A Cross-Sectional Study of Avian Influenza in One District of Guangzhou, 2013

Zhang, Haiming; Peng, Cong; Duan, Xuening; Shen, Dan; Lan, Guanghua; Xiao, Wutao; Tan, Hai; Ling, Wang; Hou, Jun; Zhu, Jiancui; He, Riwen; Zhang, Haibing; Zheng, Lilan; Yang, Jianyu; Zhang, Zhen; Zhou, Zhiwei; Li, Wenhua; Hu, Mailing; Zhong, Jianxin; Chen, Yuhua

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0111218

Cited by 6 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 28 publications

(27 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In order to control and prevent the spread of H5N1 and H9N2 viruses in chickens, a detailed understanding of infection patterns at bird and flock‐level is required. It is hypothesized that different poultry species and different poultry husbandry systems might play different roles in the transmission and maintenance of avian influenza viruses (Alexander, 2000; Zhang et al., 2014). The study presented here quantifies the extent of H5 and H9 virus circulation on backyard chicken farms, and on commercial broiler and layer chicken farms in two representative districts of Bangladesh.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patterns of Avian Influenza A (H5) and A (H9) virus infection in backyard, commercial broiler and layer chicken farms in Bangladesh

Gupta

Hoque

Fournié

et al. 2020

Transbound Emerg Dis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In order to control Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI) H5N1 and Low Pathogenic Avian Influenza (LPAI) H9N2 virus spread in endemically infected countries, a detailed understanding of infection patterns is required. We conducted cross-sectional studies in Bangladesh in 2016 and 2017, on 144 backyard, 106 broiler and 113 layer chicken farms. Although all sampled birds were negative for H5 virus by RT-PCR, H5 antibodies were detected in unvaccinated birds on all three farming systems. Higher H5 antibody prevalence was observed in ducks raised on backyard farms, 14.2% (95% CI: 10.0%-19.8%), compared to in-contact backyard chickens, 4.2% (95% CI: 2.8%-6.1%). The H5 antibody prevalence was lower in broiler chickens, 1.5% (95% CI: 0.9%-2.5%), compared to layer chickens, 7.8% (95% CI: 6.1%-9.8%). H9 viruses were detected by RT-PCR in 0.5% (95% CI: 0.2%-1.3%) and 0.6% (95% CI: 0.3%-1.5%) of broilers and layers, respectively, and in 0.2% (95% CI: 0.0%-1.2%) of backyard chickens. Backyard chickens and ducks showed similar H9 antibody prevalence, 16.0% (95% CI: 13.2%-19.2%) and 15.7% (95% CI: 11.3%-21.4%), which was higher compared to layers, 5.8% (95% CI: 4.3%-7.6%), and broilers, 1.5% (95% CI: 0.9%-2.5%). Over the course of a production cycle, H5 and H9 antibody prevalence increased with the age of backyard and layer chickens. Usually, multiple ducks within a flock were H5 antibody positive, in contrast to backyard chickens, broilers and layers where only individual birds within flocks developed H5 antibodies. Our findings highlight low virus circulation in healthy chickens of all production systems in Bangladesh, which is in contrast to high virus circulation reported from live bird markets. Data generated in this project can be used to adopt risk-based surveillance approaches in different chicken production systems in Bangladesh and to inform mathematical models exploring HPAI infection dynamics in poultry from the source of production.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patterns of Avian Influenza A (H5) and A (H9) virus infection in backyard, commercial broiler and layer chicken farms in Bangladesh

Gupta

Hoque

Fournié

et al. 2020

Transbound Emerg Dis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Previous studies have found prevalence to be especially high where heavy contamination occurs and on visibly dirty, moist, or difficult‐to‐clean surfaces (Indriani et al., 2010; Trock, Gaeta, Gonzalez, Pederson, & Senne, 2008), for example along the wall‐floor junctions, cracks and holes. However, one of the disadvantages of using ES constitutes the possibility of detecting viruses which are not currently present in the birds at the time due to accumulation and persistence within the environment (Lang, Kelly, & Runstadler, 2008; Zhang et al., 2014).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A literature review of the use of environmental sampling in the surveillance of avian influenza viruses

Hood

Roche

Brioudes

et al. 2020

Transbound Emerg Dis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This literature review provides an overview of use of environmental samples (ES) such as faeces, water, air, mud and swabs of surfaces in avian influenza (AI) surveillance programs, focussing on effectiveness, advantages and gaps in knowledge. ES have been used effectively for AI surveillance since the 1970s. Results from ES have enhanced understanding of the biology of AI viruses in wild birds and in markets, of links between human and avian influenza, provided early warning of viral incursions, allowed assessment of effectiveness of control and preventive measures, and assisted epidemiological studies in outbreaks, both avian and human. Variation exists in the methods and protocols used, and no internationally recognized guidelines exist on the use of ES and data management. Few studies have performed direct comparisons of ES versus live bird samples (LBS). Results reported so far demonstrate reliance on ES will not be sufficient to detect virus in all cases when it is present, especially when the prevalence of infection/contamination is low. Multiple sample types should be collected. In live bird markets, ES from processing/selling areas are more likely to test positive than samples from bird holding areas. When compared to LBS, ES is considered a cost-effective, simple, rapid, flexible, convenient and acceptable way of achieving surveillance objectives. As a non-invasive technique, it can minimize effects on animal welfare and trade in markets and reduce impacts on wild bird communities. Some limitations of environmental sampling methods have been identified, such as the loss of species-specific or information on the source of virus, and taxonomic-level analyses, unless additional methods are applied. Some studies employing ES have not provided detailed methods. In others, where ES and LBS are collected from the same site, positive results have not been assigned to specific sample types. These gaps should be remedied in future studies.

show abstract

“…13,14 Various studies have been conducted targeting the animal-human interface and have reported different routes of human exposure to AIVs identifying potential host determinants that favored persistence of virus. [4][5][6][7][8][9][15][16][17] Early preparedness for global pandemics has become an important public health task. Preparedness includes identification of determinants of disease spread at animal-human interface and ultimately recognizing areas to implement disease prevention and outbreak control.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition, traditional small‐scale poultry production systems have been transformed into industrial integrated operations in most parts of the world including Asia . Various studies have been conducted targeting the animal‐human interface and have reported different routes of human exposure to AIVs identifying potential host determinants that favored persistence of virus …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Avian influenza at animal‐human interface: One‐health challenge in live poultry retail stalls of Chakwal, Pakistan

Chaudhry

Webby

Swayne

et al. 2020

Influenza Resp Viruses

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Live poultry retail stalls (LPRSs) are believed to be the source of human infection with avian influenza viruses (AIVs); however, little is known about epidemiology of these viruses in LPRSs of Pakistan. Objectives:The current study was conducted to estimate the virological and serological prevalence of AIVs in humans and poultry and associated risk factors among seropositive butchers. Methods: A field survey of LPRSs of Chakwal District was conducted betweenDecember 2015 and March 2016. In total, 322 samples (sera = 161 and throat swab = 161) from butchers and 130 pooled oropharyngeal swabs and 100 sera from birds were collected. Baseline sera (n = 100) from general population were also tested.Data were collected by structured questionnaires. Sera were tested by hemagglutination inhibition (HI) test further confirmed by micro-neutralization test (MN). Swabs were processed by real-time RT-PCR. Logistic regression analyses were conducted to identify risk factors. Results:In butchers, 15.5% sera were positive for antibodies against H9 virus using a cutoff of ≥40 in HI titer; 6% sera from general population were positive for H9.Seroprevalence in poultry was 89%, and only 2.30% swabs were positive for H9.Presence of another LPRS nearby and the number of cages in the stall were risk factors (OR > 1) for H9 seroprevalence in butchers. Conclusions:This study provides evidence of co-circulation of H9 virus in poultry and exposure of butchers in the LPRSs, which poses a continued threat to public health.We suggest regular surveillance of AIVs in occupationally exposed butchers and birds in LPRSs.

show abstract

A Cross-Sectional Study of Avian Influenza in One District of Guangzhou, 2013

Cited by 6 publications

References 28 publications

Patterns of Avian Influenza A (H5) and A (H9) virus infection in backyard, commercial broiler and layer chicken farms in Bangladesh

Patterns of Avian Influenza A (H5) and A (H9) virus infection in backyard, commercial broiler and layer chicken farms in Bangladesh

A literature review of the use of environmental sampling in the surveillance of avian influenza viruses

Avian influenza at animal‐human interface: One‐health challenge in live poultry retail stalls of Chakwal, Pakistan

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About