Biosafety and biosecurity in veterinary laboratories

Assessment of the Biosafety and Biosecurity in the Reference Veterinary Laboratory of Parakou in Benin

Optimal biosafety and biosecurity are major requirements of global health security. This study assessed the biorisk management in the reference veterinary laboratory of Parakou (Benin). The study was cross-sectional, descriptive, and evaluative. The non-probability sampling method with the reasoned choice was used. The Food and Agriculture Organization laboratory mapping tool-safety was used to collect information from the laboratory team. Group discussion, working environment observation, and document exploitation were the data collection techniques. The biorisk management was rated good if the average indicator of the laboratory reached at least 80%. Otherwise, the biorisk management was rated insufficient. The overall laboratory biosafety and biosecurity score was insufficient (42.4%). Per area, the scores were 26.7% for engineering, 33.3% for administration, 53.8% for personal protective equipment, and 62.3% for the operational. There was no area or category score that reached 80%. Containment, waste disposal, and personal protective equipment disposal were the best performing categories with a score above 60%. The laboratory has no biosafety and accident prevention program. Its premises require renovation. The standard operating procedures for biosafety are not yet finalized, and the training mechanism is not optimal. Therefore, strong advocacy and implementation of a biorisk management improvement plan appear as urgent corrective actions which are required to help the reference veterinary laboratory of Parakou in its task to protect the livestock and, ultimately, the people of Benin from dangerous diseases and emerging pathogens.

Assessment of the Biorisk Status of Veterinary Laboratories in Southwest Nigeria: Application of the Food and Agriculture Organization Laboratory Mapping Tool-Safety Module

Introduction

Because of the nature of work conducted in veterinary laboratories and potential exposures to pathogenic microorganisms, good laboratory practices, risk assessments, biosafety, and biosecurity capacity is becoming vital. In this study, the Food and Agriculture Organization Laboratory Mapping Tool-Safety Module was applied to demonstrate its practical implementation in the assessment of biosafety and biosecurity statuses of veterinary laboratories in Nigeria.

Methods

The Laboratory Mapping Tool-Safety Module, a standardized questionnaire, systematically and semiquantitatively gathered data on 98 subcategories covering 4 areas of biosafety and biosecurity capabilities: administrative, operational, engineering, and personal protective equipment.

Results

Overall, the various areas and categories covered by the Laboratory Mapping Tool-Safety Module were weak across the board, with a mean performance of 19.5% (95% confidence interval, 14.0%-25.1%; range, 0.8%-29.6%). The weakest functionality was in emergency preparedness (0.8%; ie, emergency responses and exercises such as fire drills, spill cleanup, and biological spill kit availability). Also, many laboratories were deficient in metrology procedures, biosafety cabinets, chemical hazard containment, regular maintenance and external calibration procedures for laboratory equipment, and personnel health and safety. However, a few functionalities within individual laboratories scored above average (50%), for example, a university microbiology laboratory animal facility (100%). Interlaboratory comparison indicated that biosafety and biosecurity performance was similar across laboratories (P = .07) and did not vary by location (P = .37).

Conclusions

Significant biosafety and biosecurity improvements are needed to guarantee the health and safety of workers and the global community, efficient responses to infectious disease containment, and compliance with the Global Health Security Agenda.

Reasons for and barriers to biosafety and biosecurity training in health-related organizations in Africa, Middle East and Central Asia: findings from GIBACHT training needs assessments 2018-2019

Introduction

the Global-Partnership-Initiated-Biosecurity-Academia for Controlling Health Threats (GIBACHT) consortium conducts a biosafety and biosecurity training for fellows from Africa, the Middle East and Asia. To achieve a multiplier effect, fellows conduct trainings in their own organizations. It was during such trainings that training needs assessments were done assessing reasons for and barriers to biosafety and biosecurity training.

Methods

this was a cross sectional assessment. Trainings were conducted from April to July 2018 and April to June 2019. In 2018, training needs were explored using a structured tool. Responses were coded using manifest content analysis and key issues identified. In 2019, respondents quantified the identified key issues using a Likert scale. Proportions of those who strongly agreed, agreed, neither agreed nor disagreed, disagreed or strongly disagreed were calculated and results presented in tables and charts.

Results

in 2018 and 2019, there were 183 and 191 respondents respectively. About 96% of respondents in 2018 supported training in biosafety and biosecurity citing individual, community and global benefits. Barriers highlighted included governance, financial, human resource, information and infrastructure challenges. In 2019, majority of respondents indicated inadequate guidelines dissemination, lack of financial resources, inadequate personnel, lack of equipped laboratories and lack of instructional materials among major barriers.

Conclusion

support for biosafety and biosecurity training was high though systemic barriers exist. Improving human resource capacity and provision of instructional materials can be achieved through training programs. However, systemic assessments need to be done before each training as different organizations have different barriers.

Nipah virus: epidemiology, pathology, immunobiology and advances in diagnosis, vaccine designing and control strategies - a comprehensive review

Nipah (Nee-pa) viral disease is a zoonotic infection caused by Nipah virus (NiV), a paramyxovirus belonging to the genus Henipavirus of the family Paramyxoviridae. It is a biosafety level-4 pathogen, which is transmitted by specific types of fruit bats, mainly Pteropus spp. which are natural reservoir host. The disease was reported for the first time from the Kampung Sungai Nipah village of Malaysia in 1998. Human-to-human transmission also occurs. Outbreaks have been reported also from other countries in South and Southeast Asia. Phylogenetic analysis affirmed the circulation of two major clades of NiV as based on currently available complete N and G gene sequences. NiV isolates from Malaysia and Cambodia clustered together in NiV-MY clade, whereas isolates from Bangladesh and India clusterered within NiV-BD clade. NiV isolates from Thailand harboured mixed population of sequences. In humans, the virus is responsible for causing rapidly progressing severe illness which might be characterized by severe respiratory illness and/or deadly encephalitis. In pigs below six months of age, respiratory illness along with nervous symptoms may develop. Different types of enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays along with molecular methods based on polymerase chain reaction have been developed for diagnostic purposes. Due to the expensive nature of the antibody drugs, identification of broad-spectrum antivirals is essential along with focusing on small interfering RNAs (siRNAs). High pathogenicity of NiV in humans, and lack of vaccines or therapeutics to counter this disease have attracted attention of researchers worldwide for developing effective NiV vaccine and treatment regimens.