Key result
Oral fluid testing reduces sample sizes and cuts costs ~85% versus individual animal sampling.
Why the study?
To evaluate the potential of oral fluid testing with rRT-PCR to detect African swine fever, classical swine fever, or foot-and-mouth disease for outbreak surveillance and early detection.
Oral fluid sampling with rRT-PCR offers a potentially cost-effective and less disruptive method for foreign animal disease surveillance in U.S. swine, though diagnostic validation is still needed.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May reduce sample needs and disruption in ASF/CSF/FMD outbreaks; leaves open implementation pending validation and cost data.
INTRODUCTION: Oral fluid sampling and testing offers a convenient, unobtrusive mechanism for evaluating the health status of swine, especially grower and finisher swine. This assessment evaluates the potential testing of oral fluid samples with real-time reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) to detect African swine fever, classical swine fever, or foot-and-mouth disease for surveillance during a disease outbreak and early detection in a disease-free setting. METHODS: We used a series of logical arguments, informed assumptions, and a range of parameter values from literature and industry practices to examine the cost and value of information provided by oral fluid sampling and rRT-PCR testing for the swine foreign animal disease surveillance objectives outlined above. RESULTS: Based on the evaluation, oral fluid testing demonstrated value for both settings evaluated. The greatest value was in an outbreak scenario, where using oral fluids would minimize disruption of animal and farm activities, reduce sample sizes by 23%-40%, and decrease resource requirements relative to current individual animal sampling plans. For an early detection system, sampling every 3 days met the designed prevalence detection threshold with 0.95 probability, but was quite costly. LIMITATIONS: Implementation of oral fluid testing for African swine fever, classical swine fever, or foot-and-mouth disease surveillance is not yet possible due to several limitations and information gaps. The gaps include validation of PCR diagnostic protocols and kits for African swine fever, classical swine fever, or foot-and-mouth disease on swine oral fluid samples; minimal information on test performance in a field setting; detection windows with low virulence strains of some foreign animal disease viruses; and the need for confirmatory testing protocol development.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Beemer et al. (2019) studied African swine fever, classical swine fever, and foot-and-mouth disease. Oral fluid sampling and rRT-PCR testing vs. Current individual animal sampling plans was evaluated on Sample size and cost reduction in an outbreak scenario. In an outbreak scenario, oral fluid testing would reduce sample sizes by 23% to 40% and decrease costs by approximately 84% to 86% relative to current individual animal sampling plans.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: