FOOT & MOUTH DISEASE - EU: USE OF VACCINATION (02)
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 14:10:29 -0500 (EST)
From: ProMED-mail <email@example.com>
[It is reasonable for the people to want to vaccinate and protect the animals. However, it seems they do not know vaccinated animals will later be killed. Mod.TG]
The European policy of non-vaccination has the objective of creating a European herd without evidence of antibodies to FMD virus, since this might indicate animals that carry infection after exposure.
Since antibodies also arise from vaccination, very considerable effort has been made in the 1990s to develop tests [that] distinguish between vaccination antibodies and infection antibodies. At least 5 different tests have been developed and validated (an entire European Union-funded Concerted Action was devoted to this, research summarized in over 15 papers in the supplement of the Vet Quarterly, 1998, 20, suppl 2) and these now transform our ability to identify vaccinated animals that have not been infected. They can also identify the important category of animals that have been vaccinated in an emergency situation and [that] subsequently become infected upon severe virus challenge.
international recognition ("standardization") of these tests for the purposes
of trade is [in progress], and DG-SANCO of the European Commission is revising
its recommendations on the use of vaccination to incorporate these technical
advances. This committee is due to report shortly. Since it is likely they
will recognize the use of these tests in
Examples of peer reviewed papers [on the subject]:
Bergmann IE, et al. Improvement of a sero-diagnostic strategy for FMD virus surveillance in cattle under systematic vaccination. Arch Virol 2000; 145(3): 473-89.
KJ, et al. Differentiation
of infection from vaccination in foot-and-mouth (shortened title).
other words, if DG-SANCO (and later the Office Internationale des Epizooties
in Paris (OIE)) were to decide tomorrow that these tests could be used
in herd surveillance after vaccination, then vaccinated herds would not
need culling unless they were shown to be infected. This decision could
well be made in the next few weeks and would completely change the economic
possible change in policy seems long overdue. We will certainly be hoping
the decision to use tests to distinguish between the antibodies will shortly
be put into place. - Mod.TG]
B. Belfrage, DVM, MPH; Barbara A. Corso, DVM, MS; Dianne Norden, DVM, MS;Terry
Disney, PhD; Mark A. Schoenbaum, DVM, PhD.
Peer Reviewed Papers
I. E. Bergmann, V. Malirat,
E. Neitzert, E. Beck, N. Panizzutti, C. Sánchez, A. Falczuk:
K. J. Sørensen, K.
G. Madsen, E. S. Madsen, J. S. Salt, J. Nqindi, D. K. J. Mackay:
International Model: FMD Free Countries with Vaccination
OIE FMD free countries with vaccination: Brazil, Paraguay being FMD free countries where vaccination is practised, according to the provisions of Chapter 2.1.1 of the International Animal Health Code1:
Through its Pan American Foot-and-Mouth Disease Center (PANAFTOSA), PAHO has created one of the world’s most sensitive and practical epidemiological surveillance systems, which provides information on the occurrence of cases of this disease to all categories of livestock breeders. The system—and timely dissemination of the data it generates—made it possible in 1998 to monitor in detail the trends in foot-and-mouth disease and allowed the International Office of Epizootics (OIE) to maintain certification of Chile and Uruguay as dis-ease-free areas.
In 1998, the OIE conferred disease-free status on the region com-prising the Brazilian states of Rio Grande do Sul and Santa Catarina, in which livestock is vaccinated against foot-and-mouth disease. The sur-veillance system also verified that non-Amazonian Brazil, i.e., the states of São Paulo, Minas Gerais, Espírito Santo, Paraná, Mato Grosso, Goiás, and the Federal District, has marked over two years without any case occurrences.
The strategies promoted by
PAHO include involving breeders in the hemispheric plan and in running
local programs, setting up local veteri-nary health committees, applying
vaccine in oil suspension, improving diagnostic techniques for the vesicular
disease, and upgrading the information system for surveillance of the disease.
Thanks to these strategies, over two million cattle herds—equivalent to
164.6 million head of cattle (or 42.4% of South America’s total herd)—are
Note: The advent of ELISA technology has made sero-monitoring a practical reality for vaccination monitoring. The Pan-African Rinderpest Campaign (PARC) sero-monitoring network coordinated by the Joint FAO/IAEA Division is the most extensive sero-monitoring network in the world. The crucial elements of this network are the application of the ELISA technique using standardized and highly specific reagents, standardized equipment and computer software, supported by a well-controlled quality-assurance programme for the reagents and techniques by consistent technical advice from FAO/IAEA personnel and the scientist responsible for developing and standardizing the technique. A standardized training programme is also included for all individuals responsible for the national testing programme. It is now FAO policy to extend the approach to other parts of the world involved in GREP. A similar scheme is being developed by the Joint FAO/IAEA Division to monitor the effectiveness of FMD and brucellosis control programmes in South America. FAO strategy for international animal health Vaccines: http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/FAOINFO/AGRICULT/AGa/AGAP/WAR/warall/V8180b/v8180b0d.htm