Dear all
I support John
Sero-monitoring is important and this need to be combined with clinical surveillance have a good case definition in place. The monitoring need be to targeted and results have to be released timely for improving efficiency of future campaigns
Niwael J. Mtui-Malamsha, PhD
Principal Vet Officer - PPR Control,
Directorate of Veterinary Services,
Tanzania
On Monday, 17 February 2014, 11:23, J ANDERSON <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Dear All
I disagree with Paul and would suggest seromonitoring proved very enlightening in some countries. I realise it is expensive but perhaps in future campaigns we will use a more focused approach, not the blanket vaccination employed in the early stages of PARC, PACE and GREP, in which case seromonitoring is essential to monitor the performance of the vaccination teams and the cold-chain. Otherwise you could be living in a fools paradise erroneously believing the animals are immune. In Tanzania seromonitoring identified a number of issues which, once identified, were easily rectified. Seromonitoring may not be needed throughout the vaccination campaign but really useful in the early stages to ensure all teams are operating optimally. As Paul mentioned this also gives the Laboratories a chance to gain expertise and ensure all assays are working optimally
Regards
Professor John Anderson MBE
Retired Head of Pirbright Laboratory and the World Reference Laboratory for Morbilliviruses
From: Paul Rossiter <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Thursday, 13 February 2014, 9:31
Subject: Seromonitoring after vaccination - how useful is it?
Dear Colleagues,
Although mentioned once or twice in passing we haven't heard much about seromonitoring during the conference.
As some participants know I am not greatly in favour of seromonitoring as a general follow-up to vaccination campaigns. It is expensive, the results usually arrive too late to be of use, and when they do arrive in time there are insufficient resources for a re-vaccination. I know it has an important role in disease investigation where vaccine failure is a possibility and is obviously needed for epidemiological studies but as a routine accompaniment to vaccination.....mmm? In rinderpest eradication we did a lot of sero-monitoring but I reckon that the most useful thing to come out of it was to train the laboratories to high levels of competence for the much more important sero-surveillance when vaccination ceased. Money saved on seromonitoring can be used for extra epidemiology such as disease search etc.
Would anyone care to put me right on this?
regards,- Moderator.
To unsubscribe from the FAO-AnimalHealth-L list, click the following link:
https://listserv.fao.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=FAO-AnimalHealth-L&A=1
________________________________
To unsubscribe from the FAO-AnimalHealth-L list, click the following link:
https://listserv.fao.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=FAO-AnimalHealth-L&A=1
########################################################################
To unsubscribe from the FAO-AnimalHealth-L list, click the following link:
https://listserv.fao.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=FAO-AnimalHealth-L&A=1
|