Loading…

Quantified degree of poultry exposure differs for human cases of avian influenza H5N1 and H7N9

Preliminary evidence suggests that direct poultry contact may play a lesser role in transmission of avian influenza A(H7N9) than A(H5N1) to humans. To better understand differences in risk factors, we quantified the degree of poultry contact reported by H5N1 and H7N9 World Health Organization-confir...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Epidemiology and infection 2016-09, Vol.144 (12), p.2633-2640
Main Authors: BETHMONT, A., BUI, C. M., GARDNER, L., SARKAR, S., CHUGHTAI, A. A., MACINTYRE, C. R.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c482t-edd6012546b644086d5ed010afc3f8048b65ab893623955c09dfcccee12d478c3
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c482t-edd6012546b644086d5ed010afc3f8048b65ab893623955c09dfcccee12d478c3
container_end_page 2640
container_issue 12
container_start_page 2633
container_title Epidemiology and infection
container_volume 144
creator BETHMONT, A.
BUI, C. M.
GARDNER, L.
SARKAR, S.
CHUGHTAI, A. A.
MACINTYRE, C. R.
description Preliminary evidence suggests that direct poultry contact may play a lesser role in transmission of avian influenza A(H7N9) than A(H5N1) to humans. To better understand differences in risk factors, we quantified the degree of poultry contact reported by H5N1 and H7N9 World Health Organization-confirmed cases. We used publicly available data to classify cases by their degree of poultry contact, including direct and indirect. To account for potential data limitations, we used two methods: (1) case population method in which all cases were classified using a range of sources; and (2) case subset method in which only cases with detailed contact information from published research literature were classified. In the case population, detailed exposure information was unavailable for a large proportion of cases (H5N1, 54%; H7N9, 86%). In the case subset, direct contact proportions were higher in H5N1 cases (70·3%) than H7N9 cases (40·0%) (χ2 = 18·5, P < 0·001), and indirect contact proportions were higher in H7N9 cases (44·6%) than H5N1 cases (19·4%) (χ2 = 15·5, P < 0·001). Together with emerging evidence, our descriptive analysis suggests direct poultry contact is a clearer risk factor for H5N1 than for H7N9, and that other risk factors should also be considered for H7N9.
doi_str_mv 10.1017/S0950268816001035
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>jstor_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_9150466</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>26515779</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>26515779</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c482t-edd6012546b644086d5ed010afc3f8048b65ab893623955c09dfcccee12d478c3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNplkV1vFCEYhYnR2LX6A7zQkHjjzSgwwMCNiWlqt0lTY9RbCQsvLZvZYYWhafvrZbO19eOKkPO8J-fkIPSSkneU0OH9V6IFYVIpKgmhpBeP0IJyqTvOiX6MFju52-kH6Fkpa0KIZmp4ig7YwOQgGV2gH1-qneYYInjs4SID4BTwNtVxzjcYrrep1AzYxxAgFxxSxpd1YyfsbIGyY-1VbN84hbHCdGvxUpxTbCePl8O5fo6eBDsWeHH3HqLvn46_HS27s88np0cfzzrHFZs78F4SygSXK9myK-kF-NbIBtcHRbhaSWFXSveS9VoIR7QPzjkAyjwflOsP0Ye977auNuAdTHO2o9nmuLH5xiQbzd_KFC_NRboymgrCpWwGb-8McvpZocxmE4uDcbQTpFoM1URyoVqWhr75B12nmqdWz1BFFKNKcNYouqdcTqVkCPdhKDG79cx_67Wb13-2uL_4PVcDXu2BdZlTftCloGIYdP8Lqi2eGA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1808218542</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Quantified degree of poultry exposure differs for human cases of avian influenza H5N1 and H7N9</title><source>JSTOR Archival Journals and Primary Sources Collection</source><source>Cambridge University Press</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>BETHMONT, A. ; BUI, C. M. ; GARDNER, L. ; SARKAR, S. ; CHUGHTAI, A. A. ; MACINTYRE, C. R.</creator><creatorcontrib>BETHMONT, A. ; BUI, C. M. ; GARDNER, L. ; SARKAR, S. ; CHUGHTAI, A. A. ; MACINTYRE, C. R.</creatorcontrib><description>Preliminary evidence suggests that direct poultry contact may play a lesser role in transmission of avian influenza A(H7N9) than A(H5N1) to humans. To better understand differences in risk factors, we quantified the degree of poultry contact reported by H5N1 and H7N9 World Health Organization-confirmed cases. We used publicly available data to classify cases by their degree of poultry contact, including direct and indirect. To account for potential data limitations, we used two methods: (1) case population method in which all cases were classified using a range of sources; and (2) case subset method in which only cases with detailed contact information from published research literature were classified. In the case population, detailed exposure information was unavailable for a large proportion of cases (H5N1, 54%; H7N9, 86%). In the case subset, direct contact proportions were higher in H5N1 cases (70·3%) than H7N9 cases (40·0%) (χ2 = 18·5, P &lt; 0·001), and indirect contact proportions were higher in H7N9 cases (44·6%) than H5N1 cases (19·4%) (χ2 = 15·5, P &lt; 0·001). Together with emerging evidence, our descriptive analysis suggests direct poultry contact is a clearer risk factor for H5N1 than for H7N9, and that other risk factors should also be considered for H7N9.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0950-2688</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1469-4409</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1017/S0950268816001035</identifier><identifier>PMID: 27267621</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: Cambridge University Press</publisher><subject>Algorithms ; Animals ; Avian flu ; Classification ; Humans ; Infections ; Influenza ; Influenza A Virus, H5N1 Subtype - physiology ; Influenza A Virus, H7N9 Subtype - physiology ; Influenza in Birds - epidemiology ; Influenza in Birds - virology ; Influenza, Human - epidemiology ; Influenza, Human - virology ; Original Papers ; Poultry ; Poultry Diseases - epidemiology ; Poultry Diseases - virology ; Risk Factors ; Scandals ; Viruses</subject><ispartof>Epidemiology and infection, 2016-09, Vol.144 (12), p.2633-2640</ispartof><rights>Cambridge University Press 2016</rights><rights>Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016</rights><rights>Cambridge University Press 2016 2016 Cambridge University Press</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c482t-edd6012546b644086d5ed010afc3f8048b65ab893623955c09dfcccee12d478c3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c482t-edd6012546b644086d5ed010afc3f8048b65ab893623955c09dfcccee12d478c3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/26515779$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/26515779$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,723,776,780,881,27903,27904,53770,53772,58217,58450</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27267621$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>BETHMONT, A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>BUI, C. M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>GARDNER, L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>SARKAR, S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>CHUGHTAI, A. A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>MACINTYRE, C. R.</creatorcontrib><title>Quantified degree of poultry exposure differs for human cases of avian influenza H5N1 and H7N9</title><title>Epidemiology and infection</title><addtitle>Epidemiol Infect</addtitle><description>Preliminary evidence suggests that direct poultry contact may play a lesser role in transmission of avian influenza A(H7N9) than A(H5N1) to humans. To better understand differences in risk factors, we quantified the degree of poultry contact reported by H5N1 and H7N9 World Health Organization-confirmed cases. We used publicly available data to classify cases by their degree of poultry contact, including direct and indirect. To account for potential data limitations, we used two methods: (1) case population method in which all cases were classified using a range of sources; and (2) case subset method in which only cases with detailed contact information from published research literature were classified. In the case population, detailed exposure information was unavailable for a large proportion of cases (H5N1, 54%; H7N9, 86%). In the case subset, direct contact proportions were higher in H5N1 cases (70·3%) than H7N9 cases (40·0%) (χ2 = 18·5, P &lt; 0·001), and indirect contact proportions were higher in H7N9 cases (44·6%) than H5N1 cases (19·4%) (χ2 = 15·5, P &lt; 0·001). Together with emerging evidence, our descriptive analysis suggests direct poultry contact is a clearer risk factor for H5N1 than for H7N9, and that other risk factors should also be considered for H7N9.</description><subject>Algorithms</subject><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Avian flu</subject><subject>Classification</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Infections</subject><subject>Influenza</subject><subject>Influenza A Virus, H5N1 Subtype - physiology</subject><subject>Influenza A Virus, H7N9 Subtype - physiology</subject><subject>Influenza in Birds - epidemiology</subject><subject>Influenza in Birds - virology</subject><subject>Influenza, Human - epidemiology</subject><subject>Influenza, Human - virology</subject><subject>Original Papers</subject><subject>Poultry</subject><subject>Poultry Diseases - epidemiology</subject><subject>Poultry Diseases - virology</subject><subject>Risk Factors</subject><subject>Scandals</subject><subject>Viruses</subject><issn>0950-2688</issn><issn>1469-4409</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNplkV1vFCEYhYnR2LX6A7zQkHjjzSgwwMCNiWlqt0lTY9RbCQsvLZvZYYWhafvrZbO19eOKkPO8J-fkIPSSkneU0OH9V6IFYVIpKgmhpBeP0IJyqTvOiX6MFju52-kH6Fkpa0KIZmp4ig7YwOQgGV2gH1-qneYYInjs4SID4BTwNtVxzjcYrrep1AzYxxAgFxxSxpd1YyfsbIGyY-1VbN84hbHCdGvxUpxTbCePl8O5fo6eBDsWeHH3HqLvn46_HS27s88np0cfzzrHFZs78F4SygSXK9myK-kF-NbIBtcHRbhaSWFXSveS9VoIR7QPzjkAyjwflOsP0Ye977auNuAdTHO2o9nmuLH5xiQbzd_KFC_NRboymgrCpWwGb-8McvpZocxmE4uDcbQTpFoM1URyoVqWhr75B12nmqdWz1BFFKNKcNYouqdcTqVkCPdhKDG79cx_67Wb13-2uL_4PVcDXu2BdZlTftCloGIYdP8Lqi2eGA</recordid><startdate>20160901</startdate><enddate>20160901</enddate><creator>BETHMONT, A.</creator><creator>BUI, C. M.</creator><creator>GARDNER, L.</creator><creator>SARKAR, S.</creator><creator>CHUGHTAI, A. A.</creator><creator>MACINTYRE, C. R.</creator><general>Cambridge University Press</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7T2</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88A</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AN0</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7U2</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20160901</creationdate><title>Quantified degree of poultry exposure differs for human cases of avian influenza H5N1 and H7N9</title><author>BETHMONT, A. ; BUI, C. M. ; GARDNER, L. ; SARKAR, S. ; CHUGHTAI, A. A. ; MACINTYRE, C. R.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c482t-edd6012546b644086d5ed010afc3f8048b65ab893623955c09dfcccee12d478c3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Algorithms</topic><topic>Animals</topic><topic>Avian flu</topic><topic>Classification</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Infections</topic><topic>Influenza</topic><topic>Influenza A Virus, H5N1 Subtype - physiology</topic><topic>Influenza A Virus, H7N9 Subtype - physiology</topic><topic>Influenza in Birds - epidemiology</topic><topic>Influenza in Birds - virology</topic><topic>Influenza, Human - epidemiology</topic><topic>Influenza, Human - virology</topic><topic>Original Papers</topic><topic>Poultry</topic><topic>Poultry Diseases - epidemiology</topic><topic>Poultry Diseases - virology</topic><topic>Risk Factors</topic><topic>Scandals</topic><topic>Viruses</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>BETHMONT, A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>BUI, C. M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>GARDNER, L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>SARKAR, S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>CHUGHTAI, A. A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>MACINTYRE, C. R.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health and Safety Science Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Biology Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>British Nursing Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Biological Sciences</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Safety Science and Risk</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Epidemiology and infection</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>BETHMONT, A.</au><au>BUI, C. M.</au><au>GARDNER, L.</au><au>SARKAR, S.</au><au>CHUGHTAI, A. A.</au><au>MACINTYRE, C. R.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Quantified degree of poultry exposure differs for human cases of avian influenza H5N1 and H7N9</atitle><jtitle>Epidemiology and infection</jtitle><addtitle>Epidemiol Infect</addtitle><date>2016-09-01</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>144</volume><issue>12</issue><spage>2633</spage><epage>2640</epage><pages>2633-2640</pages><issn>0950-2688</issn><eissn>1469-4409</eissn><abstract>Preliminary evidence suggests that direct poultry contact may play a lesser role in transmission of avian influenza A(H7N9) than A(H5N1) to humans. To better understand differences in risk factors, we quantified the degree of poultry contact reported by H5N1 and H7N9 World Health Organization-confirmed cases. We used publicly available data to classify cases by their degree of poultry contact, including direct and indirect. To account for potential data limitations, we used two methods: (1) case population method in which all cases were classified using a range of sources; and (2) case subset method in which only cases with detailed contact information from published research literature were classified. In the case population, detailed exposure information was unavailable for a large proportion of cases (H5N1, 54%; H7N9, 86%). In the case subset, direct contact proportions were higher in H5N1 cases (70·3%) than H7N9 cases (40·0%) (χ2 = 18·5, P &lt; 0·001), and indirect contact proportions were higher in H7N9 cases (44·6%) than H5N1 cases (19·4%) (χ2 = 15·5, P &lt; 0·001). Together with emerging evidence, our descriptive analysis suggests direct poultry contact is a clearer risk factor for H5N1 than for H7N9, and that other risk factors should also be considered for H7N9.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>Cambridge University Press</pub><pmid>27267621</pmid><doi>10.1017/S0950268816001035</doi><tpages>8</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0950-2688
ispartof Epidemiology and infection, 2016-09, Vol.144 (12), p.2633-2640
issn 0950-2688
1469-4409
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_9150466
source JSTOR Archival Journals and Primary Sources Collection; Cambridge University Press; PubMed Central
subjects Algorithms
Animals
Avian flu
Classification
Humans
Infections
Influenza
Influenza A Virus, H5N1 Subtype - physiology
Influenza A Virus, H7N9 Subtype - physiology
Influenza in Birds - epidemiology
Influenza in Birds - virology
Influenza, Human - epidemiology
Influenza, Human - virology
Original Papers
Poultry
Poultry Diseases - epidemiology
Poultry Diseases - virology
Risk Factors
Scandals
Viruses
title Quantified degree of poultry exposure differs for human cases of avian influenza H5N1 and H7N9
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-21T17%3A25%3A38IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Quantified%20degree%20of%20poultry%20exposure%20differs%20for%20human%20cases%20of%20avian%20influenza%20H5N1%20and%20H7N9&rft.jtitle=Epidemiology%20and%20infection&rft.au=BETHMONT,%20A.&rft.date=2016-09-01&rft.volume=144&rft.issue=12&rft.spage=2633&rft.epage=2640&rft.pages=2633-2640&rft.issn=0950-2688&rft.eissn=1469-4409&rft_id=info:doi/10.1017/S0950268816001035&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_pubme%3E26515779%3C/jstor_pubme%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c482t-edd6012546b644086d5ed010afc3f8048b65ab893623955c09dfcccee12d478c3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1808218542&rft_id=info:pmid/27267621&rft_jstor_id=26515779&rfr_iscdi=true