Shi N, et al. Interventions in live poultry markets for the control of avian influenza: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Infect Dis. 2019 Jul 17.
BACKGROUND:
This review aimed to provide constructive suggestions for the control and management of avian influenza through quantitative and qualitative evaluation of the impact of different live poultry market (LPM) interventions.
METHODS:
Both English and Chinese databases were searched for articles that were published on or before November 9, 2018. After extraction and assessment of the included literature, stata14.0 was applied to perform meta-analysis to explore the impacts of LPM interventions.
RESULTS:
A total of 19 studies were identified. In total, 224 humans, 3550 poultry, and 13,773 environment samples were collected before the intervention; 181 humans, 4519 poultry, and 9562 environments were sampled after LPM interventions. Avian influenza virus (AIV) detection rates of the LPM environment (odds ratio [OR] = 0.393; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.262-0.589) and the incidence of human avian influenza infection (OR = 0.045; 95% CI, 0.025-0.079) were significantly lower after LPM interventions, while LPM interventions on poultry were not significantly effective (OR = 0.803; 95% CI, 0.403-1.597).
CONCLUSIONS:
LPM interventions can reduce human infections of avian influenza and the detection rate of AIV in market environments.
This review aimed to provide constructive suggestions for the control and management of avian influenza through quantitative and qualitative evaluation of the impact of different live poultry market (LPM) interventions.
METHODS:
Both English and Chinese databases were searched for articles that were published on or before November 9, 2018. After extraction and assessment of the included literature, stata14.0 was applied to perform meta-analysis to explore the impacts of LPM interventions.
RESULTS:
A total of 19 studies were identified. In total, 224 humans, 3550 poultry, and 13,773 environment samples were collected before the intervention; 181 humans, 4519 poultry, and 9562 environments were sampled after LPM interventions. Avian influenza virus (AIV) detection rates of the LPM environment (odds ratio [OR] = 0.393; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.262-0.589) and the incidence of human avian influenza infection (OR = 0.045; 95% CI, 0.025-0.079) were significantly lower after LPM interventions, while LPM interventions on poultry were not significantly effective (OR = 0.803; 95% CI, 0.403-1.597).
CONCLUSIONS:
LPM interventions can reduce human infections of avian influenza and the detection rate of AIV in market environments.
See Also:
Latest articles in those days:
- Highly pathogenic avian influenza as a systemic risk - implications for control and preparedness 21 hours ago
- Multiple introductions and spread of novel reassortant highly pathogenic avian influenza A (H5N1) clade 2.3.4.4b viruses via wild birds, South Korea, 2024-2025 21 hours ago
- [preprint]The mammalian-adaptive PB2-E627K substitution preserves viral fitness of clade 2.3.4.4b H5N1 HPAIV in birds 1 days ago
- Mallard super-shedders of avian influenza exhibit distinct cloacal microbial abundance profiles 2 days ago
- A digitally immune-optimized influenza vaccine broadly neutralizes swine and human H1N1 influenza viruses and protects from heterologous challenge 2 days ago
[Go Top] [Close Window]


