Search

The European Observatory of Wildlife (EOW) as part of the ENETWILD project aims progressively developing integrated wildlife monitoring (population abundance and pathogens). The present report shows how to link the wildlife population monitoring (by camera trapping) and wildlife disease surveillance at European scale, by using environmental sampling over 15 study areas of the EOW from 10 Countries (4 study areas in 4 countries will be incorporated next). We specifically focused on multi‐host pathogens Mycobacterium tuberculosis Complex (bacteria, MTC), and Hepatitis E virus (HEV). The aims of this trial were, first, to evaluate the harmonized implementation of a simple field sampling protocol for detecting zoonotic pathogens in environmental samples (standing water) through a network of wildlife professionals at European level. Secondly, we got insights for future improved strategies of wildlife integrated monitoring through environmental sampling. This trial prioritized the inclusion of a diverse array of study areas and a simple sampling approach rather than complex protocols and illustrated. We evidenced the importance of supporting such a coordinate network of wildlife professionals to progressively improve strategies, protocols, the general design, sampling, target matrix, selected pathogens, preservation and transport of samples, analytical techniques, and sample and data flow. We discuss specific results on pathogens, remarking the detection of the MTC in certain areas. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present report describes and maps the main existing structures and systematic initiatives and academic activities for surveillance in the EU for transboundary, emerging and re‐emerging zoonoses in domestic animals, wildlife, and the environment, developed by the different sectors, namely human, domestic animal, wildlife and environmental, under One Health approach. This is essential to provide scientific and technical advice and improve future schemes of surveillance. A questionnaire was compiled by MSs and the information collected was complemented by literature reviews about (i) the main existing structures and systematic initiatives or activities, and (ii) academic activities for surveillance in the EU for zoonoses in domestic animals and wildlife. We focused on a 50 zoonotic diseases that were pre‐selected for the prioritisation exercise by the One Health working group of EFSA. In total, 21 countries returned the questionnaire. The analysis of zoonotic disease surveillance evidenced that high fragmentation of surveillance programmes occurs in Europe and therefore the main challenge to integrate One Health surveillance is to integrate different surveillance programmes and One Health sectors to progress towards multi‐host and multi‐sector surveillance programmes. When different sectors oversee the coordination of surveillance programmes, the subsequent integration over the different phases of surveillance is enhanced. A structured approach is needed to determine priorities for surveillance and the approach to be used in European surveillance schemes to achieve a higher benefit‐cost ratio with existing or reduced resources. The literature review indicated potential relevance of the hunting sector to participate in surveillance programmes and a bias towards research in vector‐borne pathogens and vectors by the academia; experience that can be used to build One health surveillance. Recommendations are provided for further implementation of One health surveillance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A small proportion of disease surveillance programs target environment compartment, and in the EU these are restricted to few countries. The present report is composed of two literature reviews (i) on the main existing structures and systematic/academic initiatives for surveillance in the EU for zoonoses in the environment, and (ii) on the methods for pathogen surveillance in the environment. Concerning (i), it is noteworthy that the most frequently reported objective was to evaluate control and eradication strategies and following trends of zoonosis. However, detecting new pathogens or unusual epidemiological events were scarcely reported as objectives, as well as demonstrating freedom from a particular pathogen, despite the big potential that environmental sampling and testing techniques have recently demonstrated for these purposes. Few of the pathogens prioritised by EFSA were represented in this literature review, indicating the potential of environmental techniques to be applied to a larger extent to detect relevant transboundary and (re)emergent zoonoses. The preferred environmental sample was water, followed by biological material (included faecal material) and vectors (mosquitoes). To a much lesser extent, soil, and other matrices were used. Regarding (ii) the pathogen detection and identification methods were divided into: conventional (culture and biochemistry‐based, and immunology‐based); molecular methods (nucleic acid‐based methods); biosensor‐based (new) and others. A large percentage of available assays for the detection and surveillance of pathogens in the environment focuses on hazards that are not among those pre‐selected by EFSA. Therefore, there is a need for development of new, untested, methods for surveillance of listed pathogens of higher epidemiological importance. Less disturbed areas, natural and wild environments are less covered by environmental sampling techniques than urban and farm environments and should therefore receive higher attention since they may hold undiscovered and potentially epidemiologically significant hazards and hosts. In general, molecular methods, namely the nucleic‐acid based methods, are the ones more commonly and widely used for pathogen detection in environmental samples, and can be developed for virtually any organism, given a sufficient effort to identify specific DNA/RNA sequences unique to the target organism. The usefulness and appropriateness of different environmental matrices for detecting specific pathogens or for specific purposes are discussed and recommendations are provided. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]