Mammalian adaptation risk in HPAI H5N8: a comprehensive model bridging experimental data with mathematical insights

Understanding the mammalian pathogenesis and interspecies transmission of HPAI H5N8 virus hinges on mapping its adaptive markers. We used deep sequencing to track these markers over five passages in murine lung tissue. Subsequently, we evaluated the growth, selection, and RNA load of eight recombinant viruses with mammalian adaptive markers. By leveraging an integrated non-linear regression model, we quantitatively determined the influence of these markers on growth, adaptation, and RNA expression in mammalian hosts. Furthermore, our findings revealed that the interplay of these markers can lead to synergistic, additive, or antagonistic effects when combined. The elucidation distance method then transformed these results into distinct values, facilitating the derivation of a risk score for each marker. In vivo tests affirmed the accuracy of scores. As more mutations were incorporated, the overall risk score of virus heightened, and the optimal interplay between markers became essential for risk augmentation. Our study provides a robust model to assess risk from adaptive markers of HPAI H5N8, guiding strategies against future influenza threats.

Outbreak Investigation of Officially Reported and Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (H5N8 Subtype) in Iran During 2016

On 14 November 2016, an outbreak of highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPA) was reported from a commercial layer farm located in Malard, Tehran Province, Iran. This study aimed to investigate the HPAI H5N8 outbreaks in Iran. The questionnaire was prepared and completed through interviews with farm owners or field observations at the time of disease onset from November 2016 to February 2017. The HPAI H5N8 infection was confirmed in 30 different locations including 10 villages (33.3%), nine-layer farms (33%), two broiler breeder farms (6.67%), one layer breeder farm (3.3%), one turkey farm (3.3%), one partridge farm (3.3%), five national parks (16.7%), and one wetland (3.3%) in 12 provinces of Iran. The cumulative incidence rates of disease in villages, layer farms, broiler breeder farms, layer breeder farms, partridge farms, and turkey farms were 0.02%, 0.87%, 0.55%, 6.25%, 7.14%, and 0.69%, respectively. The findings reflect that among the investigated variables at infected locations, new birds entering the home in villages, live bird markets, inappropriate biosecurity conditions, transporting manure during the breeding period, close proximity of a common road to infected farms, and poultry movement inside (pullet) and outside were the most frequently observed possible risk factors for these outbreaks. In conclusion, attention should be focused on the study of the dynamics and movements of domestic poultry, investigation and modification of the structure of industrial poultry farms, training for all related people, enhancement of passive surveillance, an increase in biosecurity, raising the awareness of the authorities on the importance of the infection, and provision of the required credits and facilities.

Urgent request on avian influenza

Highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) H5N8 is currently causing an epizootic in Europe, infecting many poultry holdings as well as captive and wild bird species in more than 10 countries. Given the clear clinical manifestation, passive surveillance is considered the most effective means of detecting infected wild and domestic birds. Testing samples from new species and non‐previously reported areas is key to determine the geographic spread of HPAIV H5N8 2016 in wild birds. Testing limited numbers of dead wild birds in previously reported areas is useful when it is relevant to know whether the virus is still present in the area or not, e.g. before restrictive measures in poultry are to be lifted. To prevent introduction of HPAIV from wild birds into poultry, strict biosecurity implemented and maintained by the poultry farmers is the most important measure. Providing holding‐specific biosecurity guidance is strongly recommended as it is expected to have a high impact on the achieved biosecurity level of the holding. This is preferably done during peace time to increase preparedness for future outbreaks. The location and size of control and in particular monitoring areas for poultry associated with positive wild bird findings are best based on knowledge of the wider habitat and flight distance of the affected wild bird species. It is recommended to increase awareness among poultry farmers in these established areas in order to enhance passive surveillance and to implement enhanced biosecurity measures including poultry confinement. There is no scientific evidence suggesting a different effectiveness of the protection measures on the introduction into poultry holdings and subsequent spread of HPAIV when applied to H5N8, H5N1 or other notifiable HPAI viruses.

This publication is linked to the following EFSA Supporting Publications article: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2016.EN-1142/full