Are Swine Workers in the United States at Increased Risk of Infection with Zoonotic Influenza Virus?

Myers, Kendall P.; Olsen, Christopher W.; Setterquist, Sharon F.; Capuano, Ana W.; Donham, Kelley J.; Thacker, Eileen L.; Merchant, James A.; Gray, Gregory C.

doi:10.1086/498977

Cited by 191 publications

(208 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

178

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…With regard to other SIV strains other than A(H1N1)pdm09, previous studies found an increased risk of seropositivity to at least one SIV in pig workers, including H1N1,17, 18, 27, 29, 31, 33, 41, 42, 43 H1N218, 28, 31 and H3N228, 29, 30, 44 strains. In our study, we found increased risk of seropositivity both to swine H1N2 and H3N2 Perth.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Increased risk of A(H1N1)pdm09 influenza infection in UK pig industry workers compared to a general population cohort

Fragaszy

Ishola

Brown

et al. 2016

Influenza Resp Viruses

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundPigs are mixing vessels for influenza viral reassortment, but the extent of influenza transmission between swine and humans is not well understood.ObjectivesTo assess whether occupational exposure to pigs is a risk factor for human infection with human and swine‐adapted influenza viruses.Methods UK pig industry workers were frequency‐matched on age, region, sampling month, and gender with a community‐based comparison group from the Flu Watch study. HI assays quantified antibodies for swine and human A(H1) and A(H3) influenza viruses (titres ≥ 40 considered seropositive and indicative of infection). Virus‐specific associations between seropositivity and occupational pig exposure were examined using multivariable regression models adjusted for vaccination. Pigs on the same farms were also tested for seropositivity.ResultsForty‐two percent of pigs were seropositive to A(H1N1)pdm09. Pig industry workers showed evidence of increased odds of A(H1N1)pdm09 seropositivity compared to the comparison group, albeit with wide confidence intervals (CIs), adjusted odds ratio after accounting for possible cross‐reactivity with other swine A(H1) viruses (aOR) 25·3, 95% CI (1·4–536·3), P = 0·028.ConclusionThe results indicate that A(H1N1)pdm09 virus was common in UK pigs during the pandemic and subsequent period of human A(H1N1)pdm09 circulation, and occupational exposure to pigs was a risk factor for human infection. Influenza immunisation of pig industry workers may reduce transmission and the potential for virus reassortment.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Increased risk of A(H1N1)pdm09 influenza infection in UK pig industry workers compared to a general population cohort

Fragaszy

Ishola

Brown

et al. 2016

Influenza Resp Viruses

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…They have included serosurveys of bird cullers, open bird market workers, swine workers, duck hunters, meat processing workers, veterinarians and poultry workers, concluding that these populations are indeed at greater risk of infection with zoonotic influenza virus 5 , 6 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As per our previous reports, 5 , 6 serum samples were studied for human influenza virus exposure using a hemagglutination inhibition (HI) assay against three recently circulating human influenza virus strains: A/New Caledonia/20/99 (H1N1), A/Nanchang/933/95(H3N2), and A/Panama/2007/99(H3N2). HI titer results were reported as the reciprocal of the highest dilution of serum that inhibited virus‐induced hemagglutination of a 0.65% solution of guinea pig red blood cells.…”

Section: The Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Avian influenza and poultry workers, Peru, 2006

Ortiz

Kochel

Capuano

et al. 2007

Influenza Resp Viruses

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Currently numerous countries in Asia, Africa and Europe are encountering highly pathogenic avian influenza (AI) infections in poultry and humans. In the Americas, home of the world’s largest poultry exporters, contingency plans are being developed and evaluated in preparation for the arrival of these viral strains. Objectives With this cross‐sectional study, to our knowledge the first in its kind in Central or South America, we sought to learn whether Peruvian poultry workers had evidence of previous AI infection and if so, to determine the risk factors for infection. Methods We performed a cross‐sectional seroprevalence study among 149 workers on a Peruvian poultry farm (132 exposed to poultry and 17 non‐exposed controls), serum samples were tested for human influenza virus exposure using a hemagglutination inhibition (HI) assay. Microneutralization assays were performed on all serum samples to detect antibodies against prototypic AI strains H4 through H12. Results Using multivariate proportional odds modeling we found that the prevalence of elevated titers against AI viruses was low in both groups, exposed and non‐exposed controls. Conclusions No evidence of previous AI infection among Peruvian poultry workers was found in this first cross‐sectional study performed in South America. This first occupational study of AI in Latin America was encouraging, but it likely reflects the sector of poultry production with higher biosecurity.

show abstract

“…4 This same study showed that the adjusted odds ratio (OR) for swine farmers having an elevated antibody titer to a classic swine H1N1 virus was 35.3 (95% CI 7.7-161.8) in comparison with controls not exposed to swine. 4 In another recent publication, swine workers' high risk (OR = 30.3; 95% CI 3.8-243.5) of elevated antibodies to swine H1N1 virus decreased almost to that of nonexposed controls when the workers reported using gloves during their occupational exposures. 5 We recently validated these cross-sectional study reports with a prospective 2-year study of 803 rural Midwesterners.…”

mentioning

confidence: 93%

The Importance of Including Swine and Poultry Workers in Influenza Vaccination Programs

Gray

Baker

2007

Clin Pharmacol Ther

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sensing the threat of an influenza pandemic, many countries are developing influenza pandemic prevention and control strategies. Such plans often focus efforts on detecting outbreaks and protecting leaders, health-care workers, and outbreak responders. Considering recent research, we argue that prevention plans should also include swine and poultry workers. Ignoring these workers could result in an increased probability of generating novel viruses, as well as result in the acceleration of a pandemic's morbidity and mortality.

show abstract

Are Swine Workers in the United States at Increased Risk of Infection with Zoonotic Influenza Virus?

Abstract: Occupational exposure to pigs greatly increases workers' risk of swine influenza virus infection. Swine workers should be included in pandemic surveillance and in antiviral and immunization strategies.

Cited by 191 publications

References 23 publications

Increased risk of A(H1N1)pdm09 influenza infection in UK pig industry workers compared to a general population cohort

Increased risk of A(H1N1)pdm09 influenza infection in UK pig industry workers compared to a general population cohort

Avian influenza and poultry workers, Peru, 2006

The Importance of Including Swine and Poultry Workers in Influenza Vaccination Programs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About