Assessing the epidemiological risk at the human-wild boar interface through a one health approach using an agent-based model in Barcelona, Spain

Carlos, González-Crespo; Beatriz, Martínez-López; Carles, Conejero; Raquel, Castillo-Contreras; Emmanuel, Serrano; Josep Maria, López-Martín; Jordi, Serra-Cobo; Santiago, Lavín; Jorge Ramón, López-Olvera

doi:10.1016/j.onehlt.2023.100598

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 53 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, work on wildlife zoonoses in Spain demonstrates that wildlife-to-human AMR risks are non-negligible and likely higher for wildlife that readily traverses into and throughout the built environment. 59 This research also highlighted feces as a route of spread, suggesting that enteric pathogens are a particular concern.…”

Section: Risk To Humansmentioning

confidence: 87%

Spread and mitigation of antimicrobial resistance at the wildlife-urban and wildlife-livestock interfaces

Vezeau,

Kahn

2024

javma

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a health issue common to all One Health domains. Scientific understanding of what drives AMR and how it spreads is continually expanding. One such dimension of this expanding base of knowledge is the role wildlife populations play as reservoirs and spreaders of AMR. Indirect and direct sharing of resistant pathogens between wildlife and domestic animals occurs in a variety of ways across both the natural and built environment. Though AMR is found across much of the Earth’s biome naturally, elevated levels in wildlife are largely attributed to the use of antimicrobials in human and veterinary medicine, along with other uses of antimicrobials in human industry. On the basis of current research, wildlife species appear to be net recipients of AMR overall. However, wildlife can carry and spread AMR across individual ecosystems and to other ecosystems via water, soil, arthropod vectors, and several other routes of conveyance. In addition to creating potential health issues for wildlife animals themselves, this potentially poses risks for both companion and production animals. This is especially due to urban/suburban and rural wildlife, respectively. If health practitioners and other stakeholders are adequately aware, measures can be taken to reduce risks across each interface discussed. The companion Currents in One Health article by Vezeau and Kahn, AJVR, June 2024, addresses in further detail the many wildlife reservoirs of AMR that are currently identified, as well as directions for further research.

show abstract

Section: Risk To Humansmentioning

confidence: 87%

Spread and mitigation of antimicrobial resistance at the wildlife-urban and wildlife-livestock interfaces

Vezeau,

Kahn

2024

javma

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Characterization and treatment protocol of injuries inflicted to humans by synurbic European wild boars (Sus scrofa)

PUJOL,

NUÑO,

MINGUELL

et al. 2024

Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Overcoming the limitations of wildlife disease monitoring

Barroso,

López-Olvera,

Kiluba wa Kiluba

et al. 2024

Res. dir. One health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Integrated Wildlife Monitoring (IWM) combines infection dynamics and the ecology of wildlife populations, including aspects defining the host community network. Developing and implementing IWM is a worldwide priority that faces major constraints and biases that should be considered and addressed when implementing these systems. We identify eleven main limitations in the establishment of IWM, which could be summarized into funding constraints and lack of harmonization and information exchange. The solutions proposed to overcome these limitations and biases comprise: (i) selecting indicator host species through network analysis, (ii) identifying key pathogens to investigate and monitor, potentially including non-specific health markers, (iii) improve and standardize harmonized methodologies that can be applied worldwide as well as communication among stakeholders across and within countries, and (iv) the integration of new non-invasive technologies (e.g., camera trapping (CT) and environmental nucleic acid detection) and new tools that are under ongoing research (e.g., artificial intelligence to speed-up CT analyses, microfluidic PCR to overcome sample volume constraints, or filter paper samples to facilitate sample transport). Achieving and optimizing IWM is a must that allows identifying the drivers of epidemics and predicting trends and changes in disease and population dynamics before a pathogen crosses the interspecific barriers.

show abstract

Assessing the epidemiological risk at the human-wild boar interface through a one health approach using an agent-based model in Barcelona, Spain

Cited by 3 publications

References 53 publications

Spread and mitigation of antimicrobial resistance at the wildlife-urban and wildlife-livestock interfaces

Spread and mitigation of antimicrobial resistance at the wildlife-urban and wildlife-livestock interfaces

Characterization and treatment protocol of injuries inflicted to humans by synurbic European wild boars (Sus scrofa)

Overcoming the limitations of wildlife disease monitoring

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About