| Literature DB >> 26402228 |
Bryan S Kaplan, Jennifer DeBeauchamp, Evelyn Stigger-Rosser, John Franks, Jeri Carol Crumpton, Jasmine Turner, Daniel Darnell, Trushar Jeevan, Ghazi Kayali, Abbey Harding, Richard J Webby, James F Lowe.
Abstract
To clarify the epidemiology of influenza A viruses in coordinated swine production systems to which no animals from outside the system are introduced, we conducted virologic surveillance during September 2012-September 2013. Animal age, geographic location, and farm type were found to affect the prevalence of these viruses.Entities:
Keywords: H1N1; H3N2; North America; United States; influenza; surveillance; swine; viruses; zoonoses
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26402228 PMCID: PMC4593420 DOI: 10.3201/eid2110.140633
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Emerg Infect Dis ISSN: 1080-6040 Impact factor: 6.883
Figure 1Flow of animals through a closed swine production system. Coordinated swine production systems maximize desired animal traits and weight gain. High-quality breeding sows grown and bred in multiplier farms (MF-Gilts) were sampled transfer to commercial gilt development farms (GDU), where they were sampled again at exit (6 months). At ≈3 weeks of age, piglets were sampled before weaning (MF-Pigs). Mature gilts were transported from the GDU to 1 of 4 commercial breed-to-wean (BTW) farms, where samples were collected from gilts before entry and piglets before weaning.
Epidemiologic data for influenza A virus among swine in coordinated swine production systems, United States, September 2012–September 2013*
| Variable | No. samples | No. (%) positive samples | p value |
|---|---|---|---|
| State* | |||
| Georgia | 2,520 | 73 (2.9) | |
| Illinois | 4,490 | 408 (9.1) | <0.001 |
| Nebraska | 3,894 | 126 (3.2) | |
| Oklahoma | 4,050 | 134 (3.3) |
|
| Age group | |||
| Gilt | 8,028 | 375 (4.7) | 0.85 |
| Piglet | 6,926 | 366 (5.3) |
|
| Farm type | |||
| MF, gilts† | 1,526 | 67 (4.4) | |
| MF, piglets | 1,559 | 72 (4.6) | |
| GDU | 1,455 | 115 (7.9) | <0.001 |
| BTW | 10,414 | 487 (4.7) |
|
| System | |||
| 1 | 3,673 | 142 (3.9) | |
| 2 | 3,337 | 339 (10.2) | <0.001 |
| 3 | 4,050 | 134 (3.3) | |
| 4 | 3,894 | 126 (3.2) | |
*Piglets were sampled before weaning; gilts were sampled at entry to MFs and before moving from GDUs to BTWs. MF, multiplier farm; GDU, gilt development unit; BTW, breed-to-wean.
Correlation between age, state, farm type or production system, and influenza A virus status in swine in coordinated production systems, United States, September 2012–September 2013*
| Factor | aOR (95% CI) | p value |
|---|---|---|
| Age group |
|
|
| Piglet vs. gilt | 1.3 (1.1–1.6) | 0.004 |
| State |
|
|
| Illinois vs. Oklahoma | 1.9 (1.4–2.6) | <0.001 |
| Farm type | ||
| MF piglets vs. BTW | 0.7 (0.5–0.9) | 0.011 |
| GDU vs. BTW | 1.6 (1.2–2.1) | <0.001 |
| System number |
|
|
| 2 vs. 1 | 1.7 (1.3–2.3) | <0.001 |
*Only statistically significant factors are shown; full analysis is provided in the Technical Appendix. aOR, adjusted odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; MF, multiplier farm; GDU, gilt development unit; BTW, breed-to-wean.
Figure 2Prevalence of influenza A virus by system, farm type, and month, United States, September 2012–September 2013, positive RNA nasal swab samples were categorized by age range (gilt, female pig 5–6 months of age or piglet, ≈3 weeks of age) and production point farm (multiplier farms [MF] Gilt, MF Pig, GDU, BTW Gilt, BTW Pig). Each circle depicts a month during which positive influenza samples were collected; percentage of positive swabs is listed above each circle. Influenza A subtypes are indicated by circle color: green, H1N1; blue, H1N2; red, H3N2; black, untyped. Multicolored circles indicate the detection of >1 subtype.