The global trade in wildlife has historically contributed to the emergence and spread of infectious diseases. The United States is the world's largest importer of wildlife and wildlife products, yet ...minimal pathogen surveillance has precluded assessment of the health risks posed by this practice. This report details the findings of a pilot project to establish surveillance methodology for zoonotic agents in confiscated wildlife products. Initial findings from samples collected at several international airports identified parts originating from nonhuman primate (NHP) and rodent species, including baboon, chimpanzee, mangabey, guenon, green monkey, cane rat and rat. Pathogen screening identified retroviruses (simian foamy virus) and/or herpesviruses (cytomegalovirus and lymphocryptovirus) in the NHP samples. These results are the first demonstration that illegal bushmeat importation into the United States could act as a conduit for pathogen spread, and suggest that implementation of disease surveillance of the wildlife trade will help facilitate prevention of disease emergence.
Celotno besedilo
Dostopno za:
DOBA, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SIK, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
Novel Eurasian lineage avian influenza A(H5N8) virus has spread rapidly and globally since January 2014. In December 2014, H5N8 and reassortant H5N2 viruses were detected in wild birds in Washington, ...USA, and subsequently in backyard birds. When they infect commercial poultry, these highly pathogenic viruses pose substantial trade issues.
Celotno besedilo
Dostopno za:
DOBA, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, ODKLJ, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SIK, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
The ongoing global pandemic caused by coronavirus disease has once again demonstrated the role of the family Coronaviridae in causing human disease outbreaks. Because severe acute respiratory ...syndrome coronavirus 2 was first detected in December 2019, information on its tropism, host range, and clinical manifestations in animals is limited. Given the limited information, data from other coronaviruses might be useful for informing scientific inquiry, risk assessment, and decision-making. We reviewed endemic and emerging infections of alphacoronaviruses and betacoronaviruses in wildlife, livestock, and companion animals and provide information on the receptor use, known hosts, and clinical signs associated with each host for 15 coronaviruses detected in humans and animals. This information can be used to guide implementation of a One Health approach that involves human health, animal health, environmental, and other relevant partners in developing strategies for preparedness, response, and control to current and future coronavirus disease threats.
Celotno besedilo
Dostopno za:
DOBA, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, ODKLJ, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SIK, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
Prior to the emergence of the A/goose/Guangdong/1/1996 (Gs/GD) H5N1 influenza A virus, the long‐held and well‐supported paradigm was that highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) outbreaks were ...restricted to poultry, the result of cross‐species transmission of precursor viruses from wild aquatic birds that subsequently gained pathogenicity in domestic birds. Therefore, management agencies typically adopted a prevention, control, and eradication strategy that included strict biosecurity for domestic bird production, isolation of infected and exposed flocks, and prompt depopulation. In most cases, this strategy has proved sufficient for eradicating HPAI. Since 2002, this paradigm has been challenged with many detections of viral descendants of the Gs/GD lineage among wild birds, most of which have been associated with sporadic mortality events. Since the emergence and evolution of the genetically distinct clade 2.3.4.4 Gs/GD lineage HPAI viruses in approximately 2010, there have been further increases in the occurrence of HPAI in wild birds and geographic spread through migratory bird movement. A prominent example is the introduction of clade 2.3.4.4 Gs/GD HPAI viruses from East Asia to North America via migratory birds in autumn 2014 that ultimately led to the largest outbreak of HPAI in the history of the United States. Given the apparent maintenance of Gs/GD lineage HPAI viruses in a global avian reservoir; bidirectional virus exchange between wild and domestic birds facilitating the continued adaptation of Gs/GD HPAI viruses in wild bird hosts; the current frequency of HPAI outbreaks in wild birds globally, and particularly in Eurasia where Gs/GD HPAI viruses may now be enzootic; and ongoing dispersal of AI viruses from East Asia to North America via migratory birds, HPAI now represents an emerging disease threat to North American wildlife. This recent paradigm shift implies that management of HPAI in domestic birds alone may no longer be sufficient to eradicate HPAI viruses from a given country or region. Rather, agencies managing wild birds and their habitats may consider the development or adoption of mitigation strategies to minimize introductions to poultry, to reduce negative impacts on wild bird populations, and to diminish adverse effects to stakeholders using wildlife resources. The main objective of this review is, therefore, to provide information that will assist wildlife managers in developing mitigation strategies or approaches for dealing with outbreaks of Gs/GD HPAI in wild birds in the form of preparedness, surveillance, research, communications, and targeted management actions. Resultant outbreak response plans and actions may represent meaningful steps of wildlife managers toward the use of collaborative and multi‐jurisdictional One Health approaches when it comes to the detection, investigation, and mitigation of emerging viruses at the human‐domestic animal‐wildlife interface.
Highly pathogenic avian influenza has become sufficiently common and geographically widespread in wild birds such that it now represents an emergent disease threat to North American wildlife. This review aims to provide information that will assist wildlife managers in developing mitigation strategies or approaches for dealing with future outbreaks in wild birds in the form of preparedness, surveillance, research, communications, and targeted management actions.
Emerging diseases are increasing burdens on public health, negatively affecting the world economy, causing extinction of species, and disrupting ecological integrity. One Health recognizes that ...human, domestic animal, and wildlife health are interconnected within ecosystem health and provides a framework for the development of multidisciplinary solutions to global health challenges. To date, most health-promoting interventions have focused largely on single-sector outcomes. For example, risk for transmission of zoonotic pathogens from bush-meat hunting is primarily focused on human hygiene and personal protection. However, bush-meat hunting is a complex issue promoting the need for holistic strategies to reduce transmission of zoonotic disease while addressing food security and wildlife conservation issues. Temporal and spatial separation of humans and wildlife, risk communication, and other preventative strategies should allow wildlife and humans to co-exist. Upstream surveillance, vaccination, and other tools to prevent pathogen spillover are also needed. Clear multi-sector outcomes should be defined, and a systems-based approach is needed to develop interventions that reduce risks and balance the needs of humans, wildlife, and the environment. The ultimate goal is long-term action to reduce forces driving emerging diseases and provide interdisciplinary scientific approaches to management of risks, thereby achieving optimal outcomes for human, animal, and environmental health.
Coordinated wildlife disease surveillance (WDS) can help professionals across disciplines effectively safeguard human, animal, and environmental health. The aims of this study were to understand how ...WDS in Thailand is utilized, valued, and can be improved within a One Health framework. An online questionnaire was distributed to 183 professionals (55.7% response rate) across Thailand working in wildlife, marine animal, livestock, domestic animal, zoo animal, environmental, and public health sectors. Twelve semi-structured interviews with key professionals were then performed. Three-quarters of survey respondents reported using WDS data and information. Sectors agreed upon ranking disease control (76.5% of respondents) as the most beneficial outcome of WDS, while fostering new ideas through collaboration was valued by few participants (2.0%). Accessing data collected by one's own sector was identified as the most challenging (50%) yet least difficult to improve (88.3%). Having legal authority to conduct WDS was the second most frequently identified challenge. Interviewees explained that legal documentation required for cross-institutional collaborations posed a barrier to efficient communication and use of human resources. Survey respondents identified allocation of human resources (75.5%), adequate budget (71.6%), and having a clear communication system between sectors (71.6%) as highest priority areas for improvement to WDS in Thailand. Authorization from administrative officials and support from local community members were identified as challenges during in-person interviews. Future outreach may be directed toward these groups. As 42.9% of marine health professionals had difficulty knowing whom to contact in other sectors and 28.4% of survey respondents indicated that communication with marine health professionals was not applicable to their work, connecting the marine sector with other sectors may be prioritized. This study identifies priorities for addressing current challenges in the establishment of a general WDS system and information management system in Thailand while presenting a model for such evaluation in other regions.
•Accessing one's own sector data is most challenging yet easiest to improve.•Encouraging marine sector participation in One Health may improve social cohesion.•Increased zoo, environmental, and public health representation in surveys is suggested•Interviewees emphasized the need for community knowledge, support, and engagement.•Better understanding of the value of surveillance by administrators would be beneficial
Abstract
Research with captive wildlife in Animal Biosafety Level 2 (ABSL2) and 3 (ABSL3) facilities is becoming increasingly necessary as emerging and re-emerging diseases involving wildlife have ...increasing impacts on human, animal, and environmental health. Utilizing wildlife species in a research facility often requires outside the box thinking with specialized knowledge, practices, facilities, and equipment. The USGS National Wildlife Health Center (NWHC) houses an ABSL3 facility dedicated to understanding wildlife diseases and developing tools to mitigate their impacts on animal and human health. This review presents considerations for utilizing captive wildlife for infectious disease studies, including, husbandry, animal welfare, veterinary care, and biosafety. Examples are drawn from primary literature review and collective 40-year experience of the NWHC. Working with wildlife in ABSL2 and ABSL3 facilities differs from laboratory animals in that typical laboratory housing systems, husbandry practices, and biosafety practices are not designed for work with wildlife. This requires thoughtful adaptation of standard equipment and practices, invention of customized solutions and development of appropriate enrichment plans using the natural history of the species and the microbiological characteristics of introduced and native pathogens. Ultimately, this task requires critical risk assessment, understanding of the physical and psychological needs of diverse species, creativity, innovation, and flexibility. Finally, continual reassessment and improvement are imperative in this constantly changing specialty area of infectious disease and environmental hazard research.
The virus that causes COVID‐19 likely evolved in a mammalian host, possibly Old‐World bats, before adapting to humans, raising the question of whether reverse zoonotic transmission to bats is ...possible. Wildlife management agencies in North America are concerned that the activities they authorize could lead to transmission of SARS‐CoV‐2 to bats from humans. A rapid risk assessment conducted in April 2020 suggested that there was a small but significant possibility that SARS‐CoV‐2 could be transmitted from humans to bats during summer fieldwork, absent precautions. Subsequent challenge studies in a laboratory setting have shed new information on these risks, as has more detailed information on human epidemiology and transmission. This inquiry focuses on the risk to bats from winter fieldwork, specifically surveys of winter roosts and handling of bats to test for white‐nose syndrome or other research needs. We use an aerosol transmission model, with parameter estimates both from the literature and from formal expert judgment, to estimate the risk to three species of North American bats, as a function of several factors. We find that risks of transmission are lower than in the previous assessment and are notably affected by chamber volume and local prevalence of COVID‐19. Use of facemasks with high filtration efficiency or a negative COVID‐19 test before field surveys can reduce zoonotic risk by 65 to 88%.
The COVID-19 pandemic has re-focused attention on mechanisms that lead to zoonotic disease spillover and spread. Commercial wildlife trade, and associated markets, are recognized mechanisms for ...zoonotic disease emergence, resulting in a growing global conversation around reducing human disease risks from spillover associated with hunting, trade, and consumption of wild animals. These discussions are especially relevant to people who rely on harvesting wildlife to meet nutritional, and cultural needs, including those in Arctic and boreal regions. Global policies around wildlife use and trade can impact food sovereignty and security, especially of Indigenous Peoples. We reviewed known zoonotic pathogens and current risks of transmission from wildlife (including fish) to humans in North American Arctic and boreal biomes, and evaluated the epidemic and pandemic potential of these zoonoses. We discuss future concerns, and consider monitoring and mitigation measures in these changing socio-ecological systems. While multiple zoonotic pathogens circulate in these systems, risks to humans are mostly limited to individual illness or local community outbreaks. These regions are relatively remote, subject to very cold temperatures, have relatively low wildlife, domestic animal, and pathogen diversity, and in many cases low density, including of humans. Hence, favorable conditions for emergence of novel diseases or major amplification of a spillover event are currently not present. The greatest risk to northern communities from pathogens of pandemic potential is via introduction with humans visiting from other areas. However, Arctic and boreal ecosystems are undergoing rapid changes through climate warming, habitat encroachment, and development; all of which can change host and pathogen relationships, thereby affecting the probability of the emergence of new (and re-emergence of old) zoonoses. Indigenous leadership and engagement in disease monitoring, prevention and response, is vital from the outset, and would increase the success of such efforts, as well as ensure the protection of Indigenous rights as outlined in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Partnering with northern communities and including Indigenous Knowledge Systems would improve the timeliness, and likelihood, of detecting emerging zoonotic risks, and contextualize risk assessments to the unique human-wildlife relationships present in northern biomes.
ABSTRACT
Introduction
Clinical knowledge surrounding functional outcomes of a powered knee–ankle (PKA) device is limited, particularly among younger and active populations with limb loss. Here, three ...service members (SM) with unilateral transfemoral limb loss received an optimally tuned PKA prosthesis and device-specific training.
Materials and Methods
Once proficiency with the PKA device was demonstrated on benchmark activities, and outcomes with the PKA and standard-of-care (SoC) prostheses were obtained via a modified graded treadmill test, 6-minute walk test, and overground gait assessment.
Results
All SM demonstrated proficiency with the PKA prosthesis within the minimum three training sessions. With the PKA versus SoC prosthesis, cost of transport during the modified graded treadmill test was 4.0% ± 5.2% lower at slower speeds (i.e., 0.6-1.2 m/s), but 7.0% ± 5.1% greater at the faster walking speeds (i.e., ≥1.4 m/s). For the 6-minute walk test, SM walked 83.9 ± 13.2 m shorter with the PKA versus SoC prosthesis. From the overground gait assessment, SM walked with 20.6% ± 10.5% greater trunk lateral flexion and 31.8% ± 12.8% greater trunk axial rotation ranges of motion, with the PKA versus SoC prosthesis.
Conclusions
Compared to prior work with the PKA in a civilian cohort, although SM demonstrated faster device proficiency (3 versus 12 sessions), SM walked with greater compensatory motions compared to their SoC prostheses (contrary to the civilian cohort). As such, it is important to understand patient-specific factors among various populations with limb loss for optimizing device-specific training and setting functional goals for occupational and/or community reintegration, as well as reducing the risk for secondary complications over the long term.
PDF
