Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors are still harmful and ineffective. Responses to the comments by Hieronymus et al.

In this response, we address point by point the additional issues raised by Hieronymus et al. in their second round of critique of our systematic review on selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors for major depression. We repulse that we are biased or mistaken in any major ways. We acknowledge that we missed a few small, mostly unpublished trials, and we made a few minor errors in our systematic review. However, these omissions and errors neither have any impact on our overall results nor on our conclusions. The critique by Hieronymus et al. seems to raise questions about their understanding of the systematic review process, and, on several occasions, they wrongly claimed that we made errors. Our analyses should be impartial and free from any biases or prejudices as we do not have any obligation to support the interests of sponsors or other groups.

Great boast, small roast on effects of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors: response to a critique of our systematic review.

Our systematic review in BMC Psychiatry concluded that selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) compared with placebo significantly increase the risk of serious adverse events (SAEs) in patients with major depression and the potential beneficial effects of SSRIs seem to be outweighed by the harms. Hieronymus et al. accused us of methodological inaccuracies and blatant errors. In their post-hoc analysis of our data, they reported that SSRIs only increase the risk of SAEs in elderly and seems safe for non-elderly patients. They also found our review misleading because our efficacy analyses were based on the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale; we included suboptimal SSRI doses; and we missed some 'pivotal trials'. We do not agree with Hieronymus et al. regarding several of the 'errors' they claim that we have made. However, we acknowledge that they have identified minor errors and that we missed some trials. After rectifying the errors and inclusion of the missed trials by us and Hieronymus et al., we re-analysed the data. The updated analyses are even more robust and confirm our earlier conclusions. SSRIs significantly increase the risk of an SAE both in non-elderly (p=0.045) and elderly (p=0.01) patients [overall odds ratio 1.39; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.13 to 1.73; p=0.002; I2=0%]. Moreover, SSRIs did not change noticeably the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, the internationally accepted scale (mean difference -2.02 points; 95% CI -2.38 to -1.66; p<0.00001). We found no differential effect of dose (p=0.20).

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors versus placebo in patients with major depressive disorder. A systematic review with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The evidence on selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) for major depressive disorder is unclear. METHODS: Our objective was to conduct a systematic review assessing the effects of SSRIs versus placebo, 'active' placebo, or no intervention in adult participants with major depressive disorder. We searched for eligible randomised clinical trials in The Cochrane Library's CENTRAL, PubMed, EMBASE, PsycLIT, PsycINFO, Science Citation Index Expanded, clinical trial registers of Europe and USA, websites of pharmaceutical companies, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the European Medicines Agency until January 2016. All data were extracted by at least two independent investigators. We used Cochrane systematic review methodology, Trial Sequential Analysis, and calculation of Bayes factor. An eight-step procedure was followed to assess if thresholds for statistical and clinical significance were crossed. Primary outcomes were reduction of depressive symptoms, remission, and adverse events. Secondary outcomes were suicides, suicide attempts, suicide ideation, and quality of life. RESULTS: A total of 131 randomised placebo-controlled trials enrolling a total of 27,422 participants were included. None of the trials used 'active' placebo or no intervention as control intervention. All trials had high risk of bias. SSRIs significantly reduced the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) at end of treatment (mean difference -1.94 HDRS points; 95% CI -2.50 to -1.37; P < 0.00001; 49 trials; Trial Sequential Analysis-adjusted CI -2.70 to -1.18); Bayes factor below predefined threshold (2.01*10-23). The effect estimate, however, was below our predefined threshold for clinical significance of 3 HDRS points. SSRIs significantly decreased the risk of no remission (RR 0.88; 95% CI 0.84 to 0.91; P < 0.00001; 34 trials; Trial Sequential Analysis adjusted CI 0.83 to 0.92); Bayes factor (1426.81) did not confirm the effect). SSRIs significantly increased the risks of serious adverse events (OR 1.37; 95% CI 1.08 to 1.75; P = 0.009; 44 trials; Trial Sequential Analysis-adjusted CI 1.03 to 1.89). This corresponds to 31/1000 SSRI participants will experience a serious adverse event compared with 22/1000 control participants. SSRIs also significantly increased the number of non-serious adverse events. There were almost no data on suicidal behaviour, quality of life, and long-term effects. CONCLUSIONS: SSRIs might have statistically significant effects on depressive symptoms, but all trials were at high risk of bias and the clinical significance seems questionable. SSRIs significantly increase the risk of both serious and non-serious adverse events. The potential small beneficial effects seem to be outweighed by harmful effects. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42013004420.

Direct-acting antivirals for chronic hepatitis C.

BACKGROUND: Millions of people worldwide suffer from hepatitis C, which can lead to severe liver disease, liver cancer, and death. Direct-acting antivirals (DAAs), e.g. sofosbuvir, are relatively new and expensive interventions for chronic hepatitis C, and preliminary results suggest that DAAs may eradicate hepatitis C virus (HCV) from the blood (sustained virological response). Sustained virological response (SVR) is used by investigators and regulatory agencies as a surrogate outcome for morbidity and mortality, based solely on observational evidence. However, there have been no randomised trials that have validated that usage. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of DAAs in people with chronic HCV. SEARCH METHODS: We searched for all published and unpublished trials in The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, LILACS, and BIOSIS; the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), China Network Knowledge Information (CNKI), the Chinese Science Journal Database (VIP), Google Scholar, The Turning Research into Practice (TRIP) Database, ClinicalTrials.gov, European Medicines Agency (EMA) (www.ema.europa.eu/ema/), WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (www.who.int/ictrp), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (www.fda.gov), and pharmaceutical company sources for ongoing or unpublished trials. Searches were last run in October 2016. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised clinical trials comparing DAAs versus no intervention or placebo, alone or with co-interventions, in adults with chronic HCV. We included trials irrespective of publication type, publication status, and language. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were hepatitis C-related morbidity, serious adverse events, and health-related quality of life. Our secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality, ascites, variceal bleeding, hepato-renal syndrome, hepatic encephalopathy, hepatocellular carcinoma, non-serious adverse events (each reported separately), and SVR. We systematically assessed risks of bias, performed Trial Sequential Analysis, and followed an eight-step procedure to assess thresholds for statistical and clinical significance. We evaluated the overall quality of the evidence, using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included a total of 138 trials randomising a total of 25,232 participants. The trials were generally short-term trials and designed primarily to assess the effect of treatment on SVR. The trials evaluated 51 different DAAs. Of these, 128 trials employed matching placebo in the control group. All included trials were at high risk of bias. Eighty-four trials involved DAAs on the market or under development (13,466 participants). Fifty-seven trials administered DAAs that were discontinued or withdrawn from the market. Study populations were treatment-naive in 95 trials, had been exposed to treatment in 17 trials, and comprised both treatment-naive and treatment-experienced individuals in 24 trials. The HCV genotypes were genotype 1 (119 trials), genotype 2 (eight trials), genotype 3 (six trials), genotype 4 (nine trials), and genotype 6 (one trial). We identified two ongoing trials.We could not reliably determine the effect of DAAs on the market or under development on our primary outcome of hepatitis C-related morbidity or all-cause mortality. There were no data on hepatitis C-related morbidity and only limited data on mortality from 11 trials (DAA 15/2377 (0.63%) versus control 1/617 (0.16%); OR 3.72, 95% CI 0.53 to 26.18, very low-quality evidence). We did not perform Trial Sequential Analysis on this outcome.There is very low quality evidence that DAAs on the market or under development do not influence serious adverse events (DAA 5.2% versus control 5.6%; OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.15 , 15,817 participants, 43 trials). The Trial Sequential Analysis showed that there was sufficient information to rule out that DAAs reduce the relative risk of a serious adverse event by 20% when compared with placebo. The only DAA that showed a lower risk of serious adverse events when meta-analysed separately was simeprevir (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.86). However, Trial Sequential Analysis showed that there was not enough information to confirm or reject a relative risk reduction of 20%, and when one trial with an extreme result was excluded, the meta-analysis result showed no evidence of a difference.DAAs on the market or under development may reduce the risk of no SVR from 54.1% in untreated people to 23.8% in people treated with DAA (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.52, 6886 participants, 32 trials, low quality evidence). Trial Sequential Analysis confirmed this meta-analysis result.Only 1/84 trials on the market or under development assessed the effects of DAAs on health-related quality of life (SF-36 mental score and SF-36 physical score).There was insufficient evidence from trials on withdrawn or discontinued DAAs to determine their effect on hepatitis C-related morbidity and all-cause mortality (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.79; 5 trials, very low-quality evidence). However, these DAAs seemed to increase the risk of serious adverse events (OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.73; 29 trials, very low-quality evidence). Trial Sequential Analysis confirmed this meta-analysis result.None of the 138 trials provided useful data to assess the effects of DAAs on the remaining secondary outcomes (ascites, variceal bleeding, hepato-renal syndrome, hepatic encephalopathy, and hepatocellular carcinoma). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence for our main outcomes of interest come from short-term trials, and we are unable to determine the effect of long-term treatment with DAAs. The rates of hepatitis C morbidity and mortality observed in the trials are relatively low and we are uncertain as to how DAAs affect this outcome. Overall, there is very low quality evidence that DAAs on the market or under development do not influence serious adverse events. There is insufficient evidence to judge if DAAs have beneficial or harmful effects on other clinical outcomes for chronic HCV. Simeprevir may have beneficial effects on risk of serious adverse event. In all remaining analyses, we could neither confirm nor reject that DAAs had any clinical effects. DAAs may reduce the number of people with detectable virus in their blood, but we do not have sufficient evidence from randomised trials that enables us to understand how SVR affects long-term clinical outcomes. SVR is still an outcome that needs proper validation in randomised clinical trials.

Direct-acting antivirals for chronic hepatitis C.

BACKGROUND: Millions of people worldwide suffer from hepatitis C, which can lead to severe liver disease, liver cancer, and death. Direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) are relatively new and expensive interventions for chronic hepatitis C, and preliminary results suggest that DAAs may eradicate hepatitis C virus (HCV) from the blood (sustained virological response). However, it is still questionable if eradication of hepatitis C virus in the blood eliminates hepatitis C in the body, and improves survival and leads to fewer complications. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of DAAs in people with chronic HCV. SEARCH METHODS: We searched for all published and unpublished trials in The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, LILACS, and BIOSIS; the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), China Network Knowledge Information (CNKI), the Chinese Science Journal Database (VIP), Google Scholar, The Turning Research into Practice (TRIP) Database, ClinicalTrials.gov, European Medicines Agency (EMA) (www.ema.europa.eu/ema/), WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (www.who.int/ictrp), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (www.fda.gov), and pharmaceutical company sources for ongoing or unpublished trials. Searches were last run in October 2016. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised clinical trials comparing DAAs versus no intervention or placebo, alone or with co-interventions, in adults with chronic HCV. We included trials irrespective of publication type, publication status, and language. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were hepatitis C-related morbidity, serious adverse events, and quality of life. Our secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality, ascites, variceal bleeding, hepato-renal syndrome, hepatic encephalopathy, hepatocellular carcinoma, non-serious adverse events (each reported separately), and sustained virological response. We systematically assessed risks of bias, performed Trial Sequential Analysis, and followed an eight-step procedure to assess thresholds for statistical and clinical significance. The overall quality of the evidence was evaluated using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included a total of 138 trials randomising a total of 25,232 participants. The 138 trials assessed the effects of 51 different DAAs. Of these, 128 trials employed matching placebo in the control group. All included trials were at high risk of bias. Eighty-four trials involved DAAs on the market or under development (13,466 participants). Fifty-seven trials administered withdrawn or discontinued DAAs. Trial participants were treatment-naive (95 trials), treatment-experienced (17 trials), or both treatment-naive and treatment-experienced (24 trials). The HCV genotypes were genotype 1 (119 trials), genotype 2 (eight trials), genotype 3 (six trials), genotype 4 (nine trials), and genotype 6 (one trial). We identified two ongoing trials.Meta-analysis of the effects of all DAAs on the market or under development showed no evidence of a difference when assessing hepatitis C-related morbidity or all-cause mortality (OR 3.72, 95% CI 0.53 to 26.18, P = 0.19, I² = 0%, 2,996 participants, 11 trials, very low-quality evidence). As there were no data on hepatitis C-related morbidity and very few data on mortality (DAA 15/2377 (0.63%) versus control 1/617 (0.16%)), it was not possible to perform Trial Sequential Analysis on hepatitis C-related morbidity or all-cause mortality.Meta-analysis of all DAAs on the market or under development showed no evidence of a difference when assessing serious adverse events (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.15, P = 0.52, I² = 0%, 15,817 participants, 43 trials, very low-quality evidence). The Trial Sequential Analysis showed that the cumulative Z-score crossed the trial sequential boundary for futility, showing that there was sufficient information to rule out that DAAs compared with placebo reduced the relative risk of a serious adverse event by 20%. The only DAA that showed a significant difference on risk of serious adverse events when meta-analysed separately was simeprevir (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.86). However, Trial Sequential Analysis showed that there was not enough information to confirm or reject a relative risk reduction of 20%, and when one trial with an extreme result was excluded, then the meta-analysis result showed no evidence of a difference.DAAs on the market or under development seemed to reduce the risk of no sustained virological response (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.52, P < 0.00001, I² = 77%, 6886 participants, 32 trials, very low-quality evidence) and Trial Sequential Analysis confirmed this meta-analysis result.Only 1/84 trials on the market or under development assessed the effects of DAAs on health-related quality of life (SF-36 mental score and SF-36 physical score).Withdrawn or discontinued DAAs had no evidence of a difference when assessing hepatitis C-related morbidity and all-cause mortality (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.79, P = 0.40, I² = 0%; 5 trials, very low-quality evidence). However, withdrawn DAAs seemed to increase the risk of serious adverse events (OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.73, P = 0.001, I² = 0%, 29 trials, very low-quality evidence), and Trial Sequential Analysis confirmed this meta-analysis result.Most of all outcome results were short-term results; therefore, we could neither confirm nor reject any long-term effects of DAAs. None of the 138 trials provided useful data to assess the effects of DAAs on the remaining secondary outcomes (ascites, variceal bleeding, hepato-renal syndrome, hepatic encephalopathy, and hepatocellular carcinoma). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Overall, DAAs on the market or under development do not seem to have any effects on risk of serious adverse events. Simeprevir may have beneficial effects on risk of serious adverse event. In all remaining analyses, we could neither confirm nor reject that DAAs had any clinical effects. DAAs seemed to reduce the risk of no sustained virological response. The clinical relevance of the effects of DAAs on no sustained virological response is questionable, as it is a non-validated surrogate outcome. All trials and outcome results were at high risk of bias, so our results presumably overestimate benefit and underestimate harm. The quality of the evidence was very low.

Development and survival of Ascaris suum eggs in deep litter of pigs.

SUMMARY Indoor transmission of Ascaris suum partly depends on the physico-chemical conditions in bedding material. Temperature, pH, aqueous ammonia, moisture, occurrence and development of A. suum eggs were therefore compared in different areas (resting, intermediate and latrine) of two deep litter pens on an organic farm in four seasons. There was some variation, but mean ammonia levels were generally very low (1·0-2·6 mm) and pH levels were moderate (8·04-8·88) in all three areas. Relatively, resting areas were characterized by overall moderate moisture (36%) and moderately high temperature (35·7 °C) levels. The area contained few eggs (50 eggs g-1 DM) of which 17% were viable, and though only 4% were larvated and 0·7% appeared infective, it was more than in the other areas. Intermediate areas had moderate moisture (43%) and high temperature (43·6 °C) levels. There were many eggs (523 eggs g-1 DM), but overall viability was very low (5%) and few eggs were larvated (0·004%) or even infective (0·002%). Latrines typically had high moisture (79%) and moderate temperature (30 °C) levels. The concentration of eggs was very high (1444 egg g-1 DM) and though 32% were viable, none had developed larval stages. The large majority of A. suum eggs appear to die and only few become infective while in the deep litter. However, a large fraction of eggs may remain viable for some time and could thus contaminate agricultural land and develop to infectivity, if the manure is not composted appropriately.

Viability of Ascaris suum eggs in stored raw and separated liquid slurry.

Separation of pig slurry into solid and liquid fractions is gaining importance as a way to manage increasing volumes of slurry. In contrast to solid manure and slurry, little is known about pathogen survival in separated liquid slurry. The viability of Ascaris suum eggs, a conservative indicator of fecal pollution, and its association with ammonia was investigated in separated liquid slurry in comparison with raw slurry. For this purpose nylon bags with 6000 eggs each were placed in 1 litre bottles containing one of the two fractions for 308 days at 5 °C or 25 °C. Initial analysis of helminth eggs in the separated liquid slurry revealed 47 Ascaris eggs per gramme. At 25 °C, egg viability declined to zero with a similar trend in both raw slurry and the separated liquid slurry by day 308, a time when at 5 °C 88% and 42% of the eggs were still viable in separated liquid slurry and raw slurry, respectively. The poorer survival at 25 °C was correlated with high ammonia contents in the range of 7.9-22.4 mM in raw slurry and 7.3-23.2 mM in liquid slurry compared to 3.2-9.5 mM in raw slurry and 2.6-9.5 mM in liquid slurry stored at 5 °C. The study demonstrates that at 5 °C, A. suum eggs have a higher viability in separated liquid slurry as compared to raw slurry. The hygiene aspect of this needs to be further investigated when separated liquid slurry is used to fertilize pastures or crops.

Duloxetine versus 'active' placebo, placebo or no intervention for major depressive disorder; a protocol for a systematic review of randomised clinical trials with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.

BACKGROUND: Major depression significantly impairs quality of life, increases the risk of suicide, and poses tremendous economic burden on individuals and societies. Duloxetine, a serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor, is a widely prescribed antidepressant. The effects of duloxetine have, however, not been sufficiently assessed in earlier systematic reviews and meta-analyses. METHODS/DESIGN: A systematic review will be performed including randomised clinical trials comparing duloxetine with 'active' placebo, placebo or no intervention for adults with major depressive disorder. Bias domains will be assessed, an eight-step procedure will be used to assess if the thresholds for clinical significance are crossed. We will conduct meta-analyses. Trial sequential analysis will be conducted to control random errors, and the certainty of the evidence will be assessed using GRADE. To identify relevant trials, we will search Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online, Excerpta Medica database, PsycINFO, Science Citation Index Expanded, Social Sciences Citation Index, Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Social Science & Humanities. We will also search Chinese databases and Google Scholar. We will search all databases from their inception to the present. Two review authors will independently extract data and perform risk of bias assessment. Primary outcomes will be the difference in mean depression scores on Hamilton Depression Rating Scale between the intervention and control groups and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes will be suicide, suicide-attempts, suicidal ideation, quality of life and non-serious adverse events. DISCUSSION: No former systematic review has systematically assessed the beneficial and harmful effects of duloxetine taking into account both the risks of random errors and the risks of systematic errors. Our review will help clinicians weigh the benefits of prescribing duloxetine against its adverse effects and make informed decisions. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO 2016 CRD42016053931.

Clinical relevance assessment of animal preclinical research (RAA) tool: development and explanation.

BACKGROUND: Only a small proportion of preclinical research (research performed in animal models prior to clinical trials in humans) translates into clinical benefit in humans. Possible reasons for the lack of translation of the results observed in preclinical research into human clinical benefit include the design, conduct, and reporting of preclinical studies. There is currently no formal domain-based assessment of the clinical relevance of preclinical research. To address this issue, we have developed a tool for the assessment of the clinical relevance of preclinical studies, with the intention of assessing the likelihood that therapeutic preclinical findings can be translated into improvement in the management of human diseases. METHODS: We searched the EQUATOR network for guidelines that describe the design, conduct, and reporting of preclinical research. We searched the references of these guidelines to identify further relevant publications and developed a set of domains and signalling questions. We then conducted a modified Delphi-consensus to refine and develop the tool. The Delphi panel members included specialists in evidence-based (preclinical) medicine specialists, methodologists, preclinical animal researchers, a veterinarian, and clinical researchers. A total of 20 Delphi-panel members completed the first round and 17 members from five countries completed all three rounds. RESULTS: This tool has eight domains (construct validity, external validity, risk of bias, experimental design and data analysis plan, reproducibility and replicability of methods and results in the same model, research integrity, and research transparency) and a total of 28 signalling questions and provides a framework for researchers, journal editors, grant funders, and regulatory authorities to assess the potential clinical relevance of preclinical animal research. CONCLUSION: We have developed a tool to assess the clinical relevance of preclinical studies. This tool is currently being piloted.

Molecular and parasitological tools for the study of Ascaridia galli population dynamics in chickens.

Experiments were first conducted to compare and evaluate different methods of Ascaridia galli larval recovery from the chicken intestine. The number of larvae recovered from the intestinal wall of chickens infected with 1000 embryonated A. galli eggs and killed 15 days post infection (p.i.) by three methods (ethylenediamine tetraacetic acid [EDTA], pepsin digestion and scraping) were compared. The EDTA and pepsin digestion were found to be the most efficient methods with no significant difference (P > 0.05) in the number of recovered larvae between the two. Subsequently, three different A. galli cohorts were established using the polymerase chain reaction-linked restriction fragment length polymorphism (PCR-RFLP) technique. A 533-bp long region of the cytochrome c oxidase subunit 1 gene of the mitochondrial DNA was targeted and 22 A. galli females were allocated to three different haplotypes. The four females with the highest embryonation rate from each haplotype group (total 12 females) were selected and used to inoculate each of 12 chickens with a dose of 1000 embryonated eggs. The chickens were killed 15 days p.i. and A. galli larvae were recovered from the small intestinal wall by the EDTA method and by sieving the lumen content on a 90 microm sieve. DNA of 40 larvae from each of the three different haplotypes was extracted using a worm lysis buffer, and PCR-RFLP analysis of these larvae revealed the same haplotype as that of their maternal parent. The identification of distinguishable cohorts may be a powerful tool in population studies of parasite turnover within the animal host.

Environmental contamination and transmission of Ascaris suum in Danish organic pig farms.

BACKGROUND: Although Ascaris suum is the most common pig nematode, the on-farm transmission dynamics are not well described. METHODS: We performed a 1-year field study on five organic pig farms, mapping egg contamination levels in pens and pasture soil as well as faecal egg counts in starter pigs, finisher pigs, dry and lactating sows. The uppermost bedding material was sampled from three pen areas (resting, intermediate and latrine) of shallow and deep litter pens. RESULTS: Ascaris suum was found on all farms. Averaged across farm and season, the prevalence of A. suum was 48, 64, 28 and 15% in starters, finishers, dry and lactating sows, respectively. For starters and finishers, the prevalence varied with season increasing towards the end of the year when 83-96% of finishing pigs from each farm had fresh liver white spots. Farrowing pastures were contaminated with a mean of 78-171 larvated eggs/kg dry soil depending on farm, while pastures for starter pigs contained 290-5397 larvated eggs/kg dry soil. The concentration of eggs in soil was highest in the autumn. Indoors, all pen areas were contaminated with A. suum eggs at comparable levels for shallow and deep litter. Overall there were 106, 445 and 1331 eggs/g dry straw in the resting, intermediate and latrine areas, respectively. However, more eggs were undergoing development in resting areas (44%) compared to intermediate (33%) and latrine areas (13%). Irrespective of area, more eggs were undergoing development in the autumn, but overall there were very few fully developed (i.e., infective) eggs in the bedding material. Laboratory embryonation of eggs from the bedding material nevertheless revealed that an overall mean of 79% of the eggs were viable. CONCLUSION: The organic pigs of all ages were continuously exposed to A. suum, but mainly younger animals were infected. Deep litter appeared to be a less important source of A. suum eggs than previously believed compared to shallow litter. Long-term pasture rotation to eliminate pasture contamination was not possible, and control programs should therefore include thorough cleaning indoors and composting/long-term storage of bedding material and manure to inactivate eggs and reduce transmission to pigs.

Cryptosporidium and Giardia in Danish organic pig farms: Seasonal and age-related variation in prevalence, infection intensity and species/genotypes.

Although pigs are commonly infected with Cryptosporidium spp. and Giardia duodenalis, including potentially zoonotic species or genotypes, little is known about age-related infection levels, seasonal differences and genetic variation in naturally infected pigs raised in organic management systems. Therefore, the current study was conducted to assess seasonal and age-related variations in prevalence and infection intensity of Cryptosporidium and Giardia, evaluate zoonotic potential and uncover correlations between species/genotypes, infection intensity and faecal consistency. Shedding of oocysts and cysts ((oo-)cysts) was monitored at quarterly intervals (September 2011-June 2012) in piglets (n = 152), starter pigs (n = 234), fatteners (n = 230) and sows (n = 240) from three organic farms in Denmark. (oo-)Cysts were quantified by immunofluorescence microscopy; and 56/75 subsamples from Cryptosporidium infected pigs were successfully analysed by PCR amplification and partial sequencing of the small subunit (SSU) 18S rRNA and hsp70genes, while 13/67 Giardia subsamples were successfully analysed by amplification and partial sequencing of the 18S rRNA and the gdh genes. Altogether, Cryptosporidium or Giardia infections were observed in 40.9% (350/856) and 14.0% (120/856) of the pigs, respectively, including 8.2% (70/856) infected with both parasites. Prevalence, intensity of infections and presence of Cryptosporidium species varied significantly between age-groups; 53.3% piglets, 72.2% starter pigs, 40.4% fatteners and 2.9% sows were infected with Cryptosporidium, whereas 2.0% piglets, 27.4% starter pigs, 17.8% fatteners and 5.0% sows were infected with Giardia. The overall prevalence was stable throughout the year, except for dual-infections that were more prevalent in September and December (p < 0.05). The infection intensity was age-related for both parasites, and dual-infected pigs tended to excrete lower levels of oocysts compared to pigs harbouring only Cryptosporidium. Likewise, pigs infected with Cryptosporidium scrofarum excreted fewer oocysts (mean CPG: 54,848 ± 194,508CI: 9085-118,781) compared to pigs infected with Cryptosporidium suis (mean OPG: 351,035 ± 351,035CI: 67,953-634,117). No correlation between faecal consistency and (oo-)cyst excretion levels was observed. Of the successfully genotyped isolates, 38/56 (67.9%) were C. scrofarum and 18/56 (32.1%) were C. suis, while the livestock specific G. duodenalis Assemblage E was detected in 11/13 (84.6%) isolates and the potentially zoonotic Assemblage A was identified in 2/13 (15.4%) isolates. Piglets exclusively hosted C. suis, with one exception, while starter pigs and fatteners predominantly hosted C. scrofarum. As organic pigs are partly reared outdoors, environmental contamination with Cryptosporidium and Giardia is inevitable. Nevertheless, the present data indicate that the potential public health risk associated with both of these parasites in Danish organic pig production seems to be negligible.

Survival of Ascaris suum and Ascaridia galli eggs in liquid manure at different ammonia concentrations and temperatures.

Eggs of Ascaris suum from pigs are highly resistant and commonly used as a conservative indicator of pathogen inactivation during slurry storage. Eggs of Ascaridia galli, the poultry ascarid, are also known to be highly resistant but the suitability as an indicator of pathogen inactivation has never been tested. Pig slurry has to be stored for several months to inactivate pathogens but chemical treatment of slurry may reduce this time. The suitability of A. galli as an indicator of slurry sanitation was tested by comparing the survival of eggs of A. suum and A. galli in pig slurry. In addition, the effect of urea treatment on inactivation of ascarid eggs in relation to storage time was also tested. Nylon bags with 10,000 eggs of either species were placed in 200 ml plastic bottles containing either urea-treated (2%) or untreated pig slurry for up to 120 days at 20°C, 6 days at 30°C, 36h at 40°C or 2h at 50°C. At all the temperatures in both slurry types, A. galli eggs were inactivated at a significantly faster rate (P<0.05) compared to A. suum eggs. For each 10°C raise in temperature from 20°C, T50 (time needed to inactivate 50% of eggs) for both types of eggs was reduced markedly. At all temperatures, viability of eggs of both species was significantly higher (P<0.05) in untreated slurry compared to urea-treated slurry except A. galli eggs at 20°C where no significant difference was detected. In untreated slurry, the levels of pH (6.33-9.08) and ammonia (0.01-1.74 mM) were lower (P<0.0001) compared to that of urea-treated slurry (pH: 8.33-9.28 and ammonia 1-13 mM). The study demonstrated that A. galli eggs are more sensitive to unfavourable conditions compared to A. suum eggs. The use of A. galli eggs as hygiene indicator may thus be suitable to assess inactivation of pathogens that are more sensitive than A. galli eggs. Addition of urea may markedly reduce the storage time of slurry needed to inactivate A. suum and A. galli eggs.