Skip directly to site content Skip directly to page options Skip directly to A-Z link Skip directly to A-Z link Skip directly to A-Z link
Volume 21, Number 10—October 2015
Research

Effect of Live Poultry Market Closure on Avian Influenza A(H7N9) Virus Activity in Guangzhou, China, 2014

Jun Yuan1, Eric H.Y. Lau1, Kuibiao Li1, Y.H. Connie Leung1, Zhicong Yang1, Caojun Xie1, Yufei Liu1, Yanhui Liu, Xiaowei Ma, Jianping Liu, Xiaoquan Li, Kuncai Chen, Lei Luo, Biao Di, Benjamin J. Cowling, Xiaoping TangComments to Author , Gabriel M. Leung, Ming Wang2Comments to Author , and Malik Peiris2
Author affiliations: Guangzhou Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Guangzhou, China (J. Yuan, K. Li, Z. Yang, C. Xie, Yufei Liu, Yanhui Liu, X. Ma, J. Liu, X. Li, K. Chen, L. Luo, B. Di, M. Wang); The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China (E.H.Y. Lau, Y.H.C. Leung, B.J. Cowling, G.M. Leung, M. Peiris); The Eighth People’s Hospital of Guangzhou, Guangzhou, China (X. Tang)

Main Article

Table 2

Estimated effect of market closure and contaminated environmental sites on AIV and influenza A(H7N9) virus detection in 5 poultry markets under enhanced surveillance, Guangzhou, Guangdong Province, China, 2014*

Variable
 Retail LPMs, aOR (95% CI)†
Wholesale LPM, aOR (95% CI)
DPM, aOR (95% CI)
rRT-PCR
 H7N9 culture
 rRT-PCR
 H7N9 culture
 rRT-PCR
AIV
 H7N9
AIV
 H7N9
AIV
 H7N9
Period
Before market 
closure Ref Ref Ref Ref –‡ –‡ Ref Ref
During market 
closure 0.25
(0.16–0.39) 0.21 
(0.12–0.36) 0.08 
(0.02–0.42) 1.60 
(0.52–4.90) 0.22 
(0.10–0.50) 0.11 
(0.01–0.89) 0.30 
(0.09–0.98) 0.68 
(0.12–3.89)
After market 
closure
 1.78
(1.20–2.63)
 0.58 
(0.35–0.95)
 0.73 
(0.27–1.98)
10.3 
(3.52–30.3)
 Ref
 Ref
5.27 
(1.97–14.1)
 3.32 
(0.68–16.1)
Environmental samples tested
Poultry cage Ref Ref Ref Ref Ref § – –
Defeathering 
machine 1.15
(0.61–2.14) 1.66 
(0.74–3.70) 1.25 
(0.20–7.87) 2.49 
(1.09–5.68) 1.21 
(0.40–3.65) § – –
Chopping board 2.64
(1.60–4.37) 2.12 
(1.06–4.26) 3.52 
(0.88–14.0) – – – 0.56 
(0.22–1.41) 3.18 
(0.98–10.3)
Processing table 1.16
(0.73–1.85) 1.15 
(0.59–2.25) 1.09 
(0.26–4.67) – – – Ref Ref
Bucket holding 
poultry meat – – – 0.97 
(0.38–2.44) 0.17 
(0.02–1.40) § – –
Wastewater 1.60
(0.95–2.67) 1.23 
(0.58–2.62) 1.41 
(0.28–7.14) 1.38 
(0.70–2.73) 0.91 
(0.37–2.22) § 1.15 
(0.44–3.06) 1.16 
(0.31–4.36)
Drinking water – – – 2.02 
(0.44–9.38) 2.32 
(0.40–13.4) § – –

*AIV, avian influenza virus; aOR, adjusted odds ratio; DPM, dressed poultry market; LPM, live poultry market; ref, reference; rRT-PCR, real-time reverse transcription PCR; –, no samples tested.
†Also adjusted for potential market differences for the 3 retail markets.
‡No influenza A(H7N9) virus was detected before market closure in wholesale markets, and data from this period were excluded from the regression model.
§There were too few H7N9 virus–positive samples by culture in contaminated environmental sites in wholesale markets and DPM overall for us to estimate the effects. A simplified model was used for wholesale markets.

Main Article

1These first authors contributed equally to this article.

2These senior authors contributed equally to this article.

Page created: September 22, 2015
Page updated: September 22, 2015
Page reviewed: September 22, 2015
The conclusions, findings, and opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the official position of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors' affiliated institutions. Use of trade names is for identification only and does not imply endorsement by any of the groups named above.
file_external