Monitoring of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection in mustelids
American mink and ferret are highly susceptible to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2), but no information is available for other mustelid species. SARS‐CoV‐2 spreads very efficiently within mink farms once introduced, by direct and indirect contact, high within‐farm animal...
Saved in:
Published in | EFSA Journal Vol. 19; no. 3; pp. e06459 - n/a |
---|---|
Main Authors | , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
Format | Journal Article Web Resource |
Language | English |
Published |
United States
John Wiley & Sons, Inc
01.03.2021
John Wiley and Sons Inc Wiley |
Subjects | |
Online Access | Get full text |
Cover
Loading…
Summary: | American mink and ferret are highly susceptible to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2), but no information is available for other mustelid species. SARS‐CoV‐2 spreads very efficiently within mink farms once introduced, by direct and indirect contact, high within‐farm animal density increases the chance for transmission. Between‐farm spread is likely to occur once SARS‐CoV‐2 is introduced, short distance between SARS‐CoV‐2 positive farms is a risk factor. As of 29 January 2021, SARS‐CoV‐2 virus has been reported in 400 mink farms in eight countries in the European Union. In most cases, the likely introduction of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection into farms was infected humans. Human health can be at risk by mink‐related variant viruses, which can establish circulation in the community, but so far these have not shown to be more transmissible or causing more severe impact compared with other circulating SARS‐CoV‐2. Concerning animal health risk posed by SARS‐CoV‐2 infection the animal species that may be included in monitoring plans are American mink, ferrets, cats, raccoon dogs, white‐tailed deer and Rhinolophidae bats. All mink farms should be considered at risk of infection; therefore, the monitoring objective should be early detection. This includes passive monitoring (in place in the whole territory of all countries where animals susceptible to SARS‐CoV‐2 are bred) but also active monitoring by regular testing. First, frequent testing of farm personnel and all people in contact with the animals is recommended. Furthermore randomly selected animals (dead or sick animals should be included) should be tested using reverse transcriptase‐polymerase chain reaction (RT‐PCR), ideally at weekly intervals (i.e. design prevalence approximately 5% in each epidemiological unit, to be assessed case by case). Suspected animals (dead or with clinical signs and a minimum five animals) should be tested for confirmation of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. Positive samples from each farm should be sequenced to monitor virus evolution and results publicly shared. |
---|---|
Bibliography: | on 18 February 2021 as part of EFSA's urgent publication procedures. www.efsa.europa.eu This article was originally published on the EFSA website ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 23 This article was originally published on the EFSA website www.efsa.europa.eu on 18 February 2021 as part of EFSA's urgent publication procedures. Declarations of interest: The declarations of interest of all scientific experts active in EFSA's work are available at https://ess.efsa.europa.eu/doi/doiweb/doisearch. Approved: 29 January 2021 Acknowledgements: In addition to the listed authors, EFSA and ECDC wish to thank the following: Member State representatives who provided data on SARS‐CoV‐2 outbreaks and monitoring: Belgium – Brigitte Cay (Sciensano, Unit Enzootic, vector‐borne and bee diseases) and Philippe Houdart (Belgian Agency for Safety of the Food Chain, Crisis Management Unit); Denmark – Sten Mortensen and Francisco Fernando Calvo Artavia (Danish Veterinary and Food Administration), Jannik Fonager; Helle Daugaard Larsen; Tyra Grove Krause; Morten Rasmussen (Statens Serum Institut, Denmark); Finland – Tiia Tuupanen (Animal Health and Medication Unit, Finnish Food Authority), Ari Kauppinen (Virology Unit, Finnish Food Authority); France – Elodie Monchatre‐Leroy (ANSES, Laboratory for Rabies and wildlife); Greece – Sokratis Perdikaris (Ministry of Rural Development and Food), Anagnostis Argiriou (Centre for Research and Technology Hellas), Rengina Vorou (National Organization of Public Health), Georgios Dougas (National Organization of Public Health), Katerina Zoi (Biomedical Research Foundation, Academy of Athens); Italy – Pierdavide Lecchini (Chief Veterinary Officer); Netherlands – Annemarie Bouma and Martijn Stijntjes (Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality, Animal Supply Chain and Animal Welfare Department), Poland – Bogdan Konopka (Chief Veterinary Officer) and Krzysztof Jażdżewski (Chief Specialist, General Veterinary Inspectorate); Spain – Luis Jose Romero (Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Deputy Animal Health Sub‐director); Sweden – Håkan Henrikson (Chief Veterinary Officer); Clarice Lulai Angi (Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Animal Health Risk Assessment) for the information on monitoring activities carried out in Canada; Casey Barton Behravesh (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases) for the information on monitoring activities carried out in United States; Shyama Pagad (IUCN SSC Invasive Species Specialist Group, University of Auckland, New Zealand) for data on introduction of mink in Europe; Joaquin Vicente Baños (ENETWILD Consortium); For the revision of the report EFSA wish to thank Julio Alvarez, Paolo Calistri, Julian Drewe, Bruno Garin‐Bastuj, Mette Herskin, Miguel Angel Miranda Chueca, Liisa Sihvonen, Christoph Winckler (EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare); Sophie Von Dobschuetz, Ihab El Masry, Madhur Dhingra, Cristina Rojo, Xavier Roche (FAO, Food and Agriculture Organisation, Rome); Paolo Tizzani, Roberta Morales, Jenny Hutchison, Keith Hamilton (OIE, World Organisation for Animal Health, Paris); Alberto Contreras Fuentetaja (EMA, European Medicine Agency, Amsterdam). Question number: EFSA‐Q‐2020‐00842 Requestor: European Commission |
ISSN: | 1831-4732 1831-4732 2314-9396 |
DOI: | 10.2903/j.efsa.2021.6459 |