Halvorson David A
Department of Veterinary Pathobiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Minnesota, Saint Paul 55108, USA.
Avian Pathol. 2002 Feb;31(1):5-12. doi: 10.1080/03079450120106570.
Biosecurity is the first line of defence in the prevention and control of mildly pathogenic avian influenza (MPAI). Its use has been highly successful in keeping avian influenza (AI) out of commercial poultry worldwide. However, sometimes AI becomes introduced into poultry populations and, when that occurs, biosecurity again is the primary means of controlling the disease. There is agreement that routine serological monitoring, disease reporting, isolation or quarantine of affected flocks, application of strict measures to prevent the contamination of and movement of people and equipment, and changing flock schedules are necessities for controlling AI. There is disagreement as to the disposition of MPAI-infected flocks: some advocate their destruction and others advocate controlled marketing. Sometimes biosecurity is not enough to stop the spread of MPAI. In general, influenza virus requires a dense population of susceptible hosts to maintain itself. When there is a large population of susceptible poultry in an area, use of an inactivated AI vaccine can contribute to AI control by reducing the susceptibility of the population. Does use of inactivated vaccine assist, complicate or interfere with AI control and eradication? Yes, it assists MPAI control (which may reduce the risk of highly pathogenic AI (HPAI)) but, unless steps are taken to prevent it, vaccination may interfere with sero-epidemiology in the case of an HPAI outbreak. Does lack of vaccine assist, complicate or interfere with AI control and eradication? Yes, it assists in identification of sero-positive (convalescent) flocks in a HPAI eradication program, but it interferes with MPAI control (which in turn may increase the risk of emergence of HPAI).A number of hypothetical concerns have been raised about the use of inactivated AI vaccines. Infection of vaccinated flocks, serology complications and spreading of virus by vaccine crews are some of the hypothetical concerns. The discussion of these concerns should take place in a scientific framework and should recognize that control of MPAI reduces the risk of HPAI. That inactivated vaccines have reduced a flock's susceptibility to AI infection, have reduced the quantity of virus shed post-challenge, have reduced transmission and have markedly reduced disease losses, are scientific facts. The current regulations preventing vaccination against H5 or H7 MPAI have had the effect of promoting circulation of MPAI virus in commercial poultry and live poultry markets. In the absence of highly pathogenic avian influenza, there is no justification for forbidding the use of inactivated vaccine.
生物安全是预防和控制低致病性禽流感(MPAI)的第一道防线。其应用在使禽流感(AI)在全球商业家禽中绝迹方面非常成功。然而,有时禽流感会传入家禽群体,一旦发生这种情况,生物安全再次成为控制该疾病的主要手段。人们一致认为,常规血清学监测、疾病报告、对受感染鸡群的隔离或检疫、采取严格措施防止人员和设备的污染及移动,以及改变鸡群饲养计划是控制禽流感的必要措施。对于感染MPAI的鸡群的处置存在分歧:一些人主张扑杀,另一些人主张有控制地销售。有时生物安全不足以阻止MPAI的传播。一般来说,流感病毒需要大量易感宿主群体来维持自身传播。当一个地区存在大量易感家禽时,使用灭活禽流感疫苗可通过降低群体易感性来有助于禽流感的控制。使用灭活疫苗对禽流感的控制和根除有帮助、使情况复杂化还是产生干扰呢?是的,它有助于MPAI的控制(这可能降低高致病性禽流感(HPAI)的风险),但是,除非采取措施防止,否则在发生HPAI疫情时疫苗接种可能会干扰血清流行病学调查。缺乏疫苗对禽流感的控制和根除有帮助、使情况复杂化还是产生干扰呢?是的,在HPAI根除计划中它有助于识别血清学阳性(康复)鸡群,但它会干扰MPAI的控制(这反过来可能增加HPAI出现的风险)。关于使用灭活禽流感疫苗,人们提出了一些假设性的担忧。疫苗接种鸡群的感染、血清学并发症以及疫苗接种人员传播病毒等都是一些假设性的担忧。对这些担忧的讨论应该在科学框架内进行,并且应该认识到控制MPAI可降低HPAI的风险。灭活疫苗降低了鸡群对禽流感感染的易感性、减少了攻毒后病毒排出量、减少了传播并且显著降低了疾病损失,这些都是科学事实。目前禁止针对H5或H7 MPAI进行疫苗接种的规定起到了促进MPAI病毒在商业家禽和活禽市场传播的作用。在没有高致病性禽流感的情况下,没有理由禁止使用灭活疫苗。