Interventions in live poultry markets for the control of avian influenza: A systematic review

Offeddu, Vittoria; Cowling, Benjamin J.; Peiris, J.S. Malik

In addition, the implementation of these interventions is crucial to their effectiveness [37] . For instance, the effectiveness of the overnight ban would be greatly compromised, if residual poultry was simply moved to an "off-site" holding facility and re-introduced [38] and low perceived self-infection risk [39] among LPM workers, it is not unreasonable to suspect that the motivation to adhere to a rigorous implementation of these interventions and to carry out effective disinfection of the premises may decline over time. To date, the relative contribution of the disinfection of the market to the observed impact of rest days or overnight bans is not elucidated. Emptying of the facilities may already be sufficient to reduce residual viral load through thermal inactivation of the virus infectivity. Additional studies using virus isolation (rather than RT-PCR, which does not discriminate between live and dead virus) are needed to address these questions. Finally, it is relevant to note that the amplification of avian influenza in live poultry markets also contributes to dissemination of viruses back to poultry farms via contaminated cages and trucks (Fig. 3) [8, 11] . Evidently, measures to reduce AIV amplification in LPMs may reduce the spread of avian influenza to both the upstream poultry production sector and to humans, thus truly exemplifying the implementation of the "one health" concept.