tetano
Editor, Senior Moderator
Zhonghua Liu Xing Bing Xue Za Zhi. 2012 Nov;33(11):1159-62.
[Investigation on the source of infection regarding an avian influenza (H5N1) case in Hong Kong that returning from Guangzhou].
[Article in Chinese]
Yuan J, Liu YF, Li KB, Zhou J, Xie CJ, Cai WF, Pan JY, Liu QL, Xiao XL, DI B, Liu JP, Ma XW, Liu YH, Yang ZC.
Source
Guangzhou Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Guangzhou 510440, China.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE:
We conducted an epidemiologic investigation to determine the source of infection on an avian influenza (H5N1) case who returned from Guangzhou, in Hong Kong.
METHODS:
Data related to epidemiologic investigation, medical observation on close contacts, Syndromic Surveillance on poultry salesmen, emergency monitoring, detection of the samples, source tracing on potential Avian influenza virus (H5, H7, H9) infected people, situation on environment pollution by avian influenza virus in the markets etc. were gathered. The determination of infection source was through comparing the different genes between the case and positive environmental samples.
RESULTS:
The infected case witnessed the procedure of how a live duck was killed, in market A in Guangzhou during May 17(th) to 19(th). The case was diagnosed as respiratory tract infection in 2 Third-grade-Class A hospitals in Guangzhou on May 23(th) and 24(th). The diagnosis was made as Avian influenza cases on May 26(th) after going back to Hong Kong. 23 close contacts and 34 markets poultry salesmen did not show any ILI related symptoms. However, 2 poultry salesmen from the markets nearby the place where the Avian influenza case stayed, were detected having positive H9 avian influenza antibody, with the H9 positive rate as 6.06% (2/33). Among the environmental samples in the 2 markets nearby home of the patient, chopping block was found to have carried H5, with positive rate as 9.8% (5/51) while poultry cage was found to carry H9, with the positive rate as 2.0% (1/51). A H5 positive sample was found with clade 2.3.2.1, same to the case, from a chopping block at the market B where the sources of poultry was the same as market A.
CONCLUSION:
The source of infection seemed to come from the markets in Guangzhou, that calling for the strengthening of poultry market management, for avian influenza prevention. History related to contact of poultry should be gathered when a diagnosis of respiratory tract infection was made. Timely sampling and testing should be made to improve the sensitivity of diagnosis.
PMID:
23290904
[PubMed - in process]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23290904
[Investigation on the source of infection regarding an avian influenza (H5N1) case in Hong Kong that returning from Guangzhou].
[Article in Chinese]
Yuan J, Liu YF, Li KB, Zhou J, Xie CJ, Cai WF, Pan JY, Liu QL, Xiao XL, DI B, Liu JP, Ma XW, Liu YH, Yang ZC.
Source
Guangzhou Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Guangzhou 510440, China.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE:
We conducted an epidemiologic investigation to determine the source of infection on an avian influenza (H5N1) case who returned from Guangzhou, in Hong Kong.
METHODS:
Data related to epidemiologic investigation, medical observation on close contacts, Syndromic Surveillance on poultry salesmen, emergency monitoring, detection of the samples, source tracing on potential Avian influenza virus (H5, H7, H9) infected people, situation on environment pollution by avian influenza virus in the markets etc. were gathered. The determination of infection source was through comparing the different genes between the case and positive environmental samples.
RESULTS:
The infected case witnessed the procedure of how a live duck was killed, in market A in Guangzhou during May 17(th) to 19(th). The case was diagnosed as respiratory tract infection in 2 Third-grade-Class A hospitals in Guangzhou on May 23(th) and 24(th). The diagnosis was made as Avian influenza cases on May 26(th) after going back to Hong Kong. 23 close contacts and 34 markets poultry salesmen did not show any ILI related symptoms. However, 2 poultry salesmen from the markets nearby the place where the Avian influenza case stayed, were detected having positive H9 avian influenza antibody, with the H9 positive rate as 6.06% (2/33). Among the environmental samples in the 2 markets nearby home of the patient, chopping block was found to have carried H5, with positive rate as 9.8% (5/51) while poultry cage was found to carry H9, with the positive rate as 2.0% (1/51). A H5 positive sample was found with clade 2.3.2.1, same to the case, from a chopping block at the market B where the sources of poultry was the same as market A.
CONCLUSION:
The source of infection seemed to come from the markets in Guangzhou, that calling for the strengthening of poultry market management, for avian influenza prevention. History related to contact of poultry should be gathered when a diagnosis of respiratory tract infection was made. Timely sampling and testing should be made to improve the sensitivity of diagnosis.
PMID:
23290904
[PubMed - in process]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23290904