Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok, Thailand.
Transbound Emerg Dis. 2021 Jan;68(1):110-126. doi: 10.1111/tbed.13633. Epub 2020 Jul 11.
This literature review provides an overview of use of environmental samples (ES) such as faeces, water, air, mud and swabs of surfaces in avian influenza (AI) surveillance programs, focussing on effectiveness, advantages and gaps in knowledge. ES have been used effectively for AI surveillance since the 1970s. Results from ES have enhanced understanding of the biology of AI viruses in wild birds and in markets, of links between human and avian influenza, provided early warning of viral incursions, allowed assessment of effectiveness of control and preventive measures, and assisted epidemiological studies in outbreaks, both avian and human. Variation exists in the methods and protocols used, and no internationally recognized guidelines exist on the use of ES and data management. Few studies have performed direct comparisons of ES versus live bird samples (LBS). Results reported so far demonstrate reliance on ES will not be sufficient to detect virus in all cases when it is present, especially when the prevalence of infection/contamination is low. Multiple sample types should be collected. In live bird markets, ES from processing/selling areas are more likely to test positive than samples from bird holding areas. When compared to LBS, ES is considered a cost-effective, simple, rapid, flexible, convenient and acceptable way of achieving surveillance objectives. As a non-invasive technique, it can minimize effects on animal welfare and trade in markets and reduce impacts on wild bird communities. Some limitations of environmental sampling methods have been identified, such as the loss of species-specific or information on the source of virus, and taxonomic-level analyses, unless additional methods are applied. Some studies employing ES have not provided detailed methods. In others, where ES and LBS are collected from the same site, positive results have not been assigned to specific sample types. These gaps should be remedied in future studies.
本文献综述概述了环境样本(如粪便、水、空气、泥和表面拭子)在禽流感(AI)监测计划中的应用,重点介绍了其有效性、优势和知识空白。自 20 世纪 70 年代以来,环境样本已被有效地用于 AI 监测。环境样本的结果增强了对野生鸟类和市场中 AI 病毒生物学的理解、人类与禽流感之间的联系、病毒入侵的早期预警、控制和预防措施的有效性评估、以及在暴发期间(包括禽和人)的流行病学研究。所使用的方法和协议存在差异,并且在环境样本的使用和数据管理方面没有国际公认的准则。很少有研究直接比较环境样本与活禽样本(LBS)。迄今为止报告的结果表明,仅依靠环境样本在病毒存在的所有情况下都不足以检测到病毒,尤其是当感染/污染的流行率较低时。应收集多种样本类型。在活禽市场中,来自处理/销售区域的环境样本比来自禽畜饲养区的样本更有可能呈阳性。与 LBS 相比,环境样本被认为是一种具有成本效益、简单、快速、灵活、方便和可接受的监测目标实现方式。作为一种非侵入性技术,它可以最大限度地减少对动物福利和市场贸易的影响,并减少对野生鸟类群落的影响。已经确定了环境采样方法的一些局限性,例如丢失物种特异性或病毒来源信息,以及分类水平分析,除非应用其他方法。一些使用环境样本的研究没有提供详细的方法。在其他研究中,环境样本和 LBS 是从同一地点采集的,但没有将阳性结果分配给特定的样本类型。这些空白应在未来的研究中得到弥补。