Influenza surveillance in pigs: balancing act between broad diagnostic coverage and specific virus characterization : [Preprint]

Background

Monitoring of infectious diseases on swine farms requires a high diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of the test system. Moreover, particularly in cases of swine Influenza A virus (swIAV) it is desirable to include characterization of the virus as precisely as possible. This is indispensable for strategies concerning prophylaxis of swIAV and furthermore, to meet the requirements of a purposeful monitoring of newly emerging IAV strains in terms of vaccine design and public health. Within the present cross-sectional study, we compared the diagnostic value of group samples (wipes of surfaces with direct contact to mouth/nose, dust wipes, udder skin wipes, oral fluids) to individual samples (nasal swabs, tracheobronchial swabs) for both swIAV identification and characterization. Sampling included different stages of pig production on 25 sow farms with attached nursery considered as enzootically infected with swIAV. Firstly, samples were analyzed for IAV genome and subsequently samples with Ct-values < 32 were subtyped by multiplex RT-qPCR.

Results

Nasal swabs of suckling piglets and nursery pigs resulted in a higher odds to detect swIAV (p < 0.001) and to identify swIAV subtypes by RT-qPCR (p < 0.05) compared to nasal swabs of sows. In suckling piglets, nasal swabs and sow udder skin wipes were significantly more often swIAV positive compared to contact wipes from the farrowing unit (p = 0.007; p = 0.036). In the nursery, group sampling specimens yielded higher rates of swIAV detection compared to individual samples. However, in general nasal swabs were more likely to have Ct-value < 32 and thus, to be suitable for subtyping by RT-qPCR compared to dust wipes, contact wipes, udder skin wipes and tracheobronchial swabs (p < 0.05). Despite the high detection rate of swIAV in dust wipes, those specimens had the lowest odds of identifying subtypes by RT-qPCR (p < 0.05). Interestingly, different subtypes were found in different age groups as well as in different specimens in the same holding.

Conclusion

Although population-based specimens are highly effective for swIAV monitoring, nasal swabs are still the preferable sampling material for the surveillance of on-farm circulating strains due to significantly higher virus loads. Remarkably, sampling strategies should incorporate suckling piglets and different age groups within the nursery to cover all on-farm circulating strains.