Avian Coryza (Infectious Coryza): Etiology, Clinical Signs, Diagnosis, Treatment, and Prevention in Poultry

Introduction

Avian coryza, more formally termed infectious coryza (IC), is an acute to subacute respiratory disease of chickens and, less commonly, other avian species [1, 2]. The disease is caused by the bacterium Avibacterium paragallinarum (AP), a Gram-negative, nonmotile, pleomorphic rod belonging to the family Pasteurellaceae [1, 3]. IC has experienced a significant reemergence in commercial poultry operations worldwide, particularly in the United States and Europe, with major economic consequences for both the layer and broiler industries [1, 4, 5]. These losses arise from increased mortality, decreased egg production (often 10% to 40%), and elevated condemnation rates at processing plants due to airsacculitis [1, 4, 6]. This article provides a detailed clinical reference on the etiology, clinical manifestations, molecular diagnostics, treatment, and control of avian coryza.

Etiology

Avian coryza is caused by Avibacterium paragallinarum (formerly Haemophilus paragallinarum), a fastidious, nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD)-dependent bacterium [1, 3]. The organism requires V factor (NAD) for in vitro growth but does not require X factor (hemin) [1]. On blood agar, AP appears as small dewdrop colonies that lack hemolytic activity, and satellite growth is often observed adjacent to nurse colonies of Staphylococcus species [1]. The bacterium possesses a polysaccharide capsule that is critical for virulence; the capsular polysaccharide transporter gene hctA is exclusively present in pathogenic strains and absent in nonpathogenic variants [7].

Serotyping and Genetic Diversity

AP has been classified using two main serotyping schemes: the Page scheme (serovars A, B, and C) and the Kume scheme (which provides finer subdivision) [1, 5]. More recent genotyping methods, including sequencing of the HMTp210 and HPG2 genes, have identified multiple sequence types and genogroups [6, 8, 3]. Genomic studies have revealed substantial divergence between field isolates and the type strain NCTC11296, particularly in Chinese isolates, where multilocus sequence typing (MLST) identified five new sequence types (STs) with ST1 being the most prevalent [3].

A critical recent discovery is the existence of nonpathogenic AP (npAP) strains. These strains are genomically distinct from pathogenic AP (pAP) strains, lacking the hctA capsule transporter gene and possessing unique lengthy insertions within the HMTp210 gene [7]. Field observations have confirmed that npAP strains can be isolated from clinically normal layer flocks, and experimental intra-sinus inoculation of these isolates into specific-pathogen-free (SPF) hens produces no significant clinical signs or pathological lesions compared to negative controls [9].

Table 1. Key Etiological Features of Avibacterium paragallinarum

Epidemiology and Transmission

IC is primarily a disease of chickens, though a related condition known as turkey coryza is caused by Bordetella avium and is a distinct clinical entity [22, 29]. Recent outbreak analyses from California (2016-2022) found that 50.5% (341/674) of IC-positive cases originated from backyard poultry flocks, with commercial layers (31.4%) and broilers (18.0%) also affected [4]. A retrospective analysis in Pennsylvania documented 68 affected farms between December 2018 and December 2019, involving approximately 14 million birds [2].

Transmission occurs horizontally via direct contact with infected birds, aerosolized respiratory droplets, and fomites [1, 10]. A case-control study in Pennsylvania identified multiple vehicle entrances and a high number of visitor categories as significant risk factors for IC introduction, while bench entry protocols (requiring clothing change and sanitation upon entry) were protective [10]. These findings strongly support that fomite-mediated transmission is a primary route for farm-to-farm spread and that biosecurity measures can mitigate risk [10].

Risk Factors and Geographic Distribution

Epidemiological analysis in California demonstrated that commercial egg layer operations in the Central Valley and southern regions had an increased risk for IC (odds ratio = 1.3; 95% confidence interval: 1.01-1.65; p = 0.039) [4]. In Mexico, outbreaks in vaccinated layer flocks are influenced by the presence of multiple serovars (A, B, and C) that may evade vaccine-induced immunity if the vaccine formulation does not match the circulating strains [8]. In the United States, a single clone of serovar C-2 was responsible for the 2017 outbreak in central California, as demonstrated by shared enterobacterial repetitive intergenic consensus (ERIC)-PCR profiles and consistent high minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) for tetracycline [5].

Clinical Signs

The incubation period for IC is typically 1 to 3 days following natural exposure [1, 2]. Clinical signs are primarily localized to the upper respiratory tract:

• Serous to mucoid nasal discharge that becomes purulent and foul-smelling over time [1, 2].
• Facial edema, particularly swelling of the infraorbital sinuses and periorbital region [1, 2].
• Conjunctivitis, often with frothy exudate and occasional adherence of the eyelids [1, 2].
• Dyspnea, open-mouth breathing, and audible respiratory rales [1, 2].
• Decreased feed and water intake leading to weight loss and reduced egg production [1, 4].
• Acute mortality may occur, typically ranging from 1% to 20% in uncomplicated cases; mortality can be substantially higher in polymicrobial infections [1, 2, 5].

Clinical severity varies by flock age, immune status, concurrent infections, and AP strain pathogenicity [1, 2]. Importantly, flocks harboring npAP strains remain clinically normal, with no overt clinical signs or pathological lesions at necropsy [7, 9].

Complicated Infections and Extrarrespiratory Spread

Polymicrobial infections are common in IC outbreaks. Concurrent pathogens include Escherichia coli, Ornithobacterium rhinotracheale, Gallibacterium anatis, Mycoplasma species, infectious bronchitis virus (IBV), and infectious bursal disease virus (IBDV) [1, 5, 11, 34]. Coinfection with O. rhinotracheale and AP in broilers has been reported to cause high mortality (up to 4.2% daily) due to severe airsacculitis and septicemia [34]. AP can also be isolated from extrarrespiratory sites such as the trachea, air sacs, lungs, heart, and liver, even when respiratory tract cultures are negative [2]. In broiler breeders, Avibacterium endocarditis has been identified as a cause of valvular or mural endocarditis and sudden death [34].

Pathology

Gross pathological findings are concentrated in the upper respiratory tract:

• Catarrhal to fibrinopurulent inflammation of the nasal passages and infraorbital sinuses [1, 2].
• Serous or mucopurulent exudate within the sinus cavities, often with caseous plugs [1, 2].
• Severe conjunctival hyperemia and edema [1, 2].
• In septicemic cases, fibrinous pericarditis, perihepatitis, and airsacculitis, particularly when co-infected with other pathogens [1, 5, 34].

Histopathological examination reveals marked edema, congestion, and infiltration of heterophils and mononuclear cells in the submucosa of the nasal passages and sinuses [1, 9]. Epithelial cell hyperplasia and desquamation are common [1]. In npAP-inoculated birds, no significant histopathological lesions are observed, confirming their lack of pathogenicity [9].

Diagnosis

Accurate diagnosis of avian coryza requires laboratory confirmation due to clinical overlap with other respiratory diseases. The differential diagnosis includes Avian Cholera (Fowl Cholera) in Poultry and Wild Birds: Etiology, Epidemiology, Clinical Signs, Pathology, Diagnosis, Treatment and Control, Infectious Coryza in Poultry and Ducks: Etiology, Clinical Signs in Chickens, Differential Diagnosis from Avian Influenza, and Prevention Strategies, mycoplasmosis, and Avian Colibacillosis: Etiology, Clinical Signs, Diagnosis, and Control in Poultry.

Bacterial Culture and Isolation

AP is a fastidious organism. Standard isolation involves swabbing the infraorbital sinus, choanal cleft, trachea, or air sacs. Samples are plated on blood agar or chocolate agar and incubated in a 5% CO2 atmosphere at 37°C for 24-48 hours [1, 2]. In a Pennsylvania outbreak, culture of sinus or choanal cleft was unrewarding in eight layer cases and five broiler cases, whereas culture of trachea, air sacs, lungs, heart, or liver was diagnostic [2]. Satellite growth around a Staphylococcus nurse colony is a key phenotypic feature [1].

Molecular Diagnostics (PCR)

Real-time quantitative PCR (qPCR) has become the primary diagnostic tool for IC due to its high speed and sensitivity [7, 18]. The earlier PCR assays targeting the HMTp210 gene cannot differentiate between pAP and npAP strains [7]. Novel TaqMan-based assays have been developed: one targeting the hctA gene for specific detection of pAP (limit of detection: 1 copy/µl; 94.62% efficiency) and another targeting the unique HMTp210 insertions for npAP (limit of detection: 2.5 copies/µl; 92.99% efficiency) [7]. Both assays demonstrated 100% diagnostic sensitivity and specificity in validation studies [7]. However, ongoing surveillance has revealed additional npAP populations that do not contain the same HMTp210 insertions, meaning the differential capacity of the current assays is not complete for all npAP strains [7]. In flocks without clinical signs, npAP detection must be ruled out before confirming an IC diagnosis [9].

Serology

Commercial ELISA kits for antibody detection against IC are available [26]. Serological testing can be useful for evaluating vaccine-induced immune responses in vaccinated flocks but is less reliable for diagnosis in naturally infected flocks due to variable antibody kinetics and serovar cross-reactivity [26].

Decision Tree for Diagnostic Workup

graph TD
    A[Flocks with respiratory signs: facial swelling, nasal discharge], > B{Clinical history and necropsy}
    B, > C[Collect oropharyngeal swabs or sinus/tracheal tissue]
    C, > D{Perform qPCR}
    D, > E[Positive for AP?]
    E, Yes, > F{hctA qPCR positive?}
    F, Yes, > G[Pathogenic AP (pAP) confirmed]
    F, No, > H[np-HMTp210 qPCR positive?]
    H, Yes, > I[Nonpathogenic AP (npAP) considered; likely not cause of signs]
    H, No, > J[Uncharacterized isolate; consider culture and sequencing]
    E, No, > K[Consider other differentials: Avian Cholera, Mycoplasmosis, Colibacillosis, IBV]
    G, > L[Confirm with culture if desired; implement treatment and vaccination]
    I, > M[Rule out concurrent pathogens; no specific treatment needed]

Treatment

Treatment of avian coryza is primarily directed at controlling secondary bacterial infections and reducing clinical signs. Antimicrobial therapy is most effective when administered early in the course of disease [1, 8].

Antibiotic Selection

Antibiotic susceptibility of AP varies by geographic region and serovar. Isolates from Sonora, Mexico, showed universal susceptibility to erythromycin and tetracycline, with good susceptibility to most other antimicrobials tested [8]. In contrast, isolates from the 2017 California outbreak exhibited consistently high MICs for tetracycline, indicating the presence of a resistant clone [5]. In Poland, florfenicol was the only antibiotic among nine tested to which all AP and O. rhinotracheale isolates were susceptible [34].

Recommended antimicrobial classes include:

• Sulfonamides and potentiated sulfonamides (e.g., sulfadimethoxine + trimethoprim): Historically effective, though resistance has been reported [1, 20].
• Tetracyclines (e.g., oxytetracycline, chlortetracycline): Variable efficacy due to resistance; MIC testing is strongly advised [1, 5, 8].
• Macrolides (e.g., erythromycin, tylosin, tilmicosin): Generally effective in regions without prior exposure [8].
• Florfenicol: High efficacy and favorable tissue penetration for respiratory infections [34].

Antimicrobial susceptibility testing (MIC) should be performed on representative isolates from each outbreak to guide therapy [5, 8, 20]. Treatment is typically administered via drinking water or feed for 5-7 days.

Limitations of Treatment

Antibiotic therapy reduces clinical signs and mortality but does not eliminate the carrier state. Following antimicrobial withdrawal, recovered birds may continue to shed the organism and act as reservoirs, leading to recurrent outbreaks [1, 6]. Additionally, use of antibiotics for IC is contraindicated in flocks where no clinical disease is present, such as those harboring npAP strains, as this is unnecessary and promotes antimicrobial resistance [7, 9].

Prevention and Control

Vaccination

Vaccination is the cornerstone of IC control in commercial poultry operations. Both commercial and autogenous inactivated vaccines are available [1, 2, 12]. Vaccine formulations must include the relevant serovars (A, B, and C) circulating in the region [8, 13, 12]. The emergence of serovar B variants (Bvar) has necessitated the inclusion of these strains in updated vaccine formulations [12].

Vaccination schedules typically involve two doses administered intramuscularly or subcutaneously. Protocols evaluated include:

• Conventional plan: Vaccination at 8 and 12 weeks of life [12].
• Early plan: Vaccination at 5 and 12 weeks of life. One study found that the early plan (V1 at 5 and 12 weeks) resulted in significantly more birds exhibiting clinical signs post-challenge compared to the conventional 8- and 12-week schedule (G1) [12].
• Broiler vaccination: Vaccination at one day of age has been investigated, but protection is generally inferior to that conferred by the two-dose schedule later in life [35].

Cross-protection between serovars is not always guaranteed. However, a commercial vaccine containing serovars A, B, and C (without a Bvar strain) was shown to be effective against challenge with a serovar B variant in Argentina, suggesting that certain vaccines might provide broader protection [12]. In commercial hens, the reduction in clinical signs and bacterial shedding achieved by two applications of commercial vaccines has been demonstrated in SPF trials [6].

Biosecurity Measures

Given the role of fomite transmission [10], strict biosecurity is essential:

• Bench entry protocols: Requiring disinfection of footwear and clothing changes before entering barns [10].
• Single vehicle entrance: Reducing the number of vehicle entries onto the farm [10].
• Visitor restrictions: Limiting visitor categories and enforcing sanitation protocols [10].
• All-in/all-out management: Reducing the risk of cycling AP within multi-age facilities [5].
• Rodent and wild bird control: AP has not been shown to persist for more than 12 hours in a hypothetically contaminated environment, so environmental decontamination is achievable with proper disinfection [6].

Eradication

Depopulation of affected flocks, thorough cleaning and disinfection, and a fallow period before repopulation are effective eradication methods [1, 2]. In Pennsylvania, a successful vaccination program implemented after the 2018-2019 outbreak has greatly reduced the number of new cases [2].

Conclusion and Knowledge Gaps

Avian coryza remains a significant respiratory pathogen of poultry globally. The discovery of nonpathogenic Avibacterium paragallinarum strains has introduced new diagnostic complexity, as current commercial PCR assays do not reliably differentiate pAP from npAP in all cases [7]. Further research is needed to identify robust genetic markers that can distinguish these populations universally [7]. Additionally, the genomic and phenotypic diversity of AP across different geographic regions, particularly in Asia and South America, requires ongoing surveillance for effective vaccine design [3].

References

[1] El-Gazzar MM, Gallardo RA, Bragg RR, et al. Avibacterium paragallinarum, the Causative Agent of Infectious Coryza: A Comprehensive Review. Avian Diseases. 2025;69(1). https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ca7e364e3b3f2dfacaaa8110ea8c823dacf54178

[2] Davison S, Tracy LM, Kelly DJ, et al. Infectious Coryza in Pennsylvania. Avian Diseases. 2024;68(4). https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/42d97b74b1f150a2e1a1f28ad21489108adfd58f

[3] Chen L, Hu J, Dai N, et al. Genotypic and Biochemical Divergence of Avibacterium paragallinarum Isolates in China. Avian Diseases. 2025;69(1). https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/3b47fe01f650ea27643145d865d6d07b088cd43a

[4] Nguyen V, Stoute S, Ramsubeik S, et al. A Retrospective Analysis to Identify Epidemiologic Patterns of the Infectious Coryza Outbreak in California 2016-22. Avian Diseases. 2025;69(1). https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/12a59530dda34f9854f4add0a7ad59fb806960b1

[5] Crispo M, Blackall P, Khan AA, et al. Characterization of an Outbreak of Infectious Coryza (Avibacterium paragallinarum) in Commercial Chickens in Central California. Avian Diseases. 2019;63(3). https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/482f531e595dc46e1bcd22c4013bdb852a605602

[6] Gallardo RA, Silva APD, Egaña-Labrin S, et al. Infectious Coryza: Persistence, Genotyping, and Vaccine Testing. Avian Diseases. 2020;64(4). https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/a2ad407a8c1673c237e668d7985a10d61dcfcde7

[7] Shelkamy MMS, Hashish A, Chaves M, et al. Development and Validation of PCR Assays for Improved Diagnosis of Infectious Coryza by Differentiating Pathogenic and Nonpathogenic Avibacterium paragallinarum. Avian Diseases. 2025;69(1). https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/5ff433d39adf58950c1859b4f0ed82787848ac09

[8] Luna-Castrejón LP, Buter R, Pantoja-Nuñez GI, et al. Identification, HPG2 Sequence Analysis, and Antimicrobial Susceptibility of Avibacterium paragallinarum Isolates Obtained from Outbreaks of Infectious Coryza in Commercial Layers in Sonora State, Mexico. Avian Diseases. 2020;64(4). https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/004185aa5c653321f26bee5a06b04443eed78d6e

[9] Shelkamy MMS, Fay C, Hashish A, et al. Investigating the pathogenicity of novel non-pathogenic Avibacterium paragallinarum isolates and their protective potential against infectious coryza. Avian Pathology. 2026. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/b84e996ecc13517106c76d2623e18e026d2e02ae

[10] Pierdon M, Prown R, Davison S, et al. A Case Control Survey of Farm Characteristics, Biosecurity Measures, and Risk Events in Flocks With and Without Infectious Coryza. Avian Diseases. 2025;69(1). https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/7c32af7176dd58b06ca91bb33a3cbd6a8213c757

[11] Paudel S, Hess M, Hess C. Coinfection of Avibacterium paragallinarum and Gallibacterium anatis in Specific-Pathogen-Free Chickens Complicates Clinical Signs of Infectious Coryza, Which Can Be Prevented by Vaccination. Avian Diseases. 2017;61(4). https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/53bd3448ba17da5b3d968a111f77189f5df3fed5

[12] Huberman Y, Mendez L, Mendez AM, et al. Efficacy of Different Vaccination Plans Against Experimental Infection with a Serovar B Variant of Avibacterium paragallinarum from Argentina in Laying Hens. Avian Diseases. 2025;69(1). https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/3639f4928cd109537940e8cad5c824d10f892a57

[13] Morales-Erasto V, Maruri-Esteban E, Trujillo-Ruiz H, et al. Protection Conferred by Infectious Coryza Vaccines Against Emergent Avibacterium paragallinarum Serovar C-1. Avian Diseases. 2015;59(2). https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/af138fe1477cbca720d9d9760e6f607ff176d921

[14] Márquez V, Ochoa J, Cruz C, et al. Isolation of Actinobacillus pleuropneumoniae from Layer Hens Showing Clinical Signs of Infectious Coryza. Avian Diseases. 2014;58(3). https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/4fbfb75ef9108feef4ea9f9f84664084e869dd85

[15] Sandoval V, Terzolo H, Blackall P. Complicated infectious coryza outbreaks in Argentina. Avian Diseases. 1994;38(3). https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/6b3d82da118a0ced89b62ebda34af170f5fd18fd

[16] Reid G, Blackall P. Comparison of adjuvants for an inactivated infectious coryza vaccine. Avian Diseases. 1987;31(1). [https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/96449baecb3163bde22c1c9990a7b98c4728d3d4](https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/96449baecb3163bde22c1c9990a7b98c472