Despite slow reductions in the annual burden of active human tuberculosis (TB) cases, zoonotic TB (zTB) remains a poorly monitored and an important unaddressed global problem. There is a higher incidence in some regions and countries, especially where close association exists between growing numbers of cattle (the major source of Mycobacterium bovis ) and people, many suffering from poverty, and where dairy products are consumed unpasteurised. More attention needs to be focused on possible increased zTB incidence resulting from growth in dairy production globally and increased demand in low income countries in particular. Evidence of new zoonotic mycobacterial strains in South Asia and Africa (e.g. M. orygis), warrants urgent assessment of prevalence, potential drivers and risk in order to develop appropriate interventions. Control of M. bovis infection in cattle through detect and cull policies remain the mainstay of reducing zTB risk, whilst in certain circumstances animal vaccination is proving beneficial. New point of care diagnostics will help to detect animal infections and human cases. Given the high burden of human tuberculosis (caused by M. tuberculosis) in endemic areas, animals are affected by reverse zoonosis, including multi-drug resistant strains. This, may create drug resistant reservoirs of infection in animals. Like COVID-19, zTB is evolving in an ever-changing global landscape. ; the European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership (EDCTP2) pro- gramme which is supported under Horizon 2020, the European Union's Framework Programme for Research and Innovation. icddr, b is grateful to the Governments of Bangladesh, Canada, Sweden and the UK for providing core/unrestricted support. AZ is in receipt of a National Institutes of Health Research (NIHR) senior investigator award and the PANDORA-ID-NET. ; http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ijid ; hj2022 ; Veterinary Tropical Diseases
In: Whittington , R , Donat , K , Weber , M F , Kelton , D , Nielsen , S S , Eisenberg , S , Arrigoni , N , Juste , R , Sáez , J L , Dhand , N , Santi , A , Michel , A , Barkema , H , Kralik , P , Kostoulas , P , Citer , L , Griffin , F , Barwell , R , Moreira , M A S , Slana , I , Koehler , H , Singh , S V , Yoo , H S , Chávez-Gris , G , Goodridge , A , Ocepek , M , Garrido , J , Stevenson , K , Collins , M , Alonso , B , Cirone , K , Paolicchi , F , Gavey , L , Rahman , M T , De Marchin , E , Van Praet , W , Bauman , C , Fecteau , G , McKenna , S , Salgado , M , Fernández-Silva , J , Dziedzinska , R , Echeverría , G , Seppänen , J , Thibault , V , Fridriksdottir , V , Derakhshandeh , A , Haghkhah , M , Ruocco , L , Kawaji , S , Momotani , E , Heuer , C , Norton , S , Cadmus , S , Agdestein , A , Kampen , A , Szteyn , J , Frössling , J , Schwan , E , Caldow , G , Strain , S , Carter , M , Wells , S , Munyeme , M , Wolf , R , Gurung , R , Verdugo , C , Fourichon , C , Yamamoto , T , Thapaliya , S , Di Labio , E , Ekgatat , M , Gil , A , Alesandre , A N , Piaggio , J , Suanes , A & De Waard , J H 2019 , ' Control of paratuberculosis : Who, why and how. A review of 48 countries ' , BMC Veterinary Research , vol. 15 , no. 1 , 198 . https://doi.org/10.1186/s12917-019-1943-4
Paratuberculosis, a chronic disease affecting ruminant livestock, is caused by Mycobacterium avium subsp paratuberculosis (MAP). It has direct and indirect economic costs, impacts animal welfare and arouses public health concerns. In a survey of 48 countries we found paratuberculosis to be very common in livestock. In about half the countries more than 20% of herds and flocks were infected with MAP. Most countries had large ruminant populations (millions), several types of farmed ruminants, multiple husbandry systems and tens of thousands of individual farms, creating challenges for disease control. In addition, numerous species of free-living wildlife were infected. Paratuberculosis was notifiable in most countries, but formal control programs were present in only 22 countries. Generally, these were the more highly developed countries with advanced veterinary services. Of the countries without a formal control program for paratuberculosis, 76% were in South and Central America, Asia and Africa while 20% were in Europe. Control programs were justified most commonly on animal health grounds, but protecting market access and public health were other factors. Prevalence reduction was the major objective in most countries, but Norway and Sweden aimed to eradicate the disease, so surveillance and response were their major objectives. Government funding was involved in about two thirds of countries, but operations tended to be funded by farmers and their organizations and not by government alone. The majority of countries (60%) had voluntary control programs. Generally, programs were supported by incentives for joining, financial compensation and/or penalties for non-participation. Performance indicators, structure, leadership, practices and tools used in control programs are also presented. Securing funding for long-term control activities was a widespread problem. Control programs were reported to be successful in 16 (73%) of the 22 countries. Recommendations are made for future control programs, including a primary goal of establishing an international code for paratuberculosis, leading to universal acknowledgment of the principles and methods of control in relation to endemic and transboundary disease. An holistic approach across all ruminant livestock industries and long-term commitment is required for control of paratuberculosis.
Paratuberculosis, a chronic disease affecting ruminant livestock, is caused by Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis (MAP). It has direct and indirect economic costs, impacts animal welfare and arouses public health concerns. In a survey of 48 countries we found paratuberculosis to be very common in livestock. In about half the countries more than 20% of herds and flocks were infected with MAP. Most countries had large ruminant populations (millions), several types of farmed ruminants, multiple husbandry systems and tens of thousands of individual farms, creating challenges for disease control. In addition, numerous species of free-living wildlife were infected. Paratuberculosis was notifiable in most countries, but formal control programs were present in only 22 countries. Generally, these were the more highly developed countries with advanced veterinary services. Of the countries without a formal control program for paratuberculosis, 76% were in South and Central America, Asia and Africa while 20% were in Europe. Control programs were justified most commonly on animal health grounds, but protecting market access and public health were other factors. Prevalence reduction was the major objective in most countries, but Norway and Sweden aimed to eradicate the disease, so surveillance and response were their major objectives. Government funding was involved in about two thirds of countries, but operations tended to be funded by farmers and their organizations and not by government alone. The majority of countries (60%) had voluntary control programs. Generally, programs were supported by incentives for joining, financial compensation and/or penalties for non-participation. Performance indicators, structure, leadership, practices and tools used in control programs are also presented. Securing funding for long-term control activities was a widespread problem. Control programs were reported to be successful in 16 (73%) of the 22 countries. Recommendations are made for future control programs, including a primary goal of establishing an international code for paratuberculosis, leading to universal acknowledgment of the principles and methods of control in relation to endemic and transboundary disease. An holistic approach across all ruminant livestock industries and long-term commitment is required for control of paratuberculosis.
In: Whittington , R , Donat , K , Weber , M F , Kelton , D , Nielsen , S S , Eisenberg , S , Arrigoni , N , Juste , R , Sáez , J L , Dhand , N , Santi , A , Michel , A , Barkema , H , Kralik , P , Kostoulas , P , Citer , L , Griffin , F , Barwell , R , Moreira , M A S , Slana , I , Koehler , H , Singh , S V , Yoo , H S , Chávez-Gris , G , Goodridge , A , Ocepek , M , Garrido , J , Stevenson , K , Collins , M , Alonso , B , Cirone , K , Paolicchi , F , Gavey , L , Rahman , M T , De Marchin , E , Van Praet , W , Bauman , C , Fecteau , G , McKenna , S , Salgado , M , Fernández-Silva , J , Dziedzinska , R , Echeverría , G , Seppänen , J , Thibault , V , Fridriksdottir , V , Derakhshandeh , A , Haghkhah , M , Ruocco , L , Kawaji , S , Momotani , E , Heuer , C , Norton , S , Cadmus , S , Agdestein , A , Kampen , A , Szteyn , J , Frössling , J , Schwan , E , Caldow , G , Strain , S , Carter , M , Wells , S , Munyeme , M , Wolf , R , Gurung , R , Verdugo , C , Fourichon , C , Yamamoto , T , Thapaliya , S , Di Labio , E , Ekgatat , M , Gil , A , Alesandre , A N , Piaggio , J , Suanes , A & De Waard , J H 2019 , ' Control of paratuberculosis : Who, why and how. A review of 48 countries ' , BMC Veterinary Research , vol. 15 , no. 1 , 198 . https://doi.org/10.1186/s12917-019-1943-4
Paratuberculosis, a chronic disease affecting ruminant livestock, is caused by Mycobacterium avium subsp paratuberculosis (MAP). It has direct and indirect economic costs, impacts animal welfare and arouses public health concerns. In a survey of 48 countries we found paratuberculosis to be very common in livestock. In about half the countries more than 20% of herds and flocks were infected with MAP. Most countries had large ruminant populations (millions), several types of farmed ruminants, multiple husbandry systems and tens of thousands of individual farms, creating challenges for disease control. In addition, numerous species of free-living wildlife were infected. Paratuberculosis was notifiable in most countries, but formal control programs were present in only 22 countries. Generally, these were the more highly developed countries with advanced veterinary services. Of the countries without a formal control program for paratuberculosis, 76% were in South and Central America, Asia and Africa while 20% were in Europe. Control programs were justified most commonly on animal health grounds, but protecting market access and public health were other factors. Prevalence reduction was the major objective in most countries, but Norway and Sweden aimed to eradicate the disease, so surveillance and response were their major objectives. Government funding was involved in about two thirds of countries, but operations tended to be funded by farmers and their organizations and not by government alone. The majority of countries (60%) had voluntary control programs. Generally, programs were supported by incentives for joining, financial compensation and/or penalties for non-participation. Performance indicators, structure, leadership, practices and tools used in control programs are also presented. Securing funding for long-term control activities was a widespread problem. Control programs were reported to be successful in 16 (73%) of the 22 countries. Recommendations are made for future control programs, including a primary goal of establishing an international code for paratuberculosis, leading to universal acknowledgment of the principles and methods of control in relation to endemic and transboundary disease. An holistic approach across all ruminant livestock industries and long-term commitment is required for control of paratuberculosis.
Paratuberculosis, a chronic disease affecting ruminant livestock, is caused by Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis (MAP). It has direct and indirect economic costs, impacts animal welfare and arouses public health concerns. In a survey of 48 countries we found paratuberculosis to be very common in livestock. In about half the countries more than 20% of herds and flocks were infected with MAP. Most countries had large ruminant populations (millions), several types of farmed ruminants, multiple husbandry systems and tens of thousands of individual farms, creating challenges for disease control. In addition, numerous species of free-living wildlife were infected. Paratuberculosis was notifiable in most countries, but formal control programs were present in only 22 countries. Generally, these were the more highly developed countries with advanced veterinary services. Of the countries without a formal control program for paratuberculosis, 76% were in South and Central America, Asia and Africa while 20% were in Europe. Control programs were justified most commonly on animal health grounds, but protecting market access and public health were other factors. Prevalence reduction was the major objective in most countries, but Norway and Sweden aimed to eradicate the disease, so surveillance and response were their major objectives. Government funding was involved in about two thirds of countries, but operations tended to be funded by farmers and their organizations and not by government alone. The majority of countries (60%) had voluntary control programs. Generally, programs were supported by incentives for joining, financial compensation and/or penalties for non-participation. Performance indicators, structure, leadership, practices and tools used in control programs are also presented. Securing funding for long-term control activities was a widespread problem. Control programs were reported to be successful in 16 (73%) of the 22 countries. Recommendations are made for future control programs, including a primary goal of establishing an international code for paratuberculosis, leading to universal acknowledgment of the principles and methods of control in relation to endemic and transboundary disease. An holistic approach across all ruminant livestock industries and long-term commitment is required for control of paratuberculosis.
Paratuberculosis, a chronic disease affecting ruminant livestock, is caused by Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis (MAP). It has direct and indirect economic costs, impacts animal welfare and arouses public health concerns. In a survey of 48 countries we found paratuberculosis to be very common in livestock. In about half the countries more than 20% of herds and flocks were infected with MAP. Most countries had large ruminant populations (millions), several types of farmed ruminants, multiple husbandry systems and tens of thousands of individual farms, creating challenges for disease control. In addition, numerous species of free-living wildlife were infected. Paratuberculosis was notifiable in most countries, but formal control programs were present in only 22 countries. Generally, these were the more highly developed countries with advanced veterinary services. Of the countries without a formal control program for paratuberculosis, 76% were in South and Central America, Asia and Africa while 20% were in Europe. Control programs were justified most commonly on animal health grounds, but protecting market access and public health were other factors. Prevalence reduction was the major objective in most countries, but Norway and Sweden aimed to eradicate the disease, so surveillance and response were their major objectives. Government funding was involved in about two thirds of countries, but operations tended to be funded by farmers and their organizations and not by government alone. The majority of countries (60%) had voluntary control programs. Generally, programs were supported by incentives for joining, financial compensation and/or penalties for non-participation. Performance indicators, structure, leadership, practices and tools used in control programs are also presented. Securing funding for long-term control activities was a widespread problem. Control programs were reported to be successful in 16 (73%) of the 22 countries. Recommendations are made for future control programs, including a primary goal of establishing an international code for paratuberculosis, leading to universal acknowledgment of the principles and methods of control in relation to endemic and transboundary disease. An holistic approach across all ruminant livestock industries and long-term commitment is required for control of paratuberculosis