Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Vet Microbiol. 2014 Oct 10;173(3-4):323-31. doi: 10.1016/j.vetmic.2014.08.013. Epub 2014 Aug 26.

Bovine tuberculosis surveillance in cattle and free-ranging wildlife in EU Member States in 2013: a survey-based review.

Author information

1
Alfort National Veterinary School, Research unit EpiMAI USC Anses (Epidemiology of Animal Infectious Disease), 7 avenue du Général de Gaulle, 94 701 Maisons-Alfort, France. Electronic address: julie.riviere@vet-alfort.fr.
2
University Paris 11, Masters in Public Health, France.
3
French Institute for Public Health Surveillance, Department of Infectious Diseases, 12 rue du Val d'Osne, 94 415 Saint-Maurice, France. Electronic address: y.lestrat@invs.sante.fr.
4
French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health and Safety (Anses), Unit Survepi, 27-31 avenue du Général Leclerc, 94 701 Maisons-Alfort, France. Electronic address: Pascal.HENDRIKX@anses.fr.
5
Alfort National Veterinary School, Research unit EpiMAI USC Anses (Epidemiology of Animal Infectious Disease), 7 avenue du Général de Gaulle, 94 701 Maisons-Alfort, France. Electronic address: bdufour@vet-alfort.fr.

Abstract

Bovine tuberculosis (TB) is a common disease in cattle and wildlife, with animal health, zoonotic and economic impacts. Most of the TB data for the European Union (EU) concern the epidemiological situation, but comprehensive descriptions of the way in which surveillance is conducted in each country are rare, despite being essential for cross-Europe comparisons. A European survey was conducted in the 28 Member States and in three other neighboring countries (Norway, Macedonia and Switzerland), to review TB surveillance in cattle and wildlife. EU legislation currently requires TB surveillance solely in cattle. Considerable differences between the surveillance systems of the 26 responding countries were observed, according to the official TB-freedom status of the country and the local prevalence of TB. These differences related principally to the combination of surveillance components (routine screening test in herd and/or movement testing and/or slaughterhouse surveillance), the tests used and their interpretation, and the definition of an infected herd or animal. For wildlife TB surveillance, only 8 on 21 respondent countries have declared to have implemented passive and/or active surveillance, with marked differences concerning the species and the geographical scale of the surveillance. The choice of the combination of surveillance components depends on the national or regional epidemiological situation, the species involved in TB epidemiology and epidemiological risk factors, although various surveillance systems have been recorded for countries with similar epidemiological status. Assessments of the cost-effectiveness of each surveillance system would be useful, to confirm the advantages of implementing one or more components.

KEYWORDS:

Bovine tuberculosis; Cattle; European Union; Mycobacterium bovis; Surveillance; Wildlife

PMID:
25205200
DOI:
10.1016/j.vetmic.2014.08.013
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science
Loading ...
Support Center