-
A total of 27 H7N9 human cases were confirmed in Henan province from 2016 to 2017 including 2 imported human cases and 25 local human cases, and 11 of the cases were fatal. Of the 25 local cases, 24 had a history of exposure to live poultry and 15 of them had H7N9 virus detected in the exposed live poultry market. Specifically, the 25 local cases mainly occurred in 10 cities between January and June of 2017 (Figures 1-2), and no cases were reported at other times. Among 27 persons with confirmed H7N9 virus infection, the median age was 49 years (range, 15-80), 85.19% were male, and 55.56% were rural residents. Furthermore, 92.59% (25/27) had a history of exposure to live poultry, 6 of them were poultry workers, 8 were farmers, and 4 were restaurant staff. There were 2 imported cases from Hubei and Zhejiang provinces.
-
Henan province has 18 municipal administrative regions and there are regular monitoring points in 7 of the regions to carry out environmental surveillance of AIVs. The 25 local H7N9 cases were from 10 cities, with 4 of them being regular monitoring sites. Nanyang (NY) city located in the southwest of Henan and near the border with Hubei Province reported 6 cases, which is the highest number of cases of H7N9. Shangqiu (SQ) as well as Zhumadian (ZMD) and Zhoukou (ZK) cities reported three H7N9 human cases. Zhengzhou (ZZ) city, Luoyang (LY), Xinyang (XY), and Pingdingshan (PDS) cities reported two H7N9 human cases, and Kaifeng (KF) and Luohe (LH) cities reported one H7N9 human case. There was no H7N9 human case reported in 6 cities in the north of Henan and 1 city in the west of Henan. It is worth mentioning that all the H7N9 human cases reported were from the south of the Yellow River. There are 6 cities in Henan Province located north of the Yellow River, and no H7N9 human case was reported in these cities.
-
All the H7N9 cases were reported in the first half of 2017, and no case was reported in 2016 and the last half of 2017. The first case was reported on January 11 and the last on June 7. The highest number of cases (9) was reported in March followed by the number recorded in February (6) (Figure 2).
-
A total of 1,045 samples were collected by routine surveillance of poultry environments, and at least 35 specimens were collected per month. The prevalence of Flu A and H9 subtypes had a similar trend from January to December, while those of non-H5/H7/H9 Flu A (H5/H7/H9-negative but influenza A positive) differed (Figure 3). H5 was detected in only two samples collected in February and November. All the H7-positive specimens were detected in the first half of 2017, 4 in February, 2 in May, and 1 in June. There were 518 samples collected in 2016, 42 (8.11%) were Flu A positive, 29 (5.6%) were H9 positive, and no H7- and H5-positive samples were detected. A total of 527 samples were collected in 2017, 87 (16.51%) were positive for Flu A, and the positive rates of H5, H7, and H9 were 0.38%, 1.33%, and 14.42%, respectively (Table 1). In contrast, the positive rate of H7 was as high as 21.17% in possible H7N9 cases-exposed environments, and the positive rate of each subtype increased markedly— 47.56%, 6.19%, 33.88%, and 5.86% for Flu A, H5, H9, and non-H5/H7/H9 Flu A, respectively (Table 1).
Table 1. Temporal distribution of AIVs in environmental samples
Type of specimen source Sample year Number of positive sample n (%) Flu A H5 H7 H9 Non-H5/H7/H9 Flu A Routine surveillance specimens 2016 42 (8.11) 0 (0) 0 (0) 29 (5.60) 13 (2.51) 2017 87 (16.51) 2 (0.38) 7 (1.33) 76 (14.42) 8 (1.52) Total 129 (12.34) 2 (0.19) 6 (0.67) 105 (10.05) 21 (2.01) H7N9 cases-related specimens 2017 146 (47.56) 19 (6.19) 65 (21.17) 104 (33.88) 18 (5.86) -
A total of 1,045 samples were collected from routine surveillance of poultry-related environments and 307 samples from H7N9-contaminated environments. For routine surveillance, 67.27% (703/1,025) samples were collected from LPMs, and 342 samples from poultry slaughtering plants, poultry scale farm, free-range poultry, and wetland habitat. For routine monitoring, 18.21% (128/703) samples were positive for Flu A in LPMs, and only 1 sample was positive for H9 in other 342 samples. Furthermore, the positive rates of H5, H7, H9, and non-H5/H7/H9 Flu A were 0.28%, 1%, 14.79%, and 2.99% in live poultry markets. H9 was the main avian influenza subtype (10.05%) in routine surveillance, and only 1 sample was H7 positive. Samples collected from H7N9-exposed live poultry markets had higher AIVs positive rates than those from routine surveillance sites, with prevalence values of 54.84% (136/248) for Flu A, 7.66% (19/248) for H5, 19.37% (55/248) for H7, 41.94% (104/248) for H9, and 7.26% (18/248) for non-H5/H7/H9 Flu A (Table 1), with H9 as the main avian influenza. One patient, who worked at a live poultry farm, was diagnosed with H7N9 infection. A total of 39 environmental specimens were collected from the chicken farm where this patient worked, and 25.64% (10/39) of the samples were positive for H7, and no H5 or H9 was detected. Interestingly, 20 samples collected from 2 H7N9 patient's home, none was positive for Flu A.
-
The data from Table 2 showed that 96% (264/275) of Flu A-positive samples were from live poultry markets. Hence, we analyzed the positive rates of AIVs in different types of samples from live poultry markets (Table 3). The detection rate of Flu A in poultry plucker swabs was the highest, with 40% (4/10) for routine surveillance sites and 81.08% (30/37) for H7N9 cases-exposed environments. H9 was detected in all the different types of specimens, with the highest (66.67%) and lowest positive rates in drinking water of H7N9 cases exposure environment and that of the monitoring sites, respectively. H7 was detected in all the different types of specimens from H7N9 cases-exposed environments, and in fecal swabs, poultry cages swabs, and poultry plucker swabs from monitoring sites. The highest H7 positive rate, 45% (9/20), was observed in sewage samples followed by 43.24% (16/37) in poultry plucker swabs, and both types samples were from H7N9 cases-exposed environments. In routine monitoring, the prevalence of H5 was low, as only 2 were positive out of 703 sewage samples and cutting board swabs in live poultry markets. On the contrary, 19 of 295 samples, which are from the four types of specimens, were positive for H5.
Table 2. Number of positive of AIVs in different environments, Henan, 2016–2017
Type of environment Number of
samplesNumber of positive sample n (%) Flu A H5 H7 H9 Non-H5/H7/H9 Flu A Routine surveillance
sitesLive poultry market 703 128 (18.21) 2 (0.28) 7 (1.00) 104 (14.79) 21 (2.99) Others 342 1 (0.29) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (0.29) 0 (0) Total 1,045 129 (12.34) 2 (0.19) 7 (0.67) 105 (10.05) 21 (2.01) H7N9 case exposure
environmentLive poultry market 248 136 (54.84) 19 (7.66) 55 (19.37) 104 (41.94) 18 (7.26) Patient's house 20 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Live poultry farm 39 10 (25.64) 0 (0) 10 (25.64) 0 (0) 0 (0) Total 307 146 (47.56) 19 (6.19) 65 (21.17) 104 (33.88) 18 (5.86) Table 3. Positive rates of AIVs in different sample types from live poultry markets
Types of environment Types of samples Number of samplesl
samplesPercentages (%) (Number of positive samples) Flu A H5 H7 H9 Non-H5/H7/H9 Flu A Routine surveillance
sitesFecal swabs 274 14.96 (41) 0 (0) 1.46 (4) 12.04 (33) 2.55 (7) Poultry cages swabs 153 24.84 (38) 0 (0) 1.31 (2) 22.22 (34) 0.65 (1) Drinking water samples 75 13.33 (10) 0 (0) 0 (0) 10.67 (8) 2.67 (2) Sewage samples 134 17.16 (23) 0.75 (1) 0 (0) 11.19 (15) 5.22 (7) Poultry plucker swabs 10 40 (4) 0 (0) 10 (1) 30 (3) 0 (0) Cutting board swabs 57 21.05 (12) 1.75 (1) 0 (0) 19.30 (11) 1.75 (1) H7N9 cases-exposed
environmentFecal swabs 72 40.28 (29) 6.94 (5) 20.83 (15) 34.72 (25) 2.78 (2) Poultry cages swabs 46 41.30 (19) 2.17 (1) 6.52 (3) 36.96 (17) 4.35 (2) Drinking water samples 9 77.78 (7) 0 (0) 33.33 (3) 66.67 (6) 0 (0) Sewage samples 20 75.00 (15) 30.00 (6) 45.00 (9) 55.00 (11) 5.00 (1) Poultry plucker swabs 37 81.08 (30) 16.22 (6) 43.24 (16) 59.46 (22) 10.81 (4) Cutting board swabs 25 56.00 (14) 4.00 (1) 8.00 (2) 32.00 (8) 16.00 (4) Others 39 53.85 (21) 0 (0) 17.95 (7) 38.46 (15) 10.26 (4) -
H9 was the main AIV in routine monitoring sites, and hence, we analyzed the mixed infections of AIVs in LPMs-related human H7N9 infection. The rate of mixed infections by H9 and H5/H7 was 43.27% (45/104), by H5 and H7/H9 was 89.47% (17/19), and by H7 and H5/H9 was 81.82% (45/55) (Table 1 and Table 4). In addition, the mixed infection of H7 and H9 was 78.18% (43/55) of H7-positive samples and 41.34% (43/104) of H9-positive samples.
Table 4. Mixed infections of AIVs in LPMs related with H7N9 cases
Type of mixed infection Number Percentages of H5-positive samples Percentages of H7-positive samples Percentages of H9-positive samples H7+H9 43 − 78.18 41.34 H5+H9 15 78.95 − 14.42 H5+H7 15 78.95 27.27 − H5+H7+H9 13 68.42 23.64 12.50
doi: 10.3967/bes2019.101
Distribution of Avian Influenza A Viruses in Poultry-Related Environment and Its Association with Human Infection in Henan, 2016 to 2017
-
Abstract:
Objective To survey avian influenza A viruses (AIVs) in the environment and explore the reasons for the surge in human H7N9 cases. Methods A total of 1,045 samples were collected from routine surveillance on poultry-related environments and 307 samples from human H7N9 cases-exposed environments in Henan from 2016 to 2017. The nucleic acids of influenza A (Flu A), H5, H7, and H9 subtypes were detected by real-time polymerase chain reaction. Results A total of 27 H7N9 cases were confirmed in Henan from 2016 to 2017, 24 had a history of live poultry exposure, and 15 had H7N9 virus detected in the related live poultry markets (LPMs). About 96% (264/275) Flu A positive-environmental samples were from LPMs. H9 was the main AIV subtype (10.05%) from routine surveillance sites with only 1 H7-positive sample, whereas 21.17% samples were H7-positive in H7N9 cases-exposed environments. Samples from H7N9 cases-exposed LPMs (47.56%) had much higher AIVs positive rates than those from routine surveillance sites (12.34%). The H7+H9 combination of mixed infection was 78.18% (43/55) of H7-positive samples and 41.34% (43/104) of H9-positive samples. Conclusion The contamination status of AIVs in poultry-related environments is closely associated with the incidence of human infection caused by AIVs. Therefore, systematic surveillance of AIVs in LPMs in China is essential for the detection of novel reassortant viruses and their potential for interspecies transmission. -
Table 1. Temporal distribution of AIVs in environmental samples
Type of specimen source Sample year Number of positive sample n (%) Flu A H5 H7 H9 Non-H5/H7/H9 Flu A Routine surveillance specimens 2016 42 (8.11) 0 (0) 0 (0) 29 (5.60) 13 (2.51) 2017 87 (16.51) 2 (0.38) 7 (1.33) 76 (14.42) 8 (1.52) Total 129 (12.34) 2 (0.19) 6 (0.67) 105 (10.05) 21 (2.01) H7N9 cases-related specimens 2017 146 (47.56) 19 (6.19) 65 (21.17) 104 (33.88) 18 (5.86) Table 2. Number of positive of AIVs in different environments, Henan, 2016–2017
Type of environment Number of
samplesNumber of positive sample n (%) Flu A H5 H7 H9 Non-H5/H7/H9 Flu A Routine surveillance
sitesLive poultry market 703 128 (18.21) 2 (0.28) 7 (1.00) 104 (14.79) 21 (2.99) Others 342 1 (0.29) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (0.29) 0 (0) Total 1,045 129 (12.34) 2 (0.19) 7 (0.67) 105 (10.05) 21 (2.01) H7N9 case exposure
environmentLive poultry market 248 136 (54.84) 19 (7.66) 55 (19.37) 104 (41.94) 18 (7.26) Patient's house 20 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Live poultry farm 39 10 (25.64) 0 (0) 10 (25.64) 0 (0) 0 (0) Total 307 146 (47.56) 19 (6.19) 65 (21.17) 104 (33.88) 18 (5.86) Table 3. Positive rates of AIVs in different sample types from live poultry markets
Types of environment Types of samples Number of samplesl
samplesPercentages (%) (Number of positive samples) Flu A H5 H7 H9 Non-H5/H7/H9 Flu A Routine surveillance
sitesFecal swabs 274 14.96 (41) 0 (0) 1.46 (4) 12.04 (33) 2.55 (7) Poultry cages swabs 153 24.84 (38) 0 (0) 1.31 (2) 22.22 (34) 0.65 (1) Drinking water samples 75 13.33 (10) 0 (0) 0 (0) 10.67 (8) 2.67 (2) Sewage samples 134 17.16 (23) 0.75 (1) 0 (0) 11.19 (15) 5.22 (7) Poultry plucker swabs 10 40 (4) 0 (0) 10 (1) 30 (3) 0 (0) Cutting board swabs 57 21.05 (12) 1.75 (1) 0 (0) 19.30 (11) 1.75 (1) H7N9 cases-exposed
environmentFecal swabs 72 40.28 (29) 6.94 (5) 20.83 (15) 34.72 (25) 2.78 (2) Poultry cages swabs 46 41.30 (19) 2.17 (1) 6.52 (3) 36.96 (17) 4.35 (2) Drinking water samples 9 77.78 (7) 0 (0) 33.33 (3) 66.67 (6) 0 (0) Sewage samples 20 75.00 (15) 30.00 (6) 45.00 (9) 55.00 (11) 5.00 (1) Poultry plucker swabs 37 81.08 (30) 16.22 (6) 43.24 (16) 59.46 (22) 10.81 (4) Cutting board swabs 25 56.00 (14) 4.00 (1) 8.00 (2) 32.00 (8) 16.00 (4) Others 39 53.85 (21) 0 (0) 17.95 (7) 38.46 (15) 10.26 (4) Table 4. Mixed infections of AIVs in LPMs related with H7N9 cases
Type of mixed infection Number Percentages of H5-positive samples Percentages of H7-positive samples Percentages of H9-positive samples H7+H9 43 − 78.18 41.34 H5+H9 15 78.95 − 14.42 H5+H7 15 78.95 27.27 − H5+H7+H9 13 68.42 23.64 12.50 -
[1] Wu Y, Wu Y, Tefsen B, et al. Bat-derived influenza-like viruses H17N10 and H18N11. Trends Microbiol, 2014; 22, 183−91. doi: 10.1016/j.tim.2014.01.010 [2] Alexander DJ. Avian influenza viruses and human health. Dev Biol (Basel), 2006; 124, 77−84. [3] Claas EC, Osterhaus AD, van Beek R, et al. Human influenza A H5N1 virus related to a highly pathogenic avian influenza virus. Lancet, 1998; 351, 472−7. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(97)11212-0 [4] Shortridge KF, Zhou NN, Guan Y, et al. Characterization of avian H5N1 influenza viruses from poultry in Hong Kong. Virology, 1998; 252, 331−42. doi: 10.1006/viro.1998.9488 [5] Sun Y, Liu J. H9N2 influenza virus in China: a cause of concern. Protein Cell, 2015; 6, 18−25. doi: 10.1007/s13238-014-0111-7 [6] Nicoll A, Danielsson N. A novel reassortant avian influenza A(H7N9) virus in China - what are the implications for Europe. Euro Surveill, 2013; 18, 20452. [7] Gao R, Cao B, Hu Y, et al. Human infection with a novel avian-origin influenza A (H7N9) virus. N Engl J Med, 2013; 368, 1888−97. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1304459 [8] Shi J, Deng G, Ma S, et al. Rapid Evolution of H7N9 Highly Pathogenic Viruses that Emerged in China in 2017. Cell Host Microbe, 2018; 24, 558−68. doi: 10.1016/j.chom.2018.08.006 [9] Yang Q, Shi W, Zhang L, et al. Westward Spread of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza A(H7N9) Virus among Humans, China. Emerg Infect Dis, 2018; 24, 1095−98. doi: 10.3201/eid2406.171135 [10] Zhu W, Yang L, Shu Y. Did the Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza A(H7N9) Viruses Emerged in China Raise Increased Threat to Public Health? Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis, 2019; 19, 22−5. [11] Zhu W, Zhou J, Li Z, et al. Biological characterisation of the emerged highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) A(H7N9) viruses in humans, in mainland China, 2016 to 2017. Euro Surveill, 2017; 22. [12] Su S, Bi Y, Wong G, et al. Epidemiology, Evolution, and Recent Outbreaks of Avian Influenza Virus in China. J Virol, 2015; 89, 8671−6. doi: 10.1128/JVI.01034-15 [13] Xu C, Havers F, Wang L, et al. Monitoring avian influenza A(H7N9) virus through national influenza-like illness surveillance, China. Emerg Infect Dis, 2013; 19, 1289−92. [14] Xu H, Meng F, Huang D, et al. Genomic and phylogenetic characterization of novel, recombinant H5N2 avian influenza virus strains isolated from vaccinated chickens with clinical symptoms in China. Viruses, 2015; 7, 887−98. doi: 10.3390/v7030887 [15] Liu M, Li X, Yuan H, et al. Genetic diversity of avian influenza A (H10N8) virus in live poultry markets and its association with human infections in China. Sci Rep, 2015; 5, 7632. doi: 10.1038/srep07632 [16] Chen LJ, Lin XD, Guo WP, et al. Diversity and evolution of avian influenza viruses in live poultry markets, free-range poultry and wild wetland birds in China. J Gen Virol, 2016; 97, 844−54. doi: 10.1099/jgv.0.000399 [17] Huo X, Chen L, Qi X, et al. Significantly elevated number of human infections with H7N9 virus in Jiangsu in eastern China, October 2016 to January 2017. Euro Surveill, 2017; 22. [18] Zhou L, Ren R, Yang L, et al. Sudden increase in human infection with avian influenza A(H7N9) virus in China, September-December 2016. Western Pac Surveill Response J, 2017; 8, 6−14. [19] Wu J, Lu J, Faria NR, et al. Effect of Live Poultry Market Interventions on Influenza A(H7N9) Virus, Guangdong, China. Emerg Infect Dis, 2016; 22, 2104−12. doi: 10.3201/eid2212.160450 [20] Zhou X, Li Y, Wang Y, et al. The role of live poultry movement and live bird market biosecurity in the epidemiology of influenza A (H7N9): A cross-sectional observational study in four eastern China provinces. J Infect, 2015; 71, 470−9. doi: 10.1016/j.jinf.2015.06.012 [21] Xu JG. Behavioral and ecological infectious diseases: from SARS to H7N9 avian influenza outbreak in China. Chinese Jonrnal of Epidemiology, 2013; 34, 417−8. (In Chinese) [22] Ye G, Liang CH, Hua DG, et al. Phylogenetic Analysis and Pathogenicity Assessment of Two Strains of Avian Influenza Virus Subtype H9N2 Isolated from Migratory Birds: High Homology of Internal Genes with Human H10N8 Virus. Front Microbiol, 2016; 7, 57. [23] Pu J, Wang S, Yin Y, et al. Evolution of the H9N2 influenza genotype that facilitated the genesis of the novel H7N9 virus. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 2015; 112, 548−53. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1422456112 [24] Li C, Wang S, Bing G, et al. Genetic evolution of influenza H9N2 viruses isolated from various hosts in China from 1994 to 2013. Emerg Microbes Infect, 2017; 6, e106.