Mechanistic modelling of African swine fever: A systematic review

• Published in: Preventive veterinary medicine Vol. 191; p. 105358
• Main Authors: Hayes, Brandon H., Andraud, Mathieu, Salazar, Luis G., Rose, Nicolas, Vergne, Timothée
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Netherlands Elsevier B.V 01.06.2021
• Subjects: African swine fever; Life Sciences; Modelling; Phylogenetic tree; Systematic review; DTU-DADS-ASF; African swine fever; CI; Phylogenetic tree; Be-FAST; Systematic review; HPDI; EU; ASF; IBM; SEI; SI; CSF; PBM; Modelling; CrI; ASFV; FMD; NAADSM; SEIR
• ISSN: 0167-5877; 1873-1716; 0167-5877
• DOI: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2021.105358

•Mechanistic models show great potential for confronting African swine fever spread.•More transmission parameters need to be derived from empirical data.•Models incorporating ASF transmission between pigs and boar must be developed.•Moving from comparison to optimization of control strategies is critical. The spread of African swine fever (ASF) poses a grave threat to the global swine industry. Without an available vaccine, understanding transmission dynamics is essential for designing effective prevention, surveillance, and intervention strategies. These dynamics can often be unraveled through mechanistic modelling. To examine the assumptions on transmission and objectives of the mechanistic models of ASF, a systematic review of the scientific literature was conducted. Articles were examined across multiple epidemiological and model characteristics, with filiation between models determined through the creation of a neighbor-joined tree using phylogenetic software. Thirty-four articles qualified for inclusion, with four main modelling objectives identified: estimating transmission parameters (11 studies), assessing determinants of transmission (7), examining consequences of hypothetical outbreaks (5), assessing alternative control strategies (11). Population-based (17), metapopulation (5), and individual-based (12) model frameworks were represented, with population-based and metapopulation models predominantly used among domestic pigs, and individual-based models predominantly represented among wild boar. The majority of models (25) were parameterized to the genotype II isolates currently circulating in Europe and Asia. Estimated transmission parameters varied widely among ASFV strains, locations, and transmission scale. Similarly, parameter assumptions between models varied extensively. Uncertainties on epidemiological and ecological parameters were usually accounted for to assess the impact of parameter values on the modelled infection trajectory. To date, almost all models are host specific, being developed for either domestic pigs or wild boar despite the fact that spillover events between domestic pigs and wild boar are evidenced to play an important role in ASF outbreaks. Consequently, the development of more models incorporating such transmission routes is crucial. A variety of codified and hypothetical control strategies were compared however they were all a priori defined interventions. Future models, built to identify the optimal contributions across many control methods for achieving specific outcomes should provide more useful information for policy-makers. Further, control strategies were examined in competition with each other, which is opposed to how they would actually be synergistically implemented. While comparing strategies is beneficial for identifying a rank-order efficacy of control methods, this structure does not necessarily determine the most effective combination of all available strategies. In order for ASFV models to effectively support decision-making in controlling ASFV globally, these modelling limitations need to be addressed.