Departamento de Ciencias Veterinarias y Salud Pública, Facultad de Recursos Naturales, Universidad Católica de Temuco, Chile.
Schwartz Farms Inc, United States of America.
Prev Vet Med. 2023 Apr;213:105854. doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2023.105854. Epub 2023 Jan 23.
The use of processing fluids to monitor the breeding herd's porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome (PRRS) status has gained industry acceptance. However, little is known about PRRS virus RT-qPCR detection dynamics in processing fluids and factors that may contribute to maintain PRRS virus in the herd after an outbreak. This study aimed to describe weekly RT-qPCR processing fluid results in breeding herds after an outbreak and to evaluate the proportion of RT-qPCR positive results among parity groups. Processing tissues of 15 first parity (P1), 15 second parity (P2), and 15 third parity or higher (P3+) litters (parity groups) were collected weekly for between 19 and 46 weeks in nine breeding herds. Processing fluids were aggregated, and RT-qPCR tested by parity group weekly. Additionally, a subset of 743 processing fluid samples of litters that formed 50 parity groups, as previously described, were RT-qPCR tested individually at the litter level. The agreement between RT-qPCR results of processing fluid samples of parity groups (15 litters) and results based on individual litter testing was assessed using overall percent of agreement, Kappa statistic, and McNemar test. The association between RT-qPCR results and the parity group was evaluated using a generalized estimating equations model, after accounting for the effects of sampling week, breeding herd PRRS control strategy (i.e., open to replacements v/s closed) and herd. An autoregressive correlation structure was used to account for the repeated samplings within a herd in time. The overall agreement was 98 %, and Kappa statistic 0.955 (McNemar p = 1.0). Sensitivity of parity group processing fluid samples was estimated at 100 % (95 % CI 89-100 %), while specificity was estimated at 94 % (95 % CI 71-100 %). Although P1 aggregated litters had on average a higher proportion of RT-qPCR positive results from outbreak week 25 onwards, the proportion was not significantly different to the one observed for P2 and P3+ aggregated litters (p > 0.13). Additionally, herds that interrupted gilt entry had lower odds of PRRS RT-qPCR positivity than herds that continued entering gilts (OR = 0.35, 95 % CI 0.16-0.78). PRRS virus persistence in processing fluids was not affected by the sow parity effect in most of the breeding herds studied. No evidence of disagreement between RT-qPCR results of an aggregated sample of 15 litters and those of individual litters was observed. This level of litter aggregation testing strategy may be of particular use at the last stages of an elimination program under low PRRS virus prevalence.
处理液用于监测繁殖群的猪繁殖与呼吸综合征(PRRS)状态已被业界接受。然而,对于处理液中 PRRS 病毒 RT-qPCR 检测动态以及在暴发后导致 PRRS 病毒在群体中持续存在的因素知之甚少。本研究旨在描述暴发后繁殖群每周的 RT-qPCR 处理液结果,并评估各胎次组 RT-qPCR 阳性结果的比例。从 9 个繁殖群中,每批 15 窝初产(P1)、15 窝经产(P2)和 15 窝或以上(P3+)窝(胎次组)的组织每周采集一次,采集时间为 19 至 46 周。每周按胎次组汇总处理液并进行 RT-qPCR 检测。此外,之前曾描述过,将 50 个胎次组的 743 个处理液样本的一个子集,以个体窝为单位进行 RT-qPCR 检测。使用总一致性百分比、Kappa 统计量和 McNemar 检验评估胎次组处理液样本的 RT-qPCR 结果与基于个体窝检测的结果之间的一致性。使用广义估计方程模型评估 RT-qPCR 结果与胎次组之间的关系,同时考虑采样周、繁殖群 PRRS 控制策略(即开放引入后备母猪与关闭)和繁殖群的影响。使用自回归相关结构来解释时间内同一繁殖群内的重复采样。总一致性为 98%,Kappa 统计量为 0.955(McNemar p=1.0)。胎次组处理液样本的敏感性估计为 100%(95%CI 89-100%),特异性估计为 94%(95%CI 71-100%)。尽管从第 25 周暴发周开始,P1 汇总窝的 RT-qPCR 阳性结果比例平均更高,但与 P2 和 P3+汇总窝的比例没有显著差异(p>0.13)。此外,中断后备母猪引入的繁殖群比继续引入后备母猪的繁殖群具有更低的 PRRS RT-qPCR 阳性几率(OR=0.35,95%CI 0.16-0.78)。在大多数研究的繁殖群中,PRRS 病毒在处理液中的持续存在不受母猪胎次效应的影响。未观察到 15 窝汇总样本的 RT-qPCR 结果与个体窝的 RT-qPCR 结果之间存在不一致。在 PRRS 病毒低流行率下,在消除计划的最后阶段,这种窝汇总检测策略可能特别有用。