Zoonotic Disease Surveillance – Inventory of Systems Integrating Human and Animal Disease Information

Although 65% of recent major disease outbreaks throughout the world have a zoonotic origin, there is still a sharp division among the disciplines into the human and animal health sectors. In the last few decades, a global integrative concept, often referred to as ‘One Health’, has been strongly endorsed. Surveillance and monitoring efforts are major components for effective disease prevention and control. As human health and animal health are inextricably linked, it is assumed that a cross‐sectoral data interpretation of zoonotic disease information will improve their prevention, prediction and control. To provide an overview of existing systems throughout the world which integrate information from humans and animals on zoonotic diseases, a literature review was conducted. Twenty projects were identified and described regarding their concepts and realization. They all vary widely depending on their surveillance purpose, their structure and the source of information they use. What they have in common is that they quite often use data which have already been collected for another purpose. Therefore, the challenges of how to make use of such secondary data are of great interest.     

The challenges of implementing an integrated One Health surveillance system in Australia

As 75 per cent of emerging infectious diseases are of animal origin, a One Health approach that integrates the health of humans, animals and the environment could provide an earlier opportunity for zoonotic disease detection and prevention. In Australia, human, animal and ecological health are managed by separate sectors with limited communication. This study aims to explore how professionals in these fields perceive a One Health approach to zoonotic disease surveillance, aiming to identify the challenges to the implementation of an integrated system in Australia. Using a qualitative research method, ten semistructured interviews were conducted with academic experts to gain insight into the possibility of developing an integrated surveillance system in Australia. A thematic analysis of the data was undertaken. Findings showed the absence of a clear definition and subsequent vision for the future of One Health act as a barrier to interdisciplinary collaboration, and that siloed approaches by different sectors restrict the ability for professionals to work collaboratively across disciplines. An understanding of disease transmission was considered by participants to be a necessary requirement for a successful One Health approach. Finally, participants considered political will an essential requirement for the integration of surveillance systems. This study demonstrates that for a One Health approach to be implemented in an Australian setting, those working in the fields of human, animal and ecological health must agree on several aspects. The establishment of a formal governance body with representatives from each sector could assist in overcoming long‐standing barriers of privacy and distrust. Further, developing interdisciplinary training in One Health concepts for medical, environmental and veterinary students may encourage cross‐disciplinary collaboration. Finally, demonstrating to policymakers the economic benefit of improved and timely detection of zoonoses may help in facilitating a structured One Health approach to disease surveillance in Australia.     

在“同一个健康”框架下,加强兽医与人医合作,有效监测和应对人畜共患病和新发传染病

新发传染病主要是人畜共患病,是世界经济和公共健康的沉重负担。这就要求加强检测、鉴别和监视传染病的能力方面投入。高致病禽流感H5N1、新甲型流感("猪流感")H1N1、非典型性肺炎、西尼罗河病毒、地方流行性狂犬病、布鲁氏菌病以及发展中国家暴发的其它人畜共患病及近期猪抗甲氧西林金黄色葡萄球菌,是人类、动物及其环境相互作用的典型范例。面临中国动物和人类常见的新发传染病坚持"同一个健康"战略,这就要求业已存在的兽医和人医及公共卫生机构的通力合作。人的疾病控制系统与动物疾病控制系统虽然都已经建立,但人畜共患病的暴发表明兽医机构和人医机构密切合作的重要性。在保证环境健康的同时,通过动物疾病和人类疾病监测系统的密切合作,中国就一定能够控制人畜共患病。以这种方式进行疾病预防、监测与应对,各层面及各动物生产部门间有效的兽医推广是加强和保持健康生态环境中人和动物健康的有效办法。中国还需大量努力才能达到从制度上保证预防和消灭疾病。透明而准确的人与动物疾病监督通常会产生经济且可持续的预防疾病方法。加拿大在兽医、公共健康、食品安全和人畜共患病预防方面所发挥的作用就是与中国农业部合作,促进必要的、可持续的兽医监督网络的建设。     

Economic Assessment of Zoonoses Surveillance in a ‘One Health’ Context: A Conceptual Framework

Collaboration between animal and public health sectors has been highlighted as a means to improve the management of zoonotic threats. This includes surveillance systems for zoonoses, where enhanced cross‐sectoral integration and sharing of information are seen as key to improved public health outcomes. Yet, there is a lack of evidence on the economic returns of such collaboration, particularly in the development and implementation of surveillance programmes. The economic assessment of surveillance in this context needs to be underpinned by the understanding of the links between zoonotic disease surveillance in animal populations and the wider public health disease mitigation process and how these relations impact on the costs and benefits of the surveillance activities. This study presents a conceptual framework of these links as a basis for the economic assessment of cross‐sectoral zoonoses surveillance with the aim of supporting the prioritization of resource allocation to surveillance. In the proposed framework, monetary, non‐monetary and intermediate or intangible cost components and benefit streams of three conceptually distinct stages of zoonotic disease mitigation are identified. In each stage, as the final disease mitigation objective varies so does the use of surveillance information generated in the animal populations for public health decision‐making. Consequently, the associated cost components and benefit streams also change. Building on the proposed framework and taking into account these links, practical steps for its application are presented and future challenges are discussed.     

One Health as a moral dilemma: Towards a socially responsible zoonotic disease control

During the last decade, the concept of One Health has become the international standard for zoonotic disease control. This call for transdisciplinary collaboration between professionals in human, animal and environmental health has produced several successes in zoonotic disease control, surveillance and research. Despite the lack of a clear definition, a shared agenda or institutional governance, One Health has proven to be a fruitful idea. Due to its ambiguity, the One Health concept functions as a boundary object: by leaving room for interpretation to fit different purposes, it facilitates cooperation. In many cases, this results in the promotion of health of humans, animals and the environment. However, there are also situations in which this mutual benefit of a One Health approach is not that evident, for instance, when healthy animals are culled to protect public health. Although such a strategy could well be part of a One Health approach, it is hard to understand how this contributes to the health of concerning animals. Consequently, these practices often lead to public debate. This raises questions on how we should understand the One Health concept in zoonotic disease control. Is it really about equally improving the health of humans, animals and the environment and is this even possible? Or is it ultimately just public health that counts? In cases of conflict between different values, the lack of a universal definition of the One Health concept contributes to this complexity. Although boundary objects have many positive aspects, in the context of One Health and zoonotic disease control, this conception seems to conceal underlying normative differences. To address moral dilemmas related to a One Health approach in zoonotic disease control, it is important to reflect on moral status and the meaning of health for humans, animals and the environment.     

A Qualitative Study of State‐Level Zoonotic Disease Surveillance in New England

Zoonotic diseases are infectious diseases transmittable between animals and humans and outbreaks of these diseases in animals can signify that humans are also infected (or vice versa). Thus, communication between animal and human health agencies is critical for surveillance. Understanding how these agencies conduct surveillance and share information is important for the development of successful automated zoonotic monitoring systems. Individual interviews were conducted with 13 professionals who perform animal or human zoonotic disease surveillance in one of the New England states. Questions centred on existing surveillance methods, collaborations between animal and human health agencies, and technological and data needs. The results showed that agencies routinely communicate over suspected zoonotic disease cases, yet there are barriers preventing automated electronic linking of health data of animals and humans. These include technological barriers and barriers due to sensitivity and confidentiality of information. Addressing these will facilitate the development of electronic systems for integrating animal and human zoonotic disease surveillance data.     

The socioeconomic burden of parasitic zoonoses: global trends

Diseases resulting from zoonotic transmission of parasites are common. Humans become infected through food, water, soil and close contact with animals. Most parasitic zoonoses are neglected diseases despite causing a considerable global burden of ill health in humans and having a substantial financial burden on livestock industries. This review aims to bring together the current data available on global burden estimates of parasitic zoonoses and indicate any changes in the trends of these diseases. There is a clear need of such information as interventions to control zoonoses are often in their animal hosts. The costs of such interventions together with animal health issues will drive the cost effectiveness of intervention strategies. What is apparent is that collectively, parasitic zoonoses probably have a similar human disease burden to any one of the big three human infectious diseases: malaria, tuberculosis or HIV in addition to animal health burden. Although the global burden for most parasitic zoonoses is not yet known, the major contributors to the global burden of parasitic zoonoses are toxoplasmosis, food borne trematode infections, cysticercosis, echinococcosis, leishmaniosis and zoonotic schistosomosis. In addition, diarrhoea resulting from zoonotic protozoa may have a significant impact.     

Seroprevalence of brucellosis, tularemia, and yersiniosis in wild boars (Sus scrofa) from north-eastern Germany

Brucellosis and tularemia are classical zoonotic diseases transmitted from an animal reservoir to humans. Both, wildlife and domestic animals, contribute to the spreading of these zoonoses. The surveillance of the animal health status is strictly regulated for domestic animals, whereas systematic disease monitoring in wildlife does not exist. The aim of the present study was to provide data on the prevalence of anti-Brucella, anti-Francisella and anti-Yersinia antibodies in wild boars from North-Eastern Germany to assess public health risks. A total of 763 sera of wild boars from Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania hunted in 1995/1996 were tested using a commercially available Brucella suis ELISA, an in-house lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-based Francisella ELISA, and commercially available Western blot kits for the detection of anti-Francisella and anti-Yersinia antibodies. The Yersinia enterocolitica O:9 LPS is able to induce serological cross-reactions indistinguishable from brucellosis due to a similar immunodominant epitope in the Brucella O-polysaccharide. The Yersinia Western blot assay was, therefore, based on five recombinant Yersinia outer proteins which have been proved to be specific for the serodiagnosis of yersiniosis. Anti-Brucella, anti-Francisella and anti-Yersinia antibodies were detected in 22.0%, 3.1%, and 62.6% of the wild boars, respectively. The high seroprevalence of tularemia and brucellosis in wild boars indicates that natural foci of these zoonoses are present in wildlife in Germany. However, the impact of transmission of zoonotic pathogens from wildlife to livestock is unknown. Only careful and systematic monitoring will help to prevent the (re)emergence of these zoonotic diseases in domestic animals and consequently human infection.     

Zoonoses control--new challenges in health protection of consumers]

The eradication of bovine tuberculosis and brucellosis of domestic stock in Germany through the combined efforts of veterinary medicine, the agricultural section and the state was an historic achievement. Since the two diseases are zoonoses, their successful control can also be seen as a valuable contribution to public health. Both these zoonoses are classic animal diseases presenting themselves as clinical entities complete with gross pathological lesions. In contrast, today we are confronted with pathogens causing zoonoses characterised by latent, i.e. clinically inapparent herd infections that do not result in visible tissue changes. Nevertheless, through contaminated foodstuffs, these pathogens contribute to food-borne infections leading to the outbreak of genuine zoonoses in humans. It has been estimated that there could be as many as two million cases of food-borne infections annually in Germany. Among them are salmonellosis, campylobacteriosis, yersiniosis, infections with verotoxin producing E. coli, listeriosis and toxoplasmosis. While the national animal disease legislation only foresees the control of notifiable diseases, the basis for zoonoses control is laid down in the EU Zoonosis-Directive, which is presently awaiting its transposition into national law and into practice. In order, for instance, to combat the most important Salmonella infections of humans, Integrated Quality Systems (IQS) have been formulated as a means of implementing the proven HACCP concept in animal production units and ensuring animal health from the point of view of consumer protection. The aim of all measures must be to free infected herds of pathogens, to investigate and eliminate all sources with a potential for further pathogen introductions, to maintain pathogen-free herds--with a reduced pathogen challenge in mid-term time periods--, as well as to develop diagnostics capable of identifying pathogen carriers before slaughter. For the disinfection of stock, it is important to have epidemiological data collecting systems and information systems that allow complete diagnostic tracing from herd to slaughterhouse and vice versa. All sides, including research and surveillance, as well as producers are called upon to actively share in protecting the health of consumers as far as it is threatened by latent infections in domestic stock.     

Seroprevalence of Brucellosis,Tularemia, and Yersiniosis in Wild Boars (Sus scrofa) from North‐Eastern Germany

Brucellosis and tularemia are classical zoonotic diseases transmitted from an animal reservoir to humans. Both, wildlife and domestic animals, contribute to the spreading of these zoonoses. The surveillance of the animal health status is strictly regulated for domestic animals, whereas systematic disease monitoring in wildlife does not exist. The aim of the present study was to provide data on the prevalence of anti‐Brucella, anti‐Francisella and anti‐Yersinia antibodies in wild boars from North‐Eastern Germany to assess public health risks. A total of 763 sera of wild boars from Mecklenburg‐Western Pomerania hunted in 1995/1996 were tested using a commercially available Brucella suis ELISA, an in‐house lipopolysaccharide (LPS)‐based Francisella ELISA, and commercially available Western blot kits for the detection of anti‐Francisella and anti‐Yersinia antibodies. The Yersinia enterocolitica O:9 LPS is able to induce serological cross‐reactions indistinguishable from brucellosis due to a similar immunodominant epitope in the Brucella O‐polysaccharide. The Yersinia Western blot assay was, therefore, based on five recombinant Yersinia outer proteins which have been proved to be specific for the serodiagnosis of yersiniosis. Anti‐Brucella, anti‐Francisella and anti‐Yersinia antibodies were detected in 22.0%, 3.1%, and 62.6% of the wild boars, respectively. The high seroprevalence of tularemia and brucellosis in wild boars indicates that natural foci of these zoonoses are present in wildlife in Germany. However, the impact of transmission of zoonotic pathogens from wildlife to livestock is unknown. Only careful and systematic monitoring will help to prevent the (re)emergence of these zoonotic diseases in domestic animals and consequently human infection.     

Monitoring and risk assessment of campylobacter infections

The aim of a national study of a "Quantitative Risk Assessment of Campylobacter infections and broiler chicken" at the Federal Institute for Risk Assessment is to estimate the chicken meat associated risk of Campylobacteriosis in Germany by using probabilistic models. Furthermore, process parameters (modelling parameters) with the most vital impact on the risk of Campylobacteriosis due to chicken meat have to be elaborated to give recommendations for risk management options in the whole food chain. The outcome of Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultations on Risk Assessment of Microbiological Hazards in Foods (JEMRA) with respect to Campylobacter spp. in broiler chickens are the baseline for the national approach. In addition, national studies from Canada, Denmark and The Netherlands have to be considered. Typical regional data with respect to the disease, to risk factors in Germany and to the qualitative and quantitative occurrence of Campylobacter in broiler chickens along the "farm-to-fork" continuum have to be collected and validated for elaboration of the four elements of a risk assessment. Data on the prevalence of the agent at different stages of the food chain given in available surveillance systems in Germany are limited with respect to their suitability as incoming parameters for the models. A monitoring programme, as required in the Directive 2003/99/EC on the monitoring of zoonoses and zoonotic agents, as well as coordinated programmes for the official food control authorities, could improve the data baseline for risk assessment studies for instance. To collect all necessary information on the quantitative load of Camylobacter in broiler chickens will go beyond the scope of any existing or future monitoring systems. Results can only be achieved by detailed studies. Beside this, regional data on production and processing of broiler chicken, consumption data and information on the behaviour of consumers in households when preparing broiler chicken products are relevant for assessing the final risk to the consumers. For some questions, especially with respect to the dose-response-relation, internationally used models have to be applied. The national study is embedded in a national epidemiological network of "Foodborne Infections in Germany" which is coordinated by the Robert-Koch-Institute and supported by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF).     

Bacterial zoonoses of fishes: A review and appraisal of evidence for linkages between fish and human infections

Human contact with and consumption of fishes presents hazards from a range of bacterial zoonotic infections. Whereas many bacterial pathogens have been presented as fish-borne zoonoses on the basis of epidemiological and phenotypic evidence, genetic identity between fish and human isolates is not frequently examined or does not provide support for transmission between these hosts. In order to accurately assess the zoonotic risk from exposure to fishes in the context of aquaculture, wild fisheries and ornamental aquaria, it is important to critically examine evidence of linkages between bacteria infecting fishes and humans. This article reviews bacteria typically presented as fish-borne zoonoses, and examines the current strength of evidence for this classification. Of bacteria generally described as fish-borne zoonoses, only Mycobacterium spp., Streptococcus iniae, Clostridium botulinum, and Vibrio vulnificus appear to be well-supported as zoonoses in the strict sense. Erysipelothrix rhusiopathiae, while transmissible from fishes to humans, does not cause disease in fishes and is therefore excluded from the list. Some epidemiological and/or molecular linkages have been made between other bacteria infecting both fishes and humans, but more work is needed to elucidate routes of transmission and the identity of these pathogens in their respective hosts at the genomic level.     

Zoonotic diseases of fish and their prevention and control

Fish and aquatic-derived zoonotic diseases have caused considerable problems in the aquaculture industry and fishery worldwide. In particular, zoonotic diseases can pose widespread threats to humans. With the world’s growing population and potential global trade of aquaculture and fish, the risk of environmental contamination and development of fish and aquatic-derived zoonoses in humans are increasing. The important causes of zoonoses include bacteria, parasites, viruses, and fungi. The zoonotic bacterial agents are divided into two main groups: Gram-positive (Mycobacteriaceae, Streptococcaceae, Erysipelothricaceae families) and Gram-negative (Aeromonadaceae, Vibrionaceae, Pseudomondaceae, Enterobacteriaceae, and Hafniaceae families). The premier parasitic agents include cestodes (tapeworm; e.g. Diphyllobothrium spp.), trematodes (fluke; e.g. Opisthorchis spp.), and nematodes (round worm; e.g. Anisakis spp.). In addition, protozoan organisms such as Cryptosporidium spp. are also considered fish-derived zoonotic pathogens. Two groups of fish-associated fungi causing basidiobolomycosis and sporotrichosis also pose a zoonotic risk for humans. The majority of the fish-derived zoonotic diseases are transmitted to humans mainly via the consumption of improperly cooked or raw fish or fish products. Therefore, the incidence of zoonotic diseases can be reduced by properly processing fish and fish products, e.g. by thermal (heat/freezing) treatment. The prevalence of zoonotic agents in fishes varies seasonally and should be regularly monitored to evaluate the prevalence of pathogens in both wild and cultured fish populations. This review focuses on the fish zoonotic agents/diseases and their control and prevention.     

Zoological medicine and public health

Public-health issues regarding zoological collections and free-ranging wildlife have historically been linked to the risk of transmission of zoonotic diseases and accidents relating to bites or injection of venom or toxins by venomous animals. It is only recently that major consideration has been given worldwide to the role of the veterinary profession in contributing to investigating zoonotic diseases in free-ranging wildlife and integrating the concept of public health into the management activities of game preserves and wildlife parks. At the veterinary undergraduate level, courses in basic epidemiology, which should include outbreak investigation and disease surveillance, but also in population medicine, in infectious and parasitic diseases (especially new and emerging or re-emerging zoonoses), and in ecology should be part of the core curriculum. Foreign diseases, especially dealing with zoonotic diseases that are major threats because of possible agro-terrorism or spread of zoonoses, need to be taught in veterinary college curricula. Furthermore, knowledge of the principles of ecology and ecosystems should be acquired either during pre-veterinary studies or, at least, at the beginning of the veterinary curriculum. At the post-graduate level, master's degrees in preventive veterinary medicine, ecology and environmental health, or public health with an emphasis on infectious diseases should be offered to veterinarians seeking job opportunities in public health and wildlife management.     

One Health and the neglected zoonoses: turning rhetoric into reality

Successful adoption of a One Health approach could have far-reaching impacts on poverty alleviation, health and food security, particularly in developing countries through integrated control of neglected zoonoses. However, the practical implementation of this approach presents many challenges. Anna Okello and colleagues argue that, for effective implementation, lessons learned and 'best practice' must be led by national and regional stakeholders drawn from a variety of disciplines. High-profile regional and international institutions can play an important role in the global governance of One Health by encouraging individual countries to devise appropriate tailored solutions that are workable within their own context.     

Use of information on disease diagnoses from databases for animal health economic, welfare and food safety purposes: strengths and limitations of recordings

Many animal health, welfare and food safety databases include data on clinical and test-based disease diagnoses. However, the circumstances and constraints for establishing the diagnoses vary considerably among databases. Therefore results based on different databases are difficult to compare and compilation of data in order to perform meta-analysis is almost impossible. Nevertheless, diagnostic information collected either routinely or in research projects is valuable in cross comparisons between databases, but there is a need for improved transparency and documentation of the data and the performance characteristics of tests used to establish diagnoses. The objective of this paper is to outline the circumstances and constraints for recording of disease diagnoses in different types of databases, and to discuss these in the context of disease diagnoses when using them for additional purposes, including research. Finally some limitations and recommendations for use of data and for recording of diagnostic information in the future are given. It is concluded that many research questions have such a specific objective that investigators need to collect their own data. However, there are also examples, where a minimal amount of extra information or continued validation could make sufficient improvement of secondary data to be used for other purposes. Regardless, researchers should always carefully evaluate the opportunities and constraints when they decide to use secondary data. If the data in the existing databases are not sufficiently valid, researchers may have to collect their own data, but improved recording of diagnostic data may improve the usefulness of secondary diagnostic data in the future.     

More bark than bite: Comparative studies are needed to determine the importance of canine zoonoses in Aboriginal communities. A critical review of published research

The objective of this review was to identify and critique over forty years of peer‐reviewed literature concerned with the transmission of canine zoonoses to Aboriginal people and determine the zoonotic organisms documented in dogs in Australian Aboriginal communities. A systematic literature search of public health, medical and veterinary databases identified 19 articles suitable for critical appraisal. Thirteen articles documented the occurrence of recognized zoonotic organisms in dogs in Aboriginal communities, including Toxocara canis, Dirofilaria immitis, Streptococcus dysgalactiae, Rickettsia felis, Sarcoptes scabiei and Giardia. Currently, there is definitive evidence indicating that dogs act as a reservoir for human scabies in Aboriginal communities. However, there is a need for large‐scale, high‐quality, comparative studies of dogs and humans from the same household to assess the occurrence and importance of transmission of S. scabiei and other diseases between dogs and humans. These studies should use current genetic and molecular techniques along with traditional techniques to identify and type organisms in order to better understand their epidemiology. This review has revealed that there is a lack of high‐quality comparative studies to determine whether dogs are contributing to human disease by transmitting zoonoses. Our recommendations differ significantly from current public health policy and may have substantial implications for human and dog health.     

All creatures great and minute: a public policy primer for companion animal zoonoses

Approximately 63% of US households have at least one pet, a large percentage of which are considered family members. Pet owners can derive substantial physical and psychological benefits from interaction with companion animals. However, pet ownership is not without risks; zoonotic diseases are increasingly drawing the attention of healthcare professionals, policy makers and the general public. While zoonoses of 'traditional' pets are widely recognized and their prevention and treatment factors are generally known, the growing popularity of 'non-traditional' pets has the potential to facilitate human exposure to novel zoonoses. However, the greatest risk of zoonoses probably arises from animals taken directly from the wild to serve as pets. Non-governmental organizations, state veterinary associations and others have been calling for increased regulation of animal imports, some proposing that all 'exotics' be banned from the pet trade. Because zoonotic diseases of companion animals are influenced by interacting factors of ecological, technical, socio-economic, and political origin, efforts to minimize their impact need be multi-dimensional, simultaneously addressing both the ecological and socio-political drivers of disease emergence and transmission. This study is intended to serve as a primer for animal care professionals seeking to engage with policy makers and the pet industry on the prevention of companion animal zoonoses. We provide background on the human-animal bond, risks of zoonoses associated with groups of companion animals, and the public policy context, as well as identify the factors needed to build a comprehensive approach to companion animal zoonoses risk management. Also included are examples of innovative, non-regulatory initiatives designed to limit the spread and impact of companion animal zoonoses, including a reptile salmonella poster, the National Reptile Improvement Plan, Habitattitude campaign, Pet Zoonoses Committee, and a wildlife disease surveillance initiative known as Project TripWire.     

The Ontario Animal Health Network: enhancing disease surveillance and information sharing through integrative data sharing and management

The Ontario Animal Health Network (OAHN) is an innovative disease surveillance program created to enhance preparedness, early detection, and response to animal disease in Ontario. Laboratory data and, where available, abattoir condemnation data and clinical observations submitted by practicing veterinarians form the core of regular discussions of the species-sector networks. Each network is comprised of government veterinarians or specialists, epidemiologists, pathologists, university species specialists, industry stakeholders, and practicing veterinarians, as appropriate. Laboratorians provide data for diseases of interest as determined by the individual network, and network members provide analysis and context for the large volume of information. Networks assess data for disease trends and the emergence of new clinical syndromes, as well as generate information on the health and disease status for each sector in the province. Members assess data validity and quality, which may be limited by multiple factors. Interpretation of laboratory tests and antimicrobial resistance trends without available clinical histories can be challenging. Extrapolation of disease incidence or risk from laboratory submissions to broader species populations must be done with caution. Disease information is communicated in a variety of media to inform veterinary and agricultural sectors of regional disease risks. Through network engagement, information gaps have been addressed, such as educational initiatives to improve sample submissions and enhance diagnostic outcomes, and the development of applied network-driven research. These diverse network initiatives, developed after careful assessment of laboratory and other data, demonstrate that novel approaches to analysis and interpretation can result in a variety of disease risk mitigation actions.