• FluTrackers.com Inc. does not provide medical advice. Information on this web site is collected from various internet resources, and the FluTrackers board of directors makes no warranty to the safety, efficacy, correctness or completeness of the information posted on this site by any author or poster. The information collated here is for instructional and/or discussion purposes only and is NOT intended to diagnose or treat any disease, illness, or other medical condition. Every individual reader or poster should seek advice from their personal physician/healthcare practitioner before considering or using any interventions that are discussed on this website. By continuing to access this website you agree to consult your personal physican before using any interventions posted on this website, and you agree to hold harmless FluTrackers.com Inc., the board of directors, the members, and all authors and posters for any effects from use of any medication, supplement, vitamin or other substance, device, intervention, etc. mentioned in posts on this website, or other internet venues referenced in posts on this website.
  • We are not asking for any donations. Do not donate to any entity who says they are raising funds for us.

Using oral fluids samples for indirect influenza A virus surveillance in farmed UK pigs

tetano

Editor, Senior Moderator
Vet Med Sci. 2016 Dec 16;3(1):3-12. doi: 10.1002/vms3.51. eCollection 2017 Feb.
[h=1]Using oral fluids samples for indirect influenza A virus surveillance in farmed UK pigs.[/h] Gerber PF[SUP]1[/SUP], Dawson L[SUP]2[/SUP], Strugnell B[SUP]3[/SUP], Burgess R[SUP]3[/SUP], Brown H[SUP]1[/SUP], Opriessnig T[SUP]1,[/SUP][SUP]4[/SUP].
[h=3]Author information[/h]

[h=3]Abstract[/h] Influenza A virus (IAV) is economically important in pig production and has broad public health implications. In Europe, active IAV surveillance includes demonstration of antigen in nasal swabs and/or demonstration of antibodies in serum (SER) samples; however, collecting appropriate numbers of individual pig samples can be costly and labour-intensive. The objective of this study was to compare the probability of detecting IAV antibody positive populations using SER versus oral fluid (OF) samples. Paired pen samples, one OF and 5-14 SER samples, were collected cross-sectional or longitudinally. A commercial nucleoprotein (NP)-based blocking ELISA was used to test 244 OF and 1004 SER samples from 123 pens each containing 20-540 pigs located in 27 UK herds. Overall, the IAV antibody detection rate was higher in SER samples compared to OFs under the study conditions. Pig age had a significant effect on the probability of detecting positive pens. For 3-9-week-old pigs the probability of detecting IAV antibody positive samples in a pen with 95% confidence intervals was 40% (23-60) for OF and 61% (0.37-0.80) for SER (P =0.04), for 10-14-week-old pigs it was 19% (8-40) for OF and 93% (0.71-0.99) for SER (P <0.01), and for 18-20-week-old pigs it was 67% (41-85) for OF and 81% (0.63-0.91) for SER (P =0.05). Collecting more than one OF sample in pens with more than 25 less than 18-week-old pigs should be further investigated in the future to elucidate the suitability of OF for IAV surveillance in herds with large pen sizes.


[h=4]KEYWORDS:[/h] Swine influenza virus; diagnostics; enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay; surveillance

PMID: 29067204 PMCID: PMC5645835 DOI: 10.1002/vms3.51
 
Back
Top Bottom