A meta-analysis of bovine viral diarrhoea virus (BVDV) prevalences in the global cattle population

Abstract

A random effect meta-analysis was performed to estimate the worldwide pooled bovine viral diarrhoea virus (BVDV) prevalences of persistently infected (PI), viraemic (VI) and antibody-positive (AB) animals and herds. The meta-analysis covered 325 studies in 73 countries that determined the presence or absence of BVDV infections in cattle from 1961 to 2016. In total, 6.5 million animals and 310,548 herds were tested for BVDV infections in the global cattle population. The worldwide pooled PI prevalences at animal level ranged from low (≤0.8% Europe, North America, Australia), medium (>0.8% to 1.6% East Asia) to high (>1.6% West Asia). The PI and AB prevalences in Europe decreased over time, while BVDV prevalence increased in North America. The highest mean pooled PI prevalences at animal level were identified in countries that had failed to implement any BVDV control and/or eradication programmes (including vaccination). Our analysis emphasizes the need for more standardised epidemiological studies to support decision-makers implementing animal health policies for non-globally-regulated animal diseases.

Epidemiological factors and mitigation measures influencing production losses in cattle due to bovine viral diarrhoea virus infection: A meta‐analysis

“…In contrast to vaccination, biosecurity reduces BVDV production losses more effectively (Table ). This may be related to the fact that farmers often fail to apply the vaccine correctly, vaccines are not proven to be fully protective (Evans et al, ), e.g., in the prevention of in‐utero transmission of the virus (Moennig & Brownlie, ), the BVDV vaccine does not provide life‐long immunity and hence periodic vaccination is required (Weldegebriel, Gunn, & Stott, ), live BVDV vaccine could be contaminated with other viruses (Lindberg, ), and/or a critical vaccination coverage rate should be reached to prevent new PI animals (Scharnböck et al, ). In the present multivariate‐regression, testing and culling was not identified as a significant factor in changing the mean annual production losses per animal due to BVDV infection.…”

“…Bovine viral diarrhoea virus (BVDV) is a Pestivirus related to both border disease virus (BDV) and the causative agent of classical swine fever (CSF). BVDV infections have been detected in 88 countries worldwide (Richter et al, ) and represent an important infectious disease in the global cattle population (Pinior & Firth, ; Scharnböck et al, ). Infection causes substantial costs for farmers through increased production losses and mitigation expenditures.…”

“…Mitigation measures may comprise (a) preventing BVDV transmission by control of cattle trade such as testing of cattle before movements and/or reduced replacement rate of cattle possibly carrying persistently infected (PI) foetuses (Houe, Lindberg, & Moennig, ), (b) application of a vaccine, (c) biosecurity strategies such as cleaning of equipment, protective clothing, double fencing and (d) general prevention of contact with potential PI animals (Evans et al, ) as well as (e) testing and culling to eradicate BVDV. The economic impacts of BVDV for cattle farms have prompted many countries to implement mitigation programmes and the success of these programmes on the reduction of BVDV prevalences in the global cattle population has been reported elsewhere (Scharnböck et al, ).…”

Global knowledge gaps in the prevention and control of bovine viral diarrhoea ( BVD ) virus

“…Control programmes aim to reduce disease prevalence to a relatively low and manageable level while eradication programmes aim to provide a continued absence of the disease in the population (Houe et al., ). Both goals, in regard to BVD, have been shown to be achievable (Scharnböck et al., ) and can be undertaken either at the national, regional or individual farm level.…”

“…The success of BVD programmes has prompted some countries to change from BVD control/eradication programmes to surveillance testing strategies (Marschik et al., ). Nonetheless, discontinuation of control efforts should be treated with caution as a seronegative cattle population will be fully susceptible to BVD virus and thus the movement of untested livestock needs to be controlled (Scharnböck et al., ).…”