the eradication programs based on tuberculin single and comparative intradermal tests imposed worldwide. In this review we recall the history of TB vaccination as well as different vaccine trials and the response to vaccination in both domestic and wild animals. Promising potential inactivated vaccines are also reviewed. Research studies are mainly focused to improve vaccine efficacy, and at the same time to ensure its easy administration, safety and stability in the environment. Great challenges remain, particularly in terms of vaccine candidates and also in the acceptance of vaccination. Vaccination should be included in a strategic plan for integrated control of TB under a "one health" perspective, which also includes other measures such as improved biosafety on farms to avoid or decrease contact between domestic and wild animals or control of wildlife reservoirs to avoid overabundance that may favor infection maintenance. ; This work was funded by Ministerio de Ciencia, Innovación y Universidades (MCIU) and the Agencia Estatal de Investigación (AEI) reference project RTI2018-096010-B-C21 (FEDER co-funded), by 'Plan Nacional' grant WildDriver CGL2017-89866 (MINECO, Spain and EU FEDER), by project MYCOTRAINING SBPLY/19/180501/000174 (Junta de Castilla- La Mancha) and, by PCTI 2018–2020 (GRUPIN: IDI2018-000237) and FEDER. J. Thomas was supported by a grant from the Indian Council of Agricultural Research-International Fellowship 2014-15 (ICAR-IF 2014-15). We have received funds by RTI2018-096010-B-C21 (FEDER co-funded) to cover ...
8 páginas, 4 figuras, 2 tablas. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. ; In wildlife disease management there are few diseases for which vaccination is a viable option. The human vaccine BCG has been used for the control of bovine tuberculosis in badgers since 2010 and is expected to increase. Understanding the long-term effects of repeated vaccination campaigns on disease prevalence is vital, but modelling thus far has generally assumed that a vaccine provides perfect protection to a proportion of the population, and that animals exposed to a repeated vaccination have a second independent chance of becoming protected. We held a workshop with experts in the field to obtain consensus over the main pathways for partial protection in the badger, and then simulated these using an established model. The available data supported the possibility that some individuals receive no benefit from the BCG vaccine, others may result in a delayed disease progression and in the remaining animals, vaccine protected the individual from any onward transmission. Simulating these pathways using different levels of overall efficacy demonstrated that partial protection leads to a reduced effect of vaccination, but in all of the identified scenarios it was still possible to eradicate disease in an isolated population with no disease introduction. We also identify those potential vaccination failures that require further investigation to determine which of our proposed pathways is the more likely. ; This work was funded by Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs(Defra), UK [project SE3325]. ; Peer reviewed
European badgers (Meles meles ) have been identified as wildlife reservoirs for Mycobacterium bovis in the UK and Ireland, and may also have a role in the epidemiology of animal tuberculosis in other European regions. Thus, detection of M. bovis‐infected badgers may be required for the purposes of surveillance and monitoring of disease levels in infected populations. Current serological assays to detect M. bovis infection in live badgers, while rapid and inexpensive, show limited diagnostic sensitivity. Here we describe and evaluate new ELISA platforms for the recognition of the P22 multiprotein complex derived from the purified protein derivative (PPD ) of M. bovis . The recognition of IgG against P22 multiprotein complex derived from PPD ‐B was tested by ELISA in the serum of badgers from the UK , Ireland and Spain. TB infection in the badgers was indicated by the presence of M. bovis in tissues by culture and histology at post‐mortem examination and TB ‐free status was established by repeated negativity in the interferon γ release assay (IGRA ). In experimentally infected badgers, humoral antibody responses against P22 developed within 45 days post‐infection. The ELISA tests showed estimated sensitivity levels of 74–82% in experimentally and naturally infected badgers with specificities ranging from 75% to 100% depending on the badger population tested. The P22 multi‐antigen based ELISA s provide a sensitive and specific test platform for improved tuberculosis surveillance in badgers. ; This work was supported by the Instituto Nacional de Investigacion y Tecnologia Agraria y Alimentaria of Spain (INIA; RTA2015-00043-C02-02) and the TAVS-CM Programme of the Comunidad de Madrid (S2013/ABI-2747), cofinanced by the FEDER fund 'A way to build Europe'. This work was partially supported by a FEDER co-funded grant from INIA (RTA2014-00002-C02-01). Jose Antonio Infantes Lorenzo was supported by an FPU contract-fellowship (Formacion de Profesorado Universitario) from the Ministerio de Educacion, Cultura y Deporte of the Spanish Government (FPU2013/6000). ; Peer reviewed
European badgers (Meles meles) have been identified as wildlife reservoirs for Mycobacterium bovis in the UK and Ireland, and may also have a role in the epidemiology of animal tuberculosis in other European regions. Thus, detection of M. bovis-infected badgers may be required for the purposes of surveillance and monitoring of disease levels in infected populations. Current serological assays to detect M. bovis infection in live badgers, while rapid and inexpensive, show limited diagnostic sensitivity. Here we describe and evaluate new ELISA platforms for the recognition of the P22 multiprotein complex derived from the purified protein derivative (PPD) of M. bovis. The recognition of IgG against P22 multiprotein complex derived from PPD-B was tested by ELISA in the serum of badgers from the UK, Ireland and Spain. TB infection in the badgers was indicated by the presence of M. bovis in tissues by culture and histology at post-mortem examination and TB-free status was established by repeated negativity in the interferon γ release assay (IGRA). In experimentally infected badgers, humoral antibody responses against P22 developed within 45 days post-infection. The ELISA tests showed estimated sensitivity levels of 74-82% in experimentally and naturally infected badgers with specificities ranging from 75% to 100% depending on the badger population tested. The P22 multi-antigen based ELISAs provide a sensitive and specific test platform for improved tuberculosis surveillance in badgers. ; This work was supported by the Instituto Nacional de Investigación y Tecnología Agraria y Alimentaria of Spain (INIA; RTA2015‐00043‐C02‐02) and the TAVS‐CM Programme of the Comunidad de Madrid (S2013/ABI‐2747), cofinanced by the FEDER fund 'A way to build Europe'. This work was partially supported by a FEDER co‐funded grant from INIA (RTA2014‐00002‐C02‐01). Jose Antonio Infantes‐Lorenzo was supported by an FPU contract‐fellowship (Formación de Profesorado Universitario) from the Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte of the Spanish Government (FPU2013/6000). ; Sí
The COST action "Standardising output-based surveillance to control non-regulated diseases of cattle in the European Union (SOUND control)," aims to harmonise the results of surveillance and control programmes (CPs) for non-EU regulated cattle diseases to facilitate safe trade and improve overall control of cattle infectious diseases. In this paper we aimed to provide an overview on the diversity of control for these diseases in Europe. A non-EU regulated cattle disease was defined as an infectious disease of cattle with no or limited control at EU level, which is not included in the European Union Animal health law Categories A or B under Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/2002. A CP was defined as surveillance and/or intervention strategies designed to lower the incidence, prevalence, mortality or prove freedom from a specific disease in a region or country. Passive surveillance, and active surveillance of breeding bulls under Council Directive 88/407/EEC were not considered as CPs. A questionnaire was designed to obtain country-specific information about CPs for each disease. Animal health experts from 33 European countries completed the questionnaire. Overall, there are 23 diseases for which a CP exists in one or more of the countries studied. The diseases for which CPs exist in the highest number of countries are enzootic bovine leukosis, bluetongue, infectious bovine rhinotracheitis, bovine viral diarrhoea and anthrax (CPs reported by between 16 and 31 countries). Every participating country has on average, 6 CPs (min–max: 1–13) in place. Most programmes are implemented at a national level (86%) and are applied to both dairy and non-dairy cattle (75%). Approximately one-third of the CPs are voluntary, and the funding structure is divided between government and private resources. Countries that have eradicated diseases like enzootic bovine leukosis, bluetongue, infectious bovine rhinotracheitis and bovine viral diarrhoea have implemented CPs for other diseases to further improve the health status of cattle in their country. The control of non-EU regulated cattle diseases is very heterogenous in Europe. Therefore, the standardising of the outputs of these programmes to enable comparison represents a challenge.
The COST action "Standardising output-based surveillance to control non-regulated diseases of cattle in the European Union (SOUND control)," aims to harmonise the results of surveillance and control programmes (CPs) for non-EU regulated cattle diseases to facilitate safe trade and improve overall control of cattle infectious diseases. In this paper we aimed to provide an overview on the diversity of control for these diseases in Europe. A non-EU regulated cattle disease was defined as an infectious disease of cattle with no or limited control at EU level, which is not included in the European Union Animal health law Categories A or B under Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/2002. A CP was defined as surveillance and/or intervention strategies designed to lower the incidence, prevalence, mortality or prove freedom from a specific disease in a region or country. Passive surveillance, and active surveillance of breeding bulls under Council Directive 88/407/EEC were not considered as CPs. A questionnaire was designed to obtain country-specific information about CPs for each disease. Animal health experts from 33 European countries completed the questionnaire. Overall, there are 23 diseases for which a CP exists in one or more of the countries studied. The diseases for which CPs exist in the highest number of countries are enzootic bovine leukosis, bluetongue, infectious bovine rhinotracheitis, bovine viral diarrhoea and anthrax (CPs reported by between 16 and 31 countries). Every participating country has on average, 6 CPs (min–max: 1–13) in place. Most programmes are implemented at a national level (86%) and are applied to both dairy and non-dairy cattle (75%). Approximately one-third of the CPs are voluntary, and the funding structure is divided between government and private resources. Countries that have eradicated diseases like enzootic bovine leukosis, bluetongue, infectious bovine rhinotracheitis and bovine viral diarrhoea have implemented CPs for other diseases to further improve the health status ...
The COST action "Standardising output-based surveillance to control non-regulated diseases of cattle in the European Union (SOUND control), " aims to harmonise the results of surveillance and control programmes (CPs) for non-EU regulated cattle diseases to facilitate safe trade and improve overall control of cattle infectious diseases. In this paper we aimed to provide an overview on the diversity of control for these diseases in Europe. A non-EU regulated cattle disease was defined as an infectious disease of cattle with no or limited control at EU level, which is not included in the European Union Animal health law Categories A or B under Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/2002. A CP was defined as surveillance and/or intervention strategies designed to lower the incidence, prevalence, mortality or prove freedom from a specific disease in a region or country. Passive surveillance, and active surveillance of breeding bulls under Council Directive 88/407/EEC were not considered as CPs. A questionnaire was designed to obtain country-specific information about CPs for each disease. Animal health experts from 33 European countries completed the questionnaire. Overall, there are 23 diseases for which a CP exists in one or more of the countries studied. The diseases for which CPs exist in the highest number of countries are enzootic bovine leukosis, bluetongue, infectious bovine rhinotracheitis, bovine viral diarrhoea and anthrax (CPs reported by between 16 and 31 countries). Every participating country has on average, 6 CPs (min-max: 1-13) in place. Most programmes are implemented at a national level (86%) and are applied to both dairy and non-dairy cattle (75%). Approximately one-third of the CPs are voluntary, and the funding structure is divided between government and private resources. Countries that have eradicated diseases like enzootic bovine leukosis, bluetongue, infectious bovine rhinotracheitis and bovine viral diarrhoea have implemented CPs for other diseases to further improve the health status ...
13 páginas, 5 figuras, 3 tablas. ; The COST action "Standardising output-based surveillance to control non-regulated diseases of cattle in the European Union (SOUND control)," aims to harmonise the results of surveillance and control programmes (CPs) for non-EU regulated cattle diseases to facilitate safe trade and improve overall control of cattle infectious diseases. In this paper we aimed to provide an overview on the diversity of control for these diseases in Europe. A non-EU regulated cattle disease was defined as an infectious disease of cattle with no or limited control at EU level, which is not included in the European Union Animal health law Categories A or B under Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/2002. A CP was defined as surveillance and/or intervention strategies designed to lower the incidence, prevalence, mortality or prove freedom from a specific disease in a region or country. Passive surveillance, and active surveillance of breeding bulls under Council Directive 88/407/EEC were not considered as CPs. A questionnaire was designed to obtain country-specific information about CPs for each disease. Animal health experts from 33 European countries completed the questionnaire. Overall, there are 23 diseases for which a CP exists in one or more of the countries studied. The diseases for which CPs exist in the highest number of countries are enzootic bovine leukosis, bluetongue, infectious bovine rhinotracheitis, bovine viral diarrhoea and anthrax (CPs reported by between 16 and 31 countries). Every participating country has on average, 6 CPs (min–max: 1–13) in place. Most programmes are implemented at a national level (86%) and are applied to both dairy and non-dairy cattle (75%). Approximately one-third of the CPs are voluntary, and the funding structure is divided between government and private resources. Countries that have eradicated diseases like enzootic bovine leukosis, bluetongue, infectious bovine rhinotracheitis and bovine viral diarrhoea have implemented CPs for other diseases to further improve the health status of cattle in their country. The control of non-EU regulated cattle diseases is very heterogenous in Europe. Therefore, the standardising of the outputs of these programmes to enable comparison represents a challenge. ; Peer reviewed
The COST action "Standardising output-based surveillance to control non-regulated diseases of cattle in the European Union (SOUND control)," aims to harmonise the results of surveillance and control programmes (CPs) for non-EU regulated cattle diseases to facilitate safe trade and improve overall control of cattle infectious diseases. In this paper we aimed to provide an overview on the diversity of control for these diseases in Europe. A non-EU regulated cattle disease was defined as an infectious disease of cattle with no or limited control at EU level, which is not included in the European Union Animal health law Categories A or B under Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/2002. A CP was defined as surveillance and/or intervention strategies designed to lower the incidence, prevalence, mortality or prove freedom from a specific disease in a region or country. Passive surveillance, and active surveillance of breeding bulls under Council Directive 88/407/EEC were not considered as CPs. A questionnaire was designed to obtain country-specific information about CPs for each disease. Animal health experts from 33 European countries completed the questionnaire. Overall, there are 23 diseases for which a CP exists in one or more of the countries studied. The diseases for which CPs exist in the highest number of countries are enzootic bovine leukosis, bluetongue, infectious bovine rhinotracheitis, bovine viral diarrhoea and anthrax (CPs reported by between 16 and 31 countries). Every participating country has on average, 6 CPs (min-max: 1-13) in place. Most programmes are implemented at a national level (86%) and are applied to both dairy and non-dairy cattle (75%). Approximately one-third of the CPs are voluntary, and the funding structure is divided between government and private resources. Countries that have eradicated diseases like enzootic bovine leukosis, bluetongue, infectious bovine rhinotracheitis and bovine viral diarrhoea have implemented CPs for other diseases to further improve the health status of cattle in their country. The control of non-EU regulated cattle diseases is very heterogenous in Europe. Therefore, the standardising of the outputs of these programmes to enable comparison represents a challenge.
In: Hodnik , J J , Acinger-Rogić , Ž , Alishani , M , Autio , T , Balseiro , A , Berezowski , JAB , Carmo , L P , Chaligiannis , I , Conrady , B , Costa , L , Cvetkovikj , I , Davidov , I , Dispas , M , Djadjovski , I , Duarte , E L , Faverjon , C , Fourichon , C , Frössling , J , Gerilovych , A , Gethmann , J , Gomes , J , Graham , D A , Guelbenzu Gonzalo , M , Gunn , GJ , Henry , MK , Hopp , P , Houe , H , Irimia , E , Ježek , J , Juste , R , Kalaitzakis , E , Kaler , J , Kaplan , S , Kostoulas , P , Kovalenko , K , Knezevic , N , Knific , T , Koleci , X , Madouasse , A , Sciences , A , Mandelík , R , Meletis , E , Mincu , M , Mõtus , K , Munoz-Gomez , V , Niculae , M , Ocepek , M , Opsal Tangen , M , Ózsvári , L , Papadopoulos , D , Papadopoulos , T , Pelkonen , S , Polak , M P , Pozzato , N , Rapaliute , E , Ribbens , S , Niza-Ribeiro , J J R , Rosenbaum-Nielsen , L , Sáez , J L , Nielsen , S S , van Schaik , G , Schwan , E , Sekovska , B , Ljubljana , F O V M U , Strain , S , Satran , P , Seric Haracic , S , Tamminen , L-M , Thulke , H H , Toplak , I , Tuunainen , E , Verner , S , Vilcek , S , Yildiz , R & Santman-Berends , I MGA 2021 , ' Overview of cattle diseases listed under category C, D or E in the Animal Health Law (AHL) for which control programmes are in place within Europe ' , Frontiers in Veterinary Science , vol. 8 , 688078 . https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2021.688078
The COST action "Standardizing output-based surveillance to control non-regulated diseases of cattle in the European Union (SOUND control)", aims to harmonize the results of surveillance and control programmes (CPs) for non-EU regulated cattle diseases to facilitate safe trade and improve overall control of cattle infectious diseases. In this paper we aimed to provide an overview on the diversity of control for these diseases in Europe. A non-EU regulated cattle disease was defined as an infectious disease of cattle with no or limited control at EU level, which is not included in the European Union Animal health law Categories A or B under Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/2002. A CP was defined as surveillance and/or intervention strategies designed to lower the incidence, prevalence, mortality or prove freedom from a specific disease in a region or country. Passive surveillance, and active surveillance of breeding bulls under Council Directive 88/407/EEC were not considered as CPs. A questionnaire was designed to obtain country-specific information about CPs for each disease. Animal health experts from 33 European countries completed the questionnaire. Overall, there are 23 diseases for which a CP exists in one or more of the countries studied. The diseases for which CPs exist in the highest number of countries are enzootic bovine leukosis, bluetongue, infectious bovine rhinotracheitis, bovine viral diarrhoea and anthrax (CPs reported by between 16 and 31 countries). Every participating country has on average, 6 CPs (min-max: 1-13) in place. Most programmes are implemented at a national level (86%) and are applied to both dairy and non-dairy cattle (75%). Approximately one-third of the CPs are voluntary, and the funding structure is divided between government and private resources. Countries that have eradicated diseases like enzootic bovine leukosis, bluetongue, infectious bovine rhinotracheitis and bovine viral diarrhoea have implemented CPs for other diseases to further improve the health status of cattle in their country. The control of non-EU regulated cattle diseases is very heterogenous in Europe. Therefore, the standardizing of the outputs of these programmes to enable comparison represents a challenge.
The COST action "Standardising output-based surveillance to control non-regulated diseases of cattle in the European Union (SOUND control)," aims to harmonise the results of surveillance and control programmes (CPs) for non-EU regulated cattle diseases to facilitate safe trade and improve overall control of cattle infectious diseases. In this paper we aimed to provide an overview on the diversity of control for these diseases in Europe. A non-EU regulated cattle disease was defined as an infectious disease of cattle with no or limited control at EU level, which is not included in the European Union Animal health law Categories A or B under Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/2002. A CP was defined as surveillance and/or intervention strategies designed to lower the incidence, prevalence, mortality or prove freedom from a specific disease in a region or country. Passive surveillance, and active surveillance of breeding bulls under Council Directive 88/407/EEC were not considered as CPs. A questionnaire was designed to obtain country-specific information about CPs for each disease. Animal health experts from 33 European countries completed the questionnaire. Overall, there are 23 diseases for which a CP exists in one or more of the countries studied. The diseases for which CPs exist in the highest number of countries are enzootic bovine leukosis, bluetongue, infectious bovine rhinotracheitis, bovine viral diarrhoea and anthrax (CPs reported by between 16 and 31 countries). Every participating country has on average, 6 CPs (min–max: 1–13) in place. Most programmes are implemented at a national level (86%) and are applied to both dairy and non-dairy cattle (75%). Approximately one-third of the CPs are voluntary, and the funding structure is divided between government and private resources. Countries that have eradicated diseases like enzootic bovine leukosis, bluetongue, infectious bovine rhinotracheitis and bovine viral diarrhoea have implemented CPs for other diseases to further improve the health status of cattle in their country. The control of non-EU regulated cattle diseases is very heterogenous in Europe. Therefore, the standardising of the outputs of these programmes to enable comparison represents a challenge.