Upload
others
View
0
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Epidemiologic Investigations
of HPAI and Disease Prevention
Brian McCluskey, DVM, MS, PhD, Dip. ACVPM
USDA, APHIS, Veterinary Services
Epidemiologic Investigations
• Field-based observational studies
• Geospatial analyses
• On-farm sampling efforts
• Phylogenetic investigations
“The study of the distribution and determinants of disease in populations with the goal of using those determinants
to prevent disease”
Outbreak Investigation:
Case Series
• 81 turkey farms in IA, MN, ND, SD and WI
– 63 meat production
– 11 breeder farms
– 6 raising breeder candidates
– 1 unknown type
• Developed clinical signs between March 30 and May 2, 2015.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Veterinary Services
HPAI Investigation - Questionnaire
INSTRUCTIONS
The purposes of these investigations are to assess potential pathways of initial introduction of HPAI
viruses onto commercial poultry operations and potential lateral transmission routes of HPAI viruses
from infected premises to noninfected premises.
Following confirmation of an HPAI virus introduction into a commercial flock, an investigation should be
initiated as soon as possible, no later than 1 week following detection. The investigator(s) assigned
should be integrated into other response activities but their primary focus is on completion of the
introduction investigation.
Analysis conducted by Dr. Andrea Beam and Dr. Dave Dargatz, Veterinary Services
Biosecurity
Number Respondents Level or Response Percent Farms
House with family on property 81 Yes, common drive 38
Yes, no common drive 22 No 40
Signage (“no admittance” or “biosecure area”) 80 83
Gate to farm entrance 79 Yes, locked 9 Yes, not locked 18 No 73
Farm area fenced in 81 11 Freq veg. mowed (per month) 81 < 4 40
4 + 60 Facility free of debris/trash 81 89 Wash/spray area for vehicles 81 46
Designated parking workers/visitors 80 49
Changing area for workers 81 Yes, shower 27 Yes, no shower 46 No 27
Workers wear dedicated coveralls 81 73 Workers wear rubber boots or Boot covers 81 100
Barn doors lockable 81 Yes, routinely locked 40 Yes, not routinely lock 22 No 38
Foot pans at barn entrances 81 Yes, in use 99 Footbath type 81 Dry 12
81 Liquid 98 Ante area 81 98 Rodent bait station 81 Yes, checked q 6 weeks 95 Fly control 81 41 Raccoons, possums, foxes seen in or around barns 81 28
Wild turkeys, pheasants, quail seen around poultry 81 26
Biosecurity audits
81 43
Equipment Number Respondents
Level or Response Percent Farms
Farm specific (NOT shared with other farms) 75 Company vehicles/ trailers 65
77 Feed trucks 19
80 Gates/panels 91
80 Lawn mowers 63
78 Live haul loaders 8
68 Poultry trailers 31
72 Pre-loaders 15
79 Pressure sprayer/washer 57
77 Skid-steer loader 61
67 Tillers 87
70 Trucks 56
58 Other 66
Wild Bird Characteristics
Number Respondents
Level or Response Percent Farms
Wild birds around farm
78
Waterfowl
63
79
Gulls
33
78
Small perching birds
96
78
Other water birds
15
78
Other birds
28
Houses bird proof
79 62
Wild birds seen in house
81 35
Birds seen year round
77 90
Seasonality to presence of some birds
79 84
Bird location
76 Away from facilities 49
77 On farm, not in barns 66
76 On farm, in barns 26
Case-Control Study - Layers
• Study included all detected cases as of
May 15, 2015 in Iowa and Nebraska
• Total of 28 cases and 31 controls
• Survey administered to site managers
• At risk period was two weeks prior to
detection
• Controls were matched by at risk period
• Factors examined at farm and barn level
Analysis conducted by Lindsey Garber and Kathe Bjork, Veterinary Services
Case Control Study - Layers
FACTOR*
Farm Level
Percent
case farms
Percent
control
farms
Odds Ratio P-value Average
attributable
fraction
In an existing control zone 50 10 32.0 .002 31.7%
Rendering trucks near barns 29 3 22.3 <.001 14.0%
Garbage trucks near barns 61 23 14.7 <.001 28.1%
Visitors change clothes 77 93 0.08 /
12.6**
.01 7.6%**
Company service person visit in past
14 days 50 19 5.0 <.001 15.0%
*Reference level = absence of factor ** do not change clothes
Case Control Study - Layers
FACTOR*
Barn level
Percent
case farms
Percent
control
farms
Odds Ratio P-value Average
attributable
fraction
Barn entry with a hard surface entry pad
cleaned and disinfected
28.6 53.6 0.16/6.9** 0.01 33.7%**
Disposing of dead birds near a barn
(within 30 yards)
60.7 35.5 2.8 0.002 20.2%
Having ceiling or eaves inlet ventilation
type (compared with curtain, sidewall or
tunnel types)
48.2 67.7 0.33/3.0** <0.001 23.4%**
*Reference level = absence of factor **absence of factor
Biosecurity
“It is frustrating how difficult it is to prove
scientifically which biosecurity efforts work
or are the most important or effective”
Dr. Francisco Revriego
European Commission
“Biosecurity is inconvenient” Dr. John Glisson U.S. Poultry and Egg Association
Wind related spread of EA/AM H5N2 HPAI virus
• Evaluate the role of aerosol transmission between commercial turkey flocks in Minnesota (n=98)
• Used EPA’s AERMOD modeling system
• Wind speed, direction data collected from 105 National Weather Service stations across Minnesota
• Other meteorological parameters were also collected
Analysis conducted by Sasi Malladi (Univ of Minn), Todd Weaver, Amy Delgado, Phillip Riggs and Andrew Fox, Veterinary Services
Figure 1. Aerosol exposure regions representing a 0.01 (lighter region) and 0.05 (darker region)
daily likelihood of transmission from an infected premises at 4 mph (green) and 32 mph wind
speeds (brown).
Epidemiological Analyses
• Plumes of virus–associated particles
were modeled for all infected farms
based on average wind speed and
direction over various time frames.
• Case-control study examining effects of
cumulative daily exposure to modeled
plumes accounting for age and and
susceptibility of birds on each farm.
• Repeated measures examining daily and
cumulative risk of disease associated
with modeled plumes.
Results • Cumulative exposure of a farm to
multiple plumes over a 6-11 day period
was the most stable predictor of
increased odds of disease.
• Proximity to other infected farms had a
consistent association with increased
odds of becoming a case in all three
analyses.
• Given current data it is difficult to rule in
or out the contribution of aerosol
transmission of farms up to 3.5 km from
a shedding farm.
On-farm Air Sampling
Sampling and analysis conducted by Montse Torremorell et al., Univ of Minnesota
On-farm Air Sampling
Inside 5 m 70-150 m 500-1000 m
Turkeys
Positive 40 (36%) 7 (21%) 0% NT
Suspect 26 (23%) 17 (50%) 8 (38%) NT
Negative 45 (41%) 10 (29%) 13 (62%) NT
Layers
Positive 28 (78%) 22 (24%) 1 (4%) 0 (0%)
Suspect 8 (22%) 16 (18%) 9 (32%) 8 (13%)
Negative 0 (0%) 52 (58%) 18 (64%) 54 (87%)
Total
Positive 68 (46%) 29 (23%) 1 (2%) 0 (0%)
Suspect 34 (23%) 33 (27%) 17 (35%) 8 (13%)
Negative 45 (31%) 62 (50%) 31 (63%) 54 (87%)
Total 147 (100%) 124 (100%) 49 (100%) 62 (100%)
Ct <35: positive; Ct 35-40: suspect; Ct >40 negative.
Environmental risk factors
related spread of EA/AM
H5N2 HPAI virus
• State-wide dataset of poultry operations
in Minnesota was merged with records
from EMRS.
• Included information on production type
and the location of the farm in latitude
and longitude.
• Potential risk factors considered were
poultry density, distance to nearest body
of water, density of corn (within 0.5, 1 and
3 km) and distance to major highways.
• Logistic regression and boosted
regression tree analyses were conducted.
Analysis conducted by Amy Delgado, Phillip Riggs and Andrew Fox, Veterinary Services
Results
Risk Factor Levels Adjusted Odds Ratio
95% Conf. interval P-value
Species Chicken Turkey
--- 9.91
(3.00-32.37)
<0.001
Distance to nearest infected neighbor
>10 km <10 km
--- 10.67
--- (5.75, 19.8)
<0.001
Corn density (acres) within 3 km
<1191 acres 1192-1999 acres 2000-2739 acres >2740 acres
--- 5.15 8.42 12.12
--- (1.63-12.29) (2.80-25.34) (4.18-35.13)
<0.001
Results
Predictor Relative Influence
Distance to nearest infected neighbor 43.5%
Corn acreage within 3 km 14.8%
Distance to highways 71, 12, or 4 12.8%
Distance to nearest water 10.4%
Distance to any major highway 7.9%
Poultry density in county 6.8%
Production type of operation 2.4%
Species present on farm (chicken vs turkey) 0.4%
57
HPAI/LPAI Outbreak
Indiana – January 2016
• Objective
– Identify potential farm- and barn-level risk
factors for AI H7N8 on turkey farms in Indiana
during the 2016 outbreak
• Sample
– All case farms (n=9)
– Control farms from surrounding geographic
area in the disease control area (n=30)
58
Case-Control Study
• Differences identified between case farms
and barns compared to controls
• Proximity to dead bird disposal and litter
compost areas were risk factors in
previous studies
• Higher percentage of case farms had
visitors entering barns
Case-Control Study Highlights
FACTOR Percent case farms Percent control farms
Brooders raised on farm
33 62
Wild mammals around
poultry barns during the
14‐day risk period
88 41
Visitor type during 14-day risk
period:
Veterinarian
Service person
Catch crew
13
88
25
0
72
7
Pond within 350 yd 100 60
Results – Farm Level
Factor Percent case
barns
Percent control
barns
Type of bird:
Brooder
Grower
0
100
26
74
Age of birds (weeks):
<8
8 – 13
14+
0
25
75
44
15
41
People who entered barn during 14‐day risk period:
Veterinarian
Service person
Occasional worker
Any
29
88
38
100
4
61
21
68
Hard surface entry pad cleaned and disinfected 33 68
Median distance to dead bird disposal area (yds) 59 100
Results – Barn Level
• County-level analysis – Dubois and
surrounding counties
• Observed weather patterns 6 weeks prior
to outbreak
62
Geospatial Assessment for H7N8 HPAI/LPAI Indiana Outbreak
• Mean high
temperature
(50.88˚F)
• Warmer than
last 2 years
• Mean low
temperature
(30.04˚F) –
above
freezing
Temperature
• 2016 precipitation greater than 2015, less than 2014 – perhaps not single factor of importance
• Paired together – temperature & precipitation conducive to virus survival in the environment
Precipitation
• H5N2 2015 Minnesota outbreak – cropland may contribute to presence of infected waterfowl
• Cropland coverage in SW Indiana counties ranged from 3.5-78.0%
• Cropland did not appear to differ between the infected and uninfected counties
• Dubois County on lower range of wetland and open waters; not considered a factor
Percent
Cropland
Percent
Wetland
Cropland & Wetland/Open Water
• Virus circulating in waterfowl must find susceptible poultry population
• Dubois County has higher density of poultry compared to surrounding counties
Turkey & Chicken
inventory by county
Susceptible Population
Questions?