| Literature DB >> 26006118 |
Xin-Lou Li1, Kun Liu2, Hong-Wu Yao3, Ye Sun4, Wan-Jun Chen5, Ruo-Xi Sun6, Sake J de Vlas7, Li-Qun Fang8, Wu-Chun Cao9.
Abstract
Highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) H5N1 has posed a significant threat to both humans and birds, and it has spanned large geographic areas and various ecological systems throughout Asia, Europe and Africa, but especially in mainland China. Great efforts in control and prevention of the disease, including universal vaccination campaigns in poultry and active serological and virological surveillance, have been undertaken in mainland China since the beginning of 2006. In this study, we aim to characterize the spatial and temporal patterns of HPAI H5N1, and identify influencing factors favoring the occurrence of HPAI H5N1 outbreaks in poultry in mainland China. Our study shows that HPAI H5N1 outbreaks took place sporadically after vaccination campaigns in poultry, and mostly occurred in the cold season. The positive tests in routine virological surveillance of HPAI H5N1 virus in chicken, duck, goose as well as environmental samples were mapped to display the potential risk distribution of the virus. Southern China had a higher positive rate than northern China, and positive samples were mostly detected from chickens in the north, while the majority were from duck in the south, and a negative correlation with monthly vaccination rates in domestic poultry was found (R = -0.19, p value = 0.005). Multivariate panel logistic regression identified vaccination rate, interaction between distance to the nearest city and national highway, interaction between distance to the nearest lake and wetland, and density of human population, as well as the autoregressive term in space and time as independent risk factors in the occurrence of HPAI H5N1 outbreaks, based on which a predicted risk map of the disease was derived. Our findings could provide new understanding of the distribution and transmission of HPAI H5N1 in mainland China and could be used to inform targeted surveillance and control efforts in both human and poultry populations to reduce the risk of future infections.Entities:
Keywords: China; GIS; H5N1; highly pathogenic avian influenza; public health; risk prediction
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26006118 PMCID: PMC4454952 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph120505026
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Temporal distribution of HPAI H5N1 in mainland China. (A) Outbreaks in domestic poultry and wild birds. The red and black bar charts indicate the number of outbreaks in domestic poultry and in wild birds, respectively. The black arrow indicates the beginning of vaccination campaign in domestic poultry in mainland China; (B) Number of human cases with HAPI H5N1 infection; (C) Positive rate in virological surveillance. The black bar charts indicate the positive rate in virological surveillance, and the black arrow indicates the beginning of the routine virological surveillance in mainland China.
Summary of outbreaks of HPAI H5N1 in domestic poultry for each month.
| Month | Outbreaks (%) | Species of Domestic Poultry | Deaths (Feature) | Destroyed (Feature) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| January | 17 (16.04%) | Chicken, duck, and goose | 51,638 | 1,295,494 |
| February | 39 (36.79%) | Chicken & goose | 131,029 | 4,131,160 |
| March | 3 (2.83%) | Chicken | 1062 | 9558 |
| April | 1 (0.94%) | Chicken | 1500 | 1679 |
| May | 2 (1.89%) | Duck & goose | 11,632 | 66,331 |
| June | 6 (5.66%) | Chicken, duck, and goose | 14,799 | 2,393,358 |
| July | 1 (0.94%) | Chicken | 3045 | 356,976 |
| August | 2 (1.89%) | Chicken | 1938 | 295,805 |
| September | 3 (2.83%) | Chicken & duck | 11,815 | 234,920 |
| October | 4 (3.77%) | Chicken, duck, and goose | 12,655 | 6,138,323 |
| November | 22 (20.75%) | Chicken, duck, and goose | 133,777 | 15,799,404 |
| December | 6 (5.66%) | Chicken, duck, and goose | 8873 | 194,930 |
Figure 2Spatial distribution of HPAI H5N1in mainland China, 2004–2012; (A) Spatial distribution of HPAI H5N1 outbreaks in wild bird, human cases and number of deaths in domestic poultry. Black triangle indicates the location of HPAI H5N1 outbreak in wild birds, blue dot indicates the location of human case, and red dot indicates the location and number of deaths of domestic poultry. Density of poultry is indicated by color gradient; (B) Positive rate in surveillance from difference species. Light apple, rose quartz, autunite yellow, beryl green and red pies indicate the positive rate in chicken, duck, goose, wild birds and related environment, and density of vaccination was indicated by blue color.
Figure 3Seasonal distribution of HPAI H5N1 outbreaks and positive samples at province-level; (A) Seasonal distribution of HPAI H5N1 outbreaks in domestic poultry, 2004–2012; (B) Seasonal distribution of positive rate in surveillance, 2006–2012.
The association between HPAI H5N1 outbreaks and potential factors by panel logistic regression analysis.
| Variables ( Unit ) a | No. of Outbreaks (95% CI) | Univariate Analysis | Multivariate Analysis | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR (95% CI) | OR (95% CI) | |||||
| Vaccination rate (categorical, %) | ||||||
| <70 | 85 (68, 102) | |||||
| 70– | 13 (6, 20) | |||||
| >90 | 5 (1, 9) | |||||
| Vaccination rate (continuous, 10 %) | 0.80 (0.76, 0.85) | <0.001 | 0.79 (0.74, 0.84) | <0.001 | ||
| Distance to the nearest transportation routes | ||||||
| National highway (categorical, 10 km) | ||||||
| <1 | 57 (43, 71) | |||||
| 1– | 36 (24, 48) | |||||
| >3 | 10 (2, 12) | |||||
| National highway (continuous, 10 km) | 0.66 (0.57, 0.77) | <0.001 | ||||
| Railway (categorical, 10 km) | ||||||
| <3 | 87 (69, 105) | |||||
| 3– | 10 (4, 16) | |||||
| >10 | 6 (1, 10) | |||||
| Railway (continuous, 10 km) | 0.91 (0.87, 0.96) | <0.001 | ||||
| Freeway (categorical, 10 km) | ||||||
| <3 | 83 (66, 100) | |||||
| 3– | 11(5, 17) | |||||
| >50 | 9 (3, 15) | |||||
| Freeway (continuous, 10 km) | 0.99 (0.98, 1.00) | 0.217 | ||||
| Distance to the nearest city (categorical, 10 km) | ||||||
| <5 | 72 (56, 88) | |||||
| 5– | 24 (14, 34) | |||||
| >10 | 7 (2, 12) | |||||
| Distance to the nearest city (continuous, 10 km) | 0.78 (0.73, 0.84) | <0.001 | ||||
| Interaction between distance to the nearest city and national highway (continuous, 10 km * 10 km) | 0.93 (0.91, 0.96) | <0.001 | 0.96 (0.94, 0.99) | 0.002 | ||
| Distance to the nearest water body | ||||||
| Lake (categorical, 1 km) | ||||||
| <30 | 96 (77, 115) | |||||
| 30– | 5 (1, 9) | |||||
| >50 | 2 (0, 5) | |||||
| Lake (continuous, 10 km) | 0.60 (0.49, 0.72) | <0.001 | ||||
| Water reservoir (categorical, 10 km) | ||||||
| <10 | 83 (66, 100) | |||||
| 10– | 12 (5, 19) | |||||
| >30 | 8 (3, 13) | |||||
| Water reservoir (continuous, 10 km) | 0.95 (0.91, 1.00) | 0.031 | ||||
| River (categorical, 10 km) | ||||||
| <3 | 64 (49, 79) | |||||
| 3– | 29 (19, 39) | |||||
| >10 | 10 (4, 16) | |||||
| River (continuous, 10 km) | 0.99 (0.98, 1.01) | 0.491 | ||||
| Distance to the nearest wetland (categorical, 10 km) | ||||||
| <2 | 88 (70, 106) | |||||
| 2– | 13 (6, 20) | |||||
| >5 | 2 (0, 5) | |||||
| Distance to the nearest wetland (continuous, 10 km) | 0.60 (0.48, 0.75) | <0.001 | ||||
| Interaction between distance to the nearest Lake and wetland (10 km * 10 km) | 0.76 (0.67, 0.85) | <0.001 | 0.87 (0.78, 0.96) | <0.001 | ||
| Density of human population (categorical, 1000 persons per km2) | ||||||
| <0.1 | 16(8, 24) | |||||
| 0.1– | 32(21, 43) | |||||
| >0.4 | 55(41, 69) | |||||
| Density of human population (continuous, 1000 persons per km2) | 1.66 (1.42, 1.95) | <0.001 | 1.44 (1.19, 1.73) | <0.001 | ||
| Density of poultry (categorical, 100 poultry per km2) | ||||||
| <1 | 28(18,38) | |||||
| 1– | 26(16,35) | |||||
| >5 | 49(36,62) | |||||
| Density of poultry (continuous, 100 poultry per km2) | 1.02 (1.01, 1.03) | <0.001 | ||||
| Quadratic density of poultry (continuous) | 1.00 (1.00, 1.00) | 0.082 | ||||
| Climate | ||||||
| Mean temperature in summer (categorical, 1 centigrade) | ||||||
| <20 | 11(5, 17) | |||||
| 20– | 33(22, 44) | |||||
| >25 | 59(44, 74) | |||||
| Mean temperature in summer (continuous, 1 centigrade) | 1.11 (1.04, 1.17) | 0.001 | ||||
| Mean temperature in winter (categorical, 1 centigrade) | ||||||
| <0 | 7 (2, 12) | |||||
| 0– | 25 (15,35) | |||||
| >10 | 71 (55, 87) | |||||
| Mean temperature in winter(continuous, 1 centigrade) | 1.04 (1.02, 1.07) | <0.001 | ||||
| Precipitation in spring and summer(categorical, 100mm) | ||||||
| <1 | 7 (2,12) | |||||
| 1– | 29 (19, 39) | |||||
| >5 | 67 (51,83) | |||||
| Precipitation in spring and summer(continuous,100mm) | 1.07 (1.02, 1.12) | 0.004 | ||||
| Precipitation in autumn and winter (categorical, 100mm) | ||||||
| <0.5 | 13 (6, 20) | |||||
| 0.5– | 28 (18, 38) | |||||
| >2 | 62 (47,77) | |||||
| Precipitation in autumn and winter (continuous,100mm) | 1.12 (0.99, 1.27) | 0.064 | ||||
| NDVI (categorical) | ||||||
| <100 | 28 (18, 38) | |||||
| 100– | 42 (30, 54) | |||||
| >150 | 33 (21, 44) | |||||
| NDVI (continuous) | 1.00 (1.00, 1.01) | 0.556 | ||||
| Quadratic NDVI (continuous) | 1.00 (1.00, 1.00) | 0.808 | ||||
| Land use (10 %) | ||||||
| Percentage coverage of cropland (categorical, 10%) | ||||||
| <1 | 15 (7, 21) | |||||
| 1– | 34 (23, 45) | |||||
| >5 | 55 (41, 69) | |||||
| Percentage coverage of cropland (continuous, 10%) | 1.18 (1.11, 1.25) | <0.001 | ||||
| Percentage coverage of grassland (categorical, 10%) | ||||||
| <2 | 59 (44, 74) | |||||
| 2– | 31 (20, 42) | |||||
| >5 | 13 (6, 20) | |||||
| Percentage coverage of grassland (continuous, 10%) | 0.91 (0.84, 0.99) | 0.022 | ||||
| Percentage coverage of shrub (categorical, 10%) | ||||||
| <0.05 | 56 (42, 70) | |||||
| 0.05– | 34 (27, 45) | |||||
| >0.1 | 13 (6, 20) | |||||
| Percentage coverage of shrub (continuous, 10%) | 0.66 (0.52, 0.85) | 0.001 | ||||
| Percentage coverage of forest (categorical, 10%) | ||||||
| <0.05 | 59 (44, 74) | |||||
| 0.05– | 25 (15, 35) | |||||
| >0.5 | 19 (11, 27) | |||||
| Percentage coverage of forest (continuous, 10%) | 0.88 (0.76, 1.03) | 0.104 | ||||
| Percentage coverage of buildup (categorical, 10%) | ||||||
| <0.05 | 36 (24, 48) | |||||
| 0.05– | 35 (24, 46) | |||||
| >0.5 | 32 (21, 42) | |||||
| Percentage coverage of buildup (continuous, 10%) | 1.52 (1.31, 1.76) | <0.001 | ||||
| Mean elevation (categorical , 100 m) | ||||||
| <5 | 66 (50, 82) | |||||
| 5– | 29 (19, 39) | |||||
| >20 | 8 (2, 14) | |||||
| Mean elevation (continuous , 100 m) | 0.96 (0.94, 0.99) | 0.002 | ||||
| Autoregressive term (continuous) | 1.50 (1.39, 1.63) | <0.001 | 1.40 (1.28, 1.54) | <0.001 | ||
For all continuous variables, categorical results are also reported to allow inspection of the data and assessment of whether or not the assumption regarding continuous variables was justified.
Figure 4Predictive risk of HPAI H5N1 outbreaks in domestic poultry in mainland China; The predictive risk map shows increased risk of HPAI H5N1 outbreaks in domestic poultry with color gradient.