Assessment of the control measures of the category A diseases of Animal Health Law: Burkholderia mallei (Glanders)

Nielsen, Søren Saxmose; Álvarez, Julio; Bicout, Dominique; Calistri, Paolo; Drewe, Julian Ashley; Garin‐Bastuji, Bruno; Rojas, José Luis Gonzales; Schmidt, Christian Gortázar; Herskin, Mette S.; Michel, Virginie; Chueca, Miguel Ángel Miranda; Padalino, Barbara; Pasquali, Paolo; Spoolder, Hans; Ståhl, Karl; Velarde, Antonio; Viltrop, Arvo; Winckler, Christoph; Gubbins, Simon; Laroucau, Karine; Antoniou, Sotiria‐Eleni; Aznar, Inma; Broglia, Alessandro; Lima, Eliana Martins; Stede, Yves Van der; Zancanaro, Gabriele; Roberts, Helen Clare

doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2022.7069

Cited by 4 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Scientific evidence for the assessment of animal movements has been collected through an ELS and summaries in the sections ‘Epidemiology’ of earlier EFSA scientific outputs, which also provide details on the ELS protocol applied (EFSA AHAW Panel, 2021a , 2021b , 2021c , 2021d , 2021e , 2021f , 2021g , 2021h , 2022a , 2022b , 2022c , 2022d , 2022e , 2022f ).…”

Section: Data and Methodologiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Regarding prohibitions of activities concerning animals related to Category A diseases listed in Annex VI of the DR ( ToR 4.1 ), the following recommendations are made: Irrespective of the purpose or nature of the activity, it is recommended to not move animals from restricted zones without appropriate mitigation measures. Appropriate mitigation measures have been assessed in previous EFSA opinions (EFSA AHAW Panel, 2021a , 2021b , 2021c , 2021d , 2021e , 2021f , 2021g , 2021h , 2022a , 2022b , 2022c , 2022d , 2022e , 2022f ). …”

Section: Recommendationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…ToRs 1, 2 and 3 have been addressed in 14 individual opinions, one for each of the Category A diseases for terrestrial animals (EFSA AHAW Panel, 2021a , 2021b , 2021c , 2021d , 2021e , 2021f , 2021g , 2021h , 2022a , 2022b , 2022c , 2022d , 2022e , 2022f ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The epidemiological details and deviations from the general pathology and the resulting possibilities of derogating from the general prohibitions (if and under which circumstances) are the focus of other ToRs of the mandate (1, 2) and have been assessed in other EFSA scientific opinions (EFSA AHAW Panel, 2021a , 2021b , 2021c , 2021d , 2021e , 2021f , 2021g , 2021h , 2022a , 2022b , 2022c , 2022d , 2022e , 2022f ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Assessment of the control measures of the Category A diseases of the Animal Health Law: prohibitions in restricted zones and risk‐mitigating treatments for products of animal origin and other materials

Nielsen¹,

Álvarez²,

Bicout³

et al. 2022

EFS2

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

EFSA received a mandate from the European Commission to assess the effectiveness of prohibitions of certain activities in restricted zones, and of certain risk mitigation treatments for products of animal origin and other materials with respect to diseases included in the Category A list in the Animal Health Law (Regulation (EU) 2016/429). This opinion belongs to a series of opinions where other disease‐specific control measures have been assessed. In this opinion, EFSA and the AHAW Panel of experts review the effectiveness of (i) prohibiting the movements of certain products, notably germinal products (semen, oocytes, embryos and hatching eggs), products of animal origin and animal by‐products and feed of plant origin, hay and straw, and (ii) risk mitigation treatments for products of animal origin. In terms of semen, oocytes, embryos and hatching eggs, it was agreed that there was a lack of evidence particularly for embryos and oocytes reflected in a varying degree of uncertainty, whether these commodities could potentially contain the pathogen under consideration. The scenario assessed did not consider whether the presence of pathogen would lead to infection in the recipient animal. In terms of animal products, certain animal by‐products and movement of feed of plant origin and straw, the assessment considered the ability of the commodity to transmit disease to another animal if exposed. For most pathogens, products were to some degree considered a risk, but lack of field evidence contributed to the uncertainty, particularly as potential exposure of ruminants to meat products is concerned. In terms of the risk mitigating treatments, recommendations have been made for several of these treatments, because the treatment description is not complete, the evidence is poor or inconclusive, or the evidence points to the treatment being ineffective.

show abstract

Section: Data and Methodologiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Recommendationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Assessment of the control measures of the Category A diseases of the Animal Health Law: prohibitions in restricted zones and risk‐mitigating treatments for products of animal origin and other materials

Nielsen¹,

Álvarez²,

Bicout³

et al. 2022

EFS2

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…B. pseudomallei is a soil saprophyte causing serious infections, predominantly in tropical and subtropical regions of Southern hemisphere [38 ▪ ]. B. mallei is a rare zoonotic infection transmitted from infected solipeds [39]. Burkholderia cepacia complex has been associated with colonization and infection in patients with cystic fibrosis, and importantly, with the development of the Cepacia syndrome in this patient population, an acute necrotizing pneumonia that bears high mortality [40 ▪ ].…”

Section: Text Of Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Current viewpoint on the epidemiology of nonfermenting Gram-negative bacterial strains

Koulenti,

Vandana,

Rello

2023

Current Opinion in Infectious Diseases

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose of review This article aims to review the epidemiology of nonfermenting Gram-negative bacilli (NFGNB) based on recent literature reports, particularly, of the less common, but with emerging clinical significance species. Recent findings The reported frequency of multidrug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii and Pseudomonas aeruginosa is increasing, with very significant variability, however, between different countries. Apart from the major NFGNB, that is, A. baumannii and P. aeruginosa, already recognized as of critical importance healthcare risks, several other NFGNB genera have been increasingly associated with diverse severe infections, such as Stenotrophomonas maltophilia, Burkholderia spp., Elizabethkingia spp., Chryseobacterium spp., Achromobacter spp., Alcaligenes spp., Sphingomonas spp., Shewanella spp. and Ralstonia spp., among others. Summary The exploration of the epidemiology, as well as the pathogenic potential of the of the less frequent, but emerging and increasingly reported NFGNB, is crucial, not only for immunocompromised patients, but also for critically ill patients without overt immunosuppression. As we are heading fast towards a postantibiotic era, such information would contribute to the optimal antimicrobial management, that is, providing prompt, appropriate antimicrobial coverage when needed and, at the same time, avoiding overuse and/or inappropriate use of antimicrobial therapy. Also, it would help to better understand their transmission dynamics and to develop effective prevention strategies.

show abstract

<em>Burkholderia pseudomallei </em>Complex Subunit and Glycoconjugate Vaccines and Their Potential to Elicit Cross-Protection to <em>Burkholderia cepacia</em> complex.

Badten,

Torres

2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Burkholderia are a group of Gram-negative bacteria that can cause a variety of diseases in at-risk populations. B. pseudomallei and B. mallei, the etiological agents of melioidosis and glanders, respectively, are the two clinically relevant members of the B. pseudomallei complex (Bpc). The development of vaccines against Bpc species has been accelerated in recent years, resulting in numerous promising subunits and glycoconjugate vaccines incorporating a variety of antigens. However, a second group of pathogenic Burkholderia species exists known as the Burkholderia cepacia complex (Bcc), a group of opportunistic bacteria which tend to affect individuals with weakened immunity or cystic fibrosis. To date there have been few attempts to develop vaccines to Bcc species. Therefore, the primary goal of this review is to provide a broad overview of the various subunit antigens that have been tested in Bpc species, their protective efficacy, study limitations, and known or suspected mechanisms of protection. Then, we assess the reviewed Bpc antigens for their amino acid sequence conservation to homologous proteins found in Bcc species. We propose that protective Bpc antigens with a high degree of Bpc-to-Bcc sequence conservation could serve as components of a pan-Burkholderia vaccine capable of protecting against both disease-causing groups.

show abstract

Assessment of the control measures of the category A diseases of Animal Health Law: Burkholderia mallei (Glanders)

Cited by 4 publications

References 26 publications

Assessment of the control measures of the Category A diseases of the Animal Health Law: prohibitions in restricted zones and risk‐mitigating treatments for products of animal origin and other materials

Assessment of the control measures of the Category A diseases of the Animal Health Law: prohibitions in restricted zones and risk‐mitigating treatments for products of animal origin and other materials

Current viewpoint on the epidemiology of nonfermenting Gram-negative bacterial strains

<em>Burkholderia pseudomallei </em>Complex Subunit and Glycoconjugate Vaccines and Their Potential to Elicit Cross-Protection to <em>Burkholderia cepacia</em> complex.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About