WHO/FAO/OIE tripartite coordination for the control and prevention of zoonotic influenza viruses. Example of OFFLU, global network of veterinary expertise

During the last decade a heightened awareness has developed on the potential of influenza infections in animals to cause serious disease in people. This is the result of increased reporting of zoonotic influenza in humans as well as the intense circulation of influenza strains with pandemic potential within the animal reservoir. OFFLU (OIE/FAO Network of expertise on animal influenza) was created in 2004 as a response to the large spread of the zoonotic avian influenza of H5N1 subtype. OFFLU is a formal partnership between the World Animal Health Organization (OIE) and the Animal Production and Health Division of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) to maintain an active network of expertise on animal influenza. One of its four objectives is specifically to collaborate with the WHO (World Health Organization) influenza network on issues relating to the animal-human interface, including early preparation of human vaccines. Stronger technical collaboration, both institutionally and nationally, among scientists in the animal health and public health sectors has been established through joint technical discussion, information sharing and development and use of common tools.Au cours des dix dernières années, on a de plus en plus pris conscience du potentiel qu’ont les infections animales par l’influenza à causer une maladie sérieuse chez l’homme. Ceci a été à la fois le résultat d’observations plus fréquentes d’infections par des influenza zoonotiques chez l’homme et de la circulation intense de souches influenza avec un potentiel pandémique dans le réservoir animal. OFFLU (Réseau OIE/FAO d’expertise sur l’influenza animal) a été comme une réponse à la dissémination majeure du sous-type H5N1 du virus influenza aviaire à caractère zoonotique. OFFLU est un partenariat formel entre l’OIE (Organisation Mondiale de la Santé Animale) et la division de santé et production animales de la FAO (Organisation de l’Alimentation et de l’Agriculture des Nations Unies) afin de maintenir un réseau actif d’expertise sur l’influenza animal. L’un des quatre objectifs d’OFFLU est spécifiquement de collaborer avec le réseau influenza de l’OMS (Organisation Mondiale de la Santé) sur les problèmes relatifs à l’interface animal-homme, y compris la préparation des vaccins humains. Une collaboration technique plus forte, à la fois institutionnelle et nationale, parmi les scientifiques des secteurs de la santé animale et de la santé publique a été établie au travers de discussions techniques conjointes, de partage de l’information et du développement et de l’utilisation d’outils communs

Avian influenza vaccination of poultry and passive case reporting, Egypt

We investigated the infl uence of a mass poultry vaccination campaign on passive surveillance of highly pathogenic avian infl uenza subtype (H5N1) outbreaks among poultry in Egypt. Passive reporting dropped during the campaign, although probability of infection remained unchanged. Future poultry vaccination campaigns should consider this negative impact on reporting for adapting surveillance strategies. (Résumé d'auteur

Protective efficacy of recombinant turkey herpes virus (rHVT-H5) and inactivated H5N1 vaccines in commercial Mulard ducks against the highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) H5N1 clade 2.2.1 virus

In Egypt, ducks kept for commercial purposes constitute the second highest poultry population, at 150 million ducks/year. Hence, ducks play an important role in the introduction and transmission of avian influenza (AI) in the Egyptian poultry population. Attempts to control outbreaks include the use of vaccines, which have varying levels of efficacy and failure. To date, the effects of vaccine efficacy has rarely been determined in ducks. In this study, we evaluated the protective efficacy of a live recombinant vector vaccine based on a turkey Herpes Virus (HVT) expressing the H5 gene from a clade 2.2 H5N1 HPAIV strain (A/Swan/ Hungary/499/2006) (rHVT-H5) and a bivalent inactivated H5N1 vaccine prepared from clade 2.2.1 and 2.2.1.1 H5N1 seeds in Mulard ducks. A 0.3ml/dose subcutaneous injection of rHVT-H5 vaccine was administered to one-day-old ducklings (D1) and another 0.5ml/ dose subcutaneous injection of the inactivated MEFLUVAC was administered at 7 days (D7). Four separate challenge experiments were conducted at Days 21, 28, 35 and 42, in which all the vaccinated ducks were challenged with 106EID50/duck of H5N1 HPAI virus (A/ chicken/Egypt/128s/2012(H5N1) (clade 2.2.1) via intranasal inoculation. Maternal-derived antibody regression and post-vaccination antibody immune responses were monitored weekly. Ducks vaccinated at 21, 28, 35 and 42 days with the rHVT-H5 and MEFLUVAC vaccines were protected against mortality (80%, 80%, 90% and 90%) and (50%, 70%, 80% and 90%) respectively, against challenges with the H5N1 HPAI virus. The amount of viral shedding and shedding rates were lower in the rHVT-H5 vaccine groups than in the MEFLUVAC groups only in the first two challenge experiments. However, the non-vaccinated groups shed significantly more of the virus than the vaccinated groups. Both rHVT-H5 and MEFLUVAC provide early protection, and rHVT-H5 vaccine in particular provides protection against HPAI challenge.S1 Table. Weekly mean HI titres (log2 ± SD) using A/Swan/Hungary/4999/2006) rHVT/Ag that indicate the immune response to the rHVT-H5 vaccination. S1 Table legend: Different upper case letters in a row denote the presence of statistically significant (p 0.05) differences. Group I (vaccinated with rHVT-H5 vaccine at 1 day old), Group II (vaccinated with inactivated KV-H5 vaccine at 8 days old), Group III (unvaccinated control).S2 Table. Weekly mean HI titres (log2 ± SD) measured using (A/chicken/Egypt/Q1995D/ 2010) V/H5N1/Ag that indicates the immune response to the KV-H5 vaccination. S2 Table legend: Different upper case letters in a row denote the presence of statistically significant (p 0.05) differences. Group 1 (vaccinated with rHVT-H5 vaccine at 1 day old), Group II (vaccinated with inactivated KV-H5 vaccine at 8 days old), Group III (unvaccinated control).S3 Table. Weekly mean HI titres (log2 ± SD) measured using (A/chicken/Egypt/128S/2012) C/H5N1/Ag that indicates the immune response to the challenge virus. S3 Table legend: Different upper case letters in a row denote the presence of statistically significant (p 0.05) differences. Group 1 (vaccinated with rHVT-H5 vaccine at 1 day old), Group II (vaccinated with inactivated KV-H5 vaccine at 8 days old), Group III (unvaccinated control).This work was supported by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) under a grant (AID-263-IO-11-00001, Mod. #3) and within the framework of OSRO/EGY/101/ USA, which applies to projects jointly implemented by the FAO, GOVS and NLQP.http://www.plosone.orgam2016Production Animal StudiesVeterinary Tropical Disease

Protective efficacy of recombinant turkey herpes virus (rHVT-H5) and inactivated H5N1 vaccines in commercial Mulard ducks against the highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) H5N1 clade 2.2.1 virus

In Egypt, ducks kept for commercial purposes constitute the second highest poultry population, at 150 million ducks/year. Hence, ducks play an important role in the introduction and transmission of avian influenza (AI) in the Egyptian poultry population. Attempts to control outbreaks include the use of vaccines, which have varying levels of efficacy and failure. To date, the effects of vaccine efficacy has rarely been determined in ducks. In this study, we evaluated the protective efficacy of a live recombinant vector vaccine based on a turkey Herpes Virus (HVT) expressing the H5 gene from a clade 2.2 H5N1 HPAIV strain (A/Swan/ Hungary/499/2006) (rHVT-H5) and a bivalent inactivated H5N1 vaccine prepared from clade 2.2.1 and 2.2.1.1 H5N1 seeds in Mulard ducks. A 0.3ml/dose subcutaneous injection of rHVT-H5 vaccine was administered to one-day-old ducklings (D1) and another 0.5ml/ dose subcutaneous injection of the inactivated MEFLUVAC was administered at 7 days (D7). Four separate challenge experiments were conducted at Days 21, 28, 35 and 42, in which all the vaccinated ducks were challenged with 106EID50/duck of H5N1 HPAI virus (A/ chicken/Egypt/128s/2012(H5N1) (clade 2.2.1) via intranasal inoculation. Maternal-derived antibody regression and post-vaccination antibody immune responses were monitored weekly. Ducks vaccinated at 21, 28, 35 and 42 days with the rHVT-H5 and MEFLUVAC vaccines were protected against mortality (80%, 80%, 90% and 90%) and (50%, 70%, 80% and 90%) respectively, against challenges with the H5N1 HPAI virus. The amount of viral shedding and shedding rates were lower in the rHVT-H5 vaccine groups than in the MEFLUVAC groups only in the first two challenge experiments. However, the non-vaccinated groups shed significantly more of the virus than the vaccinated groups. Both rHVT-H5 and MEFLUVAC provide early protection, and rHVT-H5 vaccine in particular provides protection against HPAI challenge.S1 Table. Weekly mean HI titres (log2 ± SD) using A/Swan/Hungary/4999/2006) rHVT/Ag that indicate the immune response to the rHVT-H5 vaccination. S1 Table legend: Different upper case letters in a row denote the presence of statistically significant (p 0.05) differences. Group I (vaccinated with rHVT-H5 vaccine at 1 day old), Group II (vaccinated with inactivated KV-H5 vaccine at 8 days old), Group III (unvaccinated control).S2 Table. Weekly mean HI titres (log2 ± SD) measured using (A/chicken/Egypt/Q1995D/ 2010) V/H5N1/Ag that indicates the immune response to the KV-H5 vaccination. S2 Table legend: Different upper case letters in a row denote the presence of statistically significant (p 0.05) differences. Group 1 (vaccinated with rHVT-H5 vaccine at 1 day old), Group II (vaccinated with inactivated KV-H5 vaccine at 8 days old), Group III (unvaccinated control).S3 Table. Weekly mean HI titres (log2 ± SD) measured using (A/chicken/Egypt/128S/2012) C/H5N1/Ag that indicates the immune response to the challenge virus. S3 Table legend: Different upper case letters in a row denote the presence of statistically significant (p 0.05) differences. Group 1 (vaccinated with rHVT-H5 vaccine at 1 day old), Group II (vaccinated with inactivated KV-H5 vaccine at 8 days old), Group III (unvaccinated control).This work was supported by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) under a grant (AID-263-IO-11-00001, Mod. #3) and within the framework of OSRO/EGY/101/ USA, which applies to projects jointly implemented by the FAO, GOVS and NLQP.http://www.plosone.orgam2016Production Animal StudiesVeterinary Tropical Disease

Influenza at the animal-human interface: A review of the literature for virological evidence of human infection with swine or avian influenza viruses other than A(H5N1)

Factors that trigger human infection with animal influenza virus progressing into a pandemic are poorly understood. Within a project developing an evidence-based risk assessment framework for influenza viruses in animals, we conducted a review of the literature for evidence of human infection with animal influenza viruses by diagnostic methods used. The review covering Medline, Embase, SciSearch and CabAbstracts yielded 6,955 articles, of which we retained 89; for influenza A(H5N1) and A(H7N9), the official case counts of the World Health Organization were used. An additional 30 studies were included by scanning the reference lists. Here, we present the findings for confirmed infections with virological evidence. We found reports of 1,419 naturally infected human cases, of which 648 were associated with avian influenza virus (AIV) A(H5N1), 375 with other AIV subtypes, and 396 with swine influenza virus (SIV). Human cases naturally infected with AIV spanned haemagglutinin subtypes H5, H6, H7, H9 and H10. SIV cases were associated with endemic SIV of H1 and H3 subtype d