Subscribe: pubmed: H5N1 epidemiology
Added By: Feedage Forager Feedage Grade C rated
Language: English
bird markets  bird  birds  infection  influenza  intervened lbms  intervened  lbms  live bird  market  meta analysis  poultry  prevalence  rates 
Rate this Feed
Rate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feed
Rate this feed 1 starRate this feed 2 starRate this feed 3 starRate this feed 4 starRate this feed 5 star

Comments (0)

Feed Details and Statistics Feed Statistics
Preview: pubmed: H5N1 epidemiology

pubmed: H5N1 epidemiology

NCBI: db=pubmed; Term=H5N1 epidemiology


A Meta-Analysis of the Prevalence of Influenza A H5N1 and H7N9 Infection in Birds.
(image) Related Articles

A Meta-Analysis of the Prevalence of Influenza A H5N1 and H7N9 Infection in Birds.

Transbound Emerg Dis. 2017 Jun;64(3):967-977

Authors: Bui C, Rahman B, Heywood AE, MacIntyre CR

Despite a much higher rate of human influenza A (H7N9) infection compared to influenza A (H5N1), and the assumption that birds are the source of human infection, detection rates of H7N9 in birds are lower than those of H5N1. This raises a question about the role of birds in the spread and transmission of H7N9 to humans. We conducted a meta-analysis of overall prevalence of H5N1 and H7N9 in different bird populations (domestic poultry, wild birds) and different environments (live bird markets, commercial poultry farms, wild habitats). The electronic database, Scopus, was searched for published papers, and Google was searched for country surveillance reports. A random effect meta-analysis model was used to produce pooled estimates of the prevalence of H5N1 and H7N9 for various subcategories. A random effects logistic regression model was used to compare prevalence rates between H5N1 and H7N9. Both viruses have low prevalence across all bird populations. Significant differences in prevalence rates were observed in domestic birds, farm settings, for pathogen and antibody testing, and during routine surveillance. Random effects logistic regression analyses show that among domestic birds, the prevalence of H5N1 is 47.48 (95% CI: 17.15-133.13, P < 0.001) times higher than H7N9. In routine surveillance (where surveillance was not conducted in response to human infections or bird outbreaks), the prevalence of H5N1 is still higher than H7N9 with an OR of 43.02 (95% CI: 16.60-111.53, P < 0.001). H7N9 in humans has occurred at a rate approximately four times higher than H5N1, and for both infections, birds are postulated to be the source. Much lower rates of H7N9 in birds compared to H5N1 raise doubts about birds as the sole source of high rates of human H7N9 infection. Other sources of transmission of H7N9 need to be considered and explored.

PMID: 26752606 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Biosecurity and Circulation of Influenza A (H5N1) Virus in Live-Bird Markets in Bangladesh, 2012.
(image) Related Articles

Biosecurity and Circulation of Influenza A (H5N1) Virus in Live-Bird Markets in Bangladesh, 2012.

Transbound Emerg Dis. 2017 Jun;64(3):883-891

Authors: Biswas PK, Giasuddin M, Nath BK, Islam MZ, Debnath NC, Yamage M

Bangladesh has been considered as one of the five countries endemic with highly pathogenic avian influenza A subtype H5N1 (HPAI H5N1). Live-bird markets (LBMs) in south Asian countries are believed to play important roles in the transmission of HPAI H5N1 and others due to its central location as a hub of the poultry trading. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations has been promoting improved biosecurity in LBMs in Bangladesh. In 2012, by enrolling 32 large LBMs: 10 with FAO interventions and 22 without assistance, we assessed the virus circulation in the selected LBMs by applying standard procedures to investigate market floors, poultry stall floors, poultry-holding cases and slaughter areas and the overall biosecurity using a questionnaire-based survey. Relative risk (RR) was examined to compare the prevalence of HPAI H5N1 in the intervened and non-intervened LBMs. The measures practised in significantly more of the FAO-intervened LBMs included keeping of slaughter remnants in a closed container; decontamination of poultry vehicles at market place; prevention of crows' access to LBM, market/floor cleaning by market committee; wet cleaning; disinfection of floor/poultry stall after cleaning; and good supply of clean water at market (P < 0.05). Conversely, disposal of slaughter remnants elsewhere at market and dry cleaning were in operation in more of the FAO non-intervened LBMs (P < 0.05). The RR for HPAI H5N1 in the intervened and non-intervened LBMs was 1.1 (95% confidence interval 0.44-2.76), suggesting that the proportion positive of the virus in the two kinds of LBM did not vary significantly (P = 0.413). These observations suggest that the viruses are still maintained at the level of production in farms and circulating in LBMs in Bangladesh regardless of interventions, albeit at lower levels than in other endemic countries.

PMID: 26663031 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]