EFSA收到了欧盟委员会的授权,根据关于传染性动物疾病的法规(EU)2016/429(“动物卫生法”)评估A类清单中某些疾病控制措施的有效性。该意见属于将评估这些控制措施的一系列意见,该意见涵盖了对猪瘟(CSF)控制措施的评估。在这个观点中,EFSA和AHAW专家小组审查了:(i)临床和实验室采样程序的有效性,(ii)监测期和(iii)保护区和监测区的最小半径,以及在这些地区应用这些措施的最短时间。用于这一系列意见的一般方法已在其他地方发表;尽管如此,本文介绍了用于回答这些问题的模型的详细信息,以及用于评估保护区和监视区最小半径的传输内核。在评估开始之前,设计并商定了必须评估这些控制措施的几种方案。这里,就如何提高某些抽样程序的有效性提出了一些建议。根据病毒引入和脑脊液怀疑报告之间的平均时间长度,监测期间被评估为无效.以类似的方式,建议保护区和监视区的措施期限从15天增加到25天,监视区从30天增加到40天。最后,对现有CSF内核的分析表明,如果发生传播,保护半径和监测区占受影响机构感染的99%.为评估的每种情况提供的建议旨在支持欧洲委员会起草进一步的立法,以及与CSF有关的合理的临时请求。
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 Classical swine fever (CSF). 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, details of the model used for answering these questions are presented in this opinion as well as the transmission kernels used for the assessment of the minimum radius of the protection and surveillance zones. Several scenarios for which these control measures had to be assessed were designed and agreed prior to the start of the assessment. Here, several recommendations are given on how to increase the effectiveness of some of the sampling procedures. Based on the average length of the period between virus introduction and the reporting of a CSF suspicion, the monitoring period was assessed as non-effective. In a similar way, it was recommended that the length of the measures in the protection and surveillance zones were increased from 15 to 25 days in the protection zone and from 30 to 40 days in the surveillance zone. Finally, the analysis of existing Kernels for CSF suggested that the radius of the protection and the surveillance zones comprise 99% of the infections from an affected establishment if transmission occurred. Recommendations provided for each of the scenarios assessed aim to support the European Commission in the drafting of further pieces of legislation, as well as for plausible ad hoc requests in relation to CSF.