• FluTrackers.com Inc. does not provide medical advice. Information on this web site is collected from various internet resources, and the FluTrackers board of directors makes no warranty to the safety, efficacy, correctness or completeness of the information posted on this site by any author or poster. The information collated here is for instructional and/or discussion purposes only and is NOT intended to diagnose or treat any disease, illness, or other medical condition. Every individual reader or poster should seek advice from their personal physician/healthcare practitioner before considering or using any interventions that are discussed on this website. By continuing to access this website you agree to consult your personal physican before using any interventions posted on this website, and you agree to hold harmless FluTrackers.com Inc., the board of directors, the members, and all authors and posters for any effects from use of any medication, supplement, vitamin or other substance, device, intervention, etc. mentioned in posts on this website, or other internet venues referenced in posts on this website.
  • We are not asking for any donations. Do not donate to any entity who says they are raising funds for us.

BMC ID: Surveillance of low pathogenic novel H7N9 avian influenza in commercial poultry barns: detection of outbreaks and estimation of virus introduc

tetano

Editor, Senior Moderator
Both high and low pathogenic subtype A avian influenza remain ongoing threats to the commercialpoultry industry globally. The emergence of a novel low pathogenic H7N9 lineage in China presentsitself as a new concern to both human and animal health and may necessitate additional surveillancein commercial poultry operations in affected regions.

Methods: Sampling data was simulated using a mechanistic model of H7N9 influenza transmission within commercialpoultry barns together with a stochastic observation process.

Parameters were estimated usingmaximum likelihood. We assessed the probability of detecting an outbreak at time of slaughter usingboth real-time polymerase chain reaction (rt-PCR) and a hemagglutinin inhibition assay (HI assay)before considering more intense sampling prior to slaughter.

The day of virus introduction and R0were estimated jointly from weekly flock sampling data. For scenarios where R0 was known, weestimated the day of virus introduction into a barn under different sampling frequencies.

Results: If birds were tested at time of slaughter, there was a higher probability of detecting evidence of an outbreakusing an HI assay compared to rt-PCR, except when the virus was introduced <2 weeks beforetime of slaughter.

Prior to the initial detection of infection Nsample = 50 (1%) of birds were sampledon a weekly basis once, but after infection was detected, Nsample = 2000 birds (40%) were sampledto estimate both parameters. We accurately estimated the day of virus introduction in isolation withweekly and 2-weekly sampling.

Conclusions: A strong sampling effort would be required to infer both the day of virus introduction and R0.

Sucha sampling effort would not be required to estimate the day of virus introduction alone once R0 wasknown, and sampling Nsample = 50 of birds in the flock on a weekly or 2 weekly basis would besufficient.

Author: Amy PinsentIsobel M BlakeMichael T WhiteSteven Riley
Credits/Source: BMC Infectious Diseases 2014, 14:427

http://7thspace.com/headlines/47772...nd_estimation_of_virus_introduction_time.html
 
Back
Top Bottom