Literature DB >> 18214181

Live poultry exposures, Hong Kong and Hanoi, 2006.

Richard Fielding1, Tran H Bich, La Ngoc Quang, Wendy W T Lam, Gabriel M Leung, Truong Q Tien, Ella Y Y Ho, Le V Anht.   

Abstract

Since 1997, the largest epidemic of highly pathogenic avian influenza (H5N1) ever recorded has caused 172 human and several billion bird deaths. Recently administered questionnaires determined that live poultry exposures have declined by approximately 63% in Hong Kong since 2004 and that, in Vietnam, domestic backyard exposures to poultry are likely more important than retail exposures.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 18214181      PMCID: PMC2878218          DOI: 10.3201/eid1307.061031

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Emerg Infect Dis        ISSN: 1080-6040            Impact factor:   6.883


Most human cases of highly pathogenic avian influenza H5N1 (HPAI) arise from exposure to infected poultry (–; Figure). Mapping poultry exposure and its determinants can enhance HPAI surveillance (). We compared live poultry exposures in both Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and Vietnam in 2006 and examined changes in levels of exposure in Hong Kong since 2004, when a similar survey was performed in Hong Kong ().
Figure

Chronology of influenza A (H5N1) outbreaks and responses, Hong Kong and Vietnam. Double slashes represent a break in the timeline.

Chronology of influenza A (H5N1) outbreaks and responses, Hong Kong and Vietnam. Double slashes represent a break in the timeline.

The Study

In Hong Kong, random household telephone interviewing of 1 adult >17 years of age selected by Kisch grid (which randomizes selection of persons within households) was conducted from December 2005 through 2006 from a list of 5,000 numbers. Simultaneously in Vietnam, stratified cluster sampling was carried out throughout 2 districts in each of 5 northern provinces. Within 3 of these provinces, 1 district with and 1 without an HPAI epidemic history were selected. Within each district, 1 urban and 1 rural commune each provided 100 households randomly selected from electoral rolls. Kisch grid selected 1 adult from each household for face-to-face interviews. Respondents estimated their live poultry purchase frequency and touching at purchase (). We attributed standard values to respondents’ reports (e.g., monthly = 12; weekly = 52) () to give standardized household purchases of live poultry. Multiplying standard purchases by reported buying frequencies standardized buying patterns (). Self-reported buyer touching of birds during purchase was standardized by adjustment for reporting differences by gender proportion weighting () and reported touching frequency to calculate adjusted buying exposures. Vietnam also surveyed backyard poultry practices. Households raising poultry reported the number, type, changes in husbandry practices, and poultry deaths for the past 12 months.

Conclusions

In Hong Kong, 2,784 contacts yielded 1,760 interviews (return rate 63%); 64% of respondents were women and 36% were men; their median age, 44 years (Table 1). Vietnam’s census-derived sample frame comprised 2,412,000 of 18,264,000 national households; 1,988 (0.01% of all Vietnamese households) formed the sample. Of 1,196 (60%) female and 792 (40%) male participants, the median age was 39 years, 50% lived in urban and 50% in rural communes, and >11% had primary education only (Table 1).
Table 1

Sample characteristics and population censuses, Hong Kong and Vietnamese samples

Survey
Vietnam; Hong Kong, %Census
Vietnam*; Hong Kong,† %Effect size‡
Vietnam; Hong Kong
Sex
Male39.8; 35.946.1; 47.80.19; 0.24
Female60.2; 64.150.9; 52.2
Age, y
15–2414.2; 10.528.1; 11.10.50; 0.21
25–3422.5; 14.421.7; 18.1
35–4425.3; 27.020.4; 22.7
45–5422.4; 27.013.7; 21.2
55–6413.2; 106.9; 11.9
>652; 119.3; 14.9
Residence0.54
Urban5026.3
Rural5073.7
Education0.32
None or kindergarten3.98.4
Primary14.720.5
Secondary49.545.2
Matriculation6.39.4
Tertiary/above25.316.4

*Reference ().
†Reference on education (). On sex and age, mid-2006, available from www.censtatd.gov.hk/hong_kong_statistics/statistical_tables/index.jsp
‡Three levels of effect size: 0.1 small, 0.3 medium, 0.5 large.

*Reference ().
†Reference on education (). On sex and age, mid-2006, available from www.censtatd.gov.hk/hong_kong_statistics/statistical_tables/index.jsp
‡Three levels of effect size: 0.1 small, 0.3 medium, 0.5 large. In Hong Kong in 2006, 18,586 standardized purchases averaged 10.56 chickens/household/year (for men, 9.4, for women, 11.2). This is a territory-wide gender-adjusted rate of 11.05 chickens/household/year, which indicated that 22,673,000 live chickens were purchased during the preceding year, 41% fewer than in 2004. Households buying poultry bought an average of 15.6 chickens/household/year. Among respondents personally buying, 7.5% touched the poultry during purchasing (compared with 11% in 2004), giving ≈1,700,500 exposures/year. Adjustment for touching frequency and gender differences in reported touching (males 6.7%, females 4.7%) gave ≈1,110,900 contacts (4.9%, 95% confidence limit [CL] 3.8–6) for Hong Kong in 2006, or 0.76 exposures/buying household/year (0.23/person/year, if one assumes 3.36 persons/household). Applied retrospectively to Hong Kong 2004 data, this gave an adjusted exposure rate of 8.6% (95% CL 6.8–10.3), ≈3,311,300 contacts, and exposure frequency of 2.07 exposures/buying household/year (0.62/person/year) in 2004. These adjusted estimates indicate an absolute exposure decline of 3.7% (95% CL 2.25%–4.91%), a relative decline of 43% between 2004 and 2006. Less purchasing and touching reduced annualized buying exposures by 63% overall. In Vietnam, respondents reported 10,659 standardized purchases, averaging 5.36 chickens/household/year, giving a gender-adjusted (male 5.5, female 5.3) rate of 5.43 chickens/household/year. Estimated number of live birds purchased in the sampled provinces (5.43 × 2,412,000 households) was 13,097,000 chickens per year. Buying households (820,080, 34%) buy on average 15.97 chickens per year, comparable to the Hong Kong 2006 purchase rate. Touching frequency during purchasing (overall 68%, 64%–71%; women 70% [67%–73%], men 54% [51%–57%]; χ2 = 45.57, df = 4, p<0.001), after adjustment for gender proportion and reported touching, was 63% (62%–64%). Estimated exposures in the surveyed provinces from buying were ≈13,097,000 × 0.63 = ≈8,251,000 exposures/year. When these rates were used, national per capita exposure estimates (assuming 4.49 persons/household) from touching when buying are ≈62,479,000 exposures/year, 2.24 exposures/person/year in buying households, 0.76 exposures/person/year overall. In the 1,150/1,988 households (58%) that raised poultry, 92 (5%) ceased keeping poultry from February 2005 through February 2006 (Table 2). Households kept a median of 9 chickens. Overall, 22% of those keeping backyard poultry reportedly had birds die in the previous year. Of these, 12% of households threw the dead bird away without informing authorities, 9% informed the authorities, and 5% sold or ate the dead bird. Of those reporting bird deaths, 214 (84%) had been ordered by officials to destroy some or all of their birds. Incidence of bird deaths was greater in rural areas (52% vs. 48%, Fisher p<0.001), but rural residents threw them away (68% vs. 32%, Fisher p = 0.031) or sold or ate them (87% vs. 13%, Fisher p = 0.006) more often than did urban residents.
Table 2

Numbers of households rearing domestic poultry, Vietnam, 2006 (proportions)

PoultryNo. households
No. birds raised1–56–1011–20>21 (range)
Type
Fighting cocks40512 (21–50)
Chickens284283257155 (21–800)
Ducks5214514 (21–500)
Geese/swans4222118 (21–70)
Ornamental321041 (21–30)
While 34% (32%–36%) of households buy live chickens, 53% (52%–54%) (1,278,360) raise live poultry at home, and 12% (10%–13%) do both. Assume a 53% national average and, conservatively, that all persons within households rearing backyard poultry have at least weekly physical contact with their birds, bird eggs, or feces. Household size in the surveyed districts averages 3.38 persons (General Statistics Office, Hanoi). Thus, 224,685,500 exposures/year would occur from backyard poultry in surveyed districts, an average exposure within backyard poultry raising households of ≈175 exposures/person/year. Households buying live poultry have 8,251,000 /820,080 = 10.1 exposures/household/year (2.99 exposures/person/year) from these purchases. Total purchase-related plus backyard exposure events then equal (10.1 × 820,080) + 224,685,500 = 232,968,300 exposures/year. Average household exposure is therefore ≈96 exposures/household/year (28 exposures/person/year) in sampled districts. If daily backyard exposure occurs, then there are ≈1,581,081,300 total exposures, ≈655 exposures/household/year (194 exposures/person/year). Nationally, average household size is 4.49 persons. Hence, between ≈2,322,546,000 (weekly contact) and ≈15,882,953,000 (daily contact) exposures/year, ≈127–869 exposures/household/year occur nationally. If multiple contacts occur daily, these figures would be much higher. Epidemic and nonepidemic district-buying frequency CL overlapped (exposure 3.4 [1.9–4.8] chickens/household/year vs. nonexposure 5.8 [4.5–7.0] chickens/household/year). Dual adjusted touching frequencies were 69% (62%–76%) in epidemic and 60% (57%–63%) in nonepidemic districts, respectively. Backyard poultry were more common in epidemic districts (71% [67%–75%] vs. 45% [42%–48%]), where keeping poultry declined 17% (14%–20%) compared with 8% (6%–10%) in nonepidemic districts. Epidemic and nonepidemic districts had comparable average incomes (t = 0.832, df 1,283.9, p = 0.406). In Hong Kong, government import restrictions have reduced poultry availability by 41% from 2004 to 2006. Purchase and touching declines prompted by health education messages have together reduced exposure by ≈60%. Fewer Vietnamese households bought live chickens, but those that did so bought at comparable frequencies to Hong Kong 2006 households. Chickens are relatively more expensive in Vietnam. Adjusted for purchasing power parity (www.worldbank.org/data/quickreference/quickref.html), live chickens costs $16.6–$18.0 and $21.8–$31.0 (international dollars; www.worldbank.org/data/quickreference/quickref.html) each in Hong Kong and in Vietnam, respectively. Hence, temptation to use sick, dying, or dead poultry is high, increasing the risk for human influenza (H5N1) infection (). Average Vietnamese exposure range from backyard sources (28–194 exposures/person/year) is 100–700× higher than Hong Kong 2006 exposures from purchasing (0.23 exposures/household/year). If 53% of Vietnamese households average 9 birds each and if 22% of these households (2,129,582) had only 1 bird die, a 5% consumption rate of the dead birds means that 106,500 sick or dying birds are consumed annually, posing a major health threat (). This is a risk that governments must urgently target. Limitations include generalizing from 5 northern Vietnamese provinces to the country as a whole and using arbitrary estimates for backyard exposure frequency. Nonetheless, valuable data are presented on differential exposure patterns.
  3 in total

1.  A reappraisal of H5N1 avian influenza.

Authors: 
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2006-05-13       Impact factor: 79.321

2.  Qinghai-like H5N1 from domestic cats, northern Iraq.

Authors:  Samuel L Yingst; Magdi D Saad; Stephen A Felt
Journal:  Emerg Infect Dis       Date:  2006-08       Impact factor: 6.883

3.  Avian influenza risk perception, Hong Kong.

Authors:  Richard Fielding; Wendy W T Lam; Ella Y Y Ho; Tai Hing Lam; Anthony J Hedley; Gabriel M Leung
Journal:  Emerg Infect Dis       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 6.883

  3 in total
  14 in total

1.  Widespread Virus Replication in Alveoli Drives Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome in Aerosolized H5N1 Influenza Infection of Macaques.

Authors:  Elizabeth R Wonderlich; Zachary D Swan; Stephanie J Bissel; Amy L Hartman; Jonathan P Carney; Katherine J O'Malley; Adebimpe O Obadan; Jefferson Santos; Reagan Walker; Timothy J Sturgeon; Lonnie J Frye; Pauline Maiello; Charles A Scanga; Jennifer D Bowling; Anthea L Bouwer; Parichat A Duangkhae; Clayton A Wiley; JoAnne L Flynn; Jieru Wang; Kelly S Cole; Daniel R Perez; Douglas S Reed; Simon M Barratt-Boyes
Journal:  J Immunol       Date:  2017-01-06       Impact factor: 5.422

2.  Perceived Risk of Avian Influenza and Urbanization in Northern Vietnam.

Authors:  Melissa L Finucane; Nghiem Tuyen; Sumeet Saksena; James H Spencer; Jefferson M Fox; Nguyen Lam; Trinh Dinh Thau; Tran Duc Vien; Nancy Davis Lewis
Journal:  Ecohealth       Date:  2017-02-17       Impact factor: 3.184

3.  The influence of social-cognitive factors on personal hygiene practices to protect against influenzas: using modelling to compare avian A/H5N1 and 2009 pandemic A/H1N1 influenzas in Hong Kong.

Authors:  Qiuyan Liao; Benjamin J Cowling; Wendy Wing Tak Lam; Richard Fielding
Journal:  Int J Behav Med       Date:  2011-06

4.  Knowledge, attitudes and practices (KAP) relating to avian influenza in urban and rural areas of China.

Authors:  Nijuan Xiang; Ying Shi; Jiabing Wu; Shunxiang Zhang; Min Ye; Zhibin Peng; Lei Zhou; Hang Zhou; Qiaohong Liao; Yang Huai; Leilei Li; Zhangda Yu; Xiaowen Cheng; Weike Su; Xiaomin Wu; Hanwu Ma; Jianhua Lu; Jeffrey McFarland; Hongjie Yu
Journal:  BMC Infect Dis       Date:  2010-02-21       Impact factor: 3.090

5.  Risk factors for human illness with avian influenza A (H5N1) virus infection in China.

Authors:  Lei Zhou; Qiaohong Liao; Libo Dong; Yang Huai; Tian Bai; Nijuan Xiang; Yuelong Shu; Wei Liu; Shiwen Wang; Pengzhe Qin; Min Wang; Xuesen Xing; Jun Lv; Ray Y Chen; Zijian Feng; Weizhong Yang; Timothy M Uyeki; Hongjie Yu
Journal:  J Infect Dis       Date:  2009-06-15       Impact factor: 5.226

6.  Changing perception of avian influenza risk, Hong Kong, 2006-2010.

Authors:  Qiuyan Liao; Benjamin J Cowling; Wing Tak Lam; Richard Fielding
Journal:  Emerg Infect Dis       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 6.883

7.  Metapopulation dynamics enable persistence of influenza A, including A/H5N1, in poultry.

Authors:  Parviez Rana Hosseini; Trevon Fuller; Ryan Harrigan; Delong Zhao; Carmen Sofia Arriola; Armandoe Gonzalez; Matthew Joshua Miller; Xiangming Xiao; Tom B Smith; Jamie Holland Jones; Peter Daszak
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-12-02       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Rural villagers and urban residents exposure to poultry in China.

Authors:  Zhibin Peng; Peng Wu; Li Ge; Richard Fielding; Xiaowen Cheng; Weike Su; Min Ye; Ying Shi; Qiaohong Liao; Hang Zhou; Lei Zhou; Leilei Li; Jiabing Wu; Shunxiang Zhang; Zhangda Yu; Xiaomin Wu; Hanwu Ma; Jianhua Lu; Benjamin J Cowling; Hongjie Yu
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-04-25       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Detection of NP, N3 and N7 antibodies to avian influenza virus by indirect ELISA using yeast-expressed antigens.

Authors:  Chitra Upadhyay; Arun Ammayappan; Vikram N Vakharia
Journal:  Virol J       Date:  2009-10-07       Impact factor: 4.099

10.  Early public response to influenza A(H7N9) virus, Guangzhou, China, May 30-June 7, 2013.

Authors:  Jun Yuan; Qiuyan Liao; Eric H Y Lau; Zhi Cong Yang; Xiao Wei; Jian Dong Chen; Yan Hui Liu; Chang Wang; Xiao Ping Tang; Yu Fei Liu; Gabriel M Leung; Xin Cai Xiao; Richard Fielding; Ming Wang; Benjamin J Cowling
Journal:  Emerg Infect Dis       Date:  2014-07       Impact factor: 6.883

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.