|
|
Animal Health Emergency
Management Committee Report
April 6, 2005
The
Animal Health Emergency Management Committee met on Wednesday, April 6
from 8:00 AM to 11:30 AM CDT, during the NIAA 2005 Annual Meeting in St.
Paul Minnesota, with 110 people present.
Dr. Lyle Vogel served as the Chair and Dr. Paul Sundberg served as
the Vice-Chair.
The
committee session focused on an update of USDA APHIS Veterinary Services
Emergency Program activities and vaccination for foot-and-mouth disease.
The following speakers presented relevant information pertaining to
animal health emergency management.
Dr.
Larry Granger, USDA APHIS Veterinary Services Emergency Programs Update:
-
There
are fundamental changes that are shaping the future. The establishment of the Department of Homeland Security,
adoption of National Incident Management System, USDA-APHIS-VS
emphasis on attribution of disease outbreaks, intelligence
issues/gathering information on disease and disease risks, Select
Agent Rule that limits laboratory access to disease causing agents,
increased emphasis on surveillance for early detection of diseases,
designation of agriculture as a critical infrastructure, international
trade agreements that facilitate movement of agriculture products, and
emergency/non-emergency funding through the Commodity Credit
Corporation all have contributed to a new look at how USDA-APHIS is
approaching their role of responding to animal health issues.
-
The
National Response Plan integrates Federal domestic prevention,
preparedness, response and recovery into a single all-discipline,
all-hazards plan. USDA
has the responsibility for emergency support functions for
agriculture, ESF-11.
-
Awareness
of intelligence content, trends in diseases in animal populations,
early disease detection efforts, and modeling of highly contagious
diseases epidemiology is also a component of the plan for prevention,
preparedness, response and recovery.
Prevention continues to be an important USDA activity.
Preparedness involves training, monitoring and surveillance,
conducting exercises, program and field activities, and disease
modeling. Appropriate
response includes an incident command structure that is implemented on
the local level.
-
There
is a changing paradigm in Veterinary Services.
There will be more emphasis on regionalization.
There may be a need to treat different sectors of commodities
differently – compartmentalization of the industry.
Risk assessments will have an increased importance and the
decreased availability of select agents to laboratories is two
expectations. There will
be increased collaboration with local, state and tribal authorities to
be able to have enough people to deal with a disease outbreak.
-
The
development of the National Surveillance Unit and the National Animal
Health Laboratory will assist in detection of disease.
Area Emergency Coordinators will help with response.
The Foreign Animal Disease Diagnostic Laboratory is increasing
capability. The new
laboratory in Ames, Iowa will provide resources for changes.
The National Veterinary Stockpile has potential to help respond
to a national disease outbreak.
-
Challenges
include reaction to decentralizing control and the implications from
it. Restructuring APHIS
is dependent on sufficient funding – both federal and alternate
funding sources.
Dr.
Larry Granger, Use of Foot-and-Mouth Disease Vaccination as Part of FMD
Eradication Scheme –Vaccinate to Live/Salvage: Veterinary Services
Perspective:
-
Epidemiology
is an important consideration in vaccine use since it modifies how an
animal reacts to the disease agent.
There are factors in disease spread and epidemiology to
consider in deciding if to use or not use vaccine.
There is a decision tree for FMD vaccine use as part of the
North American FMD Vaccine Bank.
-
Vaccination
considerations include the species to vaccinate and the strategic
deployment of the vaccine (e.g., a specific age group within a
species), the human resources needed, the necessary authority to
vaccinate may include legislation providing for mandatory vaccination,
compensation to producers for lost production from vaccination and
availability of vaccine.
-
The
‘vaccinate to live’ concept provides for vaccination followed by
continued life to the intended function of the animal.
A ‘vaccinate to slaughter’ concept may be used to suppress
amplification of the virus and those animals will be eliminated before
they could contribute to disease spread.
-
Considerations
of vaccinating now, as a routine practice in the absence of disease,
include economic factors – cost of vaccine, value of exports, value
of vaccinated animals, affects on the cost, and complexity of
surveillance. Implementing
a stamping out philosophy is a time proven method for control of FMD.
The decision of vaccination versus stamping out must be done
with consideration of local factors that are known on the local level.
The federal officials will not be knowledgeable of all of these
factors.
-
Currently,
the objective is to return to FMD disease-free status as soon as
possible. Epidemiologic
modeling will help to prepare to make effective decisions early in an
outbreak. The
‘vaccinate to live’ vs. the ‘vaccinate to slaughter’ is
primarily an economic decision but it must take into account the
social and political consequences and the physical resources
available. The latter
considerations could change the national objective to preserve the
critical infrastructure, instead of to return to FMD disease-free
status as soon as possible.
Dr.
Tom McKenna, Use of Foot-and-Mouth Disease Vaccination as Part of FMD
Eradication Scheme –Vaccinate to Live/Salvage: Foreign Animal Disease
Diagnostic Laboratory Perspective:
-
Conventional
vaccines are effective in controlling clinical signs and limiting
virus spread. They take
up to 7 days to confer protection.
They do not completely protect against infection.
They also need to be boosted.
-
Vaccination
can slow spread without culling, thus saving the farm and protecting
the environment. Vaccinated
animals may stop international trade, they may become carriers of FMD
if they are infected before vaccine protection is complete, they may
be culled anyway and therefore will need support, and there are 7
serotypes without effective vaccine cross-protection and which require
boosting every 2-4 months.
-
Concern
over vaccinated carrier animals drives the argument against
vaccination but the international community wants to support
vaccination. Current technology can differentiate vaccinated animals from
infected animals most of the time but is that good enough?
-
Vaccination
is a two-way street – If we vaccinate, we must be ready to prove
that we are FMD-free through extensive testing and if our trading
partners vaccinate, we must be ready to trade with them when they
establish FMD-freedom.
Dr.
Bruce Carter, Use of Foot-and-Mouth Disease Vaccination as Part of FMD
Eradication Scheme –Vaccinate to Live/Salvage: Center for Veterinary
Biologics Perspective:
-
This
presentation discussed the North American Foot-and-Mouth Disease
Vaccine Bank, the Avian Influenza Vaccine Bank, the basic biologics
product licensing requirements, the types of biologics approvals, and
food safety considerations of vaccination.
Dr.
Richard Breitmeyer and Dr. Edward Henry, Use of Foot-and-Mouth Disease
Vaccination as Part of FMD Eradication Scheme –Vaccinate to
Live/Salvage: A California Perspective:
-
This
presentation outlined the cattle demographics of California,
especially the tri-county area of Tulare, Kings and Fresno counties
where there are 624 dairies with 671,000 cows (an average 1075
cows/dairy). Combined
with the extensive custom heifer raising operations, this presents
unique challenges for the control of a disease such as FMD.
-
Operation
“Aphtosa” was an exercise in November 2004 to evaluate and enhance
training for the California-USDA rapid response teams, to develop
working relationships with cooperating agencies, and to evaluate and
improve response plans. One
of six rapid response teams was a vaccination RRT with a mission of
the reception, storage and distribution of vaccines to private
practice veterinarians along with all necessary equipment. The National Animal Health Emergency Management System
Guidelines (5th draft, which is about 90% complete) were very helpful.
The vaccination teams led by 40 private dairy veterinarians
could vaccinate over 1 million cattle in 7-10 days.
California requested that 1½-2 million doses of vaccine be
delivered within 3-5 days of a confirmatory diagnosis.
However, the vaccine bank could only deliver 250,000 doses
seven days after diagnosis and 1 million doses total after 18 days.
Therefore, a vaccination strategy needed to be developed in the
midst of the exercise to determine which animals to vaccinate.
Uncertainties such as regulatory issues, trade issues, and
market place acceptability prevented the development of a vaccination
strategy.
-
A
continued national dialogue is needed to overcome the issues shown in
exercises such as “Aphtosa”.
What is the next step in this national dialogue?
Old
Business:
None.
New
Business
-
The
mission statement of the Committee was slightly modified by deletion
of the acronym “AHEM”.
-
One
resolution, “Protocol on Interstate Movement of Wild and Exotic
Animals”, was recommended for deletion.
The requested written report from USDA, APHIS, Veterinary
Services was provided to the Committee.
General
discussion:
None.
Committee
Session adjourned at 12:15 PM.
|
