Serum Chemistry Values in Wild Black Vultures in Mississippi, USA

Vultures (Cathartidae and Accipitridae) play an important role in ecosystem balance by rapidly disposing animal carcasses and thus preventing the potential spread of pathogens. Blood chemistry values provide a means of assessing the health of wildlife and wild animal populations; however, there are significant differences in chemistries among species and when comparing captive and free-living New and Old World vultures. In 2007, we collected blood serum from 30 female and 14 male wild, healthy black vultures (Coragyps atratus) live-trapped by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Wildlife Services from a power substation in Lowndes County, Mississippi, USA. We analyzed the blood serum to provide serum chemistry base values for use in clinical pathology. The chemical analytes we measured included sodium, chloride, potassium, carbon dioxide, anion gap, glucose, creatinine, calcium, phosphorus, total protein, albumin, globulin, and aspartate aminotransferase. In general, blood chemistry values of black vultures were similar to those found in New and Old World vultures and raptor species. Average chemistry values for males were lower than females for sodium, chloride, creatinine, calcium, total protein, albumin, and globulin. The serum chemistry values we describe in this paper can be important indicators of avian health by gender for the black vulture. Our study provided important blood chemistry values from a large sample size, which is rarely available in free-ranging black vultures. These values could be used by scientists, veterinary pathologists, wildlife rehabilitation centers, and other researchers for baseline data for wild and free-ranging birds. Furthermore, the use of such parameters in assessing population health may enable conservationists to further research environmental conditions affecting species reproduction and survival

Viral Disease Surveillance in Select Wildlife Populations in Mississippi

Raccoons and opossums are quickly becoming a common sight in urban areas, providing a higher risk of human exposure to zoonotic pathogens. Feral swine are also becoming more common and problematic for many. We conducted serological surveys for avian influenza (AI), West Nile virus (WNV), rabies virus (RV), and canine distemper virus (CDV) in raccoons (n=119), opossums (n=126), and feral swine (n=105) in two regions of Mississippi. Raccoons had antibodies to all four viruses, while feral swine had antibody responses to WNV and opossums exhibited responses to WNV and RV. Active wildlife disease surveillance is a vital aspect of wildlife damage management and allows for the opportunity to detect possible disease threats and act accordingly. If potential disease threats can be caught early, the threat of interspecies transmission can be reduced

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Summary: Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health