tetano
Editor, Senior Moderator
Zhonghua Liu Xing Bing Xue Za Zhi. 2013 May;34(5):488-490.
[Risk evaluation on H7N9 avian influenza in Guangzhou, China.]
[Article in Chinese]
Yuan J, DI B, Ma XW, Liu JP, Chen YY, Li KB, Liu YF, Xiao XC, Cai WF, Liu YH, Yang ZC, Wang M.
Source
Guangzhou Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Guangzhou 510440, China; School of Public Health, Sun Yat-Sen University.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE:
We conducted both quick surveillance and evaluation programs within one week after the novel H7N9 influenza cases had been released by the Ministry of Health (MOH), to get the basic information on H7N9 virus in Guangzhou.
METHODS:
We sampled live birds from food markets and the natural habitat of birds to detect H7N9, H5 and H9 viruses. We interviewed workers from both markets and natural habitats. We also reviewed records on pneumonia patients with unknown causes from the surveillance system, to find clues related to the identification of severe pneumonia.
RESULTS:
We sampled 300 specimens from 49 stalls in 13 food markets and a natural habitat but none showed H7N9 positive result. A chopping block was detected positive of carring H5 avian influenza virus, while another 4 specimens including a chicken cage, a duck cage, a chopping block and a pigeon cage were detected positive of carrying H9 avian influenza virus. In the past month, no sick, dead birds or ILI cases among the workers were discovered. 21.2% (7/33) of the stalls did not follow the set regulations for prevention. 10.3% (4/39) of the stalls had the cages cleaned, 4 days after the inspection. 3.7% (2/54) of the workers wore masks and 40.7% (22/54) of them wore gloves during the slaughtering process. 102 bird feces specimens were tested negative on H7N9 virus. No pneumonia cases with unknown reason were identified. From April 3rd to 17th, we found 26 severe pneumonia cases but with negative results on influenza A (H7N9).
CONCLUSION:
According to the data and information from 1) lab tests, 2) pneumonia cases with unknown reasons under the surveillance system, 3) the identification of severe pneumonia cases, and 4) preventive measures and actions taken by the workers, we inferred that no H7N9 virus or related cases were found prior to April in Guangzhou. However, the risk of H7N9 epidemic does exist because of the following reasons:1) improper market management process, 2) negligent behavior of the workers and 3) potential trend of the national situation, suggesting strategies related to poultry markets management, health education and preventive measures against the avian influenza need to be strengthened.
PMID:
24016441
[PubMed - as supplied by publisher]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24016441
[Risk evaluation on H7N9 avian influenza in Guangzhou, China.]
[Article in Chinese]
Yuan J, DI B, Ma XW, Liu JP, Chen YY, Li KB, Liu YF, Xiao XC, Cai WF, Liu YH, Yang ZC, Wang M.
Source
Guangzhou Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Guangzhou 510440, China; School of Public Health, Sun Yat-Sen University.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE:
We conducted both quick surveillance and evaluation programs within one week after the novel H7N9 influenza cases had been released by the Ministry of Health (MOH), to get the basic information on H7N9 virus in Guangzhou.
METHODS:
We sampled live birds from food markets and the natural habitat of birds to detect H7N9, H5 and H9 viruses. We interviewed workers from both markets and natural habitats. We also reviewed records on pneumonia patients with unknown causes from the surveillance system, to find clues related to the identification of severe pneumonia.
RESULTS:
We sampled 300 specimens from 49 stalls in 13 food markets and a natural habitat but none showed H7N9 positive result. A chopping block was detected positive of carring H5 avian influenza virus, while another 4 specimens including a chicken cage, a duck cage, a chopping block and a pigeon cage were detected positive of carrying H9 avian influenza virus. In the past month, no sick, dead birds or ILI cases among the workers were discovered. 21.2% (7/33) of the stalls did not follow the set regulations for prevention. 10.3% (4/39) of the stalls had the cages cleaned, 4 days after the inspection. 3.7% (2/54) of the workers wore masks and 40.7% (22/54) of them wore gloves during the slaughtering process. 102 bird feces specimens were tested negative on H7N9 virus. No pneumonia cases with unknown reason were identified. From April 3rd to 17th, we found 26 severe pneumonia cases but with negative results on influenza A (H7N9).
CONCLUSION:
According to the data and information from 1) lab tests, 2) pneumonia cases with unknown reasons under the surveillance system, 3) the identification of severe pneumonia cases, and 4) preventive measures and actions taken by the workers, we inferred that no H7N9 virus or related cases were found prior to April in Guangzhou. However, the risk of H7N9 epidemic does exist because of the following reasons:1) improper market management process, 2) negligent behavior of the workers and 3) potential trend of the national situation, suggesting strategies related to poultry markets management, health education and preventive measures against the avian influenza need to be strengthened.
PMID:
24016441
[PubMed - as supplied by publisher]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24016441
