| |
President’s
message
Porcine circovirus associated
disease: A global perspective
My first personal concerns with a disease called post weaning
multisystemic wasting syndrome (PMWS) occurred many years ago and
involved a conversation with Dr Mark Engle over a couple of
“Roy Rogers” in a quaint little bar in Des Moines,
Iowa. Dr Engle had just returned from a trip to Europe and was
exposed to the disease on various farms. He explained the
frustration that the Europeans were experiencing in their attempt
to control the disease. I remember him commenting, “Ols, this
disease is something we don’t want in the United States, but
I don’t know what we are doing to keep it out.”
Sometime early in 2005, I also remember attending a meeting of
primarily Canadian and United States veterinarians, and we were
being told of the clinical expression of the disease in eastern
Canada. Dr Camille Moore explained how the disease was quickly
spreading throughout eastern Canada and again the frustrations of
the expression of this disease. Dr Tim Loula quickly pointed out
that with the number of pigs moving into the United States from
Canada, “It’s just a matter of time until the disease
is here and just what are we doing to keep it out or get
ready.”
I also remember a teleconference call in 2005 during which Dr
John Harding explained the research work he was doing. He also
described what he was seeing in Canada and the concerns he had with
the lack of understanding of the disease.
Now maybe I remember these three separate incidences just out of
luck, but I expect it has more to do with the respect I have for
these four veterinarians. When they talk, it is somewhat like the
old EF Hutton commercial: I stop and listen.
During the fall of 2005, the PMWS problem grew so rapidly in the
United States that at the 2006 AASV Annual Meeting, a special
session was called to address the growing problem. A special
committee was formed, and the AASV seemed to respond to questions
surrounding the disease, the name of the disease, a case definition
of the disease, the lack of commercially available vaccines, and
members’ concerns. Although this committee has accomplished
much, they must continue to address issues including epidemiology
of the disease, prevalence studies, and transmission studies. This
talented group of veterinarians can help gather and facilitate more
information on this disease.
I definitely wanted Dr Harding to serve on the planning
committee for the 2007 AASV Annual Meeting. In my mind, John is the
definitive expert on porcine circovirus type 2 (PCV2) in North
America and would be invaluable in planning the annual meeting. The
committee felt strongly that John should present at the Monday
morning general session and chair the Tuesday morning general
session on porcine circovirus associated disease (PCVAD). When we
were planning the 2006 annual meeting, Dr Harding was insistent
that for attendees to understand PCV2 and the disease, we must
learn from the Europeans. The Europeans have been working on this
disease for longer than researchers in the United States, and we
should learn from their experiences. Dr Harding felt that we must
first understand the pathogenesis of the disease, and then we must
understand how immunity is developed to PCV2. After listening to
Drs Hans Nauwynck and Kenneth McCullough at the Tuesday general
session, I understood why John was so adamant that these two
speakers present at our meeting. I started to understand why
veterinarians and producers are frustrated by this disease. These
sessions also helped me understand why vaccination of young piglets
can be so effective.
Time gives us the luxury to look back. So what have we learned
by this experience? Dr Harding, in his presentation to the 2007
AASV general session, “Porcine Circovirus Disease: The Brutal
Facts,” challenged the North American response to the
disease. I would agree with Dr Harding on all of his points except
one: I do not believe that changing the name compounded the
problem. “Porcine circovirus associated disease”
correctly describes the disease today, and in my mind, clarifies
the confusion that existed with producers and some veterinarians
concerning the disease. History would support that changing the
name of a disease complex is acceptable, especially if the majority
of veterinarians support that change. If you did not hear Dr
Harding’s presentation, take the time to read the proceedings
or watch the AASV Web site for the soon-to-be-posted video
of the presentation. The fact continues to ring home that this disease is
no different from most other diseases and is now a global disease.
As an industry and profession, we attacked this disease as if it
were someone else’s problem and we would worry about it when
it finally arrived. Lack of collaboration between Europe, Canada,
Mexico, and the United States on understanding the disease and
preparing for the disease is not a model we should follow in the
future. I do believe that, although the change in name did not cure
the disease, it also did not change the outcome in North
America.
As we look to the future, how do we improve our response to
PCVAD? How can we bring researchers, veterinarians, and students
from a global industry together to work as one? What must be the
vehicle to facilitate this discussion among the various members of
our profession worldwide? There is no question that the AASV is a
primary vehicle to facilitate information dissemination. Since 30%
of the attendees at the 2007 AASV Annual Meeting were from outside
North America, AASV obviously provides education to veterinarians
throughout the world. The larger question may involve whether the
AASV should facilitate global dialogues on emerging diseases and
veterinary medicine. It also may be time for the AASV to consider a
name change. This association is starting to look like a global
association. Would a change in the name escalate the challenge or
help eliminate a repeat of the disassociation of continents working
on global issues? Or, as in the case of PCVAD, a name change may
distract from the real issue. Changing the name without addressing
the real problem first may not be an improvement.
--Daryl Olsen
|
|