SURVEILLANCE FOR AVIAN INFLUENZA VIRUS IN WILD BIRDS IN POLAND, 2008-15

Emergence and spread of novel H5N8, H5N5 and H5N1 clade 2.3.4.4 highly pathogenic avian influenza in 2020

Analyses of HPAI H5 viruses from poultry outbreaks across a wide Eurasian region since July 2020 including the Russian Federation, Republics of Iraq and Kazakhstan, and recent detections in migratory waterfowl in the Netherlands, revealed undetected maintenance of H5N8, likely in galliform poultry since 2017/18 and both H5N5 and H5N1. All viruses belong to A/H5 clade 2.3.4.4b with closely related HA genes. Heterogeneity in Eurasian H5Nx HPAI emerging variants threatens poultry production, food security and veterinary public health.

Genomic evolution, transmission dynamics, and pathogenicity of avian influenza A (H5N8) viruses emerging in China, 2020

Multiple recent outbreaks of highly pathogenic H5N8 viruses originating in aquatic birds frequently occurred in most European countries, Russia, South Korea, and Japan during the winter of 2020–21, and one zoonotic event of poultry workers infected with novel H5N8 viruses were reported in Russia. Strikingly, these novel H5N8 viruses had emerged and been co-circulating in wild birds and poultry in multiple provinces of China during 2020–21. In China, the population of aquatic birds has risen significantly in the past twenty years, and China is regarded as the largest reservoir for influenza viruses carried in aquatic birds across the globe. Hence, the co-circulation of these novel H5N8 viruses poses an alarming threat to not only poultry industry but also human health. In this study, we sequenced full-length genomes of these H5N8 viruses circulating in China. Phylogenetic analysis demonstrated that poultry-origin H5N8 viruses in China fell within wild birds-origin clade 2.3.4.4b H5N8 viruses from Europe during 2020–21, and notably, were genetically closely related to human-infecting H5N8 viruses in Russia. Moreover, they possessed several molecular markers associated with mammalian adaption. Bayesian coalescent analysis showed that these H5N8 viruses might have introduced into China during June–September 2020, suggesting that these H5N8 viruses might have introduced via wild bird migration or poultry trade. Besides, we also found that the effective population size of clade 2.3.4.4b H5N8 viruses dramatically increased during the winter season of 2020/21, as is consistent with previous increase of genetic diversity during the winter seasons of 2013/14 and 2016/17, which indicated that the wild bird migration accelerates the genetic diversity of these H5N8 viruses during the winter season of 2020/21. Notably, these novel H5N8 viruses were lethal to chickens and mice, highly transmissible to ducks, and were antigenically distinct from 2.3.4.4h H5 viruses circulating in China, posing considerable threats to public health. Our findings offer novel insights into the evolution and risk assessment of H5N8 viruses during the winter season of 2020–21.

A literature review of the use of environmental sampling in the surveillance of avian influenza viruses

This literature review provides an overview of use of environmental samples (ES) such as faeces, water, air, mud and swabs of surfaces in avian influenza (AI) surveillance programs, focussing on effectiveness, advantages and gaps in knowledge. ES have been used effectively for AI surveillance since the 1970s. Results from ES have enhanced understanding of the biology of AI viruses in wild birds and in markets, of links between human and avian influenza, provided early warning of viral incursions, allowed assessment of effectiveness of control and preventive measures, and assisted epidemiological studies in outbreaks, both avian and human. Variation exists in the methods and protocols used, and no internationally recognized guidelines exist on the use of ES and data management. Few studies have performed direct comparisons of ES versus live bird samples (LBS). Results reported so far demonstrate reliance on ES will not be sufficient to detect virus in all cases when it is present, especially when the prevalence of infection/contamination is low. Multiple sample types should be collected. In live bird markets, ES from processing/selling areas are more likely to test positive than samples from bird holding areas. When compared to LBS, ES is considered a cost-effective, simple, rapid, flexible, convenient and acceptable way of achieving surveillance objectives. As a non-invasive technique, it can minimize effects on animal welfare and trade in markets and reduce impacts on wild bird communities. Some limitations of environmental sampling methods have been identified, such as the loss of species-specific or information on the source of virus, and taxonomic-level analyses, unless additional methods are applied. Some studies employing ES have not provided detailed methods. In others, where ES and LBS are collected from the same site, positive results have not been assigned to specific sample types. These gaps should be remedied in future studies.

Phylogenetic Study of H5 Low Pathogenic Avian Influenza Viruses Detected in Wild Birds in Poland in 2010-2015

Introduction

The genomes of nine H5 subtypes of low pathogenic avian influenza virus (LPAIV) strains identified in wild birds in Poland between 2010 and 2015 were sequenced, and their phylogenetic relationship was determined.

Material and Methods

AIV genome segments were amplified by RT-PCR and the PCR products were sequenced using Sanger method. Phylogenetic trees were generated in MEGA6 software and digital genotyping approach was used to visualise the relationship between analysed strains and other AIVs.

Results

High genetic diversity was found in the analysed strains as multiple subgroups were identified in phylogenetic trees. In the HA tree, Polish strains clustered in two distinct subclades. High diversity was found for PB2, PB1, PA and NP, since 5-8 sublineages could be distinguished. Each strain had a different gene constellation, although relationship of as much as six out of eight gene segments was observed between two isolates. A relationship with poultry isolates was found for at least one segment of each Polish strain.

Conclusion

The genome configuration of tested strains indicates extensive reassortment, although the preference for specific gene constellation could be noticed. A significant relationship with isolates of poultry origin underlines the need for constant monitoring of the AIV gene pool circulating in the natural reservoir.

Avian influenza

Previous introductions of highly pathogenic avian influenza virus (HPAIV) to the EU were most likely via migratory wild birds. A mathematical model has been developed which indicated that virus amplification and spread may take place when wild bird populations of sufficient size within EU become infected. Low pathogenic avian influenza virus (LPAIV) may reach similar maximum prevalence levels in wild bird populations to HPAIV but the risk of LPAIV infection of a poultry holding was estimated to be lower than that of HPAIV. Only few non-wild bird pathways were identified having a non-negligible risk of AI introduction. The transmission rate between animals within a flock is assessed to be higher for HPAIV than LPAIV. In very few cases, it could be proven that HPAI outbreaks were caused by intrinsic mutation of LPAIV to HPAIV but current knowledge does not allow a prediction as to if, and when this could occur. In gallinaceous poultry, passive surveillance through notification of suspicious clinical signs/mortality was identified as the most effective method for early detection of HPAI outbreaks. For effective surveillance in anseriform poultry, passive surveillance through notification of suspicious clinical signs/mortality needs to be accompanied by serological surveillance and/or a virological surveillance programme of birds found dead (bucket sampling). Serosurveillance is unfit for early warning of LPAI outbreaks at the individual holding level but could be effective in tracing clusters of LPAIV-infected holdings. In wild birds, passive surveillance is an appropriate method for HPAIV surveillance if the HPAIV infections are associated with mortality whereas active wild bird surveillance has a very low efficiency for detecting HPAIV. Experts estimated and emphasised the effect of implementing specific biosecurity measures on reducing the probability of AIV entering into a poultry holding. Human diligence is pivotal to select, implement and maintain specific, effective biosecurity measures.

Assessment of listing and categorisation of animal diseases within the framework of the Animal Health Law (Regulation (EU) No 2016/429): low pathogenic avian influenza

Low pathogenic avian influenza (LPAI) has been assessed according to the criteria of the Animal Health Law (AHL), in particular criteria of Article 7 on disease profile and impacts, Article 5 on the eligibility of LPAI to be listed, Article 9 for the categorisation of LPAI according to disease prevention and control rules as in Annex IV and Article 8 on the list of animal species related to LPAI. The assessment has been performed following a methodology composed of information collection and compilation, expert judgement on each criterion at individual and, if no consensus was reached before, also at collective levels. The output is composed of the categorical answer, and for the questions where no consensus was reached, the different supporting views are reported. Details on the methodology used for this assessment are explained in a separate opinion. According to the assessment performed, LPAI can be considered eligible to be listed for Union intervention as laid down in Article 5(3) of the AHL. The disease would comply with the criteria as in Sections 3 and 5 of Annex IV of the AHL, for the application of the disease prevention and control rules referred to in points (c) and (e) of Article 9(1). The animal species to be listed for LPAI according to Article 8(3) criteria are all species of domestic poultry and wild species of mainly Anseriformes and Charadriiformes, as indicated in the present opinion.