Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation

Assessment of the control measures of the category A diseases of Animal Health Law: sheep and goat pox

EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW) et al. EFSA J. .

Abstract

EFSA received a mandate from the European Commission to assess the effectiveness of some of the control measures against diseases included in the Category A list according to Regulation (EU) 2016/429 on transmissible animal diseases ('Animal Health Law'). This opinion belongs to a series of opinions where these control measures will be assessed, with this opinion covering the assessment of control measures for sheep and goat pox. In this opinion, EFSA and the AHAW Panel of experts review the effectiveness of: (i) clinical and laboratory sampling procedures, (ii) monitoring period and (iii) the minimum radii of the protection and surveillance zones, and the minimum length of time the measures should be applied in these zones. The general methodology used for this series of opinions has been published elsewhere; nonetheless, the transmission kernels used for the assessment of the minimum radii of the protection and surveillance zones are shown. Several scenarios for which these control measures had to be assessed were designed and agreed prior to the start of the assessment. Different risk-based sampling procedures based on clinical visits and laboratory testing are assessed in case of outbreak suspicion, granting animal movements and for repopulation purposes. The monitoring period of 21 days was assessed as effective. The estimated probability of transmission beyond the protection zone of 3 km radius from an infectious establishment is 9.6% (95% CI: 3.1-25.8%) and 2.3% (95% CI: 1-5.5%) for the surveillance zone of 10 km radius. This may be considered sufficient to contain the disease spread (95% probability of containing transmission corresponds to 5.3 Km). To contain 99% of the spread, the radius should be increased to 19.4 km (95% CI: 9.8-26.8). This may increase the number of farms in the surveillance zone, since the area would increase fourfold.

Keywords: SPP/GTP; monitoring period; protection zone; sampling procedures; surveillance zone.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Historical geographic distribution of SPP/GTP (modified from Tuppurainen et al., 2017)
Figure 2
Figure 2
Map of countries with reported outbreaks of SPP/GTP between 2010 and 2020 (Data sources: OIE)
Figure 3
Figure 3
Within‐herd dynamics of sheep and goat pox virus in a herd of 100 small ruminants


  1. The plots show the median (solid line) and 95% prediction interval (shading) for the number of exposed animals (first column; magenta), infectious animals (second column; red), recovered animals (third column; blue) and cumulative number of dead animals (fourth column; cyan) for four scenarios under different mortality rates in a flock of 100 animals (rows; see Table 2 for details).

Figure 4
Figure 4
PRISMA diagram SPP/GTP Monitoring period
Figure 5
Figure 5
Kernels for the transmission of sheep and goat pox

  1. Parameters were estimated by fitting the models to data on a sheep pox epidemic in the Evros region of Greece, 2013–2015.

See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

  • Assessment of the control measures of the category A diseases of Animal Health Law: Rift Valley Fever.
    EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW); Nielsen SS, Alvarez J, Bicout DJ, Calistri P, Canali E, Drewe JA, Garin-Bastuji B, Gonzales Rojas JL, Gortázar C, Herskin M, Michel V, Miranda Chueca MÁ, Roberts HC, Padalino B, Pasquali P, Spoolder H, Ståhl K, Calvo AV, Viltrop A, Winckler C, Gubbins S, Broglia A, Aznar I, Van der Stede Y. EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW), et al. EFSA J. 2022 Jan 19;20(1):e07070. doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2022.7070. eCollection 2022 Jan. EFSA J. 2022. PMID: 35079289 Free PMC article.
  • Assessment of the control measures of the category A diseases of Animal Health Law: peste des petits ruminants.
    EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW); Nielsen SS, Alvarez J, Bicout DJ, Calistri P, Canali E, Depner K, Drewe JA, Garin-Bastuji B, Gonzales Rojas JL, Gortázar C, Herskin M, Michel V, Miranda Chueca MÁ, Padalino B, Pasquali P, Roberts HC, Sihvonen LH, Spoolder H, Ståhl K, Velarde A, Viltrop A, Winckler C, Gubbins S, Libeau G, Broglia A, Aznar I, Van der Stede Y. EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW), et al. EFSA J. 2021 Jul 30;19(7):e06708. doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2021.6708. eCollection 2021 Jul. EFSA J. 2021. PMID: 34354766 Free PMC article.
  • Assessment of the control measures of the category A diseases of Animal Health Law: Classical Swine Fever.
    EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW); Nielsen SS, Alvarez J, Bicout DJ, Calistri P, Canali E, Drewe JA, Garin-Bastuji B, Gonzales Rojas JL, Gortázar Schmidt C, Herskin M, Michel V, Miranda Chueca MÁ, Padalino B, Pasquali P, Sihvonen LH, Spoolder H, Ståhl K, Velarde A, Viltrop A, Winckler C, Gubbins S, Stegeman JA, Antoniou SE, Aznar I, Broglia A, Lima E, Van der Stede Y, Zancanaro G, Roberts HC. EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW), et al. EFSA J. 2021 Jul 21;19(7):e06707. doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2021.6707. eCollection 2021 Jul. EFSA J. 2021. PMID: 34306220 Free PMC article.
  • [Single-donor (apheresis) platelets and pooled whole-blood-derived platelets--significance and assessment of both blood products].
    Hitzler WE. Hitzler WE. Clin Lab. 2014;60(4):S1-39. doi: 10.7754/clin.lab.2014.140210. Clin Lab. 2014. PMID: 24779310 Review. German.
  • International travel-related control measures to contain the COVID-19 pandemic: a rapid review.
    Burns J, Movsisyan A, Stratil JM, Biallas RL, Coenen M, Emmert-Fees KM, Geffert K, Hoffmann S, Horstick O, Laxy M, Klinger C, Kratzer S, Litwin T, Norris S, Pfadenhauer LM, von Philipsborn P, Sell K, Stadelmaier J, Verboom B, Voss S, Wabnitz K, Rehfuess E. Burns J, et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 Mar 25;3(3):CD013717. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013717.pub2. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021. PMID: 33763851 Free PMC article.
See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Afshar A, Bundza A, Myers DJ, Dulac GC and Thomas FC, 1986. Sheep pox: experimental studies with a west African isolate. The Canadian Veterinary Journal = La revue veterinaire canadienne, 27, 301–306. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Anderson D and Watson R, 1980. On the spread of a disease with gamma distributed latent and infectious periods. Biometrika, 67, 191–198.
    1. Ayalet G, Fasil N, Jembere S, Mekonen G, Sori T and Negussie H, 2012. Study on immunogenicity of combined sheep and goat pox and peste des petitis ruminants vaccines in small ruminants in Ethiopia. African Journal of Microbiology Research, 6, 7212–7217.
    1. Babiuk S, Wallace D, Smith S, Bowden T, Dalman B, Parkyn G, Copps J and Boyle D, 2009. Detection of antibodies against capripoxviruses using an inactivated sheeppox virus ELISA. Transboundary and Emerging Diseases, 56, 132–141. - PubMed
    1. Bhanuprakash V, Indrani BK, Hosamani M and Singh RK, 2006. The current status of sheep pox disease. Comparative immunology, microbiology and infectious diseases, 29, 27–60. - PubMed