[Psittacosis outbreak in Granada, Spain]

Chlamydia psittaci detected at a live poultry wholesale market in central China

BACKGROUND

We investigated the presence of Chlamydia psittaci in poultry and the environment in live poultry wholesale markets in Changsha during 2021-2022 and conducted a phylogenetic analysis to understand its distribution in this market.

METHODS

In total, 483 samples were analyzed using real-time polymerase chain reaction and 17 C. psittaci-positive samples using high-throughput sequencing, BLAST similarity, and phylogenetic analysis.

RESULTS

Twenty-two out of 483 poultry and environmental samples were positive for C. psittaci (overall positivity rate: 4.55%) with no difference in positivity rates over 12 months. Chlamydia psittaci was detected at 11 sampling points (overall positivity rate: 27.5%), including chicken, duck, and pigeon/chicken/duck/goose shops, with pigeon shops having the highest positivity rate (46.67%). The highest positivity rates were found in sewage (12.5%), poultry fecal (7.43%), cage swab (6.59%), avian pharyngeal/cloacal swab (3.33%), and air (2.29%) samples. The ompA sequences were identified in two strains of C. psittaci, which were determined to bear genotype B using phylogenetic analysis. Thus, during monitoring, C. psittaci genotype B was detected in the poultry and environmental samples from the poultry wholesale market in Changsha.

CONCLUSIONS

To address the potential zoonotic threat, C. psittaci monitoring programs in live poultry markets should be enhanced.

Animal sources for zoonotic transmission of psittacosis: a systematic review

Background

Human psittacosis, caused by Chlamydia (C.) psittaci, is likely underdiagnosed and underreported, since tests for C. psittaci are often not included in routine microbiological diagnostics. Source tracing traditionally focuses on psittacine pet birds, but recently other animal species have been gaining more attention as possible sources for human psittacosis. This review aims to provide an overview of all suspected animal sources of human psittacosis cases reported in the international literature. In addition, for each animal species the strength of evidence for zoonotic transmission was estimated.

Methods

A systematic literature search was conducted using four databases (Pubmed, Embase, Scopus and Proquest). Articles were included when there was mention of at least one human case of psittacosis and a possible animal source. Investigators independently extracted data from the included articles and estimated strength of evidence for zoonotic transmission, based on a self-developed scoring system taking into account number of human cases, epidemiological evidence and laboratory test results in human, animals, and the environment.

Results

Eighty articles were included, which provided information on 136 different situations of possible zoonotic transmission. The maximum score for zoonotic transmission was highest for turkeys, followed by ducks, owls, and the category ‘other poultry’. Articles reporting about zoonotic transmission from unspecified birds, psittaciformes and columbiformes provided a relatively low strength of evidence. A genotypical match between human and animal samples was reported twenty-eight times, including transmission from chickens, turkeys, guinea fowl, peafowl, pigeons, ducks, geese, songbirds, parrot-like birds and owls.

Conclusions

Strong evidence exists for zoonotic transmission from turkeys, chickens and ducks, in addition to the more traditionally reported parrot-like animal sources. Based on our scoring system, the evidence was generally stronger for poultry than for parrot-like birds. Psittaciformes should not be disregarded as an important source of human psittacosis, still clinicians and public health officials should include poultry and birds species other than parrots in medical history and source tracing.