Vaccination against highly pathogenic avian influenza H5N1 virus in zoos using an adjuvanted inactivated H5N2 vaccine

Vaccination of African penguins (Spheniscus demersus) against high-pathogenicity avian influenza

BACKGROUND

High-pathogenicity avian influenza (HPAI) has become a conservation threat to wild birds. Therefore, suitable vaccine technology and practical application methods require investigation.

METHODS

Twenty-four African penguins (Spheniscus demersus) were vaccinated with either a conventional inactivated clade 2.3.4.4b H5N8 HPAI whole virus or a tobacco leaf-produced H5 haemagglutinin-based virus-like particle (VLP). Six birds received a second dose of the inactivated vaccine. Antibody responses were assessed and compared by employing haemagglutination inhibition tests.

RESULTS

A second dose of inactivated vaccine was required to induce antibody titres above the level required to suppress virus shedding, while a single dose of VLP vaccine produced these levels by day 14, and one bird still had antibodies on day 430.

LIMITATIONS

Bacterial contamination of the VLP vaccine limited the monitoring period and sample size in that treatment group, and it was not possible to perform a challenge study with field virus.

CONCLUSION

VLP vaccines offer a more practical option than inactivated whole viruses, especially in logistically challenging situations involving wild birds.

Evaluation of Baloxavir Marboxil and Peramivir for the Treatment of High Pathogenicity Avian Influenza in Chickens

Control measures in the case of high pathogenicity avian influenza (HPAI) outbreaks in poultry include culling, surveillance, and biosecurity; wild birds in captivity may also be culled, although some rare bird species should be rescued for conservation. In this study, two anti-influenza drugs, baloxavir marboxil (BXM) and peramivir (PR), used in humans, were examined in treating HPAI in birds, using chickens as a model. Chickens were infected with H5N6 HPAI virus and were treated immediately or 24 h from challenge with 20 mg/kg BXM or PR twice a day for five days. As per our findings, BXM significantly reduced virus replication in organs and provided full protection to chickens compared with that induced by PR. In the 24-h-delayed treatment, neither drug completely inhibited virus replication nor ensured the survival of infected chickens. A single administration of 2.5 mg/kg of BXM was determined as the minimum dose required to fully protect chickens from HPAI virus; the concentration of baloxavir acid, the active form of BXM, in chicken blood at this dose was sufficient for a 48 h antiviral effect post-administration. Thus, these data can be a starting point for the use of BXM and PR in treating captive wild birds infected with HPAI virus.

Antibody Response of an H9 Subtype Avian Influenza Poultry Vaccine on Three Kinds of Wild Birds in Shanghai Zoo

A semiannual immunization with a commercial inactivated H9 subtype avian influenza virus (AIV) vaccine developed for poultry has been used to prevent and control the avian influenza (AI) infections among captured wild birds in Shanghai Zoo. However, the overall safety and effectiveness of the poultry vaccine for housed birds in the zoo remain unclear. To verify the safety and efficacy of the commercial inactivated H9 AI vaccine on zoo birds and to explore a more reasonable and effective immunization procedure, 48 zoo birds, including 11 Oriental white storks, 25 peafowl, and 12 silver pheasants, were administered the AI vaccine developed for poultry use. Then, the clinical signs of the immunized birds were observed for 2 weeks, and the antibodies against H9 AI were determined via the hemagglutination inhibition test. Results showed that no harmful effects related to the vaccination were observed, and the antibody titers of the Oriental white stork, peafowl, and silver pheasants were all higher than 7 log ₂ at 21 days, 30 days, 60 days, 120 days, and 180 days postimmunization. For further study, the H9 AIV titers of 11 peafowls and 6 Oriental storks, which were raised in the nursing ground, were continuously monitored for 15 months. All of their antibody titers were above the national standards of China (5 log ₂; GB/T18936-2003), even at 12 months and 15 months postimmunization. We concluded that the commercial inactivated H9 AI vaccine used at the present time in Shanghai Zoo can induce high and prolonged immune responses in vaccinated birds.

Serological Evidence of Avian Influenza in Captive Wild Birds in a Zoo and Two Safari Parks in Bangladesh

Avian influenza (AI) is endemic and frequently causes seasonal outbreaks in winter in Bangladesh due to high pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) H5N1 and low pathogenic avian influenza (LPAI) H9N2. Among avian influenza A viruses (AIV), H5, H7, and H9 subtypes have the most zoonotic potential. Captive birds in zoos and safari parks are used for educational, recreational, breeding, and conservational purposes in Bangladesh. To screen for AIV in captive birds to assess potential public health threats, we conducted a cross-sectional study in two safari parks and one zoo in Bangladesh for four months, from November to December 2013 and from January to February 2014. We collected blood samples, oropharyngeal, and cloacal swabs from 228 birds. We tested serum samples for AIV antibodies using competitive enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (c-ELISA) and AIV sero-subtype H5, H7, and H9 using hemagglutination inhibition (HI) test. Swab samples were tested for the presence of avian influenza viral RNA using real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR). Across all the samples, AIV antibody prevalence was 9.7% (95% CI: 6.1-14.2, n = 228) and AIV HA subtype H5, H7 and H9 sero-prevalence was 0% (95% CI: 0-1.6, n = 228), 0% (95% CI: 0-1.6, n = 228) and 6.6% (95% CI: 3.72-10.6, n = 228), respectively. No AI viral RNA (M-gene) was detected in any swab sample (0%, 95% CI: 0-1.6, n = 228). Birds in the Safari park at Cox's Bazar had a higher prevalence in both AIV antibody prevalence (13.5%) and AIV H9 sero-prevalence (9.6%) than any of the other sites, although the difference was not statistically significant. Among eight species of birds, Emu (Dromaius novaehollandiae) had the highest sero-positivity for both AIV antibody prevalence (26.1%) and AIV H9 prevalence (17.4%) followed by Golden pheasant (Chrysolophus pictus) with AIV antibody prevalence of 18.2% and AIV H9 prevalence of 11.4%. Our results highlight the presence of AI antibodies indicating low pathogenic AIV mingling in captive birds in zoos and safari parks in Bangladesh. Continuous programmed surveillance is therefore recommended to help better understand the diversity of AIVs and provide a clear picture of AI in captive wild birds, enabling interventions to reduce the risk of AIV transmission to humans.

EVALUATION OF A COMMERCIAL COMPETITIVE ENZYME-LINKED IMMUNOSORBENT ASSAY FOR DETECTION OF AVIAN INFLUENZA VIRUS SUBTYPE H5 ANTIBODIES IN ZOO BIRDS

The hemagglutination inhibition (HI) test is the current gold standard for detecting antibodies to avian influenza virus (AIV). Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) have been explored for use in poultry and certain wild bird species because of high efficiency and lower cost. This study compared a commercial ELISA for detection of AIV subtype H5 antibodies with HI test of 572 serum samples from zoo birds. There was no significant difference between the results of the two tests when statistically compared by a McNemar χ² test (P = 0.86) and assessment of κ (κ = 0.87). With a specificity of 94.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.92-0.97), a sensitivity of 93.9% (95% CI, 0.91-0.97), and an excellent correlation between the two tests, this ELISA can be recommended as an alternative to the HI test for preliminary screening of zoo bird sera for antibodies to AIV subtype H5.

Avian Vaccination: Current Options and Strategies

Researchers have generated an array of potential avian antiviral vaccines. However, vaccine and viral complexity, small profit margins, the cost of development and manufacturing, and the small population at risk relegate most avian vaccine use to commercial species. Some vaccines designed for use in nonavian species are used to prevent or ameliorate disease in exotic and companion birds. This article highlights newly developed vaccines that may be used in exotic and pet birds. Information pertinent to vaccine choice and strategy is provided, including disease lethality, species affected, and previous knowledge regarding vaccine safety and efficacy. Other avian species of concern are also included.

The response of mute swans (Cygnus olor, Gm. 1789) to vaccination against avian influenza with an inactivated H5N2 vaccine

Background

Recent epidemics of highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) produced an unprecedented number of cases in mute swans (Cygnus olor) in European countries, which indicates that these birds are very sensitive to the H5N1 virus. The HPAI outbreaks stirred a debate on the controversial stamping-out policy in populations of protected bird species. After preventive vaccination had been approved in the European Union, several countries have introduced vaccination schemes to protect poultry, captive wild birds or exotic birds in zoos against HPAI. The aim of this study was to investigate the immune response of wild mute swans to immunization with an inactivated AI H5N2 vaccine approved for use in poultry. The serological responses of mute swans were assessed by comparison with racing pigeons (Columba livia), a species which is characterized by different susceptibility to infection with the H5N1 HPAI virus and plays a questionable role in the ecology of influenza (H5N1) viruses.

Results

Swans were vaccinated once or twice at an interval of 4 weeks. The humoral immune response was evaluated by hemagglutination inhibition (HI) and NP-ELISA. The lymphocyte blast transformation test was used to determine the cell-mediated immune response. Higher values of the geometric mean titer (GMT) and 100 % seroconversion (HI ≥32) were noted in double vaccinated swans (1448.2) than in single vaccinated swans (128.0) or in double vaccinated pigeons (215.3). Significant differences in HI titers were observed between swans and pigeons, but no variations in ELISA scores were noted after the booster dose. Immunization of swans had no effect on the proliferative activity of lymphocytes.

Conclusions

The inactivated H5N2 vaccine was safe and immunogenic for mute swans and pigeons. Vaccination may have practical implications for swans kept in zoos, wildlife parks or rehabilitation centers. However, challenge studies are needed to prove the efficacy of the H5N2 AI vaccine.

Vaccination against H5 avian influenza virus induces long-term humoral immune responses in flamingoes (Phoenicopterus spp.)

Avian influenza (AI) can represent a threat to endangered wild birds, as demonstrated with the H5N1 highly pathogenic AI (HPAI) outbreaks. Vaccination against AI using inactivated H5-vaccines has been shown to induce humoral immune response in zoo bird species. In this study, the long-term efficacy of H5-vaccination was evaluated in flamingoes from Barcelona Zoo. Specific H5-antibody titres were maintained at high levels (geometric mean titres ≥32) for over 7 years after vaccination, both against the H5N9 and H5N3 vaccine strains, as well as H5N3 and H5N1 reference strains. In addition the breadth of the immune response was also studied by testing antibody production against H1-, H3-, H4-, H7-, and H10-subtypes. It was observed that most flamingoes presented specific antibodies against H1 virus subtypes, but titres to the other HA-subtypes were rarely detected. We show that AI-vaccines can induce immunity lasting seven years in flamingoes, which suggests that vaccination can provide long term protection from HPAI outbreaks in zoo birds.

Success factors for avian influenza vaccine use in poultry and potential impact at the wild bird-agricultural interface

Thirty-two epizootics of high pathogenicity avian influenza (HPAI) have been reported in poultry and other birds since 1959. The ongoing H5N1 HPAI epizootic that began in 1996 has also spilled over to infect wild birds. Traditional stamping-out programs in poultry have resulted in eradication of most HPAI epizootics. However, vaccination of poultry was added as a control tool in 1995 and has been used during five epizootics. Over 113 billion doses of AI vaccine have been used in poultry from 2002 to 2010 as oil-emulsified, inactivated whole AIV vaccines (95.5%) and live vectored vaccines (4.5%). Over 99% of the vaccine has been used in the four H5N1 HPAI enzootic countries: China including Hong Kong (91%), Egypt (4.7%), Indonesia (2.3%), and Vietnam (1.4%) where vaccination programs have been nationwide and routine to all poultry. Ten other countries used vaccine in poultry in a focused, risk-based manner but this accounted for less than 1% of the vaccine used. Most vaccine "failures" have resulted from problems in the vaccination process; i.e., failure to adequately administer the vaccine to at-risk poultry resulting in lack of population immunity, while fewer failures have resulted from antigenic drift of field viruses away from the vaccine viruses. It is currently not feasible to vaccinate wild birds against H5N1 HPAI, but naturally occurring infections with H5 low pathogenicity avian influenza viruses may generate cross-protective immunity against H5N1 HPAI. The most feasible method to prevent and control H5N1 HPAI in wild birds is through control of the disease in poultry with use of vaccine to reduce environmental burden of H5N1 HPAIV, and eventual eradication of the virus in domestic poultry, especially in domestic ducks which are raised in enzootic countries on range or in other outdoor systems having contact with wild aquatic and periurban terrestrial birds.

Prevention and control of highly pathogenic avian influenza with particular reference to H5N1

Highly pathogenic avian influenza viruses of the H5N1 subtype emerged in Far East Asia in 1996 and spread in three continents in a period of 10 or less years. Before this event, avian influenza infections caused by highly pathogenic viruses had occurred in many different countries, causing minor or major outbreaks, and had always been eradicated. The unique features of these H5N1 viruses combined to the geographic characteristics of the area of emergence, including animal husbandry practices, has caused this subtype to become endemic in several Asian countries, as well as in Egypt. Our aim is to review the direct and indirect control strategies with the rationale for use, advantages and shortcomings - particularly resulting from practicalities linked to field application and economic constraints. Certainly, in low income countries which have applied vaccination, this has resulted in a failure to eradicate the infection. Although the number of infected countries has dropped from over 40 (2006) to under 10 (2012), the extensive circulation of H5N1 in areas with high poultry density still represents a risk for public and animal health.

Characterization of cross protection of Swine-Origin Influenza Virus (S-OIV) H1N1 and reassortant H5N1 influenza vaccine in BALB/c mice given a single-dose vaccination

Background

Influenza virus has antigen drift and antigen shift effect, vaccination with some influenza vaccine might not induce sufficient immunity for host to the threat of other influenza virus strains. S-OIV H1N1 and H5N1 influenza vaccines in single-dose immunization were evaluated in mice for cross protection to the challenge of A/California/7/2009 H1N1 or NIBRG-14 H5N1 virus.

Results

Both H1N1 and H5N1 induced significant homologous IgG, HAI, and microneutralization antibody responses in the mice, while only vaccines plus adjuvant produced significant heterogeneous IgG and HAI antibody responses. Both alum and MPLA adjuvants significantly reduced the S-OIV H1N1 vaccine dose required to elicit protective HAI antibody titers from 0.05 μg to 0.001 μg. Vaccines alone did not protect mice from challenge with heterogeneous influenza virus, while H5N1 vaccine plus alum and MPLA adjuvants did. Mouse body weight loss was also less significant in the presence of adjuvant than in the vaccine without adjuvant. Furthermore, both H1N1 and H5N1 lung viral titers of immunized mice were significantly reduced post challenge with homologous viruses.

Conclusion

Only in the presence of MPLA adjuvant could the H5N1 vaccine significantly reduce mouse lung viral titers post H1N1 virus challenge, and not vice versa. MPLA adjuvant induced cross protection with a single dose vaccination to the challenge of heterogeneous influenza virus in mice. Lung viral titer seemed to be a better indicator compared to IgG, neutralization antibody, and HAI titer to predict survival of mice infected with influenza virus.

Zoonotic diseases of common pet birds: psittacine, passerine, and columbiform species

Zoonotic transmission of disease from pet birds is uncommon, but there are some recognized dangers. Most notably, Chlamydophila psittaci can be transmitted from pet birds to humans. Allergic responses to pet birds, including pneumonitis and contact dermatitis, have also been documented. Bite wounds from pet birds are rarely reported but can cause trauma and develop infection. The other diseases discussed here are considered potential zoonotic diseases of pet birds because of either isolated reports of suspected but unconfirmed transmission to humans or from reports of wild conspecifics being reported to have the disease.

Antiviral efficacy of oseltamivir against avian influenza virus in avian species

Avian influenza is one of the most contagious viral diseases in bird species and, increasingly, interspecies transmission to mammalian species has been reported. Prevention and eradication of avian influenza virus (AIV) infection in birds may require vaccines as part of a comprehensive program including biosecurity, culling, diagnostics, and surveillance. However, for valuable bird species in zoos, novel eradication strategies are needed, including antiviral treatments. The present study evaluated the anti-influenza efficacy of the potent neuraminidase inhibitor oseltamivir in avian species using the orders Galliformes (chickens) and Anseriformes (ducks). Viral replication of low pathogenic AIV was significantly reduced in the chicken model and completely reduced in the duck model. Anti-influenza drug administration to valuable bird species with an appropriate extrapolation approach could be useful for control of AIV in combination with active surveillance and vaccination strategies. Further, evaluation of oseltamivir against highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) using avian models would be needed to optimize the oseltamivir application guideline for HPAI control.

Animal models

Five well-established animal models in influenza research are discussed in a schematic fashion. Although there are clear parallels between these models, like viruses used, housing and handling conditions under biosafety conditions, routes of virus inoculation, sampling strategies, and necropsy techniques (mostly elaborated on in Subheading 4), each of these models involves specific differences in their practical applicability that need thorough assessment depending on the scientific question raised. In other words, there is no universal animal model for influenza and depending on the actual question to be answered the model and the experimental conditions should be carefully selected.

Comprehensive serological analysis of two successive heterologous vaccines against H5N1 avian influenza virus in exotic birds in zoos

In 2005, European Commission directive 2005/744/EC allowed controlled vaccination against avian influenza (AI) virus of valuable avian species housed in zoos. In 2006, 15 Spanish zoos and wildlife centers began a vaccination program with a commercial inactivated H5N9 vaccine. Between November 2007 and May 2008, birds from 10 of these centers were vaccinated again with a commercial inactivated H5N3 vaccine. During these campaigns, pre- and postvaccination samples from different bird orders were taken to study the response against AI virus H5 vaccines. Sera prior to vaccinations with both vaccines were examined for the presence of total antibodies against influenza A nucleoprotein (NP) by a commercial competitive enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (cELISA). Humoral responses to vaccination were evaluated using a hemagglutination inhibition (HI) assay. In some taxonomic orders, both vaccines elicited comparatively high titers of HI antibodies against H5. Interestingly, some orders, such as Psittaciformes, which did not develop HI antibodies to either vaccine formulation when used alone, triggered notable HI antibody production, albeit in low HI titers, when primed with H5N9 and during subsequent boosting with the H5N3 vaccine. Vaccination with successive heterologous vaccines may represent the best alternative to widely protect valuable and/or endangered bird species against highly pathogenic AI virus infection.

A single immunization with CoVaccine HT-adjuvanted H5N1 influenza virus vaccine induces protective cellular and humoral immune responses in ferrets

Highly pathogenic avian influenza A viruses of the H5N1 subtype continue to circulate in poultry, and zoonotic transmissions are reported frequently. Since a pandemic caused by these highly pathogenic viruses is still feared, there is interest in the development of influenza A/H5N1 virus vaccines that can protect humans against infection, preferably after a single vaccination with a low dose of antigen. Here we describe the induction of humoral and cellular immune responses in ferrets after vaccination with a cell culture-derived whole inactivated influenza A virus vaccine in combination with the novel adjuvant CoVaccine HT. The addition of CoVaccine HT to the influenza A virus vaccine increased antibody responses to homologous and heterologous influenza A/H5N1 viruses and increased virus-specific cell-mediated immune responses. Ferrets vaccinated once with a whole-virus equivalent of 3.8 microg hemagglutinin (HA) and CoVaccine HT were protected against homologous challenge infection with influenza virus A/VN/1194/04. Furthermore, ferrets vaccinated once with the same vaccine/adjuvant combination were partially protected against infection with a heterologous virus derived from clade 2.1 of H5N1 influenza viruses. Thus, the use of the novel adjuvant CoVaccine HT with cell culture-derived inactivated influenza A/H5N1 virus antigen is a promising and dose-sparing vaccine approach warranting further clinical evaluation.

Serologic response and safety to vaccination against avian influenza using inactivated H5N2 vaccine in zoo birds

Due to the spread of the H5N1 highly pathogenic strain of avian influenza virus across Europe, a preventive vaccination occurred in early 2006 among 135 French zoologic institutions. Approximately 25,000 birds were vaccinated with a H5N2 inactivated vaccine. Among them, 4,369 birds were monitored by members of Association Francophone des Vétérinaires de Parc Zoologique regarding safety issues of the vaccination protocol. A total of 1,686 blood samples were collected before the first injection (n = 255), at the time of booster (n = 463), 60 day after the booster (n = 514), and 180 day (n = 229) and 330 day (n = 217) after the initial injection. Thus, sera of 126 species representing 15 different avian orders were tested using the hemagglutinin inhibition assay to evaluate seroconversion and the long-term serologic profile of selected anti-H5 antibody. Safety was considered satisfactory in all orders, and there were no deleterious effects on large-volume injection/body weight ratio. After the second injection, 71% of the birds developed a titer > or =32, with a mean titer of 558. Titers then decreased in all birds, with 42% of the remaining birds having a titer > or =32 at day 180 and only 26% at day 330. Results demonstrated that a booster 42 days after initial vaccination was mandatory to raise the titer above 32, considered to be the protective level in poultry, and to increase the number of seroconverted birds. Differences in the serologic responses among the orders and species of birds were detected and could be linked with the variation of vaccine dose injected per body weight or with species-specific immune response. The protocol for additional campaigns will be adjusted for some bird orders through the increase of injected dose or a half yearly booster to sustain better titers over the year. Vaccination is a useful tool, together with biosecurity, that should always be used as a primary method of preventing and controlling avian influenza outbreaks.

The novel adjuvant CoVaccineHT increases the immunogenicity of cell-culture derived influenza A/H5N1 vaccine and induces the maturation of murine and human dendritic cells in vitro

A candidate influenza H5N1 vaccine based on cell-culture-derived whole inactivated virus and the novel adjuvant CoVaccineHT was evaluated in vitro and in vivo. To this end, mice were vaccinated with the whole inactivated influenza A/H5N1 virus vaccine with and without CoVaccineHT and virus-specific antibody and cellular immune responses were assessed. The addition of CoVaccineHT increased virus specific primary and secondary antibody responses against the homologous and an antigenically distinct heterologous influenza A/H5N1 strain. The superior antibody responses induced with the CoVaccineHT-adjuvanted vaccine correlated with the magnitude of the virus-specific CD4+ T helper cell responses. CoVaccineHT did not have an effect on the magnitude of the CD8+ T cell response. In vitro, CoVaccineHT upregulated the expression of co-stimulatory molecules both on mouse and human dendritic cells and induced the secretion of pro-inflammatory cytokines TNF-alpha, IL-6, IL-1beta and IL-12p70 in mouse- and IL-6 in human dendritic cells. Inhibition experiments indicated that the effect of CoVaccineHT is mediated through TLR4 signaling. These data suggest that CoVaccineHT also will increase the immunogenicity of an influenza A/H5N1 vaccine in humans.

DNA vaccines in veterinary use

DNA vaccines represent a new frontier in vaccine technology. One important application of this technology is in the veterinary arena. DNA vaccines have already gained a foothold in certain fields of veterinary medicine. However, several important questions must be addressed when developing DNA vaccines for animals, including whether or not the vaccine is efficacious and cost effective compared with currently available options. Another important question to consider is how to apply this developing technology in a wide range of different situations, from the domestic pet to individual fish in fisheries with several thousand animals, to wildlife programs for disease control. In some cases, DNA vaccines represent an interesting option for vaccination, while in others, currently available options are sufficient. This review will examine a number of diseases of veterinary importance and the progress being made in DNA vaccine technology relevant to these diseases, and we compare these with the conventional treatment options available.

Infection of mice with a human influenza A/H3N2 virus induces protective immunity against lethal infection with influenza A/H5N1 virus

The transmission of highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) A viruses of the H5N1 subtype from poultry to man and the high case fatality rate fuels the fear for a pandemic outbreak caused by these viruses. However, prior infections with seasonal influenza A/H1N1 and A/H3N2 viruses induce heterosubtypic immunity that could afford a certain degree of protection against infection with the HPAI A/H5N1 viruses, which are distantly related to the human influenza A viruses. To assess the protective efficacy of such heterosubtypic immunity mice were infected with human influenza virus A/Hong Kong/2/68 (H3N2) 4 weeks prior to a lethal infection with HPAI virus A/Indonesia/5/05 (H5N1). Prior infection with influenza virus A/Hong Kong/2/68 reduced clinical signs, body weight loss, mortality and virus replication in the lungs as compared to naive mice infected with HPAI virus A/Indonesia/5/05. Priming by infection with respiratory syncytial virus, a non-related virus did not have a beneficial effect on the outcome of A/H5N1 infections, indicating that adaptive immune responses were responsible for the protective effect. In mice primed by infection with influenza A/H3N2 virus cytotoxic T lymphocytes (CTL) specific for NP(366-374) epitope ASNENMDAM and PA(224-232) SCLENFRAYV were observed. A small proportion of these CTL was cross-reactive with the peptide variant derived from the influenza A/H5N1 virus (ASNENMEVM and SSLENFRAYV respectively) and upon challenge infection with the influenza A/H5N1 virus cross-reactive CTL were selectively expanded. These CTL, in addition to those directed to conserved epitopes, shared by the influenza A/H3N2 and A/H5N1 viruses, most likely contributed to accelerated clearance of the influenza A/H5N1 virus infection. Although also other arms of the adaptive immune response may contribute to heterosubtypic immunity, the induction of virus-specific CTL may be an attractive target for development of broad protective vaccines. Furthermore the existence of pre-existing heterosubtypic immunity may dampen the impact a future influenza pandemic may have.

Vaccination against human influenza A/H3N2 virus prevents the induction of heterosubtypic immunity against lethal infection with avian influenza A/H5N1 virus

Annual vaccination against seasonal influenza viruses is recommended for certain individuals that have a high risk for complications resulting from infection with these viruses. Recently it was recommended in a number of countries including the USA to vaccinate all healthy children between 6 and 59 months of age as well. However, vaccination of immunologically naïve subjects against seasonal influenza may prevent the induction of heterosubtypic immunity against potentially pandemic strains of an alternative subtype, otherwise induced by infection with the seasonal strains. Here we show in a mouse model that the induction of protective heterosubtypic immunity by infection with a human A/H3N2 influenza virus is prevented by effective vaccination against the A/H3N2 strain. Consequently, vaccinated mice were no longer protected against a lethal infection with an avian A/H5N1 influenza virus. As a result H3N2-vaccinated mice continued to loose body weight after A/H5N1 infection, had 100-fold higher lung virus titers on day 7 post infection and more severe histopathological changes than mice that were not protected by vaccination against A/H3N2 influenza. The lack of protection correlated with reduced virus-specific CD8+ T cell responses after A/H5N1 virus challenge infection. These findings may have implications for the general recommendation to vaccinate all healthy children against seasonal influenza in the light of the current pandemic threat caused by highly pathogenic avian A/H5N1 influenza viruses.

Avian influenza vaccines and vaccination in birds

Although the use of vaccines against avian influenza viruses in birds has been discouraged over the years, the unprecedented occurrence of outbreaks caused by avian influenza (AI) viruses in recent times has required review of this policy. A variety of products are now available on the market, ranging from inactivated conventional to live recombinant products. The general consensus on the use of vaccination is that if complying to GMP standards and properly administered, birds will be more resistant to field challenge and will exhibit reduced shedding levels in case of infection. However, viral circulation may still occur in a clinically healthy vaccinated population. This may result in an endemic situation and in the emergence of antigenic variants. In order to limit these risks, monitoring programmes enabling the detection of field exposure in vaccinated populations are recommended by international organisations and are essential to allow the continuation of international trade. Adequate management of a vaccination campaign, including monitoring, improved biosecurity and restriction is essential for the success of any control program for AI.

Influenza vaccines for avian species

Beginning in Southeast Asia in 2003, a multinational epizootic outbreak of H5N1 highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) was identified in commercial poultry and wild bird species. This lineage, originally identified in Southern China in 1996 and then Hong Kong in 1997, caused severe morbidity and mortality in many bird species, was responsible for considerable economic losses via trade restrictions, and crossed species barriers (including its recovery from human cases). To date, these H5N1 HPAI viruses have been isolated in European, Middle Eastern, and African countries, and are considered endemic in many areas where regulatory control and different production sectors face substantial hurdles in controlling the spread of this disease. While control of avian influenza (AI) virus infections in wild bird populations may not be feasible at this point, control and eradiation of AI from commercial, semicommercial, zoo, pet, and village/backyard birds will be critical to preventing events that could lead to the emergence of epizootic influenza virus. Efficacious vaccines can help reduce disease, viral shedding, and transmission to susceptible cohorts. However, only when vaccines are used in a comprehensive program including biosecurity, education, culling, diagnostics and surveillance can control and eradication be considered achievable goals. In humans, protection against influenza is provided by vaccines that are chosen based on molecular, epidemiologic, and antigenic data. In poultry and other birds, AI vaccines are produced against a specific hemagglutinin subtype of AI, and use is decided by government and state agricultural authorities based on risk and economic considerations, including the potential for trade restrictions. In the current H5N1 HPAI epizootic, vaccines have been used in a variety of avian species as a part of an overall control program to aid in disease management and control.

Humoral immune response to avian influenza vaccination over a six-month period in different species of captive wild birds

In December 2005, the four major Swiss zoos carried out the vaccination of selected zoo birds with the adjuvant inactivated vaccine H5N2 Nobilis influenza. Pre- and post-vaccination antibody titers were determined either by hemagglutination inhibition (HI) test (non-Galliformes) or by enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) (Galliformes) at Week 0, 5, 10, and 26 (Day 0-1, 35-36, 70-71, and 182 respectively) to determine the humoral immune response to H5 antigen. After the first vaccination, the overall geometric mean titer of non-Galliformes was 65 (n = 142), which increased to 187 (n = 139) after booster vaccination and dropped to 74 (n = 65) six months after first vaccination. For the Galliformes group, the mean titers were found to be 2.09 at Week 5 (n = 119), 3.24 at Week 10 (n = 113), and 1.20 at Week 26 (n = 39). Within the non-Galliformes, significant differences in geometric mean titers were found among different species representatives. In general, the flamingos (Phoenicopteriformes) showed a strong response to vaccination, reaching a geometric mean titer of 659 at Week 10, while the Sphenisciformes did not show high antibody titers even after booster vaccination, reaching a maximum geometric mean titer of only 65. Based on the antibody titer profiles of all investigated species, we recommend at least annual revaccination for the species that we investigated.

Protection and virus shedding of falcons vaccinated against highly pathogenic avian influenza A virus (H5N1)

Virus shedding by vaccinated birds was markedly reduced.

Because fatal infections with highly pathogenic avian influenza A (HPAI) virus subtype H5N1 have been reported in birds of prey, we sought to determine detailed information about the birds’ susceptibility and protection after vaccination. Ten falcons vaccinated with an inactivated influenza virus (H5N2) vaccine seroconverted. We then challenged 5 vaccinated and 5 nonvaccinated falcons with HPAI (H5N1). All vaccinated birds survived; all unvaccinated birds died within 5 days. For the nonvaccinated birds, histopathologic examination showed tissue degeneration and necrosis, immunohistochemical techniques showed influenza virus antigen in affected tissues, and these birds shed high levels of infectious virus from the oropharynx and cloaca. Vaccinated birds showed no influenza virus antigen in tissues and shed virus at lower titers from the oropharynx only. Vaccination could protect these valuable birds and, through reduced virus shedding, reduce risk for transmission to other avian species and humans.

Influenza vaccines and vaccination strategies in birds

Although it is well accepted that the present Asian H5N1 panzootic is predominantly an animal health problem, the human health implications and the risk of human pandemic have highlighted the need for more information and collaboration in the field of veterinary and human health. H5 and H7 avian influenza (AI) viruses have the unique property of becoming highly pathogenic (HPAI) during circulation in poultry. Therefore, the final objective of poultry vaccination against AI must be eradication of the virus and the disease. Actually, important differences exist in the control of avian and human influenza viruses. Firstly, unlike human vaccines that must be adapted to the circulating strain to provide adequate protection, avian influenza vaccination provides broader protection against HPAI viruses. Secondly, although clinical protection is the primary goal of human vaccines, poultry vaccination must also stop transmission to achieve efficient control of the disease. This paper addresses these differences by reviewing the current and future influenza vaccines and vaccination strategies in birds.