Suchergebnisse

23 Págs. Pictures. ; The understanding of the pathogenic mechanisms and the clinicopathological forms caused by currently circulating African swine fever virus (ASFV) isolates is incomplete. So far, most of the studies have been focused on isolates classified within genotypes I and II, the only genotypes that have circulated outside of Africa. However, less is known about the clinical presentations and lesions induced by isolates belonging to the other twenty-two genotypes. Therefore, the early clinicopathological identification of disease outbreaks caused by isolates belonging to, as yet, not well-characterised ASFV genotypes may be compromised, which might cause a delay in the implementation of control measures to halt the virus spread. To improve the pathological characterisation of disease caused by diverse isolates, we have refined the macroscopic and histopathological evaluation protocols to standardise the scoring of lesions. Domestic pigs were inoculated intranasally with different doses (high, medium and low) of ASFV isolate Ken05/Tk1 (genotype X). To complement previous studies, the distribution and severity of macroscopic and histopathological lesions, along with the amount and distribution of viral antigen in tissues, were characterised by applying the new scoring protocols. The intranasal inoculation of domestic pigs with high doses of the Ken05/Tk1 isolate induced acute forms of ASF in most of the animals. Inoculation with medium doses mainly induced acute forms of disease. A less severe but longer clinical course, typical of subacute forms, characterised by the presence of more widespread and severe haemorrhages and oedema, was observed in one pig inoculated with the medium dose. The severity of vascular lesions (haemorrhages and oedema) induced by high and medium doses was not associated with the amount of virus antigen detected in tissues, therefore these might be attributed to indirect mechanisms not evaluated in the present study. The absence of clinical signs, lesions and detectable levels of virus genome or antigen in blood from the animals inoculated with the lowest dose ruled out the existence of possible asymptomatic carriers or persistently infected pigs, at least for the 21 days period of the study. The results corroborate the moderate virulence of the Ken05/Tk1 isolate, as well as its capacity to induce both the acute and, occasionally, subacute forms of ASF when high and medium doses were administered intranasally. ; The animal study was funded under an Innovate UK and Genus funded sub-contract from the Roslin Institute and APHA (CSKN0019). This research was also financially supported by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), the Scottish Government and the Welsh Government. The development and refinement of the scoring systems was supported by the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency ; Peer reviewed

The intensity of surveillance and funding sources varied greatly per country, with the number of animals examined post-mortem ranging from 30 to 5000 per year for general surveillance programmes, and from tens to tens of thousands per year for targeted surveillance programmes. By far the most important funding for WHS was provided by national governments, with additional funding from hunter organisations, universities, research projects, non-governmental organisations, the agricultural industry and environmental organisations. ; Whilst multiple countries in Europe have wildlife health surveillance (WHS) programmes, they vary in scope. In many countries, coordinated general surveillance at a national scale is not conducted and the knowledge of wildlife health status in Europe remains limited. Learning lessons from countries with established systems may help others to effectively implement WHS schemes. In order to facilitate information exchange, the WHS Network of the European Wildlife Disease Association organised a workshop to both collate knowledge and experience from countries that had started or expanded WHS programmes and to translate this information into practical recommendations. Presentations were given by invited representatives of European countries with different WHS levels. Events that led to the start-up and fostered growth spurts of WHS were highlighted, including action plan creation, partnership formation, organisation restructuring and appraisal by external audit. Challenges to programme development, such as a lack of funding, data sharing, infrastructural provision and method harmonisation, were explored. Recommendations to help overcome key challenges were summarised as: understanding and awareness; cross-sectoral scope; national-scale collaboration; harmonisation of methods; government support; academic support; other funding support; staff expertise and capacity; leadership, feedback and engagement; and threat mitigation and wildlife disease management. This resource may enable the development of WHS programmes in Europe and beyond.

Whilst multiple countries in Europe have wildlife health surveillance (WHS) programmes, they vary in scope. In many countries, coordinated general surveillance at a national scale is not conducted and the knowledge of wildlife health status in Europe remains limited. Learning lessons from countries with established systems may help others to effectively implement WHS schemes. In order to facilitate information exchange, the WHS Network of the European Wildlife Disease Association organised a workshop to both collate knowledge and experience from countries that had started or expanded WHS programmes and to translate this information into practical recommendations. Presentations were given by invited representatives of European countries with different WHS levels. Events that led to the start-up and fostered growth spurts of WHS were highlighted, including action plan creation, partnership formation, organisation restructuring and appraisal by external audit. Challenges to programme development, such as a lack of funding, data sharing, infrastructural provision and method harmonisation, were explored. Recommendations to help overcome key challenges were summarised as: understanding and awareness; cross-sectoral scope; national-scale collaboration; harmonisation of methods; government support; academic support; other funding support; staff expertise and capacity; leadership, feedback and engagement; and threat mitigation and wildlife disease management. This resource may enable the development of WHS programmes in Europe and beyond.

Whilst multiple countries in Europe have wildlife health surveillance (WHS) programmes, they vary in scope. In many countries, coordinated general surveillance at a national scale is not conducted and the knowledge of wildlife health status in Europe remains limited. Learning lessons from countries with established systems may help others to effectively implement WHS schemes. In order to facilitate information exchange, the WHS Network of the European Wildlife Disease Association organised a workshop to both collate knowledge and experience from countries that had started or expanded WHS programmes and to translate this information into practical recommendations. Presentations were given by invited representatives of European countries with different WHS levels. Events that led to the start-up and fostered growth spurts of WHS were highlighted, including action plan creation, partnership formation, organisation restructuring and appraisal by external audit. Challenges to programme development, such as a lack of funding, data sharing, infrastructural provision and method harmonisation, were explored. Recommendations to help overcome key challenges were summarised as: understanding and awareness; cross-sectoral scope; national-scale collaboration; harmonisation of methods; government support; academic support; other funding support; staff expertise and capacity; leadership, feedback and engagement; and threat mitigation and wildlife disease management. This resource may enable the development of WHS programmes in Europe and beyond.

Whilst multiple countries in Europe have wildlife health surveillance (WHS) programmes, they vary in scope. In many countries, coordinated general surveillance at a national scale is not conducted and the knowledge of wildlife health status in Europe remains limited. Learning lessons from countries with established systems may help others to effectively implement WHS schemes. In order to facilitate information exchange, the WHS Network of the European Wildlife Disease Association organised a workshop to both collate knowledge and experience from countries that had started or expanded WHS programmes and to translate this information into practical recommendations. Presentations were given by invited representatives of European countries with different WHS levels. Events that led to the start-up and fostered growth spurts of WHS were highlighted, including action plan creation, partnership formation, organisation restructuring and appraisal by external audit. Challenges to programme development, such as a lack of funding, data sharing, infrastructural provision and method harmonisation, were explored. Recommendations to help overcome key challenges were summarised as: understanding and awareness; cross-sectoral scope; national-scale collaboration; harmonisation of methods; government support; academic support; other funding support; staff expertise and capacity; leadership, feedback and engagement; and threat mitigation and wildlife disease management. This resource may enable the development of WHS programmes in Europe and beyond.

Science and Regulation. ; An estimated 6051 tons of active substances went into the production of veterinary pharmaceuticals (VPs) for the treatment of food animals in the European Union (EU) in 2004, including 5393 tons of antibiotics and 194 tons of antiparasitics. With global meat production projected to increase and the growing market for companion animal pharmaceuticals, the use of VPs will continue to increase. Although VPs may benefit the health and welfare of domestic animals and the efficiency of food animal production, they can contaminate the environment through manufacturing, treatment of animals, and disposal of carcasses, offal, urine, feces, and unused products (see the chart). This contamination is a threat to nontarget species, including humans. With Spain having recently authorized marketing of a VP that was banned in South Asia in the past decade in light of environmental impacts, we recommend strengthening of current procedures and addition of a more proactive, holistic, One Health approach applicable to all VPs. ; A.M. was supported by a Ramón y Cajal research contract from the Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad (RYC-2012-11867). J.A.D. andJ.A.S.-Z.were supported by projects CGL2012- 40013-CO2-01-02 and RNM1925. ; Peer reviewed

© Wildlife Disease Association 2019. Many infectious diseases originating from, or carried by, wildlife affect wildlife conservation and biodiversity, livestock health, or human health. We provide an update on changes in the epidemiology of 25 selected infectious, wildlife-related diseases in Europe (from 2010–16) that had an impact, or may have a future impact, on the health of wildlife, livestock, and humans. These pathogens were selected based on their: 1) identification in recent Europe-wide projects as important surveillance targets, 2) inclusion in European Union legislation as pathogens requiring obligatory surveillance, 3) presence in recent literature on wildlife-related diseases in Europe since 2010, 4) inclusion in key pathogen lists released by the Office International des Epizooties, 5) identification in conference presentations and informal discussions on a group email list by a European network of wildlife disease scientists from the European Wildlife Disease Association, or 6) identification as pathogens with changes in their epidemiology during 2010–16. The wildlife pathogens or diseases included in this review are: avian influenza virus, seal influenza virus, lagoviruses, rabies virus, bat lyssaviruses, filoviruses, canine distemper virus, morbilliviruses in aquatic mammals, bluetongue virus, West Nile virus, hantaviruses, Schmallenberg virus, Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever virus, African swine fever virus, amphibian ranavirus, hepatitis E virus, bovine tuberculosis (Mycobacterium bovis), tularemia (Francisella tularensis), brucellosis (Brucella spp.), salmonellosis (Salmonella spp.), Coxiella burnetii, chytridiomycosis, Echinococcus multilocularis, Leishmania infantum, and chronic wasting disease. Further work is needed to identify all of the key drivers of disease change and emergence, as they appear to be influencing the incidence and spread of these pathogens in Europe. We present a summary of these recent changes during 2010–16 to discuss possible commonalities and drivers of disease ...