EC Wildlife Conference 5th May 2015
WHEN Foot-and-Mouth Disease GOES WILD
It forces a rethink - and demands new approaches
Keith Sumption (EuFMD) Sergei Khomenko, Sinan Aktas, Daniel Beltran (FAO), Tsviatko Alexandrov (BFSA), Naci Bulut (SAP, Ankara) Foot-and-Mouth Disease (FMD) and wildlife
FMDV extremely infectious – and rightly feared
EU is recognised as free - also the European part of Turkey (Thrace)
Even a single small outbreak in Europe is extremely damaging (100 m €+, to countries if involved in extensive trade).
Foot-and-Mouth Disease (FMD) and wildlife
Short lived period of infectivity (hit and run agent) : (NB carcasses may aid persistence)) Domestic and wild pigs easily infected by oral route and shed very large quantities of virus WIDE Range of wildlife species can be infected (ruminants mainly by aerosols) European wildlife species susceptible: wild boar, all deer species, chamois, mouflon, ibex,…(hedgehogs) Natural reservoir in African buffalo (long term carriers), probably original host before adaptation in evolution to cattle/other species Wildlife might acquire from domestic animals /carcasses of dead wildlife (gazelle-wild boar cycle Israel) Experimental • incubation period 4 days; • most severe and evident lesions infection of wild – 7th Day PI; • Viraemia: 1 DPI through at least boar 9 DPI; • NSP antibodies detected 7-8 DPI; • Virus RNA in saliva normally found up to 14 DPI and up to DPI 24 DPI (intermittently). • Later and less severe signs than domesticated pigs
CREDITS: A. Breithaupt, K. Depner, B. Haas, M. Beer (FLI – Federal Research Institute for Animal Health Institute of Diagnostic Virology) 1*1 km + = resolution density data product
If wild boar important as natural long term reservoir might expect intra- and inter-regional spread of FMDV strains through wildlife - No evidence
Khomenko, Robinson, Gilbert (in prep.) Historical range of Sus scrofa FMD in wild boar:
1. Caucasus 1902 1908 1911 2 1917 5 1919 1925
2. Kazakh- 1927 1 stan 1931 1941 3 2011 ? 4 3. Kyrgyz- 1953 stan
4. Israel 1987- 1999 2007 2011 ?
5. Europe 1920s? 2011 Marek & Hutÿra, 1931; Sludskiy, 1956; Danilkin, 2002 Foot-and-Mouth Disease and European wildlife
Until 2011 No evidence of wildlife involvement in the recent major epidemics in Europe 1920s-2007 It was assumed wildlife will have limited role in domestic FMD outbreaks (spillovers of limited consequence)
SHOCK !!!! FMD in Bulgaria- 2011 Detected first in hunted wild boar lab staff familiar with FMD Lesions along coronary band FMDV detected and reported bovines 194 South East Bulgaria 2011 sheep 117 goats 149 Kosti – the village of the bones. pigs 72 Index Case
30th Dec 2010: wild boar shot nr Kosti - with lesions 9h January – 7th April: 11 outbreaks in domestic animals Two main foci separated in time and space FAO-EU FMD /EC/OIE Tripartitt Group Meeting,Plovdiv, Bulgaria, 25 March,2011 ------
FAO-EU FMD /EC/OIE Tripartite Group Meeting, Plovdiv, Bulgaria, 25 March,2011 Bulgarian FMD epidemic: many missing links between the waves of domestic animal cases
Secon Phase/wave March -April
Goliamo Black Sea Bukovo
Fakia Granichar Kirovo
Kosti
Wild boar First phase/wave January/February Rezovo
Turkey FMD virus genome sequencing: evidence for undetected transmissions – did these occur in wild life? Credit: Begoña Valdazo-Gonzalez, Nick J. Knowles, Donald P. King
30/12/2010 BUL/1/2010 Wild boar 02/2011 8 nt changes 12LPN1 Kosti 02/2011 4 nt changes 14 nt changes 12LPN3
Rezovo 6 nt changes BUL/11/11 26/07/2010 changes
Kirovo nt
(Bursa) 19/03/2011
31 4 nt changes
TUR/926/2010 28/03/2011 BUL/26/11 13 nt changes 28/03/2011 Granichar BUL/20/11 11 nt changes BUL/30/11 Golyamo Fakia Bukovo 01/04/2011 Putative common ancestor of Bulgarian wild board and first phase of the outbreaks Putative common ancestor of the second phase of the Bulgarian outbreaks FMD antibody +ve Wild Boar in Thrace Problems – the FMD epidemic in Thrace • Entry of infection to free region - unable to prove if started in wild animals or domestic • Duration of epidemic in domestic stock: 4 months • Total period to regain freedom : 17 months (UK 2001, 11 months) • Extremely difficult to prove freedom when wildlife have been shown to be involved • Issues between neighbouring countries re: wildlife – fear of being infection being driven across borders
EFSA, 2012; Alexandrov et al (in prep.), Dhollander et al (in prep.) Modelling of the Thrace epidemic (EFSA Opinion 2012, Lange 2012) : suggested wildlife alone in this area will not maintain infection but timescales are NOT comforting (duration ~1-4 years, 80 km radius). Note: WB density 2.2/km Every day lost to FMD costs €€€ in lost trade.
Duration: B – Boar, D- deer. B+D = Distance of spread from origin mixed species model Conclusions – the FMD epidemic in Thrace
Very well analysed and reported in the EFSA Opinion (10) 4, : 2635, 2012 Epidemiologically: – Fade –out in wildlife within months – Transmission between livestock and wildlife was both ways (facilitated by humans?); – Disease event in wildlife developed in winter and died away end of spring – NOT highest density wildlife and domestic interactions in Europe – longer persistence elsewhere??? On surveillance – Hunting or trapping wild boar – problematic, severe limitations – Antibodies in wildlife do not indicate WHEN infection occurred – Far more intensive sampling of wildlife (for active infection) needed than possible – Early detection (~1 month after introduction) needs 59 shot per week throughout year)* – Tragetted, risk based surveillace needed- but how?
Research supported by DG-SANTE through EuFMD, 2011-15
1. How frequent are FMD spill-overs to wild boar? Studies in Turkey (Anatolia, 2011-12) 2. Tracking wild boar movements – tools for potential in epidemic situations 3. Development of non-invasive approaches to survey wildlife without capture/killing (2012-15)
Surveillance in wild boar for FMD 2011- 2012 ANATOLIA (TR) Dec 2011 – Feb 2012 N=252
THRACE (BG+TR) Jan 2011 – Jan 2012 N=1004 Sero-positivity to FMDV
Thrace (epidemic O) versus Anatolia (endemic O, A, Asia)
AGE THRACE ANATOLIA GROUP n NSP+ (95 % CI), % n NSP+ (95 % CI), % P
ADULT 628 9.1 (6.9 – 11.6) 185 24.9 (18.3 - 32.4) <0.05
JUVENILE 358 5.6 (3.4 – 8.5) 67 7.5 (2.5 - 16.6) ns
ALL 1004 7.8 (6.2-9.6) 252 20.2 (15.5 - 25.7) <0.05
NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SEXES FOUND, ONLY BETWEEN AGES Implications for disease surveillance and control
1. FMD spillover to wild boar is a frequent event 2. Infection in WB correlates with disease occurrence in livestock, particularly in SR. 3. Spillovers may develop into localised epidemics (3-6 months) affecting up to 20 % of the population and virus spread for to 15-20 km 4. Winter is most risky period for horizontal transmission of FMD in wild boar population; 5. Different serotypes may perform differently in wild boar. Telemetry project
Strandzha – 4 (2) Tutrakan – 15 (7) • 20 GPS/GSM Tellus collars (1 year – 24 fixes a day); • 19 animals collared, 16 collars used (6 reused), 4 were BULGARIA destroyed / failed, 1 lost; • Sex, age, and seasonal variation in home ranges; • Individual movements and group interactions in a small population (70 animals) to simulate disease spread.
http://www.followit.se/wildliferesearch.html
Tracking: year round study. Animals send multiple SMS per day on their locations Valuable insights on potential spillovers – but very hard to use in a crisis 4-year male, 1 Jan - 22 March – 894 positions –a total of 338 km
Crossed Danube into Romania one occasion Development of natural sampling methods Chichikin et (“non-invasive”) al, 2012 • Saliva contains pathogens of interest • Uses baits attractive to animals to chew/suck • Aims at early detection of pathogen, but might work for antibody • No killing of animals involved (repeated sampling, cost effectiveness, logistical simplicity) • Proof of concept studies - 2012
EXPERIMENT WITH A TAME WILD BOAR EASY TO INCORPORATE ANY SWABS INTO
6 1
7 2
8 3
SUITED FOR COMMERCIAL FEEDERS 9 4
10 5 Non-invasive sampling for FMD – method optimisation Optimised tests or virus (PCR) Comparison of bait (pSWAB) and Q-Tips in maize cobs Comparable sensitivities Detection of FMDV days 1 to 9 (experimental infection pigs) Promising stability (for field use) Studies commissioned by EuFMD at FLI, Insel Riems, 2014: Putting it together : promising options for surveillance and control of FMD epidemics in wildlife
1. Use risk based, non- invasive methods for DETECTING spread into wildlife
Risk based, where spill over or incursion expected
May require feeding wild boar – prelude to NI sampling in risk locations 2. Manage: natural territoriality and anticipated local movements. Avoid dispersion peace time or crisis.
From Telemetry studies Escaping in BG: hunting • WB normally small home ranges 5-30 km2 Daytime (more during hunting) • Very boring schedules
Nighttime • Disrupted by only food availability or disturbance Future farrowing • Individuals may switch area home ranges repeatedly 1 hour resolution movements of a tracked wild boar sow in Bulgaria Use local expertise on expected local movements
Young male Movements January dispersal of males and rut
Farrowing
Pre- hunting stock
Re- unification Movements of female to crops & groups food-rich June areas 3. Put this into Contingency Plans - use of feeding sites and non-invasive measures if infection detected
Consider: Integrated approach Use of feeding programmes to encourage bait use and avoid dispersion Use of feeding sites to accelerate natural process of infection and recovery (natural immunity, shorter duration epidemic) Risks Advantages- active use of options for non- invasive surveillance to monitor impact of controls ANIMO Active, Non-Invasive Management of Outbreaks Suite of approaches including NI sampling and Accelerated Natural Immunity (ANI)
Detect
Manage
Prove free Infection in one hunting area but Natural spread? not another: example of natural Antibody positive “local burn out””controlling animals in more than spread? one area… 1. Low density feeding is used throughout the risk period; 2. FMDV detected through NI surveillance; ANIMO - 3. Hunting suspended & over feeding applied; 4. Increase transmission rate and fragment population; FUTURE FMD 5. Disease fades out and natural herd immunity will prevent further local spread( +useful immunity vs re- management introduction from domestic cycle); 6. Use NI sampling for evidence for local virus extinction scenario 7. Repeat cycle as needed
State border Feeding stations:
a)Early NI detection b)Population High risk of FMD introduction (e.g. Thrace, Caucasus) management The way ahead: an integrated approach?
Contingency planning to protect wildlife populations and minimise impact if overspill occurs Operationalise plans to 1. Prevent - reduce spillovers from domestic animal infections Risks practises identified, targetted measures/communication 2. Manage epidemics in wildlife more actively : Part of FMD contingency planning (not only domestic!) ANIMO approach – including NI sampling of wildlife and ANI (accelerated natural immunity) 3. Recover : Use NI (non-invasive) sampling to prove freedom
ANIMO approaches need optimisation and testing in the field – options in Turkey , Caucasus and parts of mid-east for FMD Thank you
Acknowledgement: the support that was provided rapidly from DG-SANTE through the EuFMD Research Fund to enable these studies. The Government of Turkey for positive, continuous support to field work.
Don’t Forget!
In Europe:
20 – 22 million FMD susceptible ungulates after reproduction