Transcript MIrror Groups for Brussels mtg Sept 22 2009

European Technology
Platform for Global Animal
Health
National Mirror Groups
UK Update
Brussels – Sept 22 2009
Phil Sketchley: Chairman UK Mirror Group
Chief Executive : National Office of Animal Health
Structure of UK Mirror Group
> Secretariat: VMD (Veterinary Medicines Directorate)
–
–
–
Professor Steve Dean – Chief Executive
Dr Jack Kay – VMD-R&D and Science Policy Manager
Gemma Adams – secretary
> Chair: Phil Sketchley - NOAH – National Office of Animal Health –
representing UK animal medicines industry.
Current stakeholders:
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Professor Quintin McKellar - Dean RVC- Royal Vet College
Professor Julie FitzPatrick - Chief Executive, Moredun Research Institute.
Professor John Preston MRCVS – VMD Board.
Professor Martin Shirley, IAH
Catherine McLaughlin – Animal Health and Welfare, National Farmers Union,
Dr Alex Morrow – Defra Animal Health and Welfare and Eurogap.
Professor Jim Scudamore – Liverpool Vet School & ETPGAH consultant.
Prof Martin Shirley – Inst. Of Animal Health – Compton
Dr Otto Windl –Veterinary Laboratories Agency
Prof Andy Peters – ex industry R&D + GALVmed
Dr Peter Wells – ex industry R & D and Moredun
Progress of UK Mirror Group
> 6 meetings held so far –hosted by Defra
> July 2007 to Sept 2008
> Key Actions since first meeting:
Prioritising GAPS in Research
To further assist in developing a common priority list, it
was agreed each member would submit details of
their perceived priorities:
–
–
–
–
most important exotic diseases
most important endemic diseases
most important zoonotic diseases
Now combined into one consolidated list of important areas
for further research
Review of how we
assessed the disease
priorities for:
1) Exotic
2)Endemic
3)Zoonotic
Prioritisation of Exotic, Endemic and
Zoonotic Diseases
Generic Issues
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Each Member Stare has existing research strengths many,
including expertise of scientific staff and relevant facilities to
undertake work on these diseases.
The UK National Mirror group set out to identify and harness
these centres of excellence
Some diseases may be specific to a single country or region
are important not only, for example within the UK, but also the
EU (and in many cases worldwide).
Naturally the focus is locally/national but all MGs need to be
cognisant of the needs of others both within Europe and
Internationally – a joined up approach is essential.
Technologies are available and evolving rapidly, allowing
significant advances in understanding these diseases and
developing solutions for therapy and prevention
e.g. 3 years ago Blue tongue was not perceived as a real
threat in the UK– it is now a real and present danger!!
So no one can be complacent about new disease threats
Establishing gaps – Priorities for
Future Research and Development
1) Infections are hugely important in animals by virtue
of their prevalence, diversity and impact. It is not
possible, even in advanced societies with buoyant
economics to devote sufficient resource to tackling
them all adequately.
2) In order to reap greatest benefit from the investment
available for infectious disease research it is
essential to prioritise and focus sufficient resource
to make a difference.
3) Prioritisation is inherently difficult because of the
extent of the problem, our incomplete knowledge of
true impact and different views on the relative
weighting of impact associated with for instance –
human health risk, economic impact, animal
welfare or threat to wildlife or the environment.
Establishing gaps – Priorities for
Future Research and Development
4) Nevertheless some criteria can be considered and
priorities constructed around known information and
expert opinion. Diseases of companion animals,
poultry, fish and pigs were not, at this stage,
considered and recognition was given to diseases
where major initiatives existed elsewhere
internationally and it was considered that it would be
inappropriate for the UK to replicate effort.
5) It was considered that focus would be achieved best
by intially restricting the diseases for priority
attention to four in each of three categories – Exotic
disease, Endemic disease and Zoonotic disease.
Establishing gaps – Priorities for
Future Research and Development
6) Diseases were then categorised on the basis of
likelihood of occurring (if exotic) or prevalence (if
endemic), potential impact on human health,
potential or actual economic impact and animal
welfare impact.
7) Significant consensus was reached when the above
exercise was carried out by members of the Mirror
Group blinded to each others results.
8) The outcomes were refined and agreed following
general debate within the Mirror Group.
Motivators for success?
Speed of Access to Market

Increase the translation of technologies into applications, which
are efficacious in the control of animal disease

Remove unnecessary legal and regulatory hurdles, which limit
disease control options and decrease competitiveness of the
industry

Streamline research, development and regulatory efforts in order
to ensure consumer safety without compromising the efficiency
of product development
Identified Priorities from UK Mirror Group
Avian Flu
FMD
Blue Tongue Virus
Newcastle Disease
Mastitis (multi-agent)
Tuberculosis (and paratuberculosis/diagnostic tuberculins)
Parasitic gastroenteritis
Lameness
VTEC0157
Campylobacter
Salmonella
Antibiotic Resistance
Narrative for Exotic Diseases
Prioritised on the basis that:> All have caused epidemics in the UK in the last few years
(Newcastle Disease 2006; FMD 2007; Avian Flu 2008; Blue
Tongue Disease 2007/08)
>
All have significant detrimental economic effects on the UK in
terms of trade restrictions
>
All diseases are highly infectious and control procedures other
than test and slaughter are limited for most diseases
>
All diseases cause public concern
>
All diseases are included in the OIE list of notifiable diseases
>
Avian influenza, a zoonoses, has the potential to cause
significant outbreaks of disease in the human population
>
All diseases require further R&D investment in order to
improve preventative measures
Narrative for Endemic Diseases
Prioritised on the basis that:-
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
All diseases/conditions are prevalent in the UK (and the EU).
All diseases/conditions cause significant economic loss in
terms of poor production efficiency and including wasted
carbon emissions through morbidity and mortality
(or should this be separated into economic and environmental
rather than combined the two)
All diseases/conditions cause adverse effects on the welfare of
livestock
All diseases cause public concern
All diseases require further R&D investment in order to deliver
preventative measures to industry
Bovine tuberculosis, included under mycobacterial infections,
is spreading rapidly in certain areas in England and Wales,
causing great concern in the industry and with the public.
Narrative for Zoonotic Diseases
Prioritised on the basis that:-
> All diseases/infections/issues are present
current in the UK (and EU and beyond)
> All diseases/infections/issues cause public
concern
> All diseases/infections could cause adverse
effects on the UK economy through
hospitalisation of many affected individuals
Methodology
> Each member of group submitted tables for their
scores for the agreed list of diseases
–
N.B The scoring model used was prior to the latest one
from central DISCONTOOLS group.
> Group data then complied into a consolidated list
for Minimum, Maximum and Average scoring
> More detailed statistical analysis now being
completed by Liverpool University
VTEC0157
Campylobacter
Salmonella
Antibiotic Resistance
3
5
3
3
5
3
5
3
3
5
3
3
5
3
3
5
4
3
IMPACT ON INTERNATIONAL
TRADE
Impact on international trade and
EU trade due to
existing regulation
5
5
3
4
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
4
2
4
1
3
5
1
3
5
1
3
1
2
4
2
3
4
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
3
3
1
3
3
1
3
3
1
3
3
3
3
2
2
4
4
3
3
4
4
4
4
3
3
2
3
3
4
2
3
3
3
3
3
CONTROL MEASURES
Effective prevention and control
practices
Tools for surveillance
Tools for prevention crisis
Tools for control and
implementation
Success of prevention and control
in other
countries
Tuberculosis (and
Newcastle Disease
Blue Tongue Virus
FMD
Lameness
4
5
3
gastroenteritis
3
5
3
Parasitic
3
3
4
tuberculins)
3
4
4
paratuberculosis/diagnostic
3
2
5
Mastitis (multi-agent)
5
2
5
Avian Flu
IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH
Impact on Public Health and Food
Safety
Risk of occourrence
Impact of occourrence
VTEC0157
Campylobacter
Salmonella
Antibiotic Resistance
3
3
4
3
4
4
3
4
1
3
4
3
3
4
3
3
5
4
3
5
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
4
5
2
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
4
4
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
Wildlife diseases that are a threat
Dynamic (temporal, spatial,
species variability)
1
1
1
1
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Tuberculosis (and
Newcastle Disease
Blue Tongue Virus
FMD
5
Lameness
3
4
4
gastroenteritis
3
3
4
Parasitic
4
3
1
tuberculins)
4
3
4
paratuberculosis/diagnostic
5
4
1
Mastitis (multi-agent)
3
3
1
Avian Flu
EPIDEMIOLOGY AND RISK
Speed of Risk
Number of species involved
Persistence of infectious agent
Spreading potential to susceptible
populations
Wildlife diseases risk potential
threat to animal
health and public health
Disease knowledge
VTEC0157
Campylobacter
Salmonella
Antibiotic Resistance
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
5
4
4
4
3
4
3
3
3
3
3
5
5
4
4
3
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
5
5
5
5
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
5
5
5
4
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
3
Tuberculosis (and
Newcastle Disease
Blue Tongue Virus
FMD
Lameness
3
gastroenteritis
4
Parasitic
4
tuberculins)
4
paratuberculosis/diagnostic
5
Mastitis (multi-agent)
3
Avian Flu
IMPACT ON WIDER SOCIETY
Diseases impact on production
Economic diect impact (including
cumulative cost
eg enzootic vs epizootic
Economic indirect impact (social,
trade)
Impact on specific production and
supply channels
Security of food supply/Benefit for
developing world
Total achieved
4
2
2
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
5
5
5
2
5
2
2
5
5
5
5
85
78
72
66
84
62
61
63
64
64
71
Antibiotic Resistance
Parasitic
gastroenteritis
Lameness
Tuberculosis (and
paratuberculosis/diagnostic
tuberculins)
Mastitis (multi-agent)
Newcastle Disease
Blue Tongue Virus
FMD
Avian Flu
Salmonella
81
Campylobacter
Points achieved
VTEC0157
Technology (Vaccine/Treatment) /
Tool
Availability
3
Commercial diagnostic tools
availability
2
B
C
D
E
F
G
Min
Max
Average
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3.00
1
3
1
3
1
1
1
1
3
1.67
Economic indirect impact
(social, trade)
3
3
3
5
2
3
3
2
5
3.22
Impact on specific production
and supply channels
3
3
3
5
3
3
3
3
5
3.44
Security of food supply/Benefit
for developing world
3
3
3
5
3
3
3
3
5
3.44
3
3
3
5
3
2
3
2
5
3.22
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
1
2
1.78
3
3
3
5
3
2
3
2
5
3.22
3
3
3
5
3
3
3
3
5
3.44
IMPACT ON WIDER SOCIETY
Diseases impact on production
Economic diect impact (including
cumulative cost
eg enzootic vs epizootic
IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH
Impact on Public Health and
Food Safety
Risk of occourrence
Impact of occourrence
IMPACT ON INTERNATIONAL
TRADE
Impact on international trade and
EU trade due to
existing regulation
Consensus
A
Avian Flu
Example of Scoring (Avian Flu) from members of UK
workgroup- compiled for comparison of Min Max and
Average e.g. Avian Flu (1)
B
C
D
E
F
G
Min
Max
Average
Effective prevention and control
practices
3
3
3
4
1
2
3
1
4
2.67
Tools for surveillance
2
2
2
4
2
1
2
1
4
2.22
Tools for prevention crisis
3
2
3
2
2
2
3
2
3
2.44
Tools for control and
implementation
Success of prevention and
control in other
countries
Technology (Vaccine/Treatment)
/ Tool
Availability
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
3
2.22
3
2
3
3
2
1
3
1
3
2.33
2
1
2
3
2
2
2
1
3
2.00
Commercial diagnostic tools
availability
Points achieved
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
1.78
58
57
56
81
53
54
56
53
81
61.00
CONTROL MEASURES
Total achieved
Consensus
A
Avian Flu
Example of Scoring (Avian Flu) from
members of UK workgroup (2)
C
D
E
F
G
Min
Max
Speed of Risk
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
2
3
Number of species involved
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2.78
3.00
Persistence of infectious agent
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
1.33
Spreading potential to
susceptible populations
Wildlife diseases risk potential
threat to animal
health and public health
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3.00
3
2
3
5
3
3
3
2
5
3.22
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
1.78
Wildlife diseases that are a
threat
1
2
0
1
3
0
0
3
1.25
Dynamic (temporal, spatial,
species variability)
1
3
0
1
2
0
0
5
1.89
EPIDEMIOLOGY AND RISK
Disease knowledge
5
Consensus
B
Average
A
Avian Flu
Example of Scoring (Avian Flu) from
members of UK workgroup (3)
AVIAN FLU
FMD
BTV
NEWCASTLE
MASTITIS
TB
PGE
LAMENESS
VTEC 0157
CAMPYLOBACTER
SALMONELLA
Speed of Risk
2.78
3.44
2.78
2.88
1.89
2.22
2.00
1.67
1.89
2.00
2.33
Number of species involved
3.00
2.67
2.44
2.50
2.22
2.78
2.78
2.89
2.56
2.78
2.89
Persistence of infectious agent
1.33
2.22
2.78
2.13
3.00
3.22
2.67
2.44
1.89
2.00
2.11
Spreading potential to susceptible populations
3.00
3.44
2.78
3.00
2.89
2.89
2.67
2.00
2.56
2.67
2.56
life diseases risk potential threat to animal health and public health 3.22
1.78
1.44
2.13
1.00
3.22
1.00
1.00
1.33
1.22
2.00
AVERAGES OF ALL PRIORITISED DISEASES
EPIDEMIOLOGY AND RISK
Disease knowledge
1.78
1.67
1.67
1.38
2.00
2.44
1.56
1.78
1.78
1.56
1.56
Wildlife diseases that are a threat
1.25
1.44
1.44
1.50
0.78
3.00
1.22
1.00
1.22
1.22
1.78
Dynamic (temporal, spatial, species variability)
1.89
2.44
2.44
1.25
1.33
1.78
1.44
1.00
1.67
1.44
1.89
3.00
3.44
2.78
3.25
2.78
2.56
2.78
2.44
1.78
1.78
2.33
mic diect impact (including cumulative cost eg enzootic vs epizootic1.67
3.22
2.89
2.75
2.89
2.33
2.67
2.56
1.78
1.78
2.33
IMPACT ON WIDER SOCIETY
Diseases impact on production
Economic indirect impact (social, trade)
3.22
3.44
3.00
2.88
1.78
2.33
1.67
1.78
2.11
1.89
2.11
Impact on specific production and supply channels
3.44
3.44
3.22
3.13
1.89
2.11
1.56
1.67
1.78
2.22
2.33
Security of food supply/Benefit for developing world
3.44
2.67
2.89
2.75
1.44
1.78
1.78
1.33
1.56
1.89
2.00
AVIAN FLU
FMD
BTV
NEWCASTLE
MASTITIS
TB
PGE
LAMENESS
VTEC 0157
CAMPYLOBACTER
SALMONELLA
Impact on Public Health and Food Safety
3.22
1.56
1.56
1.63
1.56
2.22
1.67
1.44
3.44
3.22
3.11
Risk of occourrence
1.78
1.44
2.11
1.63
2.56
2.44
2.22
2.11
2.00
2.44
2.22
Impact of occourrence
3.22
2.22
2.00
2.13
1.89
2.78
1.67
1.67
2.56
2.44
2.67
3.44
3.44
2.56
2.88
1.00
1.78
1.00
1.22
1.56
1.33
1.67
Effective prevention and control practices
2.67
2.67
3.00
3.25
1.44
1.44
1.89
1.67
1.78
2.00
2.00
Tools for surveillance
2.22
1.67
1.56
1.25
1.67
2.33
1.67
1.78
1.89
2.22
2.00
Tools for prevention crisis
2.44
2.22
1.89
1.75
2.13
2.88
1.75
1.88
2.22
2.25
2.00
Tools for control and implementation
2.22
2.00
1.56
1.38
2.11
2.33
1.89
2.22
2.22
2.67
2.22
Success of prevention and control in other countries
2.33
2.00
1.67
2.13
1.89
2.33
1.44
1.56
1.56
1.78
1.89
Technology (Vaccine/Treatment) / Tool Availability
2.00
2.22
2.00
1.88
2.11
2.44
1.78
2.00
2.22
2.11
2.00
Commercial diagnostic tools availability
1.78
2.44
2.78
2.25
1.67
2.67
1.56
1.78
2.33
2.44
2.33
61.00
59.33
55.56
42.78
46.33
58.56
44.22
42.67
47.11
49.22
52.00
AVERAGES OF ALL PRIORITISED DISEASES
IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH
IMPACT ON INTERNATIONAL TRADE
mpact on international trade and EU trade due toexisting regulation
CONTROL MEASURES
Points achieved
Total achieved
Communication at national level
> It is important that national mirror groups should have
a wide cross section of stakeholders e.g.
–
–
–
–
–
–
Research institutes and Universities.
Medicine / Vaccine research industry
Regulators – medicines and disease control bodies
Chief Veterinary Officers
Food Industry
Farming community and animal species specialists
> Knowledge transfer and awareness in essential
e.g. Presentations to 2009 conference for AVTRW The Association for Veterinary Teaching and
Research Work / VIF Meeting in Denmark etc…
Next Stage – 2010 Activities
> UK Mirror Group meet last week
> Reviewed and approved analysis of data just
presented.
> Agreed to submit our data to central ETPGAH Mirror
Group and DisConTools group
> Then decide if we need to repeat our priority template
using latest Discontool scoring system
> Extend the UK group to a wider audience of
interested stakeholders