European Technology Platform for Global Animal Health ETPGAH

1
European Technology Platform for Global Animal
Health (ETPGAH)

• Disease Prioritisation.
• Brussels
• 20 October 2008
• Jim Scudamore

2
European Technology Platform for Global Animal
HealthThe Process
Stakeholders, led by industry, come together
to agree on a common vision for the technology
Stakeholders, define a Strategic Research
Agenda setting the necessary mid- to longterm
objectives
Stakeholders, implement the Strategic
Research Agenda with the mobilisation of
significant human and financial resources
DISCONTOOL WP 2 Prioritsation
Vision paper EU TP Global Animal
Health Launch Dec 2004 Final version August
2005
Strategic Research Agenda Published May 2006
Action Plan Published July 2007
FP7
3
ETP Global Animal HealthThe Vision July 2005

• To facilitate and accelerate the development and
  distribution of the most effective tools for
  controlling animal diseases of major importance
  to Europe and the rest of the world, thereby
  improving human and animal health, food safety
  and quality, animal welfare, and market access,
  contributing to achieving the Millennium
  Development Goals.

Published August 2005
4
ETP Global Animal HealthThe Strategic Research
Agenda May 2006

• The SRA is the mechanism to deliver the vision.
• SRA has 2 overarching objectives-
• to deliver new and improved tools for the control
  of major diseases and
• to deliver the recommendations in the SRA which
  in turn will facilitate the development and
  delivery of new tools

Published May 2006
5
ETP Global Animal HealthThe SRA 6 Themes

• Prioritise animal diseases (8)
• Conduct gap analyses (8)
• Ensure high quality relevant (5)
  fundamental research
• Identify the enabling factors to improve the rate
  of technology transfer (17)
• Consider regulatory/societal issues (18)
• Maintain a global perspective (5)

6
Prioritisation of diseases

• Initial stages
• The first stage in developing the SRA was to
  define priority diseases using a simple
  methodology. Allocation of diseases into a simple
  classification was difficult as there were a
  large number of variables contributing to the
  prioritisation process.
• An interim list of 30 priority diseases or
  infections was published in the SRA along with a
  preliminary gap analysis identifying areas where
  further work was required.
• This list was sub divided into 3 groups, major
  diseases, diseases for surveillance and neglected
  zoonoses. Each group included emerging or
  re-emerging diseases as appropriate

7
Animal health priority scoring criteria
Preventive diagnostic tool availability
Public perception
International prevalence
Significant spread
Zoonotic potential
RISK
Probability of occurence
Emerging or re-emerging disease
Food Safety
Host range
Clinical Severity
Economic/trade/ecological impact
Existing Proven Control Methods
8
SRA Theme 1 Prioritise animal diseases
Source Annex 3 SRA
9
ETP Global Animal HealthSRA Theme 1 Prioritise
animal diseases

• List of 15 major diseases
• List of diseases for surveillance
• Neglected zoonoses
• 8 recommendations to prioritise diseases.

10
(No Transcript)
11
ETP Global Animal HealthAction plan July 2007

• Chapter 1 Overview, funding arrangements and
  management of the plan.
• Chapter 2 detailed actions to implement the 61
  recommendations of the SRA using a standard
  format for consistency
• Chapter 3 Deals with specific diseases dealing
  with prioritisation and gap analysis

Published July 2007
12
ETP Global Animal Health Action Plan First
Stages

• The first stage is to identify and prioritise the
  diseases of importance. The second stage is to
  assess the gaps in the knowledge and
  understanding of these diseases to identify where
  research needs to be targeted. At the same time
  the gaps in the availability of products will be
  evaluated.
• With the implementation of the recommendations
  from these two themes it will be possible to
  select priority diseases and identify the
  research needed to fill the gaps in knowledge
  along with the actions needed to develop new and
  improved tools for control of those diseases.

13
ETP Global Animal HealthAction plan

• Was the original list the correct method of
  prioritisation?
• Can the diseases be prioritised in a more logical
  manner?
• How do we deal with multiple disease complexes.
• As well as prioritising diseases could we
  prioritise possible success.

14
Revised prioritisation model

• Epidemiology and risk
• Impact on wider society
• Impact on public health
• Impact on international trade
• Control Measures
• Collection of information

15
(No Transcript)
16
(No Transcript)
17
Revised prioritisation model

• The weighting for each criterion could be
  different according to the category of disease,
  the individual perception or the current
  occurrence of the disease under consideration
  (existing diseases in the EU diseases at the
  boarder of EU and presenting a risk for EU
  emerging diseases not in EU).
• The methodology may be improved by grouping the
  criteria according to the thematic feature and
  risk impact of the disease, tools, epidemiology
  (virus, reservoir).Therefore, sub-totals of
  scoring may better reflect the diversity of
  nature in priorities and avoid an excessive and
  unexpected homogenisation
• Scoring is a mathematical system with the risk of
  being too rigid and with too little flexibility
  when disease occurrence, disease impact or
  knowledge on disease change. It must have the
  ability to evolve
• The model has to be validated.

18
ETP Global Animal HealthAction plan July 2007

• Deliverables The main deliverables will be-
• A working model for prioritisation which is peer
  reviewed and accepted by funders.
• Publication of the prioritisation model
• Production of peer reviewed prioritised list of
  diseases of importance
• Publication of the list
• Ultimately an IT solution with an interactive
  model
• Regular use of the model to determine funding
  priorities

19
Action plan July 2007

• Tasks
• Finalise and peer review the criteria identified
  for assessment and the scores to be allocated to
  each of the criteria for use in the model
• Provide an evidence base for each disease by the
  collection of information in a standard format
  which can be converted into scores.
• Score each disease against the criteria to
  identify the importance of the disease to Europe
• Further development of the paper based
  prioritisation model
• Develop an IT based decision support tool
• Produce an interactive tool to help with
  prioritisation of research funding.

20
DISCONTOOLS

• Conduct a review of current world wide
  prioritisation methodologies.
• Identify relevant criteria for disease assessment
  and the scores and weighting to be allocated to
  each of the criteria for use in the model. Peer
  review by an expert group
• Develop a interactive web based database for
  entry, review, analysis and agreement of the
  disease prioritisation information
• Provide an evidence base for each disease by the
  collection of information using a standard
  questionnaire which can be converted into scores.
  Experts in their field asked to complete the
  questionnaire electronically
• Score each disease against the criteria. Validate
  individual scores by experts then peer review by
  a working group
• Develop the prioritisation model initially paper
  based but later IT based...
• Develop an IT based prioritisation decision
  support tool using in house IT specialist or
  contractor
• Produce an interactive tool to help with
  prioritisation of research funding.
• Feedback to identify better focused research into
  those areas where new tools and methods for
  control have a priority