Explore the vast range of titles available.

A systematic review was conducted by a multidisciplinary team to analyze qualitatively best available scientific evidence on the effect of agricultural intensification and environmental changes on the risk of zoonoses for which there are epidemiological interactions between wildlife and livestock. The study found several examples in which agricultural intensification and/or environmental change were associated with an increased risk of zoonotic disease emergence, driven by the impact of an expanding human population and changing human behavior on the environment. We conclude that the rate of future zoonotic disease emergence or reemergence will be closely linked to the evolution of the agriculture-environment nexus. However, available research inadequately addresses the complexity and interrelatedness of environmental, biological, economic, and social dimensions of zoonotic pathogen emergence, which significantly limits our ability to predict prevent, and respond to zoonotic disease emergence.

The role and significance of wildlife–livestock interfaces in disease ecology has largely been neglected, despite recent interest in animals as origins of emerging diseases in humans. Scoping review methods were applied to objectively assess the relative interest by the scientific community in infectious diseases at interfaces between wildlife and livestock, to characterize animal species and regions involved, as well as to identify trends over time. An extensive literature search combining wildlife, livestock, disease, and geographical search terms yielded 78,861 publications, of which 15,998 were included in the analysis. Publications dated from 1912 to 2013 and showed a continuous increasing trend, including a shift from parasitic to viral diseases over time. In particular there was a significant increase in publications on the artiodactyls–cattle and bird–poultry interface after 2002 and 2003, respectively. These trends could be traced to key disease events that stimulated public interest and research funding. Among the top 10 diseases identified by this review, the majority were zoonoses. Prominent wildlife–livestock interfaces resulted largely from interaction between phylogenetically closely related and/or sympatric species. The bird–poultry interface was the most frequently cited wildlife–livestock interface worldwide with other interfaces reflecting regional circumstances. This review provides the most comprehensive overview of research on infectious diseases at the wildlife–livestock interface to date.

We estimated the weighted mean basic reproduction number (R ) of chikungunya virus based on outbreak size. R was 3.4 (95% CI 2.4-4.2) and varied for 2 primary chikungunya mosquito vectors: 4.1 (95% CI 1.5-6.6) for Aedes aegypti and 2.8 (95% CI 1.8-3.8) for Ae. albopictus.

The global focus on wildlife as a major contributor to emerging pathogens and infectious diseases (EIDs) in humans and domestic animals is not based on field, experimental or dedicated research, but mostly on limited surveys of literature, opinion and the assumption that biodiversity harbours pathogens. The perceived and direct impacts of wildlife, from being a reservoir of certain human and livestock pathogens and as a risk to health, are frequently overstated when compared to the Global burden of disease statistics available from WHO, OIE and FAO. However organisms that evolve in wildlife species can and do spill-over into human landscapes and humans and domestic animal population and, where these organisms adapt to surviving and spreading amongst livestock and humans, these emerging infections can have significant consequences. Drivers for the spill-over of pathogens or evolution of organisms from wildlife reservoirs to become pathogens of humans and domestic animals are varied but almost without exception poorly researched. The changing demographics, spatial distribution and movements, associated landscape modifications (especially agricultural) and behavioural changes involving human and domestic animal populations are probably the core drivers of the apparent increasing trend in emergence of new pathogens and infectious diseases over recent decades.

The apparent failure of global health security to prevent or prepare for the COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the need for closer cooperation between human, animal (domestic and wildlife), and environmental health sectors. However, the many institutions, processes, regulatory frameworks, and legal instruments with direct and indirect roles in the global governance of One Health have led to a fragmented, global, multilateral health security architecture. We explore four challenges: first, the sectoral, professional, and institutional silos and tensions existing between human, animal, and environmental health; second, the challenge that the international legal system, state sovereignty, and existing legal instruments pose for the governance of One Health; third, the power dynamics and asymmetry in power between countries represented in multilateral institutions and their impact on priority setting; and finally, the current financing mechanisms that predominantly focus on response to crises, and the chronic underinvestment for epidemic and emergency prevention, mitigation, and preparedness activities. We illustrate the global and regional dimensions to these four challenges and how they relate to national needs and priorities through three case studies on compulsory licensing, the governance of water resources in the Lake Chad Basin, and the desert locust infestation in east Africa. Finally, we propose 12 recommendations for the global community to address these challenges. Despite its broad and holistic agenda, One Health continues to be dominated by human and domestic animal health experts. Substantial efforts should be made to address the social–ecological drivers of health emergencies including outbreaks of emerging, re-emerging, and endemic infectious diseases. These drivers include climate change, biodiversity loss, and land-use change, and therefore require effective and enforceable legislation, investment, capacity building, and integration of other sectors and professionals beyond health.

Lockdown measures have been introduced worldwide to contain the transmission of COVID-19. However, the term ‘lockdown’ is not well-defined. Indeed, WHO’s reference to ‘so-called lockdown measures’ indicates the absence of a clear and universally accepted definition of the term ‘lockdown’. We propose a definition of ‘lockdown’ based on a two-by-two matrix that categorises different communicable disease measures based on whether they are compulsory or voluntary; and whether they are targeted at identifiable individuals or facilities, or whether they are applied indiscriminately to a general population or area. Using this definition, we describe the design, timing and implementation of lockdown measures in nine countries in sub-Saharan Africa: Ghana, Nigeria, South Africa, Sierra Leone, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe. While there were some commonalities in the implementation of lockdown across these countries, a more notable finding was the variation in the design, timing and implementation of lockdown measures. We also found that the number of reported cases is heavily dependent on the number of tests carried out, and that testing rates ranged from 2031 to 63 928 per million population up until 7 September 2020. The reported number of COVID-19 deaths per million population also varies (0.4 to 250 up until 7 September 2020), but is generally low when compared with countries in Europe and North America. While lockdown measures may have helped inhibit community transmission, the pattern and nature of the epidemic remains unclear. However, there are signs of lockdown harming health by affecting the functioning of the health system and causing social and economic disruption.

Rodents, a diverse, globally distributed and ecologically important order of mammals are nevertheless important reservoirs of known and novel zoonotic pathogens. Ongoing anthropogenic land use change is altering these species’ abundance and distribution, which among zoonotic host species may increase the risk of zoonoses spillover events. A better understanding of the current distribution of rodent species is required to guide attempts to mitigate against potentially increased zoonotic disease hazard and risk. However, available species distribution and host-pathogen association datasets (e.g. IUCN, GBIF, CLOVER) are often taxonomically and spatially biased. Here, we synthesise data from West Africa from 127 rodent trapping studies, published between 1964–2022, as an additional source of information to characterise the range and presence of rodent species and identify the subgroup of species that are potential or known pathogen hosts. We identify that these rodent trapping studies, although biased towards human dominated landscapes across West Africa, can usefully complement current rodent species distribution datasets and we calculate the discrepancies between these datasets. For five regionally important zoonotic pathogens (Arenaviridae spp., Borrelia spp., Lassa mammarenavirus , Leptospira spp. and Toxoplasma gondii ), we identify host-pathogen associations that have not been previously reported in host-association datasets. Finally, for these five pathogen groups, we find that the proportion of a rodent hosts range that have been sampled remains small with geographic clustering. A priority should be to sample rodent hosts across a greater geographic range to better characterise current and future risk of zoonotic spillover events. In the interim, studies of spatial pathogen risk informed by rodent distributions must incorporate a measure of the current sampling biases. The current synthesis of contextually rich rodent trapping data enriches available information from IUCN, GBIF and CLOVER which can support a more complete understanding of the hazard of zoonotic spillover events.

Peste des petits ruminants virus causes a highly contagious disease, which poses enormous economic losses in domestic animals and threatens the conservation of wild herbivores. Diagnosis remains a cornerstone to the Peste des petits ruminants Global Control and Eradication Strategy, an initiative of the World Organisation for Animal Health and the Food and Agriculture Organisation. The present review presents the peste des petits ruminants diagnostic landscape, including the practicality of commercially available diagnostic tools, prototype tests and opportunities for new technologies. The most common peste des petits ruminants diagnostic tools include; agar gel immunodiffusion, counter-immunoelectrophoresis, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays, reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction either gel-based or real-time, reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification, reverse transcription recombinase polymerase amplification assays, immunochromatographic lateral flow devices, luciferase immunoprecipitation system and pseudotype-based assays. These tests vary in their technical demands, but all require a laboratory with exception of immunochromatographic lateral flow and possibly reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification and reverse transcription recombinase polymerase amplification assays. Thus, we are proposing an efficient integration of diagnostic tests for rapid and correct identification of peste des petits ruminants in endemic zones and to rapidly confirm outbreaks. Deployment of pen-side tests will improve diagnostic capacity in extremely remote settings and susceptible wildlife ecosystems, where transportation of clinical samples in the optimum cold chain is unreliable.

The effectiveness of existing policies to control antimicrobial resistance is not yet fully understood. A strengthened evidence base is needed to inform effective policy interventions across countries with different income levels and the human health and animal sectors. We examine three policy domains—responsible use, surveillance, and infection prevention and control—and consider which will be the most effective at national and regional levels. Many complexities exist in the implementation of such policies across sectors and in varying political and regulatory environments. Therefore, we make recommendations for policy action, calling for comprehensive policy assessments, using standardised frameworks, of cost-effectiveness and generalisability. Such assessments are especially important in low-income and middle-income countries, and in the animal and environmental sectors. We also advocate a One Health approach that will enable the development of sensitive policies, accommodating the needs of each sector involved, and addressing concerns of specific countries and regions.

Background and aims Realizing the transmission potential and the magnitude of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) aids public health monitoring, strategies, and preparation. Two fundamental parameters, the basic reproduction number (R0) and case fatality rate (CFR) of COVID‐19, help in this understanding process. The objective of this study was to estimate the R0 and CFR of COVID‐19 and assess whether the parameters vary in different regions of the world. Methods We carried out a systematic review to find the reported estimates of the R0 and the CFR in articles from international databases between January 1 and August 31, 2020. Random‐effect models and Forest plots were implemented to evaluate the mean effect size of R0 and the CFR. Furthermore, R0 and CFR of the studies were quantified based on geographic location, the tests/thousand population, and the median population age of the countries where the studies were conducted. To assess statistical heterogeneity among the selected articles, the I2 statistic and the Cochran's Q test were used. Results Forty‐five studies involving R0 and 34 studies involving CFR were included. The pooled estimation of R0 was 2.69 (95% CI: 2.40, 2.98), and that of the CFR was 2.67 (2.25, 3.13). The CFR in different regions of the world varied significantly, from 2.49 (2.08, 2.94) in Asia to 3.40 (2.81, 4.04) in North America. We observed higher mean CFR values for the countries with lower tests (3.15 vs 2.16) and greater median population age (3.13 vs 2.27). However, R0 did not vary significantly in different regions of the world. Conclusions An R0 of 2.69 and a CFR of 2.67 indicate the severity of the COVID‐19. Although R0 and CFR may vary over time, space, and demographics, we recommend considering these figures in control and prevention measures.