Emerging and Exotic Zoonotic Disease Preparedness and Response in the United States – Coordination of the Animal Health Component

Levings, Randall L.

doi:10.1111/j.1863-2378.2012.01495.x

Cited by 19 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is also well know that strong preparedness plans against AIVs outbreaks can minimize its economic and public health impact [80], also those preparedness help to identify gaps and to expand resources where necessary, in order to be better prepared to reduce impact of outbreaks [81]. …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Avian influenza in Latin America: A systematic review of serological and molecular studies from 2000-2015

Afanador-Villamizar

Gomez-Romero

Díaz³

et al. 2017

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Avian influenza or bird flu is a highly contagious acute viral disease that can occur in epidemics and cross-border forms in poultry and wild birds. The characteristics of avian influenza viruses (AIVs) allow the emergence of new viral variants, some with zoonotic and pandemic potential. AIVs have been identified in Latin America; however, there is a lack of understanding of these viruses at the regional level. We performed a systematic literature review on serological or molecular evidence of AIVs circulation in Latin America. Methods were designed based on the PRISMA and STROME guidelines. Only peer-reviewed studies published between 2000 to 2015 and data was analysed based on country, viral subtype, avian species, and phylogenetic origins. From 271 studies initially found only twenty-six met our inclusion criteria. Evidence of AIVs infection was found in most Latin American countries, with Mexico as the country with the largest number of conducted studies and reported cases during the period analysed, followed by Chile and Argentina. Most of the AIVs were early reported through surveillance systems and at least 14 different subtypes of influenza viruses were reported in birds, and the presence of both low (92.9%) and high (7.1%) pathogenic AIVs was shown in Latin America. Of the reported AIVs in Latin America, 43.7% belong to migratory birds, 28.1% to local wild birds, and 28.1% to poultry. The migratory bird population mainly comprises families belonging to the orders Anseriformes and Charadriformes. We highlight the importance of epidemiological surveillance systems and the possible role of different migratory birds in the transmission of AIVs within the Americas. Our findings demonstrate the limited information on AIVs in Latin America and highlight the need of more studies on AIVs at the regional level, particularly those focused on identifying the endemic subtypes in regional wild birds.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Avian influenza in Latin America: A systematic review of serological and molecular studies from 2000-2015

Afanador-Villamizar

Gomez-Romero

Díaz³

et al. 2017

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Most infectious and zoonotic diseases usually start as anthroponoses—transmitted from lower vertebrates (primary sources) to humans. Anthroponoses, such as those involving the highly pathogenic avian influenza viruses, Lassa fever virus, Brucella spp., pathogenic Mycobacterium spp., Bacillus anthracis, Escherichia coli O157:H7, Salmonella spp., and rabies virus [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], typically cause serious health hazards among vast animal populations worldwide with the attendant economic and public health consequences being enormous [13]. The majority of these pathogens are on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) bioterrorism agents list [14].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Status of Laboratory Biosafety and Biosecurity in Veterinary Research Facilities in Nigeria

Odetokun

Jagun-Jubril

Onoja

et al. 2017

Safety and Health at Work

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThis study determined current status of laboratory biosafety in Nigerian veterinary research facilities.MethodsA questionnaire was developed to obtain information from researchers across Nigeria from July 2014 to July 2015. Information regarding demographics, knowledge of laboratory biosafety, availability and proper use of personal protective equipment (PPE), any priority pathogens researched, attitude on and use of standard laboratory practices, and biosafety awareness was obtained using a numeric scoring system. Data were analyzed with descriptive statistics, and univariate and multivariate logistic regression.ResultsA total of 74 participants from 19 facilities completed the questionnaire. General knowledge scores ranged from 3 to 28 (out of 28 possible points), with 94.6% of respondents receiving low scores (scores < mean + 1 standard deviation). Very few (17.6%) reported availability or use PPE. Many participants (63.5%) reported no access to biosafety level (BSL)-1–3 facilities. None reported availability of a BSL-4 facility. Knowledge scores pertaining to biosafety management practices ranged from 0 to 14 (out of 14 possible points) with 47.3% of respondents receiving good scores (scores > mean + 1 standard deviation). Only 16.2% of respondents (from four facilities) reported having biosafety officers. Rabies virus was the most researched pathogen (31.1% of respondents). The majority (71.6%) were unaware of laws guiding biosafety. Researchers [odds ratio (OR) = 18.0; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.63, 198.5; p = 0.023], especially in BSL-2 (OR = 258.5; 95% CI: 12.71, 5256; p < 0.001) facility of research institute (OR = 25.0; 95% CI: 5.18, 120.6; p < 0.001), are more likely to have adequate access to and properly utilize biosafety devices and PPE.ConclusionsCurrent knowledge of laboratory biosafety is limited except among a few researchers.

show abstract

“…The general lack of knowledge and awareness amongst clinicians (Doyle et al, ; Konowitz, Petrossian, & Rose, ) as well as veterinarians (Lipton, Hopkins, Koehler, & DiGiacomo, ) about regulatory requirements, what diseases are reportable, and how to report them, has been documented. This may be particularly true for exotic or zoonotic diseases that may be seen infrequently in the United States, as Levings (, p. 86) states “all practitioners should be trained to recognize such diseases.” Further research may be needed to assess if there are particular groups that require targeted additional education, if professional associations can help to fill this void, or if there are other opportunities to educate busy practitioners on the need for disease reporting. Electronic reporting, if implemented correctly, may also help to fill this gap in education, by removing the need to know potentially time‐consuming procedures for reporting diseases to a state agency.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Perceptions of Reportable Disease Lists by State Officials in the United States

Allen¹,

Katz²

2013

World Med & Health Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this research was to assess the perceptions of state officials about the importance of reportable disease lists in encouraging disease reporting. An electronic survey was sent to state veterinarian, state public health veterinarians, and state epidemiologists inquiring about their perceptions (based on official responsibilities) of the importance of reportable disease lists. MS Excel was used to calculate frequency counts and proportions; chi‐square statistics were calculated to assess differences between categories of respondents. The response rate was 40 percent for state veterinarians, 44 percent for state public health veterinarians, and 78 percent for state epidemiologists. State officials perceive (90 percent) that reportable disease lists are an effective policy mechanism to encourage disease reporting, though 43 percent believe underreporting of reportable diseases is a problem, and 43 percent believe the problem of underreporting exists, but varies by disease. Fifty‐five percent of respondents believe it is important that reportable disease lists have legal enforcement mechanisms associated with them, though 31 percent believe they would be too difficult to enforce. Responses across the three categories of officials were generally consistent. Electronic reporting and additional education were suggested to improve disease reporting. Because notifiable disease reporting remains an important part of disease detection, further improvements are needed to encourage infectious disease reporting. These results present evidence that state officials from both animal and health sectors perceive that education and electronic reporting would be more effective in improving reporting completeness than regulatory penalties.

show abstract

Emerging and Exotic Zoonotic Disease Preparedness and Response in the United States – Coordination of the Animal Health Component

Cited by 19 publications

References 27 publications

Avian influenza in Latin America: A systematic review of serological and molecular studies from 2000-2015

Avian influenza in Latin America: A systematic review of serological and molecular studies from 2000-2015

Status of Laboratory Biosafety and Biosecurity in Veterinary Research Facilities in Nigeria

Perceptions of Reportable Disease Lists by State Officials in the United States

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About