Mass vaccination, immunity and coverage: modelling population protection against foot-and-mouth disease in Turkish cattle

“…Knight‐Jones et al. () suggested using a vaccine of higher potency and/or higher number of vaccine inoculations to decrease these gaps in immunity, particularly in younger cows.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quantitative characteristics of the foot‐and‐mouth disease carrier state under natural conditions in India

Hayer

Ranjan

Biswal

et al. 2017

“…An important over‐simplification of many studies predicting the benefits of control is a failure to incorporate the variable effectiveness of FMD control programmes (Knight‐Jones et al., , ; Knight‐Jones et al., a, Lyons et al., ; Elnekave et al., ; Woolhouse et al., ; Lyons et al., ). Two critical factors are (i) the variable potency and quality of vaccines used in endemic settings (Metwally et al., In press) and (ii) the limited application of biosecurity and sanitary control measures (Young et al., ).…”

Section: Fmd Smallholder Impact: What Do We Know and What Don't We Know?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…But FMD vaccines used in endemic countries typically provide short‐lived and limited protection (Knight‐Jones et al., ). Furthermore, mass vaccination of all cattle and pigs, and possibly sheep and goats, every 6 months, may be unrealistic in developing countries with poor infrastructure and numerous smallholdings (Knight‐Jones et al., ). Whether or not FMD can be controlled in endemic countries using quality, high potency vaccines, with minimal movement restrictions, remains an important, yet unanswered question.…”

Section: Feasibility Of Controlmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although FMD can be controlled in smallholder systems, in parts of Southern Africa the presence of endemically infected wildlife makes control more challenging. In addition, although the effectiveness of vaccination programmes is an issue in many FMD‐endemic countries, this is particularly so for SAT‐2 strains that circulate in Southern Africa (Thomson et al., ; Bastos et al., ; Doel, ; Bari et al., ; Knight‐Jones et al., ). Where zonal FMD‐freedom has been achieved in Southern Africa, an ongoing threat of new outbreaks results in burdensome restrictions and periodic epidemics with suspension of beef exports (Barnes, ; Cassidy et al., ).…”

Section: Feasibility Of Controlmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Foot-and-Mouth Disease Impact on Smallholders - What Do We Know, What Don't We Know and How Can We Find Out More?

Knight-Jones

McLaws²,

Rushton

2016

Self Cite

SummaryFoot‐and‐mouth disease (FMD) endemic regions contain three‐quarters of the world's FMD susceptible livestock and most of the world's poor livestock keepers. Yet FMD impact on smallholders in these regions is poorly understood. Diseases of low mortality can exert a large impact if incidence is high. Modelling and field studies commonly find high FMD incidence in endemic countries. Sero‐surveys typically find a third of young cattle are sero‐positive, however, the proportion of sero‐positive animals that developed disease, and resulting impact, are unknown. The few smallholder FMD impact studies that have been performed assessed different aspects of impact, using different approaches. They find that FMD impact can be high (>10% of annual household income). However, impact is highly variable, being a function of FMD incidence and dependency on activities affected by FMD. FMD restricts investment in productive but less FMD‐resilient farming methods, however, other barriers to efficient production may exist, reducing the benefits of FMD control. Applying control measures is costly and can have wide‐reaching negative impacts; veterinary‐cordon‐fences may damage wildlife populations, and livestock movement restrictions and trade bans damage farmer profits and the wider economy. When control measures are ineffective, farmers, society and wildlife may experience the burden of control without reducing disease burden. Foot‐and‐mouth disease control has benefitted smallholders in South America and elsewhere. Success takes decades of regional cooperation with effective veterinary services and widespread farmer participation. However, both the likelihood of success and the full cost of control measures must be considered. Controlling FMD in smallholder systems is challenging, particularly when movement restrictions are hard to enforce. In parts of Africa this is compounded by endemically infected wildlife and limited vaccine performance. This paper reviews FMD impact on smallholders in endemic countries. Significant evidence gaps exist and guidance on the design of FMD impact studies is provided.

“…Routine ongoing vaccination programmes typically require long‐term field protection against heterologous strains. The dangers of over‐reliance on vaccine protection in a control programme based on routine mass vaccination were discussed in a study that incorporated post‐vaccination immune response into a demographic model of vaccine coverage (Knight‐Jones et al., ).…”

Section: Epidemiologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Global Foot-and-Mouth Disease Research Update and Gap Analysis: 2 - Epidemiology, Wildlife and Economics

Knight-Jones

Robinson

Charleston

et al. 2016

Self Cite

SummaryWe assessed knowledge gaps in foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) research, and in this study, we consider (i) epidemiology, (ii) wildlife and (iii) economics. The study took the form of a literature review (2011)(2012)(2013)(2014)(2015) combined with research updates collected in 2014 from 33 institutes from across the world. Findings were used to identify priority areas for future FMD research. During 2011-2015, modelling studies were dominant in the broad field of epidemiology; however, continued efforts are required to develop robust models for use during outbreaks in FMD-free countries, linking epidemiologic and economics models. More guidance is needed for both the evaluation and the setting of targets for vaccine coverage, population immunity and vaccine field efficacy. Similarly, methods for seroprevalence studies need to be improved to obtain more meaningful outputs that allow comparison across studies. To inform control programmes in endemic countries, field trials assessing the effectiveness of vaccination in extensive smallholder systems should be performed to determine whether FMD can be controlled with quality vaccines in settings where implementing effective biosecurity is challenging. Studies need to go beyond measuring only vaccine effects and should extend our knowledge of the impact of FMD and increase our understanding of how to maximize farmer participation in disease control. Where wildlife reservoirs of virus exist, particularly African Buffalo, we need to better understand when and under what circumstances transmission to domestic animals occurs in order to manage this risk appropriately, considering the impact of control measures on livelihoods and wildlife. For settings where FMD eradication is unfeasible, further ground testing of commodity-based trade is recommended. A thorough review of global FMD control programmes, covering successes and failures, would be extremely valuable and could be used to guide other control programmes.