Peer-reviewed veterinary case report
Sensitivity of oral fluids for detecting influenza A virus in populations of vaccinated and non-vaccinated pigs.
- Journal:
- Influenza and other respiratory viruses
- Year:
- 2012
- Authors:
- Romagosa, Anna et al.
- Affiliation:
- Department of Veterinary Population Medicine · United States
Plain-English summary
Researchers looked at how well oral fluids can detect the influenza virus in pigs, both those that were vaccinated and those that weren't. They studied three-week-old pigs divided into groups: one group that didn't get vaccinated, one that received a standard vaccine, and another that got an experimental vaccine. After exposing them to an infected pig, they collected samples from their noses and oral fluids daily to test for the virus. They found that while nasal swabs detected the virus in about 44% of cases, oral fluids were positive in about 35% of cases, showing that oral fluids can still be a useful method for detecting the virus, especially when the infection is more common in the group. Overall, the study suggests that using oral fluids can be an effective way to monitor for influenza in pigs, even in vaccinated populations.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the sensitivity of PCR on oral fluids in detecting influenza virus in vaccinated and non-vaccinated pigs. METHODS: Three-week-old influenza-free pigs were divided into three groups: (i) control, non-vaccinated, (ii) vaccinated with a commercial, heterologous vaccine, and (iii) vaccinated with an experimental, homologous vaccine. After vaccination, an influenza-infected pig was placed in contact with each of the groups. Individual nasal swabs and pen oral fluids were collected daily. Viral RNA was tested for the presence of influenza by RRT-PCR and virus isolation attempted from oral fluids. A pen was considered positive if at least one nasal swab was positive. RESULTS: Based on nasal swab results, 43·8% of pens were detected positive but only 35% based on oral fluids. Overall sensitivity of oral fluids was 80%, and virus was isolated from 51% of RRT-PCR-positive oral fluids. The kappa coefficient for agreement (ĸ) between oral fluids and nasal swabs was 0·82. Among groups, ĸ was 1 (95% CI, 1-1), 0·74 (95% CI, 0·55-0·92), and 0·76 (95% CI, 0·5-1) for control, heterologous, and homologous-vaccinated groups, respectively. There was less agreement when within pen prevalence was 10% or less. Probability of detecting influenza virus in oral fluids was 99% when within pen prevalence was higher than 18% and decreased to 69% when prevalence was 9%. CONCLUSIONS: Results indicated that pen-based collection of oral fluids is a sensitive method to detect influenza even when within pen prevalence is low and when pigs have been vaccinated and highlight the potential use of oral fluids for influenza surveillance.
Find similar cases for your pet
PetCaseFinder finds other peer-reviewed reports of pets with the same symptoms, plus a plain-English summary of what was tried across them.
Search related cases →Original publication: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21777397/