TY - JOUR
T1 - Assessment of the control measures of the category A diseases of Animal Health Law
T2 - Classical Swine Fever
AU - EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW)
AU - Nielsen, Søren Saxmose
AU - Alvarez, Julio
AU - Bicout, Dominique Joseph
AU - Calistri, Paolo
AU - Canali, Elisabetta
AU - Drewe, Julian Ashley
AU - Garin-Bastuji, Bruno
AU - Gonzales Rojas, José Luis
AU - Gortázar Schmidt, Christian
AU - Herskin, Mette
AU - Michel, Virginie
AU - Miranda Chueca, Miguel Ángel
AU - Padalino, Barbara
AU - Pasquali, Paolo
AU - Sihvonen, Liisa Helena
AU - Spoolder, Hans
AU - Ståhl, Karl
AU - Velarde, Antonio
AU - Viltrop, Arvo
AU - Winckler, Christoph
AU - Gubbins, Simon
AU - Stegeman, Jan Arend
AU - Antoniou, Sotiria-Eleni
AU - Aznar, Inma
AU - Broglia, Alessandro
AU - Lima, Eliana
AU - Van der Stede, Yves
AU - Zancanaro, Gabriele
AU - Roberts, Helen Clare
N1 - Funding Information:
EFSA wishes to thank the following for the support provided to this scientific output: P95, COVETLAB, Evangelos Tsiamadis, and Verena Oswaldi.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.
PY - 2021/7
Y1 - 2021/7
N2 - EFSA received a mandate from the European Commission to assess the effectiveness of some of the control measures against diseases included in the Category A list according to Regulation (EU) 2016/429 on transmissible animal diseases ('Animal Health Law'). This opinion belongs to a series of opinions where these control measures will be assessed, with this opinion covering the assessment of control measures for Classical swine fever (CSF). In this opinion, EFSA and the AHAW Panel of experts review the effectiveness of: (i) clinical and laboratory sampling procedures, (ii) monitoring period and (iii) the minimum radii of the protection and surveillance zones, and the minimum length of time the measures should be applied in these zones. The general methodology used for this series of opinions has been published elsewhere; nonetheless, details of the model used for answering these questions are presented in this opinion as well as the transmission kernels used for the assessment of the minimum radius of the protection and surveillance zones. Several scenarios for which these control measures had to be assessed were designed and agreed prior to the start of the assessment. Here, several recommendations are given on how to increase the effectiveness of some of the sampling procedures. Based on the average length of the period between virus introduction and the reporting of a CSF suspicion, the monitoring period was assessed as non-effective. In a similar way, it was recommended that the length of the measures in the protection and surveillance zones were increased from 15 to 25 days in the protection zone and from 30 to 40 days in the surveillance zone. Finally, the analysis of existing Kernels for CSF suggested that the radius of the protection and the surveillance zones comprise 99% of the infections from an affected establishment if transmission occurred. Recommendations provided for each of the scenarios assessed aim to support the European Commission in the drafting of further pieces of legislation, as well as for plausible ad hoc requests in relation to CSF.
AB - EFSA received a mandate from the European Commission to assess the effectiveness of some of the control measures against diseases included in the Category A list according to Regulation (EU) 2016/429 on transmissible animal diseases ('Animal Health Law'). This opinion belongs to a series of opinions where these control measures will be assessed, with this opinion covering the assessment of control measures for Classical swine fever (CSF). In this opinion, EFSA and the AHAW Panel of experts review the effectiveness of: (i) clinical and laboratory sampling procedures, (ii) monitoring period and (iii) the minimum radii of the protection and surveillance zones, and the minimum length of time the measures should be applied in these zones. The general methodology used for this series of opinions has been published elsewhere; nonetheless, details of the model used for answering these questions are presented in this opinion as well as the transmission kernels used for the assessment of the minimum radius of the protection and surveillance zones. Several scenarios for which these control measures had to be assessed were designed and agreed prior to the start of the assessment. Here, several recommendations are given on how to increase the effectiveness of some of the sampling procedures. Based on the average length of the period between virus introduction and the reporting of a CSF suspicion, the monitoring period was assessed as non-effective. In a similar way, it was recommended that the length of the measures in the protection and surveillance zones were increased from 15 to 25 days in the protection zone and from 30 to 40 days in the surveillance zone. Finally, the analysis of existing Kernels for CSF suggested that the radius of the protection and the surveillance zones comprise 99% of the infections from an affected establishment if transmission occurred. Recommendations provided for each of the scenarios assessed aim to support the European Commission in the drafting of further pieces of legislation, as well as for plausible ad hoc requests in relation to CSF.
KW - CSF
KW - disease control
KW - intervention
KW - monitoring period
KW - protection zone
KW - sampling procedures
KW - surveillance zone
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85112113478&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.2903/j.efsa.2021.6707
DO - 10.2903/j.efsa.2021.6707
M3 - Article
C2 - 34306220
SN - 1831-4732
VL - 19
SP - 1
EP - 83
JO - EFSA Journal
JF - EFSA Journal
IS - 7
M1 - e06707
ER -