Emerging zoonoses: tackling the challenges

Harnessing Clinical Trial Capacity to Mitigate Zoonotic Diseases: The Role of Expert Scientists in Ethiopia

Background: The emergence and resurgence of zoonotic diseases have continued to be a major threat to global health and the economy. Developing countries are particularly vulnerable due to agricultural expansions and domestication of animals with humans. Scientifically sound clinical trials are important to find better ways to prevent, diagnose, and treat zoonotic diseases, while there is a lack of evidence to inform the clinical trials' capacity and practice in countries highly affected with the diseases. This study aimed to investigate expert scientists' perceptions and experiences in conducting clinical trials toward zoonotic diseases in Ethiopia.

Methods: This study employed a descriptive, qualitative study design. It included major academic and research institutions in Ethiopia that had active engagements in veterinary and public health researches. It included the National Veterinary Institute, the National Animal Health Diagnostic and Investigation Center, the College of Veterinary Medicine at Addis Ababa University, the Ethiopian Public Health Institute, the Armauer Hansen Research Institute, and the College of Health Sciences at Addis Ababa University. In-depth interviews were conducted with expert scientists. Data were collected from October 2019 to April 2020. Data analysis was undertaken using open code 4.03 for qualitative data analysis.

Results: Five major themes, with 18 sub-themes, emerged from the in-depth interviews. These were: challenges in the prevention, control, and treatment of zoonotic diseases; One Health approach to mitigate zoonotic diseases; personal and institutional experiences in conducting clinical trials on zoonotic diseases; barriers in conducting clinical trials toward zoonotic diseases; and strategies that promote conducting clinical trials on zoonotic diseases. Conducting clinical trials on zoonotic diseases in Ethiopia is hampered by a lack of clearly articulated ethics and regulatory frameworks, trial experts, financial resources, and good governance.

Conclusion: In Ethiopia, conducting clinical trials on zoonotic diseases deserves due attention. Strengthening institutional and human resources capacity is a pre-condition to harness effective implementation of clinical trials on zoonotic diseases in the country. In Ethiopia where skilled human resource is scarce, One Health approach has the potential to form multidisciplinary teams to systematically improve clinical trials capacity and outcomes in the country.

Making Vector-Borne Disease Surveillance Work: New Opportunities From the SDG Perspectives

Surveillance of vector-borne diseases (VBDs) exemplifies a One Health approach, which entails coordinated, collaborative, multidisciplinary, and cross-sectoral approaches to address potential or existing health risks originating at the animal-human-ecosystem interface. However, at the intervention stage of the surveillance system, it is sometimes difficult or even impossible to act. The human dimension of VBD control makes them wicked problems requiring an interdisciplinary systems approach beyond the One Health domain. Here, we make a case that the agenda of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) can offer new opportunities to address these issues. The health of the population is a concern to us all and is more or less related to all 17 SDGs. The SDGs can provide a common language by which the interests of various stakeholders can be matched and the challenges that society faces identified, studied, and alleviated. To illustrate, the control and prevention of two VBDs, dengue and Lyme borreliosis, were selected and related to specific SDGs. Further, we use the framework proposed by the International Council of Science to: (1) show synergies and trade-offs between the various SDGs; and (2) present SDG 3 to identify policy that can be related to prevention. Engaging in an integrated approach will confront stakeholders with various viewpoints and through these oppositions, innovation can be nurtured. By adhering to the SDG agenda, we present policy advice including new opportunities for vector-borne disease control to reach its own health goals, while simultaneously supporting other sustainable development goals.

Establishing research priorities to improve the One Health efficacy of Australian general practitioners and veterinarians with regard to zoonoses: A modified Delphi survey

While general medical practitioners (GPs) and veterinarians are often the first line responders in the face of a disease outbreak, pathways to improving the One Health efficacy of these clinicians remain unclear. A two-phase modified Delphi survey of professionals with known expertise in One Health (‘expert panel’) was used to 1) identify key knowledge, attitudes and practices (KAPs) of GPs and veterinarians that would be consistent with a One Health approach to zoonoses; and 2) determine priorities for future surveys with Australian GPs and veterinarians to identify important gaps that impede effective diagnosis and management of zoonoses. A list of 13 topics/sub-topics, as well as a list of 25 specific zoonotic diseases/agents emerged from the first phase of the survey. In the second phase the expert panel identified general knowledge of the clinical aspects and epidemiological aspects of zoonoses, as well as risk management practices, as the most important KAPs and research priorities for both GPs and veterinarians. In terms of diseases, the expert panel regarded knowledge of Hendra virus, Q fever, Australian bat lyssavirus (ABLV), anthrax and Brucella suis most important for veterinarians, whilst for GPs, Q fever, gastrointestinal/foodborne diseases, influenza, ABLV and local vector-borne diseases were found to be most important by the expert panel. Some differences were noted in terms of prioritization of topics/sub-topics and diseases/agents according to expert background (veterinary and non-veterinary). The Delphi survey technique enabled efficient collection of data from a diverse range of One Health ‘experts’/specialists and provided clear priorities for proposed future research, and potentially for educational interventions to improve One Health efficacy of clinicians.

•

Delphi survey identified research priorities to improve One Health efficacy of clinicians.

•

Top priority: GP and veterinarian knowledge of clinical aspects, epidemiology and risk management of zoonoses.

•

Top 5 diseases for veterinarians: Hendra, ABLV, Q fever, anthrax and B. suis.

•

Top 5 diseases for GPs: Q fever, GI/foodborne diseases, influenza, and local vectorborne diseases.

•

Participants with veterinary background prioritised collaboration and referral.

The challenges of implementing an integrated One Health surveillance system in Australia

As 75 per cent of emerging infectious diseases are of animal origin, a One Health approach that integrates the health of humans, animals and the environment could provide an earlier opportunity for zoonotic disease detection and prevention. In Australia, human, animal and ecological health are managed by separate sectors with limited communication. This study aims to explore how professionals in these fields perceive a One Health approach to zoonotic disease surveillance, aiming to identify the challenges to the implementation of an integrated system in Australia. Using a qualitative research method, ten semistructured interviews were conducted with academic experts to gain insight into the possibility of developing an integrated surveillance system in Australia. A thematic analysis of the data was undertaken. Findings showed the absence of a clear definition and subsequent vision for the future of One Health act as a barrier to interdisciplinary collaboration, and that siloed approaches by different sectors restrict the ability for professionals to work collaboratively across disciplines. An understanding of disease transmission was considered by participants to be a necessary requirement for a successful One Health approach. Finally, participants considered political will an essential requirement for the integration of surveillance systems. This study demonstrates that for a One Health approach to be implemented in an Australian setting, those working in the fields of human, animal and ecological health must agree on several aspects. The establishment of a formal governance body with representatives from each sector could assist in overcoming long‐standing barriers of privacy and distrust. Further, developing interdisciplinary training in One Health concepts for medical, environmental and veterinary students may encourage cross‐disciplinary collaboration. Finally, demonstrating to policymakers the economic benefit of improved and timely detection of zoonoses may help in facilitating a structured One Health approach to disease surveillance in Australia.