Cargando…
The effectiveness of bovine tuberculosis surveillance in Dutch badgers
Countries survey wildlife for bovine tuberculosis (bTB) to ensure case detection or to ascertain a high probability of freedom from bTB in wildlife. The Eurasian badger (Meles meles) is a potential bTB reservoir host. Between 2008 and 2019, 282 badgers were examined post‐mortem in the context of gen...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9546121/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34110708 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/tbed.14186 |
_version_ | 1784804971906072576 |
---|---|
author | Orrico, Mario van Schaik, Gerdien Koets, Ad van den Broek, Jan Montizaan, Margriet La Haye, Maurice Rijks, Jolianne M. |
author_facet | Orrico, Mario van Schaik, Gerdien Koets, Ad van den Broek, Jan Montizaan, Margriet La Haye, Maurice Rijks, Jolianne M. |
author_sort | Orrico, Mario |
collection | PubMed |
description | Countries survey wildlife for bovine tuberculosis (bTB) to ensure case detection or to ascertain a high probability of freedom from bTB in wildlife. The Eurasian badger (Meles meles) is a potential bTB reservoir host. Between 2008 and 2019, 282 badgers were examined post‐mortem in the context of general wildlife disease and targeted bTB surveillance programmes in the Netherlands, and no bTB cases were detected. However, it was unclear how effective this surveillance effort was to demonstrate freedom from Mycobacterium bovis infection in the badger population of ±6000 or to detect cases if present. Therefore, surveillance effectiveness was assessed using scenario tree modelling. For lack of standards for wildlife, the models were run against three assumed levels of disease in the population called design prevalence P*: 0.1%, 0.5%, and 3%. A small risk of introduction (0.015/year) was applied, because the Netherlands are officially free from bTB in cattle, with rare import of bTB‐infected cattle and no bTB‐infected wildlife reported along the Belgian and German borders with the Netherlands. Surveillance more readily picks up bTB presence in badgers when case detection sensitivity tends towards 100% and demonstrates freedom best when the probability of freedom tends towards 100%. For P* 0.1%, 0.5% and 3%, respectively, maximum case detection sensitivity during 2008–2019 was 8%, 35% and 94% and the probability of freedom in 2019 was 46%, 67%, and 95%. At P* = 3%, performing targeted surveillance on 300 badgers in a year would make it extremely unlikely to miss a case (case detection sensitivity > 99.9%); and if no cases are detected, the adjusted probability of freedom would then reach nearly 98.5%. Stakeholders should be made aware that at P* = 3%, one case detected implies around 3% infected badgers. Additional surveillance system components to assess bTB in wildlife and its economics are to be explored further. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9546121 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-95461212022-10-14 The effectiveness of bovine tuberculosis surveillance in Dutch badgers Orrico, Mario van Schaik, Gerdien Koets, Ad van den Broek, Jan Montizaan, Margriet La Haye, Maurice Rijks, Jolianne M. Transbound Emerg Dis Original Articles Countries survey wildlife for bovine tuberculosis (bTB) to ensure case detection or to ascertain a high probability of freedom from bTB in wildlife. The Eurasian badger (Meles meles) is a potential bTB reservoir host. Between 2008 and 2019, 282 badgers were examined post‐mortem in the context of general wildlife disease and targeted bTB surveillance programmes in the Netherlands, and no bTB cases were detected. However, it was unclear how effective this surveillance effort was to demonstrate freedom from Mycobacterium bovis infection in the badger population of ±6000 or to detect cases if present. Therefore, surveillance effectiveness was assessed using scenario tree modelling. For lack of standards for wildlife, the models were run against three assumed levels of disease in the population called design prevalence P*: 0.1%, 0.5%, and 3%. A small risk of introduction (0.015/year) was applied, because the Netherlands are officially free from bTB in cattle, with rare import of bTB‐infected cattle and no bTB‐infected wildlife reported along the Belgian and German borders with the Netherlands. Surveillance more readily picks up bTB presence in badgers when case detection sensitivity tends towards 100% and demonstrates freedom best when the probability of freedom tends towards 100%. For P* 0.1%, 0.5% and 3%, respectively, maximum case detection sensitivity during 2008–2019 was 8%, 35% and 94% and the probability of freedom in 2019 was 46%, 67%, and 95%. At P* = 3%, performing targeted surveillance on 300 badgers in a year would make it extremely unlikely to miss a case (case detection sensitivity > 99.9%); and if no cases are detected, the adjusted probability of freedom would then reach nearly 98.5%. Stakeholders should be made aware that at P* = 3%, one case detected implies around 3% infected badgers. Additional surveillance system components to assess bTB in wildlife and its economics are to be explored further. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021-07-12 2022-07 /pmc/articles/PMC9546121/ /pubmed/34110708 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/tbed.14186 Text en © 2021 Utrecht University. Transboundary and Emerging Diseases published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made. |
spellingShingle | Original Articles Orrico, Mario van Schaik, Gerdien Koets, Ad van den Broek, Jan Montizaan, Margriet La Haye, Maurice Rijks, Jolianne M. The effectiveness of bovine tuberculosis surveillance in Dutch badgers |
title | The effectiveness of bovine tuberculosis surveillance in Dutch badgers |
title_full | The effectiveness of bovine tuberculosis surveillance in Dutch badgers |
title_fullStr | The effectiveness of bovine tuberculosis surveillance in Dutch badgers |
title_full_unstemmed | The effectiveness of bovine tuberculosis surveillance in Dutch badgers |
title_short | The effectiveness of bovine tuberculosis surveillance in Dutch badgers |
title_sort | effectiveness of bovine tuberculosis surveillance in dutch badgers |
topic | Original Articles |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9546121/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34110708 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/tbed.14186 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT orricomario theeffectivenessofbovinetuberculosissurveillanceindutchbadgers AT vanschaikgerdien theeffectivenessofbovinetuberculosissurveillanceindutchbadgers AT koetsad theeffectivenessofbovinetuberculosissurveillanceindutchbadgers AT vandenbroekjan theeffectivenessofbovinetuberculosissurveillanceindutchbadgers AT montizaanmargriet theeffectivenessofbovinetuberculosissurveillanceindutchbadgers AT lahayemaurice theeffectivenessofbovinetuberculosissurveillanceindutchbadgers AT rijksjoliannem theeffectivenessofbovinetuberculosissurveillanceindutchbadgers AT orricomario effectivenessofbovinetuberculosissurveillanceindutchbadgers AT vanschaikgerdien effectivenessofbovinetuberculosissurveillanceindutchbadgers AT koetsad effectivenessofbovinetuberculosissurveillanceindutchbadgers AT vandenbroekjan effectivenessofbovinetuberculosissurveillanceindutchbadgers AT montizaanmargriet effectivenessofbovinetuberculosissurveillanceindutchbadgers AT lahayemaurice effectivenessofbovinetuberculosissurveillanceindutchbadgers AT rijksjoliannem effectivenessofbovinetuberculosissurveillanceindutchbadgers |