Transmission
The FMD virus can be introduced into a free area by the following
means:
1. Direct or indirect contact with infected animals.
2. Spread of aerosol from infected animals (requires proper
humidity and temperature). Aerosol from bulk milk trucks spread FMD in England. A person
in contact with infected animals can have sufficient FMDV in his or her respiratory tract
for 24 hours to serve as a source of infection for susceptible animals.
3. Feeding contaminated garbage (meat, milk, blood, glands, bones,
cheese, etc.)
4. Contact with contaminated objects (hands, footwear, clothing).
5. Artificial insemination.
6. Contaminated biologicals such as hormones (extraction procedure
may not inactivate the virus).
After an animal becomes infected by any means, the primary mode of
spread is then via respiratory aerosols. Other important means of spread are direct and
indirect contact. In an outbreak of FMD, the roles of the three primary hosts in
transmission are as follows:
- Sheep act as maintenance hosts,
- Pigs act as amplifiers,
- Cattle act as indicators.
When sheep or goats become infected with FMDV, the disease may not
be diagnosed for a considerable time because signs and lesions can be very mild. However,
during this time, the animals will be producing infectious aerosols, contaminating
fomites, and spreading the virus by contact.
Foot-and-mouth disease in pigs spreads very rapidly, for they
produce 30 to 100 times more virus in aerosols than sheep or cattle. An infected pig can
produce a hundred million infectious doses per day.
When cattle are infected with FMDV, signs and lesions usually
develop more rapidly and are more severe than in pigs, sheep, or goats. If cattle, sheep,
and pigs are exposed together, cattle will usually get sick first. This may result from
increased exposure due to a greater pulmonary tidal volume.
Some animals can be carriers of FMDV. Most ruminant species can
harbor the virus in their pharyngeal tissues for a long period. Recovered cattle or
vaccinated cattle exposed to diseased animals can become healthy carriers for 6-24 months.
Sheep can be carriers for 4-6 months. Although under experimental conditions it has been
difficult to demonstrate transmission of FMD from carriers to susceptible livestock, there
is strong circumstantial field evidence that carriers may have been the occasional cause
of outbreaks. Also it has been shown that the virus was maintained for many years in a
relatively small, isolated group of African buffaloes without the appearance of clinical
signs.
Some strains of FMDV seem to have a predilection for certain
species. There have been strains that affect pigs but not cattle. In South America, mature
cattle have had clinical signs of FMD, when sheep in an adjacent pasture were normal.
Incubation Period
After experimental exposure, signs may develop as early as 12
hours. The usual interval is 24 to 48 hours.
When susceptible animals are in contact with clinically infected
animals (peak time of transmission is generally when vesicles rupture), clinical signs
usually develop in 3 to 5 days.
Pigs fed infected garbage usually develop signs in 1 to 3 days.
Intact oral epithelium is resistant to infection, but during the process of ingesting food
there may be injury, and the virus may also enter through the tonsils.
Clinical Signs
Cattle
Initial signs are fever of 103-105o F (39.4-40.6o C), dullness, anorexia, and fall in milk production. These signs are followed by excessive
salivation; drooling (Fig. 111), serous
nasal discharge; shaking, kicking of the feet or lameness; and vesicle (blister)
formation. Sites of predilection for vesicles are the tongue (Figs. 115, 117),
dental pad, gums, soft palate, nostrils, muzzle, interdigital space (Fig.112), coronary band, and teats (Fig.116.). Vesicles may be difficult to see. The animal may need
to be tranquilized to facilitate a thorough examination.
After vesicle formation, drooling may be more marked, and nasal
discharge, lameness or both may increase. Pregnant cows may abort, and young calves may
die without developing any vesicle.
The course of an FMD infection is 2 to 3 weeks. Secondary
infection may delay recovery. A lactating animal may not recover to preinfection
production because of damage to the secretory tissue.
Sequelae to FMD in Cattle
- Secondary infection mouth, nose, feet
- Hoof deformation
- Low milk production
- Mastitis
- Unthriftiness — failure to gain weight
- Breeding problems
- Panting — associated with pituitary gland damage
- Diabetes mellitus
Swine
Initial signs are fever of 104-105o F (40-40.6o C), anorexia, reluctance to move (Fig. 113),
and squeal when forced to move. These signs are followed by vesicles on the coronary band (Figs. 114, 119), vesicles on the heals, vesicles in the interdigital
space (foot involvement is usually severe), and vesicles on the snout (Fig. 114). Mouth lesions are not too common and when they occur
are smaller and of shorter duration than in cattle and tend to be a "dry"-type
lesion (Fig. 118). There is no drooling.
Sows may abort. Piglets may die without showing any clinical sign.
Sheep and Goats
Clinical signs, if they occur, tend to be very mild, and may
include dullness; fever; and small vesicles or erosions on the dental pad, lips, gums, and
tongue. Mild lameness may be the only sign. In lame animals there may be vesicles or
erosion on the coronary band or in the interdigital space. Infected animals may abort.
Nursing lambs may die without showing any clinical sign.
Gross Lesions
Cattle
The diagnostic lesions are single or multiple vesicles ranging
from 2 mm to 10 cm. These can occur at all sites of predilection. Gross lesions on the
tongue usually progress in the following manner:
1. A small blanched whitish area develops in the epithelium.
2. Fluid fills the area, and a vesicle (blister) is formed.
3. Vesicle enlarges and may coalesce with adjacent ones.
4. Vesicle ruptures.
5. Vesicular covering sloughs leaving an eroded (red) area (Figs. 117, 120).
6. Gray fibrinous coating forms over the eroded area.
7. Coating becomes yellow, brown or green.
8. Epithelium is restored, but line of demarcation remains; line
then gradually fades.
Occasionally "dry" FMD lesions develop. Instead of
forming a vesicle, the fluid is apparently lost as it forms and the upper layers of the
epithelium become necrotic and discolored. The lesion therefore appears necrotic rather
than vesicular.
Gross Lesions on the Feet:
The vesicle in the interdigital space is usually large because of
the stress on the epithelium caused by movement and weight. The lesion at the coronary
band at first appears blanched; then there is separation of the skin and horn. When
healing occurs, new horn is formed, but a line resulting from the coronitis is seen on the
wall of the hoof.
Gross Cardiac and Skeletal Lesions:
Animals that die may have grayish or yellowish streaking in the
myocardium - degeneration and necrosis. These findings are known as "tiger
heart" (Fig. 121). Skeletal muscle
lesions occur but are rare.
Swine
Vesicles on the snout can be large and filled with clear or bloody
fluid. Mouth lesions are usually the "dry" type and appear as necrotic
epithelium. Feet lesions are usually severe, and the hoof can become detached. Animals
that die may have grayish or yellowish streaking in the myocardium with degeneration and
necrosis ("tiger heart").
Sheep
Lesions in the mouth and vesicles on the coronary band may be few,
small, and difficult to find. Animals that die may have grayish or yellowish streaking in
the myocardium with degeneration and necrosis ("tiger heart").
Morbidity and Mortality
The morbidity rate is essentially 100 percent in a susceptible
population of domestic animals. Mortality is usually less than 1 percent, but in young
animals and with certain isolates mortality can be high. In an FMD outbreak in Israel,
there was a high mortality (at least 50 percent) in wild mountain gazelles. The same virus
caused typical low mortality in cattle. In the gazelles, there was a severe viral
pancreatitis that accounted for the high mortality.
Diagnosis
Field Diagnosis
In cattle, FMD should be considered whenever salivation and
lameness occur simultaneously and a vesicular lesion is seen or suspected. Fever often
precedes other clinical signs; therefore, febrile animals should be carefully examined.
Early diagnostic lesions may be found before animals start to salivate, have a nasal
discharge, or become lame. To avoid missing a diagnosis, examine the mouth of a lame
animal and the feet of any animal with signs or lesions involving the mouth or nostrils.
Typically, FMD spreads rapidly and there is a high clinical attack rate; however, this
cannot be counted upon, for a relatively avirulent strain could appear, or more resistant
animals (sheep) could be affected.
In pigs, sheep, and goats, FMD should be considered when animals
have sore feet, vesicular lesion is suspected, or both.
Specimens for Laboratory Diagnosis
Because the various vesicular diseases have similar clinical
signs, a laboratory diagnosis is mandatory. Oral, nasal, foot, or mammary lesions are good
sources of specimens. The following should be collected from each of two or three animals:
1. Vesicular fluid (as much as possible).
2. Epithelium covering a vesicle.
3. Flaps of epithelial tissue still attached.
(For 2 and 3 above, try to collect about 0.5 gm.)
Old necrotic or fibrinous material that is difficult to remove is
undesirable and often is highly contaminated with bacteria.
4. About 5 ml of blood with anticoagulant (viremia ends about 5
days after the onset of disease).
5. Esophagealpharyngeal (OP) fluid from convalescent cattle,
sheep, or goats.
This should immediately be diluted with an equal volume of cell
culture fluid (e.g., Hanks balanced salt solution with lactalbumin hydolysate) and shaken
vigorously for about 1 minute. If the solution turns yellow, the pH is low and the virus
could be inactivated; discard and collect another sample.
6. Blood for serum (10 ml of serum).
7. From dead animals, collect samples of epithelial lesions, lymph
nodes, thyroid, adrenal gland, kidney, and heart (about 10 gm).
8. Full set of tissues in formalin.
If the specimens can be delivered to a laboratory within 24 hours,
they should be placed on ice. If delivery will take longer, quickfreeze the specimens, and
do not allow them to thaw during transit. If dry ice is used, be sure that the vials are
tightly sealed with stopper and tape so that no carbon dioxide enters the vial. The carbon
dioxide will lower the pH and inactivate FMDV. Epithelium can also be placed in buffered
glycerin and kept at 39o F (4o C) or -4o F (-20o C). Ratio of epithelium to glycerin should not exceed 1:10.
Laboratory Diagnosis
To confirm the initial case of FMD, the virus has to be isolated
and identified. After confirmation of the initial case, diagnosis can be made by antigen
or nucleic acid detection, or both.
Serological tests are available to detect antibody and
differentiate infected and vaccinated animals.
Differential Diagnosis
Differential diagnosis for FMD should include vesicular
stomatitis, swine vesicular disease, vesicular exanthema of swine, foot rot, and chemical
and thermal burns. In cattle, oral lesions caused by rinderpest, infectious bovine
rhinopneumonitis, bovine virus diarrhea, malignant catarrhal fever, and bluetongue can be
similar to the later lesions in FMD. In sheep, lesions caused by bluetongue, contagious
ecthyma, and lip and leg ulceration can be similar to the later lesions of FMD.
Vaccination
Starting about 1951, FMD vaccine was produced by the Frenkel
method. Normal tongue epithelium was removed, minced, placed in a nutrient broth, and
inoculated with FMDV. After replication of
FMDV, the virus was inactivated with formalin, and aluminum
hydroxide was added as an adjuvant. This method as well as virus propagation in cell
culture is being used today to produce FMD vaccine.
Outbreaks of FMD have been traced to use of formalin-inactivated
vaccine. Apparently, in some cases, vaccine contained viable virus. Today (1996) the
classical FMD vaccines are prepared using binary-ethyleneimine (BEI) inactivated virus and
aluminum hydroxide-saponin or oil as an adjuvant. Double emulsion oil vaccines have been
shown to produce an immunity of longer duration than aluminum hydroxide-saponin vaccine.
To date, molecular-engineered vaccines have not been as effective
or as economical as the cell culture vaccines.
When vaccinating animals, it is important that the vaccine contain
the same subtype of virus as is in the area. This necessitates frequent checking of the
serotype and subtype during an outbreak because FMD virus frequently changes during
natural passage through various species.
Protection induced by a good aluminum hydroxide vaccine decreases
rapidly in 4-6 months. A double emulsion oil vaccine can protect for up to 1 year.
Vaccinated animals that are not completely protected can be a
source of infection. The virus may replicate and be shed, but the animals may not show any
clinical sign of infection.
Control and Eradication
The official attitude of a country regarding control of a disease
depends on how seriously the disease affects the country, the financial and technical
ability of the country, and what its neighbors are doing. The degree of control of FMD
varies as follows:
1. Virtually no control in some Asian and African countries where
FMD is enzootic.
2. Protection of valuable or accessible animals or vaccination
along a border to provide a buffer zone. (May vaccinate cattle because of severity of the
disease but not sheep and goats.)
3. Large-scale vaccination and quarantine with or without
slaughter of infected animals.
4. Regulatory measures to prevent entry of FMD virus and
quarantine and implementation of an eradication program.
A country where FMD is endemic should be as concerned about
introduction of FMD virus as a country that is free of FMD because the introduced virus
may be a serotype to which the native animals have no immunity.
The following are the essential features of a control and
eradication program:
1. Stop movement of animals and animal products in the area
affected.
2. Slaughter infected animals (and known contact animals).
3. Destroy carcasses.
4. Disinfect vehicles leaving the infected area.
5. Perform vaccination.
If eradication by slaughter fails, vaccination may be used to
control the outbreak. There are experimental results indicating that potent vaccine may
induce significant immunity in 4 days to protect exposed cattle to FMD.
6. Inform and educate the community.
Most developed countries have detailed plans to deal with an
outbreak of FMD.
Public Health
In a review of the zoonotic aspects of FMD by K. Bauer in 1997, he
reported that, since 1921, FMD virus has been isolated and typed from slightly over 40
human cases (4). The cases occurred on three continents: Europe, Africa, and South
America. Type O predominated, followed by C, and rarely A. Because infection is uncommon,
FMD is not considered to be a public health problem.
GUIDE TO THE LITERATURE
1. ALONSO, A., MARTINS, M.A., DIAS GOMES, M.P., ALLENDE, R., and
SANDAHL, M.S., Foot-and-mouth disease virus typing by complement fixation and ELISA tests
using monovalent and polyvalent antisera J. Vet. Diagn. Invest., In press.
2. BACHRACH, H.L. 1968. Foot-and-mouth disease. Ann. Rev.
Microbiol., 22:201-244.
3. BAHNEMANN, H.G. 1975. Binary ethylenimine as an inactivant for
foot-and-mouth diseaese virus and its application for vaccine production. Arch. Virol.,
47(1);47-56.
4. BAUER, K. 1997. Foot-and-mouth disease as a zoonosis. Ann. Rev.
Microbiol., 22:201-244.
5. BLAIAN, L, and CALLIS, J. 1991. International Trade and
Foot-and-Mouth Disease (FMD). Proc. 95th Ann. Mtg., U.S. Anim. Health Assoc.,
pp.240-260.
6. BURROWS, R. 1972. Early Stages of Virus Infection Studies in
vivo and in vitro. In Proceeding of the Twenty-second symposium of the society for
general microbiology. London: Cambridge Univirsity Press; pp. 303-332.
7. CALLIS, J.J., and McKERCHER, P.D. 1977. Dissemination of
Foot-and-Mouth Disease Virus Through Animal Products. In Proceedings llth International
Meeting on Foot-and-Mouth Disease and Zoonosis Control, Washington, D.C.:Pan. American
Health Organization.
8. CASAS, R. 1978. Summary of current research of the Panamerican
foot-and-mouth disease center on oil adjuvanted vaccines. Bull. Off. Int. Epiz.,
89(11-12):1015-1054.
9. HEDGER, R.S. 1976. Foot-and-mouth disease in wildlife with
particular reference to the African buffalo (Syncerus caffer). Wildlife Diseases, 235-244.
10. McKERCHER, P.D., MORGAN, D.O., McVICAR, J.W., and SHOUT, N.J.
1980. Thermal Processing to Inactvate Viruses in Meat Products. In Proc. 85th Ann.
Mtg., U.S. Anim. Health Assoc. pg 320-328
11. McKERCHER, P.D., and CALLIS, J.J. 1983. Residual Viruses in
Fresh and Cured Meat. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Livestock
Conservation Institute, pp. 143-146.
12. McVICAR, J.W. 1977. The pathobiology of foot-and-mouth disease
in cattle (Patobiologia de la fiebre aftosa en bovinos). Review (Revision). Bltn. Centr.
Panam. Fiebre Aftosa, 26:1-7.
13. Northumberland Report. 1969. Report of the Committee of
Inquiry on Foot-and-Mouth Disease. London, 1969.
14. OBIAGA, J.A., ROSENBERG, F.J., ASTUDILLO, V., and GOIC, R.M.
1986. Characteristics of livestock production as determinant of foot-and-mouth disease
ecosystems (Las caracteristicas de la produccion pecuaria como determinantes de los
ecosistemas de fiebre aflosa). Bltn. Centr. Pan.Fiebre Aftosa, 33-34: 33-52,1979.
15. ROSENBERG, F.J., ASTIDILLO, V.M., and GOIC, R. 1977.
Estrategias regionales pare el control de la fiebre aftosa: un enfoque ecologico 8O
Congreso Cientifico Internacional de la Asociacion Epidemiologica Internacional, Puerto
Rico.
16. SELLERS, R.F., HERNIMAN, K.A.J., and GUMM, I.D. 1977. The
airborne dispersal of foot-and-mouth disease virus from vaccinated and recovered pigs,
cattle and sheep after exposure to infection. Res. Vet. Sci., 23:70-75.
James House, D.V.M., Ph.D.,USDA, APHIS, NVSL, FADDL; P. O. Box
848, Greenport, New York 11944-0848
C.A.Mebus, D.V.M., Ph.D., USDA, APHIS, VS , Retired, Southold, NY
|