Avian influenza

More, Simon J.; Bicout, Dominique; Bøtner, Anette; Butterworth, Andrew; Calistri, Paolo; Depner, Klaus; Edwards, Sandra; Garin‐Bastuji, Bruno; Good, Margaret; Schmidt, Christian Gortázar; Michel, Virginie; Miranda, Miguel Ángel; Nielsen, Søren Saxmose; Raj, Mohan; Sihvonen, Liisa; Spoolder, Hans; Thulke, Hans‐Hermann; Velarde, Antonio; Willeberg, Preben; Winckler, Christoph; Breed, Andrew C.; Brouwer, Adam; Guillemain, Matthieu; Harder, Timm; Monne, Isabella; Roberts, Helen Clare; Baldinelli, Francesca; Barrucci, Federica; Fabris, Chiara; Martino, Laura; Mosbach‐Schulz, Olaf; Verdonck, Frank; Morgado, Joana; Stegeman, Jan Arend

doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2017.4991

Cited by 42 publications

(53 citation statements)

References 353 publications

(522 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Nevertheless, the risk of AI viruses being transported to Europe through poultry trade is negligible as live poultry, day-old chicks and semen have been identified as the only non-wild bird pathways via which AI virus introduction is non-negligible, and as suitable risk management measures are in place, such as testing and quarantine (EFSA AHAW Panel et al, 2017). Nevertheless, the risk of AI viruses being transported to Europe through poultry trade is negligible as live poultry, day-old chicks and semen have been identified as the only non-wild bird pathways via which AI virus introduction is non-negligible, and as suitable risk management measures are in place, such as testing and quarantine (EFSA AHAW Panel et al, 2017).…”

Section: Scientific Analysis Of Ai Spread From Non-eu/eea Countries Tmentioning

confidence: 99%

Avian influenza overview August – November 2018

Adlhoch¹,

Brouwer²,

Kuiken³

et al. 2018

EFS2

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Scientific Analysis Of Ai Spread From Non-eu/eea Countries Tmentioning

confidence: 99%

Avian influenza overview August – November 2018

Adlhoch¹,

Brouwer²,

Kuiken³

et al. 2018

EFS2

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Information on the presence of LPAIV in organs, tissue, meat and eggs was retrieved via a search in the Web of Science for the period 2005-2015 using the search terms 'avian influenza' and meat or eggs as described in Sections F12 and F13 of the latest EFSA scientific opinion on avian influenza (EFSA AHAW Panel, 2017). An additional search was carried out for the period 1/1/2016-17/7/2018.…”

Section: Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Prevalence values in wild bird populations were estimated at 0.2%, 2% and 6% in low medium and high prevalence scenarios ('EFSA AHAW Panel, 2017). According to EFSA's Scientific Opinion (2017) 'Experimental infections with LPAIV showed that a transient, low-level antibody response can be generated, which may be sufficient to provide partial protection against reinfection with viruses of the same subtype; it is less likely that the induced humoral response confers protection against heterologous reinfections.…”

Section: Wild Birdsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of low pathogenic avian influenza virus transmission via raw poultry meat and raw table eggs

Gonzáles¹,

Roberts²,

Śmietanka³

et al. 2018

EFS2

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A rapid qualitative assessment has been done by performing a theoretical analysis on the transmission of low pathogenic avian influenza (LPAI) via fresh meat from poultry reared or kept in captivity for the production of meat (raw poultry meat) or raw table eggs. A predetermined transmission pathway followed a number of steps from a commercial or non‐commercial poultry establishment within the EU exposed to LPAI virus (LPAIV) to the onward virus transmission to animals and humans. The combined probability of exposure and subsequent LPAIV infection via raw poultry meat containing LPAIV is negligible for commercial poultry and humans exposed via consumption whereas it is very unlikely for non‐commercial poultry, wild birds and humans exposed via handling and manipulation. The probability of LPAIV transmission from an individual infected via raw poultry meat containing LPAIV is negligible for commercial poultry and humans, whereas it is very unlikely for non‐commercial poultry and wild birds. The combined probability of exposure and subsequent LPAIV infection via raw table eggs containing LPAIV is negligible for commercial poultry and humans and extremely unlikely to negligible for non‐commercial poultry and wild birds. The probability of LPAIV transmission from an individual infected via raw table eggs containing LPAIV is negligible for commercial poultry and humans and very unlikely to negligible for non‐commercial poultry and wild birds. Although the presence of LPAIV in raw poultry meat and table eggs is very unlikely to negligible, there is in general a high level of uncertainty on the estimation of the subsequent probabilities of key steps of the transmission pathways for poultry and wild birds, mainly due to the limited number of studies available, for instance on the viral load required to infect a bird via raw poultry meat or raw table eggs containing LPAIV.

show abstract

“…IAV evolve rapidly [1] and occasionally, once introduced into poultry, low pathogenicity avian influenza (LPAI) viruses (LPAIV) of the H5 or H7 subtypes from the wild bird reservoir can directly evolve into highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) viruses (HPAIV) [2, 3]. Although infections by both viruses largely have the same host range, they cause different diseases in terms of virulence [4, 5] and hence result in different needs for control and surveillance.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Unlike LPAI where the infection can be detected via the presence of either virus or antibodies since infected birds mostly recover, almost no HPAIV infected poultry will survive [5] and infection is mostly detected via testing sick or dead birds for virus. Also, during outbreaks, HPAIV has been shown to easily spread by proximity [3] while LPAIV often spreads through contact networks [6]. …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quantifying the effect of swab pool size on the detection of influenza A viruses in broiler chickens and its implications for surveillance

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundTimely diagnosis of influenza A virus infections is critical for outbreak control. Due to their rapidity and other logistical advantages, lateral flow immunoassays can support influenza A virus surveillance programs and here, their field performance was proactively assessed.The performance of real-time polymerase chain reaction and two lateral flow immunoassay kits (FluDETECT and VetScan) in detecting low pathogenicity influenza A virus in oropharyngeal swab samples from experimentally inoculated broiler chickens was evaluated and at a flock-level, different testing scenarios were analyzed.ResultsFor real-time polymerase chain reaction positive individual-swabs, FluDETECT respectively detected 37% and 58% for the H5 and H7 LPAIV compared to 28% and 42% for VetScan. The mean virus titer in H7 samples was higher than for H5 samples. For real-time polymerase chain reaction positive pooled swabs (containing one positive), detections by FluDETECT were significantly higher in the combined 5- and 6-swab samples compared to 11-swab samples. FluDETECT detected 58%, 55.1% and 44.9% for the H7 subtype and 28.3%, 34.0% and 24.6% for the H5 in pools of 5, 6 and 11 respectively.In our testing scenario analysis, at low flock-level LPAIV infection prevalence, testing pools of 11 detected slightly more infections while at higher prevalence, testing pools of 5 or 6 performed better. For highly pathogenic avian influenza virus, testing pools of 11 (versus 5 or 6) detected up to 5% more infections under the assumption of similar sensitivity across pools and detected less by 3% when its sensitivity was assumed to be lower.ConclusionsMuch as pooling a bigger number of swab samples increases the chances of having a positive swab included in the sample to be tested, this study’s outcomes indicate that this practice may actually reduce the chances of detecting the virus since it may result into lowering the virus titer of the pooled sample. Further analysis on whether having more than one positive swab in a pooled sample would result in increased sensitivity for low pathogenicity avian influenza virus is needed.

show abstract

Avian influenza

Abstract: Previous introductions of highly pathogenic avian influenza virus (HPAIV) to the EU were most likely via migratory wild birds. A mathematical model has been developed which indicated that virus amplification and spread may take place when wild bird populations of sufficient size within EU

Cited by 42 publications

References 353 publications

Avian influenza overview August – November 2018

Avian influenza overview August – November 2018

Assessment of low pathogenic avian influenza virus transmission via raw poultry meat and raw table eggs

Quantifying the effect of swab pool size on the detection of influenza A viruses in broiler chickens and its implications for surveillance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About