Towards Eradication of PPR: Disease Status, Economic Cost and Perception of Veterinarians in Karnataka, India

SIMPLE SUMMARY: Peste des petits ruminants (PPR) is a highly contagious animal disease affecting small ruminants that causes high morbidity and mortality. To prevent outbreaks, Karnataka state, India, has implemented the PPR-Control programme (PPR-CP) with a ‘mass vaccination’ strategy since 2010–11, resulting in a significant reduction in the number of outbreaks. However, the state continues to report outbreaks every year due to various reasons. Presently, the state is planning to eradicate the disease by 2025–26 by employing a new mass vaccination programme in coordination with the government of India’s PPR eradication plan. In this study, we report on the current status of PPR, its economic cost, the financial viability of vaccination plans, and the perspectives of field veterinarians in controlling and eventually eradicating the disease in Karnataka state. The disease incidence in the state declined significantly due to the implementation of mass vaccination and the benefits of vaccination outweighed the cost many-fold. The majority of the veterinarians concurred with the various activities of PPR-CP but a few indicated disagreement with the plan per se, the coordination between the functionaries, the available funding and the acceptance of the programme by farmers. ABSTRACT: In this study, we assessed the PPR disease status, its economic cost, the financial viability of vaccination, and the perspectives of field veterinarians on the PPR vaccination programme implemented in Karnataka state, India. In addition to secondary data, cross-sectional surveys undertaken during 2016–17 (survey I) and 2018–19 (survey II) from 673 sheep and goat flocks and data collected from 62 veterinarians were analysed. The economic costs and perceptions of veterinarians were analysed using deterministic models and the Likert scale, respectively, and the financial viability of vaccination programmes under the best (15%), base (20%), and worst-case (25%) PPR incidence scenarios, considering two different vaccination plans (plan I and plan II), was assessed. The disease incidence in sheep and goats was found to be 9.8% and 4.8% in survey I and survey II, respectively. In consonance with the increased vaccination coverage, the number of reported PPR outbreaks in the state declined significantly. The estimated farm-level loss of PPR varied between the surveyed years. Even under the best-incidence scenario, under vaccination plan-I and plan-II, the estimated benefit–cost ratio (18.4:1; 19.7:1), the net present value (USD 932 million; USD 936 million) and the internal rate of return (412%) implied that the vaccination programmes were financially viable and the benefits outweighed the cost. Though the majority of veterinarians perceived that the control programme was well planned and rolled out in the state, a few of them disagreed or were neutral towards the plan per se, towards the coordination between functionaries, the availability of funding, and the programme acceptance by farmers. Despite many years of vaccination, PPR still persists in the Karnataka state for various reasons and in order to eradicate the disease, a review of the existing control programme with strong facilitation from the federal government is needed.