comprehensive discussion of pedv n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Comprehensive Discussion of PEDv PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Comprehensive Discussion of PEDv

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 42

Comprehensive Discussion of PEDv - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 268 Views
  • Uploaded on

Comprehensive Discussion of PEDv. 2014 Pork Management Conference June 19, 2014 Dr. Harry Snelson AASV. Disease Discovery. Looks like TGE… Acts like TGE…. Ain’t TGE. PEDV Timeline – May 2013. Outcome of retrospective testing & on-boarding PEDV PCR .

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Comprehensive Discussion of PEDv' - kateb


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
comprehensive discussion of pedv

Comprehensive Discussion of PEDv

2014 Pork Management Conference

June 19, 2014

Dr. Harry Snelson

AASV

disease discovery

Disease Discovery

Looks like TGE…

Acts like TGE….

Ain’t TGE

slide6

* for the weeks prior to 6-17-13, laboratories were able to provide diagnostic case submissions and number of premises testing positive for PEDv. Starting 6-17-13, the data are limited to ONLY diagnostic case submission numbers (aka Swine Accessions)

clinical signs
Clinical Signs
  • Clinically indistinguishable from TGE
    • Alpha coronavirus
    • Fecal-oral pathogen
    • Profuse diarrhea and vomiting
    • High mortality rates in neonatal pigs
    • High morbidity, lower mortality as pigs age
  • Not zoonotic, not a food safety concern
diagnostics
Diagnostics
  • PCR – ready quickly
  • Serology
    • IFA
    • ELISA
  • No VI – virus is difficult to grow
  • Bioassay to prove infectivity/viability
    • Time consuming
    • Expensive
    • Lacks sensitivity
ped virus
PED virus
  • New to North America
  • In Europe in 1970’s
  • Current virus present in Asia
    • U.S. virus 99+ % similar to 2012 isolate from Anhui Province in China
  • U.S. swine herd naïve, 100% susceptible
  • No vaccine
  • Easily transmitted
response
Response
  • USDA designated PED a “transboundary” disease
    • Not reportable
    • Non-regulatory
    • Production disease like PRRS or PCV
    • Turned the response over to the swine industry
  • NPB, NPPC and AASV coordinated effort with USDA to understand the epidemiology and develop a response strategy
  • Transmitted via contaminated manure
  • Concentrated on elevating biosecurity
aasv response
AASV Response
  • Collaboration with producer groups, state/federal/international animal health officials
  • Outreach/education of veterinary members
    • Meeting at WPX
    • Website updated weekly
    • Collaborate with NPB on research efforts and educational outreach to producers
  • Epidemiology efforts
    • Initial introduction survey
    • RRT participation
veterinary survey
Veterinary Survey
  • Concern: How did this virus come into the U.S.?
  • Objective: Identify any risk factors potentially associated with the introduction of the PEDv into the U.S. swine herd
  • Survey designed by AASV, NPB, NPPC & USDA-CEAH
  • Administered by practitioners, data transferred to CEAH via link designed by FAZD at Texas A&M
  • Data analyzed by CEAH
  • Questionnaire examined > 100 variables
  • 25 case herds, 18 matched control herds
survey results
Survey Results
  • Only seven variables were considered significantly likely to have some association with the introduction of PEDv
  • These seven risk factors were associated with the process of feeding the animals.
  • Did not implicate any specific finished feed, feed ingredient, feed manufacturer or ingredient supplier.
response1
Response
  • Development of 3 working groups
    • Biocontainment
      • How to limit spread off an infected premises
    • Biosecurity Transport
      • Review, modify, recommend biosecurity plans for transport, shows/exhibitions, producers
    • Packing Plant
      • Recommend biosecurity principles for packing plants, buying stations, etc
  • These working groups have developed a number of guides targeting biosecurity published on NPB website
research
Research
  • Pork Board -- $3 million for PEDv research
    • Rapid response to research call
    • Research objectives
      • Diagnosis
      • Pathogenesis
      • Environmental stability
      • Epidemiology
      • surveillance
    • Shortened timeline
      • 13 days to identify and initiate research projects
      • Progress updates every two weeks
      • Six month deadline
research1
Research
  • NPB, NPPC and AASV funded a study by Dr. Jim Lowe to look at transmission in harvest plant lairage.
lairage study
Lairage Study
  • Trailers do become contaminated at packing plants due in part to movement of drivers
  • The more contact that occurs, the higher the rate of contamination
research2
Research
  • Dr. Matthew Turner surveyed cull sow buying stations in NC
    • Minimal biosecurity in place
    • Virus present, likely transmission occurring
    • Willingness on the part of the managers to make changes
future research focus for ped
Future research focus for PED
  • Funding:
    • NPB - $650,000
    • AFIA - $100,000
    • Genome Alberta - $500,000
    • NGFA - $60,000
  • Formation and duration of immunity after infection; What level of immunity is needed for full protection?
  • Can immunity be overwhelmed?
  • Continued development and implementation of surveillance strategies for PED
  • Evaluate strategies for trailer disinfection
feed as a possible vector
Feed as a possible vector
  • AASV survey identified feed as likely associated with the introduction
  • Feed has anecdotally been associated with outbreaks
  • Numerous bioassays on suspect feed and ingredients have been unable to confirm feed as a source
slide27

Feed Testing

May-June, 2013:  NVSL tested feed, mineral and vitamin premixes and dried

plasma samples.  Laboratory testing results (PCR) were negative except for dried

plasma products.

June, 2013:  NVSL conducted a bioassay using a vitamin premix and plasma. 

The bioassay pigs did not show evidence of infection through testing of the feces

and serology.

July, 2013:  NVSL conducted a bioassay using dried plasma that was obtained

from the blender.  The bioassay pigs did not show evidence of infection through

testing of the feces and serology.

Feb., 2014:  NVSL tested dried plasma from the manufacturer. 

The samples were positive utilizing the real time PCR assay, and confirmatory testing is being conducted utilizing the nested PCR.

March, 2014:  The bioassay for the last group of plasma samples is currently on test. 

feed as a possible vector1
Feed as a possible vector
  • Private research– has been able to transmit PEDv via feed to naïve pigs
  • Canada achieved a positive bioassay using spray dried porcine blood plasma but not feed pellets
educational outreach
Educational Outreach
  • AASV.org
  • Pork.org
guidelines for diagnosis of ped virus
Guidelines for Diagnosis of PED Virus
  • Lab diagnosis needed for determining site status
  • Managing biosecurity or biocontainment
  • Specifics of specimen collection
    • Feces
    • Oral fluids
canadian experience
Canadian Experience
  • January 23 – PEDv confirmed in Ontario
  • February – CFIA announces PCR positive feed
    • Positive bioassay with U.S. origin porcine blood plasma
    • Negative feed bioassay
  • Has since spread to multiple farms in Ontario and one each in Quebec, Manitoba, and PEI
what we ve learned
What We’ve Learned
  • Although similar to TGE, PEDv is a different bug
    • More active in warmer environments
    • More difficult to control in a sow herd
    • Clinical picture can be more severe
    • Apparently no cross protection with TGE or PRCV
    • Huge amounts of virus are present
  • Holes in our defense layers – obviously exist but hard to identify
    • Biosecurity at all levels should be evaluated
    • Particular emphasis on transport, packing plants
what we ve learned1
What We’ve Learned
  • VDLs responded quickly but challenges with ability to communicate effectively
    • Tools exist today to facilitate this communication
      • FAZD has done an excellent job working with industry to facilitate the transfer of information
    • VDLs and NAHLN have stepped up to try to provide weekly data on new cases but…
      • Without PINs the data is suspect
      • Current mechanism is too labor intensive and archaic
what we ve learned2
What We’ve Learned
  • The use and ability to capture PINs would significantly improve data sharing
  • Challenges exist with defining roles government and industry with transboundary diseases
  • We are seeing “rebreaks” in 30 – 40% of herds
  • Swine Deltacoronavirus introduction???
swine deltacoronavirus
Swine Deltacoronavirus
  • Clinically looks like TGE/PED but tests negative
    • Differential PCR available
  • 1st seen in Hong Kong in 2012
  • Identified in Ohio in February
  • Identified in Canada in March
acknowledgements
Acknowledgements
  • Dr. Matt Ackerman – Swine Vet Services
  • Dr. Rodger Main – ISU VDL
  • Dr. Brian McCluskey – USDA CEAH