Strathprints is designed to allow users to access the research output of the University of Strathclyde. Unless otherwise explicitly stated on the manuscript, Copyright © and Moral Rights for the papers on this site are retained by the individual authors and/or other copyright owners. Please check the manuscript for details of any other licences that may have been applied. You may not engage in further distribution of the material for any profitmaking activities or any commercial gain. You may freely distribute both the url (https://strathprints.strath.ac.uk/) and the content of this paper for research or private study, educational, or not-for-profit purposes without prior permission or charge.

In the absence of sufficient numerical data, qualitative risk assessment is recognised as an important tool for providing risk managers with evidence-based predictions on which to formulate their decisions. Such approaches have been used in the area of animal health for import risk assessment for both livestock and zoonotic pathogens. Very few qualitative import risk assessments have, however, considered the aggregated probability of introduction, that is, the probability of at least one infected/contaminated entry per group of import units. Those that have are generally based on specific cases and do not follow a generic approach. In this paper, we consider whether or not it is feasible to develop a generic method and under what circumstances such an approach could be applied in practice. Our conclusion is that it would be difficult to specify a generic method because any such approach would rely on specifying numerical bounds for qualitative categories of probability as well as an idea of the number of imports and would thus be case-specific. As an alternative we propose a way of using case by case information to create a simple graphical reference tool which removes some of the subjectivity that is often associated with deriving qualitative risk. The reference tool considers various qualitative categories of individual probability and determines the relationship between this probability, the number of imports and the aggregated probability of entry. Applying the reference tool to a previously published case-study demonstrated some differences in conclusions and suggests that more subjective approaches can under-estimate probability and thus risk. It is concluded that this approach may be useful for future qualitative assessments of aggregated probability, provided that bounds for qualitative probabilities can be defined for the specific case situation.

Veterinary surveillance programmes aim to reduce the burden to the public, livestock andwider society posed by animal-related ‘risks’ (referred to as ‘threats’ later in the paper inline with a definition used by the European Food Safety Authority) including the reemergenceof diseases believed absent or eradicated. To achieve this, it is important to havea systematic approach to identifying and dealing with such threats rapidly and effectively.This paper describes the transparent, systematic and auditable process used for identifying,assessing, escalating and prioritising new and re-emerging animal-related threats in the UK.This has been achieved through the establishment of a Veterinary Risk Group in late 2009.

Identifying and ranking cattle herds with a higher risk of being or becoming infected on known risk factors can help target farm biosecurity, surveillance schemes and reduce spread through animal trading. This paper describes a quantitative approach to develop risk scores, based on the probability of infection in a herd with bovine tuberculosis (bTB), to be used in a risk-based trading (RBT) scheme in England and Wales. To produce a practical scoring system the risk factors included need to be simple and quick to understand, sufficiently informative and derived from centralised national databases to enable verification and assess compliance. A logistic regression identified herd history of bTB, local bTB prevalence, herd size and movements of animals onto farms in batches from high risk areas as being significantly associated with the probability of bTB infection on farm. Risk factors were assigned points using the estimated odds ratios to weight them. The farm risk score was defined as the sum of these individual points yielding a range from 1 to 5 and was calculated for each cattle farm that was trading animals in England and Wales at the start of a year. Within 12 months, of those farms tested, 30.3% of score 5 farms had a breakdown (sensitivity). Of farms scoring 1-4 only 5.4% incurred a breakdown (1-specificity). The use of this risk scoring system within RBT has the potential to reduce infected cattle movements; however, there are cost implications in ensuring that the information underpinning any system is accurate and up to date.

Veterinary RecordVolume 179, Issue 18 p. 464-464 Research Updated risk of H5N1 HPAI incursion to poultry in Great Britain via wild birds R. Kosmider PhD, R. Kosmider PhD Department for Epidemiological Sciences, Animal & Plant Health Agency, Addlestone, UKSearch for more papers by this authorJ. Smith BEng (Hons), J. Smith BEng (Hons) International Disease Monitoring Team, Animal & Plant Health Agency, London, UKSearch for more papers by this authorS. Gillings BSc PhD, S. Gillings BSc PhD British Trust for Ornithology, Thetford, UKSearch for more papers by this authorL. Snow BSc MSc PhD, L. Snow BSc MSc PhD Department for Epidemiological Sciences, Animal & Plant Health Agency, Addlestone, UKSearch for more papers by this authorA. C. Breed BSc BVMS MSc (Wild Animal Health) DipECZM MRCVS PhD, Corresponding Author A. C. Breed BSc BVMS MSc (Wild Animal Health) DipECZM MRCVS PhD Andrew.Breed@apha.gsi.gov.uk Department for Epidemiological Sciences, Animal & Plant Health Agency, Addlestone, UKE-mail for correspondence: Andrew.Breed@apha.gsi.gov.ukSearch for more papers by this authorR. M. Irvine BVetMed PGCertILHP MSc (CIDA) DipECPVS MRCVS, R. M. Irvine BVetMed PGCertILHP MSc (CIDA) DipECPVS MRCVS Surveillance Intelligence Unit, Animal & Plant Health Agency, Addlestone, UKSearch for more papers by this authorA. Hill BSc PhD, A. Hill BSc PhD Department for Epidemiological Sciences, Animal & Plant Health Agency, Addlestone, UKSearch for more papers by this author R. Kosmider PhD, R. Kosmider PhD Department for Epidemiological Sciences, Animal & Plant Health Agency, Addlestone, UKSearch for more papers by this authorJ. Smith BEng (Hons), J. Smith BEng (Hons) International Disease Monitoring Team, Animal & Plant Health Agency, London, UKSearch for more papers by this authorS. Gillings BSc PhD, S. Gillings BSc PhD British Trust for Ornithology, Thetford, UKSearch for more papers by this authorL. Snow BSc MSc PhD, L. Snow BSc MSc PhD Department for Epidemiological Sciences, Animal & Plant Health Agency, Addlestone, UKSearch for more papers by this authorA. C. Breed BSc BVMS MSc (Wild Animal Health) DipECZM MRCVS PhD, Corresponding Author A. C. Breed BSc BVMS MSc (Wild Animal Health) DipECZM MRCVS PhD Andrew.Breed@apha.gsi.gov.uk Department for Epidemiological Sciences, Animal & Plant Health Agency, Addlestone, UKE-mail for correspondence: Andrew.Breed@apha.gsi.gov.ukSearch for more papers by this authorR. M. Irvine BVetMed PGCertILHP MSc (CIDA) DipECPVS MRCVS, R. M. Irvine BVetMed PGCertILHP MSc (CIDA) DipECPVS MRCVS Surveillance Intelligence Unit, Animal & Plant Health Agency, Addlestone, UKSearch for more papers by this authorA. Hill BSc PhD, A. Hill BSc PhD Department for Epidemiological Sciences, Animal & Plant Health Agency, Addlestone, UKSearch for more papers by this author First published: 05 November 2016 https://doi.org/10.1136/vr.103700 Provenance: not commissioned; externally peer reviewed Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume179, Issue18November 2016Pages 464-464 RelatedInformation

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) threatens the effective prevention and treatment of bacterial diseases in both humans and animals. Globally, there has been much research done regarding resistant bacteria in the livestock industry, but few published resources collate this information. This report discusses a risk assessment (RA) framework and subsequent analysis of data availability for AMR in bacteria from 4 livestock sectors: dairy cattle, beef cattle, pigs and poultry, with particular reference to ESBL-producing Escherichia coli (ESBL E. coli) prevalence in the dairy cattle sector within the United Kingdom. The aim of this assessment was to identify where quality data exist, for the purpose of parameterising a quantitative RA, and where it would be useful to direct future research to provide quality data to improve the current knowledge base. Such research is necessary to support risk modelling and forecasting capability regarding the relative contributions of factors that maintain the emergence and spread of AMR in bacteria. The review suggested that there are data gaps regarding ESBL E. coli occurrence in the following: beef cattle, bulk tank milk and dairy products, animal-by-products, the farm environment (including after flooding) as well as the effect of animal stress on shedding levels. Filling these data gaps prior to undertaking a full quantitative RA would make the assessment more robust and give greater confidence in the final outcome and consequently inform the targeting and prioritising of interventions to minimise spread of AMR in bacteria in farm animals.

The scientific understanding of the driving factors behind zoonotic and pandemic influenzas is hampered by complex interactions between viruses, animal hosts and humans. This complexity makes identifying influenza viruses of high zoonotic or pandemic risk, before they emerge from animal populations, extremely difficult and uncertain. As a first step towards assessing zoonotic risk of influenza, we demonstrate a risk assessment framework to assess the relative likelihood of influenza A viruses, circulating in animal populations, making the species jump into humans. The intention is that such a risk assessment framework could assist decision-makers to compare multiple influenza viruses for zoonotic potential and hence to develop appropriate strain-specific control measures. It also provides a first step towards showing proof of principle for an eventual pandemic risk model. We show that the spatial and temporal epidemiology is as important in assessing the risk of an influenza A species jump as understanding the innate molecular capability of the virus. We also demonstrate data deficiencies that need to be addressed in order to consistently combine both epidemiological and molecular virology data into a risk assessment framework.

EFSA Supporting PublicationsVolume 11, Issue 5 571E External scientific reportOpen Access Development of a risk assessment methodological framework for potentially pandemic influenza strains (FLURISK) M. De Nardi, M. De Nardi Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale delle Venezie (Project Coordinator), Legnaro, Padova, ItalySearch for more papers by this authorA. Hill, A. Hill Animal Health and Veterinary Agency (AHVLA), Surrey, United KingdomSearch for more papers by this authorS. von Dobschuetz, S. von Dobschuetz Royal Veterinary College (RVC), London, United Kingdom Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome, ItalySearch for more papers by this authorO. Munoz, O. Munoz Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale delle Venezie (Project Coordinator), Legnaro, Padova, ItalySearch for more papers by this authorR. Kosmider, R. Kosmider Animal Health and Veterinary Agency (AHVLA), Surrey, United KingdomSearch for more papers by this authorT. Dewe, T. Dewe Animal Health and Veterinary Agency (AHVLA), Surrey, United KingdomSearch for more papers by this authorK. Harris, K. Harris Animal Health and Veterinary Agency (AHVLA), Surrey, United KingdomSearch for more papers by this authorG. Freidl, G. Freidl National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Laboratory for Infectious Diseases Research, Diagnostics and Screening (IDS), Bilthoven, the NetherlandsSearch for more papers by this authorK. Stevens, K. Stevens Royal Veterinary College (RVC), London, United KingdomSearch for more papers by this authorK. van der Meulen, K. van der Meulen Laboratory of Virology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, BelgiumSearch for more papers by this authorK.D.C. Stäerk, K.D.C. Stäerk Royal Veterinary College (RVC), London, United KingdomSearch for more papers by this authorA. Breed, A. Breed Animal Health and Veterinary Agency (AHVLA), Surrey, United KingdomSearch for more papers by this authorA. Meijer, A. Meijer National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Laboratory for Infectious Diseases Research, Diagnostics and Screening (IDS), Bilthoven, the NetherlandsSearch for more papers by this authorM. Koopmans, M. Koopmans National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Laboratory for Infectious Diseases Research, Diagnostics and Screening (IDS), Bilthoven, the NetherlandsSearch for more papers by this authorA. Havelaar, A. Havelaar National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Laboratory for Infectious Diseases Research, Diagnostics and Screening (IDS), Bilthoven, the NetherlandsSearch for more papers by this authorS. van der Werf, S. van der Werf Institut Pasteur, Paris, FranceSearch for more papers by this authorJ. Banks, J. Banks Animal Health and Veterinary Agency (AHVLA), Surrey, United KingdomSearch for more papers by this authorB. Wieland, B. Wieland Royal Veterinary College (RVC), London, United KingdomSearch for more papers by this authorK. van Reeth, K. van Reeth Laboratory of Virology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, BelgiumSearch for more papers by this authorG. Dauphin, G. Dauphin Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome, ItalySearch for more papers by this authorI. Capua, I. Capua Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale delle Venezie (Project Coordinator), Legnaro, Padova, ItalySearch for more papers by this authorthe FLURISK consortium, the FLURISK consortium Department of Viroscience, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the NetherlandsSearch for more papers by this author M. De Nardi, M. De Nardi Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale delle Venezie (Project Coordinator), Legnaro, Padova, ItalySearch for more papers by this authorA. Hill, A. Hill Animal Health and Veterinary Agency (AHVLA), Surrey, United KingdomSearch for more papers by this authorS. von Dobschuetz, S. von Dobschuetz Royal Veterinary College (RVC), London, United Kingdom Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome, ItalySearch for more papers by this authorO. Munoz, O. Munoz Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale delle Venezie (Project Coordinator), Legnaro, Padova, ItalySearch for more papers by this authorR. Kosmider, R. Kosmider Animal Health and Veterinary Agency (AHVLA), Surrey, United KingdomSearch for more papers by this authorT. Dewe, T. Dewe Animal Health and Veterinary Agency (AHVLA), Surrey, United KingdomSearch for more papers by this authorK. Harris, K. Harris Animal Health and Veterinary Agency (AHVLA), Surrey, United KingdomSearch for more papers by this authorG. Freidl, G. Freidl National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Laboratory for Infectious Diseases Research, Diagnostics and Screening (IDS), Bilthoven, the NetherlandsSearch for more papers by this authorK. Stevens, K. Stevens Royal Veterinary College (RVC), London, United KingdomSearch for more papers by this authorK. van der Meulen, K. van der Meulen Laboratory of Virology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, BelgiumSearch for more papers by this authorK.D.C. Stäerk, K.D.C. Stäerk Royal Veterinary College (RVC), London, United KingdomSearch for more papers by this authorA. Breed, A. Breed Animal Health and Veterinary Agency (AHVLA), Surrey, United KingdomSearch for more papers by this authorA. Meijer, A. Meijer National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Laboratory for Infectious Diseases Research, Diagnostics and Screening (IDS), Bilthoven, the NetherlandsSearch for more papers by this authorM. Koopmans, M. Koopmans National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Laboratory for Infectious Diseases Research, Diagnostics and Screening (IDS), Bilthoven, the NetherlandsSearch for more papers by this authorA. Havelaar, A. Havelaar National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Laboratory for Infectious Diseases Research, Diagnostics and Screening (IDS), Bilthoven, the NetherlandsSearch for more papers by this authorS. van der Werf, S. van der Werf Institut Pasteur, Paris, FranceSearch for more papers by this authorJ. Banks, J. Banks Animal Health and Veterinary Agency (AHVLA), Surrey, United KingdomSearch for more papers by this authorB. Wieland, B. Wieland Royal Veterinary College (RVC), London, United KingdomSearch for more papers by this authorK. van Reeth, K. van Reeth Laboratory of Virology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, BelgiumSearch for more papers by this authorG. Dauphin, G. Dauphin Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome, ItalySearch for more papers by this authorI. Capua, I. Capua Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale delle Venezie (Project Coordinator), Legnaro, Padova, ItalySearch for more papers by this authorthe FLURISK consortium, the FLURISK consortium Department of Viroscience, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the NetherlandsSearch for more papers by this author First published: 22 May 2014 https://doi.org/10.2903/sp.efsa.2014.EN-571Citations: 5 This external report is the output from a scientific or technical project that EFSA has funded to support its work in accordance with Article 36 of EFSA's Founding Regulation. It was produced by the beneficiaries of an EFSA grant following a call for proposal published on the EFSA website. For more information on this procedure see Article 36 cooperation. It is published complying with the transparency principle to which EFSA is subject and cannot be considered as an output adopted by EFSA. EFSA reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors. Published date: 22 May 2014 Question number: EFSA-Q-2011-00772 AboutPDF ToolsExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onEmailFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Reference See also references included in each Annex. Google Scholar Pavade, G., et al., OFFLU review of avian influenza surveillance and epidemiological projects in some European, African, and Asian countries. 2010, OIE/FAO Network of Expertise on Animal Influenza. p. 11. Google Scholar EU. ESNIP 3 Project – European Surveillance Network for Influenza in Pigs. 2012 17.08.2012 [cited 2013 15.10.2013]; Available from: http://www.esnip3.com/. Google Scholar OIE, World Animal Health Information Database – WAHID. 2012, World Organisation for Animal Health. Google Scholar Webby, R.J. and R.G. Webster, Are we ready for pandemic influenza? Science, 2003. 302(5650): p. 1519–1522. 10.1126/science.1090350 CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Munoz, O., et al., Genetic adaptation of influenza A viruses and their potential role in interspecies transmission: a literature review. Submitted to EcoHealth, 2014. Google Scholar USDA. USDA swine influenza surveillance update. 2012 [cited 2013 25.10.2013]; Available from: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/animal_dis_spec/swine/siv_surveillance.shtml. Google Scholar Morens, D.M. and J.K. Taubenberger, Pandemic influenza: certain uncertainties. Reviews in Medical Virology, 2011. 21(5): p. 262–284. 10.1002/rmv.689 PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Kilbourne, E.D., Influenza pandemics of the 20th century. Emerg Infect Dis, 2006. 12(1): p. 9–14. 10.3201/eid1201.051254 PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Koopmans, M., et al., Transmission of H7N7 avian influenza A virus to human beings during a large outbreak in commercial poultry farms in the Netherlands. Lancet, 2004. 363(9409): p. 587–593. 10.1016/S0140-6736(04)15589-X PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Trock, S.C., S.A. Burke, and N.J. Cox, Development of an Influenza Virologic Risk Assessment Tool. Avian Diseases, 2012. 56(4): p. 1058–1061. 10.1637/10204-041412-ResNote.1 PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Christman, M.C., et al., Pandemic (H1N1) 2009 virus revisited: An evolutionary retrospective. Infection Genetics and Evolution, 2011. 11(5): p. 803–811. 10.1016/j.meegid.2011.02.021 Web of Science®Google Scholar Taubenberger, J.K. and J.C. Kash, Insights on influenza pathogenesis from the grave. Virus Research, 2011. 162(1-2): p. 2–7. 10.1016/j.virusres.2011.09.003 CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Webster, R.G., The importance of animal influenza for human disease. Vaccine, 2002. 20: p. S16–S20. 10.1016/S0264-410X(02)00123-8 PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Morens, D.M., Pandemic H5N1: Receding Risk or Coming Catastrophe? Clinical Infectious Diseases, 2013. 56(9): p. 1213–1215. 10.1093/cid/cit051 PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Anderson, R.M. and R.M. May, Infectious diseases of humans: dynamics and control. 1991, New York: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780198545996.001.0001 Google Scholar Rothman, K.J., S. Greenland, and T.L. Lash, Modern Epidemiology. Third ed. 2008, PA, USA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Google Scholar Van Boeckel, T.P., et al., Predicting the distribution of intensive poultry farming in Thailand. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment, 2012. 149: p. 144–153. 10.1016/j.agee.2011.12.019 PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Robinson, T.P., G. Franceschini, and W. Wint, The Food and Agriculture Organization's Gridded Livestock of the World. Veterinaria italiana, 2007. 43(3): p. 745–51. PubMedGoogle Scholar Nguyen-Van-Tam, J.S., et al., Outbreak of low pathogenicity H7N3 avian influenza in UK, including associated case of human conjunctivitis. Eurosurveillance, 2006. 11(18): p. 2952. Google Scholar Elbers, A.R.W., Netherlands 2003 H7N7 avian influenza outbreak: number of birds on infected farms at the start of the production cycle, T.C.M. Dewé, Editor. 2013. Google Scholar Koopmans, M., et al., Transmission of H7N7 avian influenza A virus to human beings during a large outbreak in commercial poultry farms in the Netherlands. The Lancet, 2004. 363(9409): p. 587–593. 10.1016/S0140-6736(04)15589-X PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Lees, W., Comprehensive report on the 2004 outbreak of high pathogenicity avian influenza (H7N3) in the Fraser Valley of British Colombia, Canada. Canada's experiences with avian influenza (AI): a compilation of documents on AI and the response of the Canadian government and poultry sector to the 2004 AI outbreak in British Columbia, 2004: p. 156–305. Google Scholar Ogata, T., et al., Human H5N2 avian influenza infection in Japan and the factors associated with high H5N2-neutralizing antibody titer. J Epidemiol, 2008. 18(4): p. 160–6. 10.2188/jea.JE2007446 PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Tweed, S., et al., Human illness from avian influenza H7N3, British Columbia. Emerg Infect Dis 2004. 10(12): p. 2196–2199. 10.3201/eid1012.040961 PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Chotpitayasunondh, T., et al., Human disease from influenza A (H5N1), Thailand, 2004. Emerg Infect Dis, 2005. 11(2): p. 201–209. 10.3201/eid1102.041061 PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Olsen, S.J., et al., Poultry-handling practices during avian influenza outbreak, Thailand. Emerg Infect Dis, 2005. 11(10): p. 1601–1603. 10.3201/eid1110.041267 PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Tiensin, T., et al. (2005) Highly pathogenic avian influenza H5N1, Thailand, 2004 Emerg Infect Dis [serial on the Internet]., DOI: . Google Scholar Kandeel, A., et al. (2010) Zoonotic transmission of avian influenza virus (H5N1), Egypt, 2006–2009. Emerg Infect Dis [serial on the Internet]. Google Scholar El-Zanaty, F. and A. Way, Egypt Demographic and Health Survey 2008. 2009, Ministry of Health: Cairo, Egypt. Google Scholar Lees, W., Canada's Experiences with Avian Influenza (AI): A Compilation of Documents on AI and the Response of the Canadian Government and Poultry Sector to the 2004 AI Outbreak in British Columbia. 2005. Google Scholar Minh, P.Q., et al., Association Between Human Cases and Poultry Outbreaks of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza in Vietnam From 2003 to 2007: A Nationwide Study. Transboundary and Emerging Diseases, 2009. 56(8): p. 311–320. 10.1111/j.1865-1682.2009.01086.x CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Prakarnkamanant, A., et al., Improving the efficiency of the surveillance system for highly pathogenic avian influenza virus subtype H5N1 in Thailand using scenario tree modelling. Society for Veterinary Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine. Proceedings of a meeting held in Glasgow, UK, 28th-30th March 2012, ed. T.D.H. Parkin and L.A. Kelly. 2012. 257–269. Google Scholar Goutard, F.L., et al., Optimizing early detection of avian influenza H5N1 in backyard and free-range poultry production systems in Thailand. Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 2012. 105(3): p. 223–234. 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2011.12.020 PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Christensen, J., et al., A scenario tree model for the Canadian Notifiable Avian Influenza Surveillance System and its application to estimation of probability of freedom and sample size determination. Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 2011. 99(2-4): p. 161–175. 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2011.01.005 PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Capua, I. and O. Munoz, Emergence of influenza viruses with zoonotic potential: Open issues which need to be addressed. A review. Veterinary Microbiology, 2013. 165(1-2): p. 7–12. 10.1016/j.vetmic.2013.01.044 PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar de Wit, E. and R.A. Fouchier, Emerging influenza. J Clin Virol, 2008. 41(1): p. 1–6. 10.1016/j.jcv.2007.10.017 PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Gamble, J., S.R. Jaeger, and F.R. Harker, Preferences in pear appearance and response to novelty among Australian and New Zealand consumers. Postharvest Biology and Technology, 2006. 41(1): p. 38–47. 10.1016/j.postharvbio.2006.01.019 Web of Science®Google Scholar CDC. Influenza Risk Assessment Tool (IRAT). 2012 19/12/2012]; Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/tools/risk-assessment.htm. Google Scholar Baigent, S.J. and J.W. McCauley, Influenza type A in humans, mammals and birds: determinants of virus virulence, host-range and interspecies transmission. Bioessays, 2003. 25(7): p. 657–71. 10.1002/bies.10303 CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Bridges, C.B., et al., Risk of Influenza A (H5N1) Infection among Poultry Workers, Hong Kong, 1997–1998. Journal of Infectious Diseases, 2002. 185(8): p. 1005–1010. 10.1086/340044 PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Tseng, W.C., et al., Potential number of human cases of H5N1 avian influenza in Egypt. Public Health. 124(8): p. 452–459. Google Scholar Zhou, L., et al., Risk Factors for Human Illness with Avian Influenza A (H5N1) Virus Infection in China. Journal of Infectious Diseases, 2009. 199(12): p. 1726–1734. 10.1086/599206 PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Hanley, J.A., From incidence function to cumulative-incidence-rate/risk. unpublished. Google Scholar Prosser, D.J., et al., Mapping avian influenza transmission risk at the interface of domestic poultry and wild birds. Frontier in Public Health, 2013. 1(28): p. 1–11. Google Scholar Clements, A.C.A., D.U. Pfeiffer, and V. Martin, Application of knowledge-driven spatial modelling approaches and uncertainty management to a study of Rift Valley fever in Africa. International Journal of Health Geographics, 2006. 5(57): p. (10 December 2006)-(10 December 2006). PubMedGoogle Scholar Sarkar, S., et al., Chagas Disease Risk in Texas. Plos Neglected Tropical Diseases, 2010. 4(10). 10.1371/journal.pntd.0000836 Web of Science®Google Scholar Havelaar, A.H., et al., Prioritizing Emerging Zoonoses in The Netherlands. Plos One, 2010. 5(11). 10.1371/journal.pone.0013965 CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Ahmed, S.S.U., et al., Ecological Determinants of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (H5N1) Outbreaks in Bangladesh. PLoS ONE, 2012. 7(3): p. e33938. 10.1371/journal.pone.0033938 CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Mounts, A.W., et al., Case-Control Study of Risk Factors for Avian Influenza A (H5N1) Disease, Hong Kong, 1997. Journal of Infectious Diseases, 1999. 180(2): p. 505–508. 10.1086/314903 CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Paul, M., et al., Anthropogenic factors and the risk of highly pathogenic avian influenza H5N1: prospects from a spatial-based model. Vet. Res. 41(3): p. 28. Google Scholar Loth, L., et al., Risk factors and clusters of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza H5N1 outbreaks in Bangladesh. Preventive Veterinary Medicine. 96(1–2): p. 104–113. Google Scholar Smallman-Raynor, M. and A. Cliff (2007) Avian influenza A (H5N1) age distribution in humans [letter]. Emerg Infect Dis [serial on the Internet]. 13. Web of Science®Google Scholar Iwami, S., Y. Takeuchi, and X. Liu, Avian–human influenza epidemic model. Mathematical Biosciences, 2007. 207(1): p. 1–25. 10.1016/j.mbs.2006.08.001 PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Kim, K.I., Z. Lin, and L. Zhang, Avian–human influenza epidemic model with diffusion. Nonlinear Analysis: Real World Applications, 2010. 11(1): p. 313–322. 10.1016/j.nonrwa.2008.11.015 Web of Science®Google Scholar Rao, D.M., A. Chernyakhovsky, and V. Rao, Modeling and analysis of global epidemiology of avian influenza. Environmental Modelling & Software, 2009. 24(1): p. 124–134. 10.1016/j.envsoft.2008.06.011 Web of Science®Google Scholar Citing Literature Volume11, Issue5May 2014571E ReferencesRelatedInformation

Factors that trigger human infection with animal influenza virus progressing into a pandemic are poorly understood. Within a project developing an evidence-based risk assessment framework for influenza viruses in animals, we conducted a review of the literature for evidence of human infection with animal influenza viruses by diagnostic methods used. The review covering Medline, Embase, SciSearch and CabAbstracts yielded 6,955 articles, of which we retained 89; for influenza A(H5N1) and A(H7N9), the official case counts of the World Health Organization were used. An additional 30 studies were included by scanning the reference lists. Here, we present the findings for confirmed infections with virological evidence. We found reports of 1,419 naturally infected human cases, of which 648 were associated with avian influenza virus (AIV) A(H5N1), 375 with other AIV subtypes, and 396 with swine influenza virus (SIV). Human cases naturally infected with AIV spanned haemagglutinin subtypes H5, H6, H7, H9 and H10. SIV cases were associated with endemic SIV of H1 and H3 subtype descending from North American and Eurasian SIV lineages and various reassortants thereof. Direct exposure to birds or swine was the most likely source of infection for the cases with available information on exposure.

Veterinary RecordVolume 172, Issue 23 p. 606-606 Research Echinococcus multilocularis introduction and establishment in wildlife via imported beavers R. Kosmider PhD, Corresponding Author R. Kosmider PhD [email protected] Epidemiology, Surveillance and Risk Group, Weybridge Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency, Woodham Lane, Addlestone, Surrey, KT15 3NB UKE-mail for correspondence:[email protected]Search for more papers by this authorA. Paterson PhD, A. Paterson PhD Field Services, Reigate Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency, Liberty House, 105 Bell Street, Reigate, Surrey, UKSearch for more papers by this authorA. Voas BVM&S, MRCVS, A. Voas BVM&S, MRCVS SEERAD, Scottish Government, Spur P Saughton House, Broomhouse Drive, Edinburgh, UKSearch for more papers by this authorH. Roberts PhD, H. Roberts PhD International Disease Monitoring and Risk Analysis, Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency, 17 Smith Square, London, UKSearch for more papers by this author R. Kosmider PhD, Corresponding Author R. Kosmider PhD [email protected] Epidemiology, Surveillance and Risk Group, Weybridge Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency, Woodham Lane, Addlestone, Surrey, KT15 3NB UKE-mail for correspondence:[email protected]Search for more papers by this authorA. Paterson PhD, A. Paterson PhD Field Services, Reigate Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency, Liberty House, 105 Bell Street, Reigate, Surrey, UKSearch for more papers by this authorA. Voas BVM&S, MRCVS, A. Voas BVM&S, MRCVS SEERAD, Scottish Government, Spur P Saughton House, Broomhouse Drive, Edinburgh, UKSearch for more papers by this authorH. Roberts PhD, H. Roberts PhD International Disease Monitoring and Risk Analysis, Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency, 17 Smith Square, London, UKSearch for more papers by this author First published: 08 June 2013 https://doi.org/10.1136/vr.101572Citations: 5 Provenance: Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onEmailFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. References Barlow A., Gottstein B., Mueller N. (2011) Echinococcus multilocularis in an imported captive European beaver (Caster fiber) in Great Britain. The Veterinary Record 169, 339 Davidson R. K., Romig T., Jenkins E., Tryland M., Robertson L. (2012) The impact of globalisation on the distribution of Echinococcus multilocularis. Trends in Parasitology 28, 239–247 DEFRA (2012) What is the risk of introducing Echinococcus multilocularis to the United Kingdom wildlife population by importing European beavers which subsequently escape or are released? http://www.defra.gov.uk/animal-diseases/files/qra-non-native-species-echinoccocus-120627.pdf. Accessed July 5, 2012 Dyachenko V., Pantchev N., Gawlowska S., Vrhovec M., Bauer C. (2008) Echinococcus multilocularis infections in domestic dogs and cats from Germany and other European countries. Veterinary Parasitology 157, 244–253 Fair J. (2010). Cotswold Water Park: wildlife for every season. http://www.discoverwildlife.com/tavel/cotswold-water-park-wildlife-every-season?page=show. Accessed March 2012 Gow D. (2002) The transport, quarantine and captive management of European beaver Castor fiber. Report for Scottish Natural Heritage Guislain M., Raoul F., Giraudoux P., Terrier M., Froment G., Ferte H., Poulle M. (2008) Ecological and biological factors involved in the transmission of Echinococcus multilocularis in the French Ardennes. Journal of Helminthology 82, 143–151 Janovsky M., Bacciarini L., Sager H., Grone A., Gottstein B. (2002) Echinococcus multilocularis in a European beaver from Switzerland. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 3S, 618–620 Kile N., Nakken P., Rosell F., Espeland S. (1996) Red fox, Vulpes vulpes kills a European Beaver, Castor fiber, kit. Canadian Field Naturalist 110, 338–339 Konig A., Romig T., Thoma D., Kellerman K. (2005) Drastic increase in the prevalence in Echinococcus multilocularis in foxes (Vulpes vulpes) in southern Bavaria, Germany. European Journal of Wildlife Research 51, 277–282 Morris S. (2008) ESCAPED beaver eats through trees after breakout from Dartmoor sanctuary. The Guardian December 30, 2008 Nishina T., Ishikawa H. (2008) A stochastic model of Echinococcus multilocularis transmission in Hokkaido, Japan, focusing on the infection process. Parasitology Research 102, 465–479 OIE (2004) Office International des Epizooties, Handbook on Import Risk Analysis for Animals and Animal Products. Volume 1 – Introduction and qualitative risk analysis. Paris, France: OIE. http://www.oie.int (accessed 2012) Smith G. C., Gangadharan B., Taylor Z., Laurenson M., Bradshaw H., Hide G., Hughes J., Dinkel A., Romig T., Craig P. (2003) Prevalence of zoonotic important parasites in the red fox (Vulpes vulpes) in Great Britain. Veterinary Parasitology 118, 133–142 Torgerson P., Craig P. (2009) RISK assessment of importation of dogs infected with Echinococcus multilocularis into the UK. The Veterinary Record 165, 366–368 Citing Literature Volume172, Issue23June 2013Pages 606-606 ReferencesRelatedInformation

In 2004, the European Union (EU) implemented a pet movement policy (referred to here as the EUPMP) under EU regulation 998/2003. The United Kingdom (UK) was granted a temporary derogation from the policy until December 2011 and instead has in place its own Pet Movement Policy (Pet Travel Scheme (PETS)). A quantitative risk assessment (QRA) was developed to estimate the risk of rabies introduction to the UK under both schemes to quantify any change in the risk of rabies introduction should the UK harmonize with the EU policy. Assuming 100 % compliance with the regulations, moving to the EUPMP was predicted to increase the annual risk of rabies introduction to the UK by approximately 60-fold, from 7.79 × 10(-5) (5.90 × 10(-5), 1.06 × 10(-4)) under the current scheme to 4.79 × 10(-3) (4.05 × 10(-3), 5.65 × 10(-3)) under the EUPMP. This corresponds to a decrease from 13,272 (9,408, 16,940) to 211 (177, 247) years between rabies introductions. The risks associated with both the schemes were predicted to increase when less than 100 % compliance was assumed, with the current scheme of PETS and quarantine being shown to be particularly sensitive to noncompliance. The results of this risk assessment, along with other evidence, formed a scientific evidence base to inform policy decision with respect to companion animal movement.

SUMMARYExpert opinion was elicited to undertake a qualitative risk assessment to estimate the current and future risks to the European Union (EU) from five vector-borne viruses listed by the World Organization for Animal Health. It was predicted that climate change will increase the risk of incursions of African horse sickness virus (AHSV), Crimean-Congo haemorrhagic fever virus (CCHFV) and Rift Valley fever virus (RVFV) into the EU from other parts of the world, with African swine fever virus (ASFV) and West Nile virus (WNV) being less affected. Currently the predicted risks of incursion were lowest for RVFV and highest for ASFV. Risks of incursion were considered for six routes of entry (namely vectors, livestock, meat products, wildlife, pets and people). Climate change was predicted to increase the risk of incursion from entry of vectors for all five viruses to some degree, the strongest effects being predicted for AHSV, CCHFV and WNV. This work will facilitate identification of appropriate risk management options in relation to adaptations to climate change.

SUMMARYThe monitoring and surveillance of animal diseases is becoming increasingly important to policy-makers in Great Britain particularly given recent incursions of avian influenza and the emergence of bovine spongiform encephalopathy. To meet this surveillance objective, data from British livestock is collected and analysed retrospectively on an ongoing basis. However, these data can also be analysed prospectively within an early detection system which raises alerts to significant increases in disease reporting soon after they occur in the field. The feasibility of such an approach has been examined previously for Salmonella. This paper applied the approach to a further subset of surveillance data to alert those monitoring disease to increases in potentially new and emerging diseases. Thus far, the analysis, conducted on a quarterly basis, has proved a useful additional tool in enhanced surveillance by raising alerts to significant increases in several syndromes in both sheep and cattle.

Rabies was eradicated from the UK in 1922 through strict controls of dog movement and investigation of every incident of disease. Amendments were made to the UK quarantine laws and the Pet Travel Scheme (PETS) was subsequently introduced in 2000 for animals entering the UK from qualifying listed countries. European Regulation 998/2003 on the non-commercial movement of pet animals initiated the European Union Pet Movement Policy (EUPMP) in July 2004. The introduction of EUPMP harmonized the movement of pet animals within the EU (EUPMPlisted) but raised the possibility of domestic animals entering the UK from a non-EU state where rabies is endemic (EUPMPunlisted). A quantitative risk assessment was developed to estimate the risk of rabies entering the UK from Turkey via companion animals that are incubating the disease and enter through PETS or EUPMP compared to quarantine. Specifically, the risk was assessed by estimating the annual probability of rabies entering the UK and the number of years between rabies entries for each scheme. The model identified that the probability of rabies entering the UK via the three schemes is highly dependent on compliance. If 100% compliance is assumed, PETS and EUPMPunlisted (at the current level of importation) present a lower risk than quarantine, i.e. the number of years between rabies entry is more than 170 721 years for PETS and 60 163 years for EUPMPunlisted compared to 41 851 years for quarantine (with 95% certainty). If less than 100% compliance is assumed, PETS and EUPMPunlisted (at the current level of importation) present a higher risk. In addition, EUPMPlisted and EUPMPunlisted (at an increased level of importation) present a higher risk than quarantine or PETS at 100% compliance and at an uncertain level of compliance.

Worldwide, early detection systems have been used in public health to aid the timely detection of increases in disease reporting that may be indicative of an outbreak. To date, their application to animal surveillance has been limited and statistical methods to analyse human health data have not been viewed as being applicable for animal health surveillance data. This issue was investigated by developing an early detection system for Salmonella disease in British livestock. We conclude that an early detection system, as for public health surveillance, can be an effective tool for enhanced surveillance. In order to implement this system in the future and extend it for other data types, we provide recommendations for improving the current data collection process. These recommendations will ensure that quality surveillance data are collected and used effectively to monitor disease in livestock populations.

Veterinary RecordVolume 158, Issue 20 p. 694-695 Short Communication Risk assessments to inform policy decisions regarding importation of pets from North America R. D. Kosmider BSc, R. D. Kosmider BSc Veterinary Laboratories Agency – Weybridge, Woodham Lane, Addlestone, Surrey, KT15 3NBSearch for more papers by this authorL. Kelly BSc, PhD, L. Kelly BSc, PhD Veterinary Laboratories Agency – Weybridge, Woodham Lane, Addlestone, Surrey, KT15 3NBSearch for more papers by this authorK. Laurenson BA, VetMB, PhD, K. Laurenson BA, VetMB, PhD Centre for Tropical Veterinary Medicine, Easter Bush Veterinary Centre, University of Edinburgh, Roslin, Midlothian, EH25 9RGSearch for more papers by this authorP. Coleman BSc, PhD, P. Coleman BSc, PhD Department of Infectious and Tropical Diseases, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, WC1E 7HTSearch for more papers by this authorA. R. Fooks BSc, MBA, PhD, CBiol, FiBiol, A. R. Fooks BSc, MBA, PhD, CBiol, FiBiol Veterinary Laboratories Agency – Weybridge, Woodham Lane, Addlestone, Surrey, KT15 3NBSearch for more papers by this authorM. Woolhouse BA, MSc, PhD, OBE, FRSE, M. Woolhouse BA, MSc, PhD, OBE, FRSE Centre for Tropical Veterinary Medicine, Easter Bush Veterinary Centre, University of Edinburgh, Roslin, Midlothian, EH25 9RGSearch for more papers by this authorM. Wooldridge BVetMed, MSc(Epid), PhD, DLSHTM, MRCVS, M. Wooldridge BVetMed, MSc(Epid), PhD, DLSHTM, MRCVS Veterinary Laboratories Agency – Weybridge, Woodham Lane, Addlestone, Surrey, KT15 3NBSearch for more papers by this author R. D. Kosmider BSc, R. D. Kosmider BSc Veterinary Laboratories Agency – Weybridge, Woodham Lane, Addlestone, Surrey, KT15 3NBSearch for more papers by this authorL. Kelly BSc, PhD, L. Kelly BSc, PhD Veterinary Laboratories Agency – Weybridge, Woodham Lane, Addlestone, Surrey, KT15 3NBSearch for more papers by this authorK. Laurenson BA, VetMB, PhD, K. Laurenson BA, VetMB, PhD Centre for Tropical Veterinary Medicine, Easter Bush Veterinary Centre, University of Edinburgh, Roslin, Midlothian, EH25 9RGSearch for more papers by this authorP. Coleman BSc, PhD, P. Coleman BSc, PhD Department of Infectious and Tropical Diseases, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, WC1E 7HTSearch for more papers by this authorA. R. Fooks BSc, MBA, PhD, CBiol, FiBiol, A. R. Fooks BSc, MBA, PhD, CBiol, FiBiol Veterinary Laboratories Agency – Weybridge, Woodham Lane, Addlestone, Surrey, KT15 3NBSearch for more papers by this authorM. Woolhouse BA, MSc, PhD, OBE, FRSE, M. Woolhouse BA, MSc, PhD, OBE, FRSE Centre for Tropical Veterinary Medicine, Easter Bush Veterinary Centre, University of Edinburgh, Roslin, Midlothian, EH25 9RGSearch for more papers by this authorM. Wooldridge BVetMed, MSc(Epid), PhD, DLSHTM, MRCVS, M. Wooldridge BVetMed, MSc(Epid), PhD, DLSHTM, MRCVS Veterinary Laboratories Agency – Weybridge, Woodham Lane, Addlestone, Surrey, KT15 3NBSearch for more papers by this author First published: 20 May 2006 https://doi.org/10.1136/vr.158.20.694Citations: 2AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article.Citing Literature Volume158, Issue20May 2006Pages 694-695 RelatedInformation