Critical Systematic Review of Zoonoses and Transboundary Animal Diseases' Prioritization in Africa

Parallel multi-criteria decision analysis for sub-national prioritization of zoonoses and animal diseases in Africa: The case of Cameroon

The use of multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) for disease prioritization at the sub-national level in sub-Sahara Africa (SSA) is rare. In this research, we contextualized MCDA for parallel prioritization of endemic zoonoses and animal diseases in The Adamawa and North regions of Cameroon. MCDA was associated to categorical principal component analysis (CATPCA), and two-step cluster analysis. Six and seven domains made of 17 and 19 criteria (out of 70) respectively were selected by CATPCA for the prioritization of zoonoses and animal diseases, respectively. The most influencing domains were "public health" for zoonoses and "control and prevention" for animal diseases. Twenty-seven zoonoses and 40 animal diseases were ranked and grouped in three clusters. Sensitivity analysis resulted in high correlation between complete models and reduced models showing the robustness of the simplification processes. The tool used in this study can be applied to prioritize endemic zoonoses and transboundary animal diseases in SSA at the sub-national level and upscaled at the national and regional levels. The relevance of MCDA is high because of its contextualization process and participatory nature enabling better operationalization of disease prioritization outcomes in the context of African countries or other low and middle-income countries.

The application of the One Health approach in the management of five major zoonotic diseases using the World Bank domains: A scoping review

The international authorities, such as the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, World Health Organization, World Organization for Animal Health, United Nations Environment Programme, and World Bank, have endorsed the One Health concept as an effective approach to optimize the health of people, animals, and the environment. The One Health concept is considered as an integrated and unifying approach with the objective of sustainably balancing and optimizing the health of people, animals, and ecosystems. Despite variations in its definitions, the underlying principle remains consistent - recognizing the interconnected and interdependent health of humans, animals, and the environment, necessitating interdisciplinary collaboration to optimize health outcomes. The One Health approach has been applied in numerous countries for detecting, managing, and controlling diseases. Moreover, the concept has found application in various areas, including antimicrobial resistance, food safety, and ecotoxicology, with a growing demand. There is a growing consensus that the One Health concept and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals mutually reinforce each other. The World Bank has recommended five domains as foundational building blocks for operationalising the One Health approach, which includes: i) One Health stakeholders, roles, and responsibilities; ii) financial and personal resources; iii) communication and information; iv) technical infrastructure; and v) governance. The domains provide a generalised overview of the One Health concept and guide to its application. We conducted a scoping review following the five-staged Arksey and O'Malley's framework. The objective of the review was to map and synthesise available evidence of application of the One Health approach to five major zoonotic diseases using the World Bank domains. Publications from the year 2004, marking the inception of the term 'One Health,' to 2022 were included. Information was charted and categorised against the World Bank domains identified as a priori. We included 1132 records obtained from three databases: Embase, Medline, and Global Health; as well as other sources. After excluding duplicates, screening for titles and abstracts, and full text screening, 20 articles that contained descriptions of 29 studies that implemented the One Health approach were selected for the review. We found that included studies varied in the extent to which the five domains were utilised. Less than half the total studies (45%) used all the five domains and none of the studies used all the sub-domains. The environmental sector showed an underrepresentation in the application of the One Health approach to zoonotic diseases as 14 (48%) studies in 10 articles did not mention it as a stakeholder. Sixty two percent of the studies mentioned receiving support from international partners in implementing the One Health approach and 76% of the studies were supported by international donors to conduct the studies. The review identified disparate funding mechanisms employed in the implementation of the One Health approach. However, there were limited discussions on plans for continuity and viability of these funding mechanisms in the future.

Assessing One Health capacities for transboundary zoonotic diseases at the Libya-Tunisia border

BACKGROUND

The dynamic nature of zoonotic emergence, spillover and spread necessitates multisectoral coordination beyond national borders to encompass cross-boundary and regional cooperation. Designated points of entry (POEs), specifically ground crossings, serve as critical locales for establishing and maintaining robust prevention, detection, notification, coordination, and response mechanisms to transboundary emerging and re-emerging disease threats. In order to better assess One Health capacities for transboundary zoonotic diseases (TZD) prevention, detection and response we adapted an existing tool, One Health Systems Assessment for Priority Zoonoses (OHSAPZ), for a cross-border, POE setting in North Africa.

METHODS

The One Health Transboundary Assessment for Priority Zoonoses (OHTAPZ) tool was used to support prioritization of transboundary zoonoses and analyze operational capacities between national and subnational-level human and animal health stakeholders from Libya and Tunisia. Country partners jointly identified and prioritized five TZDs of concern. Case study scenarios for each priority pathogen were used to elicit current disease operations, as well as multisectoral and bilateral engagement networks. Finally, a gap analysis was performed to determine bilateral strengths and weaknesses to TZDs.

RESULTS

The five priority TZDs jointly confirmed to undergo One Health assessment were avian influenza (low and high pathogenic strains); brucellosis; Rift Valley fever; Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever; and rabies. Using the qualitative information collected, a transboundary systems map schematic was developed outlining the movement of human patients, animals, diagnostic samples, and routes of communication and coordination both within and between countries for zoonotic diseases.

CONCLUSIONS

Analysis of current operations (prevention, detection, surveillance, laboratory capacity, quarantine/isolation, and response) and the resulting transboundary systems map schematic helped identify existing capacity strengths for certain priority pathogens, as well as challenges to timely information-sharing and coordination. We developed targeted recommendations to address these limitations for joint action planning between Libya and Tunisia.

One Health approach for prioritization of potential foodborne pathogens: Risk-ranking, Delphi survey, and criteria evaluation pre- and post-COVID-19 pandemic

Frequent foodborne illnesses with unknown causative agents highlight the need to explore zoonotic potential foodborne pathogens (PFPs). An effective PFP prioritization tool is indispensable, especially after experiencing the recent pandemic caused by zoonotic SARS-CoV-2. Risk information on pathogens (excluding 30 known foodborne pathogens) provided by governmental and international organizations was reviewed to generate a list of PFPs. Risk-ranking of PFPs was conducted based on a literature review of food poisoning or detection cases, and the ranks were determined with a decision tree. PFPs were prioritized by infectious disease (ID), veterinary medicine (VET), and food safety (FS) experts through a pre- and postpandemic Delphi survey, and key criteria in their decisions were illuminated. Among 339 PFPs, 32 rank-1 PFPs were involved in the foodborne outbreak(s). Discrepancies in opinions on prioritization between experts in different fields deepened after the pandemic. Only VET and FS experts valued the plausibility of foodborne transmission in evaluating bacteria and viruses, and a significant correlation between their selection of PFPs was found (p < .05). The impact of the pandemic induced all fields to focus more on human transmission and severity/fatality in prioritizing viruses, and only FS experts emphasized the plausibility of foodborne transmission after the pandemic. In contrast to prioritizing bacteria or viruses, ID and VET experts are unusually focused on foodborne transmission when prioritizing parasites. Criteria of consensus deduced by interdisciplinary experts with different interests and the criteria directly related to foodborne transmission should be acknowledged for adequate PFP prioritization.

Assessing and Prioritizing Zoonotic Diseases in Punjab, India: A One Health Approach

Zoonotic diseases have a significant impact on both human and animal health globally. The present study was planned to prioritize the zoonoses in Punjab state of India. To develop a zoonotic disease prioritization scoring system, a comprehensive approach has been taken, including literature review, key person interviews with animal health experts (n = 12) and medical professionals (n = 7), and nine focus group discussions (FGDs) with veterinary academicians, medical professionals, and field veterinary doctors. The scoring system comprises of seven major criteria, each assigned a weightage score (ws): prevalence/incidence of the disease (ws = 0.20), severity of illnesses in humans (ws = 0.18), epidemic potential (ws = 0.16), socio-economic burden (ws = 0.16), availability of effective control and prevention measures (ws = 0.15), inter-sectoral collaborations (ws = 0.1), and bioterrorism potential (ws = 0.05). The finalized scoring system, accompanied by a list of 15 selected zoonotic diseases, was implemented among a group of 23 professionals engaged in zoonoses research (n = 7), animal health (n = 10), and medical health (n = 6) to determine their prioritization. The zoonotic diseases prioritized for the Punjab (India) included, Brucellosis (0.70) > Rabies (0.69) > Anthrax (0.64) > Leptospirosis (0.62) = Toxoplasmosis (0.62) = Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI) (0.62) > Bovine tuberculosis (0.61) > Q fever (0.60) > Cysticercosis (0.59) > Listeriosis (0.58) > Crimean-Congo haemorrhagic fever (CCHF) (0.57) > Japanese encephalitis (0.56) = Echinococcosis (0.56) > Dermatophytosis (0.53) > and Scrub typhus (0.48), respectively. Higher priority is suggested for endemic zoonoses (e.g., brucellosis and rabies) as compared to those with epidemic potential (e.g., CCHF, HPAI etc.) in Punjab. Results of the current study will help in the development of targeted control and prevention strategies for zoonotic diseases in Punjab and other geographical regions facing similar challenges.

Zoo-Sanitary Situation Assessment, an Initial Step in Country Disease Prioritization Process: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis from 2000 to 2020 in Cameroon

To prevent and/or control infectious diseases in animal and human health, an appropriate surveillance system based on suitable up-to-date epidemiological data is required. The systematic review protocol was designed according to the PRISMA statement to look at the available data on infectious diseases of livestock in Cameroon from 2000-2020. Data were searched through online databases. Grey literature was comprised of dissertations and theses from veterinary higher education institutions in Cameroon. A random-effects model was used to calculate pooled prevalence using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Software. Based on disease prevalence, major infectious diseases of livestock in Cameroon were gastrointestinal parasitosis (57.4% in cattle, 67.2% in poultry, 88% in pigs), hemoparasites (21.6% in small ruminants, 19.7% in cattle), bovine pasteurellosis (55.5%), fowl salmonellosis (48.2%), small ruminant plague (39.7%), foot-and-mouth disease (34.5% in cattle), and African swine fever (18.9%). Furthermore, other important endemic zoonoses in the country included: Rift Valley fever (10.9% in cattle, 3.7% in small ruminants), brucellosis (7% in cattle, 8% in pigs), bovine tuberculosis (4.7% in cattle), hepatitis E virus (8.4% in pigs) and bovine leptospirosis (2.5%). Most of the retrieved research were carried out in the Adamawa, Northwest, and West regions of Cameroon. The evaluation of existing data as evidence, albeit publication-specific, is an important step towards the process of prioritizing animal diseases, including zoonoses.

Prioritization of livestock diseases by pastoralists in Oloitoktok Sub County, Kajiado County, Kenya

INTRODUCTION

Livestock diseases are a big challenge for the livelihood of pastoralists in sub-Saharan Africa because they reduce livestock productivity and increase mortality. Based on the literature available there is limited understanding on how pastoralists prioritize these diseases in the context of their culture, ecosystems and livelihoods. A study was conducted to provide insights on lay prioritization of animal diseases by pastoralists in Kenya.

METHODOLOGY

A qualitative study was undertaken between March and July 2021. Thirty in-depth interviews and six focus group discussions (FGDs) were conducted with community members to explore community attitudes on livestock diseases prioritization. Male and female livestock keepers were purposively selected and interviewed and they were all long-term residents of the area. Fourteen key informant interviews (KIIs) were conducted with professionals from different key sectors to provide detailed stakeholder perspectives on livestock diseases. The interviews were analyzed thematically using the QSR Nvivo software to identify the emerging themes related to the study objectives.

RESULTS

The pastoralists prioritized livestock diseases based on effect on their economic wellbeing, cultural values and utilization of ecosystem services. There were gender variabilities in how diseases were prioritized among the pastoralists. Men cited high priority diseases as foot and mouth disease and contagious bovine pleuropneumonia due to their regular occurrence and effect on livelihood. Notably, women regarded coenuruses as very important because it affected sheep and goats with a high mortality rate and lumpy skin disease because it rendered the meat from the carcasses inedible. Malignant catarrhal fever and trypanosomiasis were noted as some of the common diseases in the livestock-wildlife interface but not cited as priority diseases. Challenges related to disease control in pastoralist contexts exist including limited access to livestock treatment services, inadequate information on disease impact and complex environmental factors.

CONCLUSION

This study sheds light on the body of knowledge in Kenya regarding livestock diseases and their prioritization by livestock keepers. This could aid in the development of a common disease control framework and prioritization at the local level which would take into consideration the dynamic socio-cultural, ecological, livelihood and economic contexts of the communities.