1.      Welcoming words – Declan O’Brien, Project Coordinator

a.      ETPGAH and DISCONTOOLS

2.      Approval of the Agenda of the 1st WP 2 meeting

3.      Presentation on DISCONTOOLS WP 2

a.      Objectives

b.      Description of work

c.      Deliverables

4.      Presentation of different models of animal disease prioritisation

a.      DEFRA – UK – Andrew Frost

b.      DG SANCO – EC – Etienne Bonbon

c.      RIVM – NL – Marieta Braks

d.      ETPGAH – Jim Scudamore

5.      Populating DISCONTOOLS Animal Disease database

a.      Info on hand

b.      Structure of information

6.      Discussion on criteria for the prioritisation model

a.      Criteria from ETPGAH Action Plan

b.      Methodology of scoring

c.      Prioritisation model

7.      Presentation of data

a.      Database

b.      Scoring Model

c.      Prioritisation Model

8.      AOB

a.      date of next meeting

b.      review of participants list

c.       

1.       Welcoming words - ETPGAH DISCONTOOLS

DOB opened the meeting by welcoming those present and made a brief presentation (attached) describing the connections between the European Technology for Global Animal Health (ETPGAH) and the DISCONTOOLS project.

DOB then handed the Chair over to Thomas Mettenleiter (TM). TM invited all participants to briefly introduce themselves.

2.       Approval of the Agenda of the 1^st WP2 meeting

The agenda was approved.

3.       Presentation on DISCONTOOLS WP2

Morgane Delavergne (MD) gave a short presentation to better clarify the WP2 framework (attached). TM specified that the main intention in WP2 is to maintain an objective framework.

4.       Presentation of different models of disease prioritisation

a.      DEFRA

Andrew Frost (AF) made a presentation on the DEFRA work on prioritisation (attached). On discussion, AF stated that whilst the project is driven by economic considerations, the basic data relating to the various diseases was neutral of economic considerations. He also stated that the information would be made public in the future and stakeholders would be invited to comment. Concerning the weightings used, these were agreed after internal DEFRA consultation and reflected DEFRA priorities. In relation to updates of the information, review frequencies are in place but could be undertaken at any point if new data emerged. The data in relation to the diseases is drawn from the Institute of Animal Health and the Veterinary Research Laboratories. It is primarily peer-reviewed information and this is used to justify the scoring results. Some uncertainty exists as all information concerning all diseases is not known and efforts are made to identify gaps in data as well as other gaps. AF finally explained that they are trying to keep an objective approach and a rational analysis.

b.      EC - DG SANCO

Etienne Bonbon (EB) presented the work of DG SANCO in partnership with CVOs referred to as the CVO/Dg SANCO Non Paper (attached). He indicated that the work was part of Pillar 1 of the Community Animal Health Policy (CAHP). The objective was to prioritise actions – when, how, why, where? Should action be at an EU level, Member State level or should the private sector act? The focus of the work was to identify where the EU should act. Gap analysis was not considered. The range of diseases considered by the CVO’s was broad and disease related risks were considered along with prioritisation identification.

DG SANCO has now invited the OIE to develop a global framework as global factors need to be considered in relation to how the EU assesses risk. The focus is more on risk management as opposed to risk assessment. DG SANCO will use DISCONTOOLS as an additional scientific input to inform its thoughts.

EB highlighted that the aim of this project is to help CVOs and policy makers to take decisions, that it is only the beginning and that his hope is to have organisations and projects such as OIE and DISCONTOOLS to help.

On discussion, EB clarified that the focus is on prioritisation to prevent disease if at all possible. The tool needed may be a diagnostic, a vaccine, a pharmaceutical or awareness building. Concerning the OIE work, zoonoses, education, communication, co-financing, public private partnerships, insurance and other options will be explored along with research needs. The work may show a need to support actions outside the EU as a preventative strategy. In relation to the model developed by the CVO’s, it was tested in a limited manner and appears to be of use if the users are objective. Animal welfare is embedded as part of social impact in the model.

c.      RIVM

Marieta Braks (MB) gave a detailed presentation on Priority Setting of Emerging Zoonoses at the RIVM (attached). The RIMV project has a zoonosis and public health focus but the principle of how it is configured may be used in other contexts.  This project was put in place two years ago after the incursions of SARS and AI in the Netherlands, to better inform the government, initiated by the Dutch Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority. MB stressed the desirability of having a global view and using “natural units” (real numbers or objective measurements) wherever possible. In addition, overlapping criteria need to be removed. It was suggested that if criteria behave in the same way in the scoring process, the risk of overlapping should be explored. Perception was described as a difficult concept to work with.

On discussion, MB explained that the weightings were based on disease information and were as objective as possible. It was questioned if a weight chosen by the authority is very representative. The weighting of this model still include subjective appreciation and therefore several (relevant) representative stakeholders should weight the criteria to balance the results. MB specified that policy aspects have a high weight as this model is made to help decision on policy tools.

Reference was made to an article in ELSEVIER written by Joanna McKenzie, Helen Simpson and Ian Langstaff and entitled “Development of methodology to prioritise wildlife pathogens for surveillance”. It is a very interesting paper in the context of DISCONTOOLS as it highlights problems encountered in a lot of prioritisation models.

Reference was made to a paper published by the Robert Koch Institute describing how to remove guesswork from scoring and weighing regimes (attached).

Action: Marieta Braks to send a summary of her interim report. Wim Ooms to ask the project research funder (Ministry of Agriculture) and project coordinator to make the information available.

d.      ETPGAH

Jim Scudamore (JS) presented the European Technology Platform for Global Animal Health (ETPGAH) (attached) and the prioritisation model resulting from the implementation of the Strategic Research Agenda (SRA) and the Action Plan (AP). The chair emphasised that the aim of a prioritisation model matters a lot, as people will not do the same if it is for control or policy decisions at the end. On discussion, reference was made to various statistical models that may be used to compute data from sets of information that contain uncertainty. It was suggested that this type of option might have value in the prioritisation work. RIMV indicated that it had some experience of using this technology.

Matthew Baylis remind the participants that repeatability of data is an important aspect as uncertainties can be very numerous. PV, TM and MB went deeper when discussing the bias of the model and wanted to remind people about the fact that we can be quite precise on the top and the bottom of the disease ranking but that it is very difficult to differentiate diseases ranked in between. EB replied that if two diseases are scored the same, we still have the differences in scoring between them to compare them. Finally, Piet Van Rijn reminded the group that the prioritisation model will evolve in time and that we will have the possibility to improve, update and change the priority list if needed.

5.       Populating DISCONTOOLS Animal Disease database

6.       Discussion on criteria for the prioritisation model

7.       Presentation of data

Based on the discussions that had taken place, it was decided to make one presentation covering agenda points 5, 6 and 7 and to then discuss the data issues in an overall context. DOB made a presentation covering these points (Action Plan Annexes and CVO/DG SANCO model attached).

On discussion, it was stated that various prioritisation models existed – Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the US. The DISCONTOOLS secretariat would examine these various models for further insight into scoring criteria and weighing models. The ETPGAH models currently contain 5 major headings. It was proposed that these headings should be aligned with other models. The point was made that the most important issue is to explore the principles behind the models.

Action: WP2 members to generate an inventory of existing methods / models / systems / methodologies for priority settings.

Morgane to collect information on models and distribute it to all.

The main aspect highlighted during the meeting was the objectivity of the criteria. It was specified that a criterion should be defined/phrased in such a way that it allows objective judging. Moreover, to avoid input of experts’ personal opinions, the criteria set should rely on actual and measurable data. Another aspect was the importance of obtaining independent criteria.

Action: All – Agree on a list of criteria and a list of scoring methods by December.

Morgane to send those lists and compile comments.

Concerning information gaps, it is important that the model captures this fact as opposed to this information being lost in the scoring system. In addition, where information is missing, a range of scores may need to be used to capture this uncertainty. For example if a solution is missing (vaccine, pharmaceutical, measures…) a high coefficient (weighting factor) should be allocated to the concerned disease. As an alternative, it was suggested that we may need a score for information to hand and to also propose a gap score such that the gap is not overlooked. The gap may be the issue needing research. A close collaboration between WP2 on Disease Prioritisation and WP3 on Gap Analysis is needed as gaps will be identified by the work of WP2 (criterion not filled in as there is a lack of information).

It was also agreed that the software used should provide maximum flexibility as regards data sharing. It was noted that animal welfare and food security may become more important criteria over time and need to be taken into consideration.

It was agreed that the DEFRA and RIMV participants should provide feedback on the criteria currently contained in the CVO/DG SANCO model. With this feedback taken on board, the criteria would then be circulated to the full group for feedback. In particular, feedback should refer to mechanisms that might be used to obtain objective values for the various criteria and also to overlapping and interdependent criteria.

Action: Andrew Frost and Marieta Braks to provide feedback on criteria contained in the CVO/DG SANCO Model.

Having obtained feedback, the model will then be tested with a small number of diseases to verify if it operates satisfactorily. This would include work spread over a number of species. 

Concerning the questionnaire used to collect disease information and for gap analysis purposes, it was agreed that the questionnaires should be circulated for further comment by the group.

Action: secretariat to circulate the questionnaires for comment.

In relation to expert groups to deal with each disease, it was agreed that the lists of experts proposed would be circulated to the group for input.

Action: secretariat to circulate lists of experts.

The purpose of the DISCONTOOLS model would be to amalgamate the various elements of models built with varying objectives in mind into a model that has flexibility in terms of animal health issues. Wherever possible, objective data would be used.

DOB informed the group about the existing disease information resulting from the work of the ETPGAH. This part did not generate a lot of comments.

8.       AOB

a.      Meeting date: The group agreed to meet on March 10^th at 10.00 in Brussels

b.      Participants: It was agreed that further representatives of the livestock sector should be invited to participate such as UECBV.