A qualitative risk assessment of cleansing and disinfection requirements after an avian influenza outbreak in commercial poultry

Policies to prevent zoonotic spillover: a systematic scoping review of evaluative evidence

BACKGROUND

Emerging infectious diseases of zoonotic origin present a critical threat to global population health. As accelerating globalisation makes epidemics and pandemics more difficult to contain, there is a need for effective preventive interventions that reduce the risk of zoonotic spillover events. Public policies can play a key role in preventing spillover events. The aim of this review is to identify and describe evaluations of public policies that target the determinants of zoonotic spillover. Our approach is informed by a One Health perspective, acknowledging the inter-connectedness of human, animal and environmental health.

METHODS

In this systematic scoping review, we searched Medline, SCOPUS, Web of Science and Global Health in May 2021 using search terms combining animal health and the animal-human interface, public policy, prevention and zoonoses. We screened titles and abstracts, extracted data and reported our process in line with PRISMA-ScR guidelines. We also searched relevant organisations' websites for evaluations published in the grey literature. All evaluations of public policies aiming to prevent zoonotic spillover events were eligible for inclusion. We summarised key data from each study, mapping policies along the spillover pathway.

RESULTS

Our review found 95 publications evaluating 111 policies. We identified 27 unique policy options including habitat protection; trade regulations; border control and quarantine procedures; farm and market biosecurity measures; public information campaigns; and vaccination programmes, as well as multi-component programmes. These were implemented by many sectors, highlighting the cross-sectoral nature of zoonotic spillover prevention. Reports emphasised the importance of surveillance data in both guiding prevention efforts and enabling policy evaluation, as well as the importance of industry and private sector actors in implementing many of these policies. Thoughtful engagement with stakeholders ranging from subsistence hunters and farmers to industrial animal agriculture operations is key for policy success in this area.

CONCLUSION

This review outlines the state of the evaluative evidence around policies to prevent zoonotic spillover in order to guide policy decision-making and focus research efforts. Since we found that most of the existing policy evaluations target 'downstream' determinants, additional research could focus on evaluating policies targeting 'upstream' determinants of zoonotic spillover, such as land use change, and policies impacting infection intensity and pathogen shedding in animal populations, such as those targeting animal welfare.

A Review of the Stability of Avian Influenza Virus in Materials from Poultry Farms

Avian influenza virus (AIV) is widespread among poultry and wild waterfowl. The severity of the disease is variable and the highly pathogenic form can rapidly kill numerous avian species. Understanding the stability of AIV infectivity in different substrates in the environment of poultry facilities is critical to developing processes to effectively decontaminate or safely dispose of potentially contaminated material. This review aims to compile the current information on the stability of AIV in materials from poultry farms that cannot be disinfected with chemicals or fumigants: water, litter/bedding, soil, feed, feathers, carcasses/meat, manure/feces, and eggs. There are still important gaps in the data, but available data will inform risk assessments, biosecurity, and procedures to dispose of potentially contaminated material. Among the parameters and conditions reported, temperature is a nearly universal factor where, regardless of substrate, the virus will inactivate faster under a given set of conditions as the temperature increases, and freeze-thaw cycles can facilitate virus inactivation.

A review of qualitative risk assessment in animal health: Suggestions for best practice

Qualitative risk assessment (QRA) can provide decision support in line with the requirement for an objective, unbiased assessment of disease risk according to the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures of the World Trade Organization. However, in order for a QRA to be objective and consistently applied it is necessary to standardize the approach as much as possible. This review considers how QRAs have historically been used for the benefit of animal health, what problems have been encountered during their progression, and considers best practice for their future use. Four main elements were identified as having been the subject of some proposed standard methodology: (i) the description of risk levels, (ii) combining probabilities, (iii) accounting for trade volume and time period, and (iv) uncertainty. These elements were addressed in different ways but were highlighted as being fundamental to improving the robustness in estimating the risk and conveying the results to the risk manager with minimal ambiguity. In line with this, several tools have been developed which attempt to use mathematical reasoning to incorporate uncertainty and improve the objectivity of the qualitative framework. This represents an important advance in animal health QRA. Overall, animal health QRAs have established their usefulness by providing a tool for rapid risk estimation which can be used to identify important chains of events and critical control points along risk pathways and inform risk management programmes as to whether or not the risk exceeds a decision-making threshold above which action should be taken. Ensuring a robust objective methodology is used and that the reasons for differences in results, such as assumptions and uncertainty are clearly described to the customer with minimal ambiguity is essential to maintain confidence in the QRA process. However, further work needs to be done to determine if one objective uniform methodology should be developed and considered best practice. To this end, a set of best practice guidelines presenting the optimal way to conduct a QRA and regulated by bodies such as the World Organization for Animal Health or the European Food Safety Authority would be beneficial.

Risk assessment for recrudescence of avian influenza in caged layer houses following depopulation: the effect of cleansing, disinfection and dismantling of equipment

Following an outbreak of highly pathogenic avian influenza virus (HPAIV) in a poultry house, control measures are put in place to prevent further spread. An essential part of the control measures based on the European Commission Avian Influenza Directive 2005/94/EC is the cleansing and disinfection (C&D) of infected premises. Cleansing and disinfection includes both preliminary and secondary C&D, and the dismantling of complex equipment during secondary C&D is also required, which is costly to the owner and also delays the secondary cleansing process, hence increasing the risk for onward spread. In this study, a quantitative risk assessment is presented to assess the risk of re-infection (recrudescence) occurring in an enriched colony-caged layer poultry house on restocking with chickens after different C&D scenarios. The risk is expressed as the number of restocked poultry houses expected before recrudescence occurs. Three C&D scenarios were considered, namely (i) preliminary C&D alone, (ii) preliminary C&D plus secondary C&D without dismantling and (iii) preliminary C&D plus secondary C&D with dismantling. The source-pathway-receptor framework was used to construct the model, and parameterisation was based on the three C&D scenarios. Two key operational variables in the model are (i) the time between depopulation of infected birds and restocking with new birds (TbDR) and (ii) the proportion of infected material that bypasses C&D, enabling virus to survive the process. Probability distributions were used to describe these two parameters for which there was recognised variability between premises in TbDR or uncertainty due to lack of information in the fraction of bypass. The risk assessment estimates that the median (95% credible intervals) number of repopulated poultry houses before recrudescence are 1.2 × 104 (50 to 2.8 × 106), 1.9 × 105 (780 to 5.7 × 107) and 1.1 × 106 (4.2 × 103 to 2.9 × 108) under C&D scenarios (i), (ii) and (iii), respectively. Thus for HPAIV in caged layers, undertaking secondary C&D without dismantling reduces the risk by 16-fold compared to preliminary C&D alone. Dismantling has an additional, although smaller, impact, reducing the risk by a further 6-fold and thus around 90-fold compared to preliminary C&D alone. On the basis of the 95% credible intervals, the model demonstrates the importance of secondary C&D (with or without dismantling) over preliminary C&D alone. However, the extra protection afforded by dismantling may not be cost beneficial in the context of reduced risk of onward spread.