Vaccination against foot-and-mouth disease: do initial conditions affect its benefit?

T Porphyre, HK Auty, MJ Tildesley,, GJ Gunn, MEJ Woolhouse

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

17 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

When facing incursion of a major livestock infectious disease, the decision to implement a vaccination programme is made at the national level. To make this decision, governments must consider whether the benefits of vaccination are sufficient to outweigh potential additional costs, including further trade restrictions that may be imposed due to the implementation of vaccination. However, little consensus exists on the factors triggering its implementation on the field. This work explores the effect of several triggers in the implementation of a reactive vaccination-to-live policy when facing epidemics of foot-and-mouth disease. In particular, we tested whether changes in the location of the incursion and the delay of implementation would affect the epidemiological benefit of such a policy in the context of Scotland. To reach this goal, we used a spatial, premises-based model that has been extensively used to investigate the effectiveness of mitigation procedures in Great Britain. The results show that the decision to vaccinate, or not, is not straightforward and strongly depends on the underlying local structure of the population-at-risk. With regards to disease incursion preparedness, simply identifying areas of highest population density may not capture all complexities that may influence the spread of disease as well as the benefit of implementing vaccination. However, if a decision to vaccinate is made, we show that delaying its implementation in the field may markedly reduce its benefit. This work provides guidelines to support policy makers in their decision to implement, or not, a vaccinationto- live policy when facing epidemics of infectious livestock disease.
Original languageEnglish
Article number77616
JournalPLoS ONE
Volume8
Issue number10 e77616
DOIs
Publication statusPrint publication - 4 Oct 2013

Fingerprint

foot and mouth disease
vaccination
livestock
infectious disease
population density
mitigation
decision
cost
policy

Bibliographical note

1023410

Keywords

  • Epidemiology
  • Foot-and-mouth disease
  • Infectious livestock disease
  • Vaccination

Cite this

Porphyre, T ; Auty, HK ; Tildesley, MJ ; Gunn, GJ ; Woolhouse, MEJ. / Vaccination against foot-and-mouth disease: do initial conditions affect its benefit?. In: PLoS ONE. 2013 ; Vol. 8, No. 10 e77616.
@article{41e8e9ffb818429b9ab95206483b4ba5,
title = "Vaccination against foot-and-mouth disease: do initial conditions affect its benefit?",
abstract = "When facing incursion of a major livestock infectious disease, the decision to implement a vaccination programme is made at the national level. To make this decision, governments must consider whether the benefits of vaccination are sufficient to outweigh potential additional costs, including further trade restrictions that may be imposed due to the implementation of vaccination. However, little consensus exists on the factors triggering its implementation on the field. This work explores the effect of several triggers in the implementation of a reactive vaccination-to-live policy when facing epidemics of foot-and-mouth disease. In particular, we tested whether changes in the location of the incursion and the delay of implementation would affect the epidemiological benefit of such a policy in the context of Scotland. To reach this goal, we used a spatial, premises-based model that has been extensively used to investigate the effectiveness of mitigation procedures in Great Britain. The results show that the decision to vaccinate, or not, is not straightforward and strongly depends on the underlying local structure of the population-at-risk. With regards to disease incursion preparedness, simply identifying areas of highest population density may not capture all complexities that may influence the spread of disease as well as the benefit of implementing vaccination. However, if a decision to vaccinate is made, we show that delaying its implementation in the field may markedly reduce its benefit. This work provides guidelines to support policy makers in their decision to implement, or not, a vaccinationto- live policy when facing epidemics of infectious livestock disease.",
keywords = "Epidemiology, Foot-and-mouth disease, Infectious livestock disease, Vaccination",
author = "T Porphyre and HK Auty and MJ Tildesley, and GJ Gunn and MEJ Woolhouse",
note = "1023410",
year = "2013",
month = "10",
day = "4",
doi = "10.1371/journal.pone.0077616",
language = "English",
volume = "8",
journal = "PLoS ONE",
issn = "1932-6203",
publisher = "Public Library of Science",
number = "10 e77616",

}

Vaccination against foot-and-mouth disease: do initial conditions affect its benefit? / Porphyre, T; Auty, HK; Tildesley, MJ; Gunn, GJ; Woolhouse, MEJ.

In: PLoS ONE, Vol. 8, No. 10 e77616, 77616, 04.10.2013.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Vaccination against foot-and-mouth disease: do initial conditions affect its benefit?

AU - Porphyre, T

AU - Auty, HK

AU - Tildesley,, MJ

AU - Gunn, GJ

AU - Woolhouse, MEJ

N1 - 1023410

PY - 2013/10/4

Y1 - 2013/10/4

N2 - When facing incursion of a major livestock infectious disease, the decision to implement a vaccination programme is made at the national level. To make this decision, governments must consider whether the benefits of vaccination are sufficient to outweigh potential additional costs, including further trade restrictions that may be imposed due to the implementation of vaccination. However, little consensus exists on the factors triggering its implementation on the field. This work explores the effect of several triggers in the implementation of a reactive vaccination-to-live policy when facing epidemics of foot-and-mouth disease. In particular, we tested whether changes in the location of the incursion and the delay of implementation would affect the epidemiological benefit of such a policy in the context of Scotland. To reach this goal, we used a spatial, premises-based model that has been extensively used to investigate the effectiveness of mitigation procedures in Great Britain. The results show that the decision to vaccinate, or not, is not straightforward and strongly depends on the underlying local structure of the population-at-risk. With regards to disease incursion preparedness, simply identifying areas of highest population density may not capture all complexities that may influence the spread of disease as well as the benefit of implementing vaccination. However, if a decision to vaccinate is made, we show that delaying its implementation in the field may markedly reduce its benefit. This work provides guidelines to support policy makers in their decision to implement, or not, a vaccinationto- live policy when facing epidemics of infectious livestock disease.

AB - When facing incursion of a major livestock infectious disease, the decision to implement a vaccination programme is made at the national level. To make this decision, governments must consider whether the benefits of vaccination are sufficient to outweigh potential additional costs, including further trade restrictions that may be imposed due to the implementation of vaccination. However, little consensus exists on the factors triggering its implementation on the field. This work explores the effect of several triggers in the implementation of a reactive vaccination-to-live policy when facing epidemics of foot-and-mouth disease. In particular, we tested whether changes in the location of the incursion and the delay of implementation would affect the epidemiological benefit of such a policy in the context of Scotland. To reach this goal, we used a spatial, premises-based model that has been extensively used to investigate the effectiveness of mitigation procedures in Great Britain. The results show that the decision to vaccinate, or not, is not straightforward and strongly depends on the underlying local structure of the population-at-risk. With regards to disease incursion preparedness, simply identifying areas of highest population density may not capture all complexities that may influence the spread of disease as well as the benefit of implementing vaccination. However, if a decision to vaccinate is made, we show that delaying its implementation in the field may markedly reduce its benefit. This work provides guidelines to support policy makers in their decision to implement, or not, a vaccinationto- live policy when facing epidemics of infectious livestock disease.

KW - Epidemiology

KW - Foot-and-mouth disease

KW - Infectious livestock disease

KW - Vaccination

U2 - 10.1371/journal.pone.0077616

DO - 10.1371/journal.pone.0077616

M3 - Article

VL - 8

JO - PLoS ONE

JF - PLoS ONE

SN - 1932-6203

IS - 10 e77616

M1 - 77616

ER -