Avian Infectious Coryza: Clinical Management and Control in Poultry

Introduction

Infectious coryza is an acute respiratory disease of chickens and, less commonly, other avian species caused by the Gram-negative coccobacillus Avibacterium paragallinarum [1, 2]. The disease is characterized by serous to mucopurulent nasal discharge, facial edema, conjunctivitis, and a marked drop in egg production in layer flocks [3, 4, 5]. Although mortality is generally low, morbidity can reach 100%, and the economic impact arises from reduced egg output, culling of affected birds, and increased susceptibility to secondary infections [6, 7, 2].

The pathogen has been traditionally classified into three serogroups (A, B, and C) based on the hemagglutination-inhibition (HI) test, with the HMTp210 gene serving as the major serotypic determinant [8, 9]. Recent genomic studies have identified nonpathogenic variants of A. paragallinarum that are genetically distinct from virulent strains and are commonly found in healthy flocks [1, 10, 11]. The distinction between pathogenic and nonpathogenic lineages is critical for accurate diagnosis and for understanding the ecology of the bacterium [11, 12].

This article provides a detailed, evidence-based review of the clinical management and control of avian infectious coryza, integrating recent advances in molecular epidemiology, diagnostics, vaccinology, and antimicrobial stewardship. Readers are also directed to the related article on Avian Coryza in Poultry: Clinical Signs and Control for an overview of clinical presentation.

Etiology and Pathogenesis

A. paragallinarum is a member of the family Pasteurellaceae and is a fastidious, NAD-dependent bacterium [2, 13]. The organism possesses a polysaccharide capsule and expresses a lipooligosaccharide (LOS) that contributes to virulence [13]. The principal virulence factors include the HMTp210 hemagglutinin, which mediates attachment to host respiratory epithelium and is the target of protective immunity [8, 9]. Pathogenic strains produce a biofilm that facilitates persistence in the environment and on mucosal surfaces; genes involved in biofilm formation have been identified through random transposon mutagenesis [14].

Natural transformation competence has been demonstrated in A. paragallinarum, enabling horizontal acquisition of antibiotic resistance genes and other genetic elements [15]. Comparative genomics has revealed that resistance genes can be transferred via outer membrane vesicles, further expanding the pathogen's adaptive capacity [16]. Nonpathogenic isolates lack key virulence-associated loci and do not cause clinical disease in experimental infections, yet they may colonize the upper respiratory tract of naive birds and potentially interfere with colonization by virulent strains [1, 11].

Epidemiology

Infectious coryza occurs worldwide in commercial and backyard poultry operations, with the highest reported prevalence in regions with intensive production [6, 17, 18]. A meta-analysis of studies from China covering 1993 to 2024 estimated an overall prevalence of approximately 15%, with significant variation by region and management system [6]. Outbreaks have been documented in table egg layers in Canada [3], in California between 2016 and 2022 [4], and in Pennsylvania [5]. In Ethiopia, molecular detection confirmed the presence of A. paragallinarum in suspected cases from multiple administrative zones [18].

Risk factors for introduction and spread include poor biosecurity, introduction of new birds without quarantine, high stocking density, and proximity to other poultry flocks [7, 4]. Coinfection with other respiratory pathogens, such as Ornithobacterium rhinotracheale or Mycoplasma gallisepticum, exacerbates clinical severity and complicates diagnosis [19]. The disease is primarily transmitted via direct contact with infected birds, contaminated equipment, or fomites; airborne transmission over short distances has also been documented [2, 5].

Genotypic diversity among circulating strains is substantial. Multilocus sequence typing (MLST) schemes based on whole-genome sequencing have been developed for high-resolution epidemiological typing, revealing multiple novel genotypes in Iran and China [20, 17, 21, 22]. Molecular serotyping based on the HMTp210 gene allows classification of isolates into serovars A, B, and C, with variant strains (e.g., serovar B from Argentina) showing altered antigenic profiles that may affect vaccine efficacy [23, 24, 8, 9].

Clinical Signs and Pathology

The incubation period ranges from 24 to 72 hours under experimental conditions [25]. Clinical signs initially include serous nasal discharge, sneezing, and conjunctivitis, progressing within 24 to 48 hours to mucopurulent discharge, facial edema, and swelling of the infraorbital sinuses [5, 19]. In severe cases, the eyelids may become swollen and closed, and dyspnea may be observed [2, 25].

Layers exhibit a precipitous drop in egg production, often exceeding 30% to 40%, along with an increase in thin-shelled and misshapen eggs [3, 24, 4]. Feed consumption decreases due to impaired vision and respiratory distress. Mortality is generally low (less than 5%) unless complicated by secondary bacterial infections such as Escherichia coli or Pasteurella multocida [4, 19].

Pathological findings on necropsy include catarrhal to fibrinous inflammation of the nasal passages, sinuses, trachea, and conjunctiva. The presence of fibrinous exudate in the infraorbital sinuses is a characteristic gross lesion [2, 5]. In chronic cases, airsacculitis and pneumonia may be observed, particularly in broilers [19]. Endocarditis caused by A. paragallinarum has been reported in broiler breeder hens, indicating that the pathogen can occasionally cause systemic infection [19].

Diagnostic Approaches

Accurate diagnosis of infectious coryza requires isolation or molecular detection of A. paragallinarum from affected birds. Sampling sites include the infraorbital sinuses, nasal exudate, and tracheal swabs [2, 5].

Bacteriological Culture

A. paragallinarum is fastidious and requires NAD (V factor) for growth. Selective culture media have been developed to improve isolation from clinical samples and to suppress contaminants [26]. Colonies appear as small, dewdrop-like, grayish, or iridescent on chocolate or blood agar after 24 to 48 hours of incubation in 5% CO₂ at 37°C [26, 2]. However, culture is often unsuccessful due to prior antimicrobial therapy or overgrowth of commensal bacteria [26, 12].

Molecular Detection

Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assays targeting the HMTp210 gene are widely used for the detection of A. paragallinarum in clinical specimens [12, 18]. A significant advance has been the development of PCR protocols that differentiate pathogenic from nonpathogenic strains by targeting regions of the genome that are absent in the latter [12]. This capability is essential because nonpathogenic isolates can be present in both healthy and diseased flocks, leading to false-positive diagnoses if only generic PCR is used [1, 10, 11, 12].

Serotyping and Genotyping

Serotyping by the HI test remains the gold standard for identifying serovars A, B, and C, but cross-reactivity and the lack of typing sera for variant strains are limitations [8, 9]. Genotyping based on sequencing of the HMTp210 gene provides a robust alternative and has been used to propose a new classification scheme [9]. MLST and whole-genome sequencing offer the highest discriminatory power for outbreak investigations and surveillance [20, 22].

Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing

Standardized broth microdilution methods have been recommended for monitoring antimicrobial resistance in A. paragallinarum [27]. The method defines minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) breakpoints for relevant antibiotics, enabling detection of emerging resistance [28, 27]. Resistance to tetracyclines and sulfonamides has been reported in several regions, while fluoroquinolone resistance remains variable [28, 27].

Treatment

Antimicrobial therapy is the primary intervention for reducing clinical signs and preventing secondary infections. Drugs commonly used include tetracyclines (e.g., oxytetracycline), macrolides (e.g., tylosin, erythromycin), fluoroquinolones (e.g., enrofloxacin), and sulfonamide-trimethoprim combinations [2, 28, 27]. Administration is typically via drinking water for 3 to 5 days. However, the emergence of antimicrobial resistance necessitates culture-based susceptibility testing to guide drug selection [28, 27].

Alternative therapeutic approaches have been investigated. Probiotics, particularly Enterococcus faecium, have been shown to improve immune responses to vaccination and reduce clinical severity [29, 30]. Phenolic extracts from berries in combination with probiotics exhibited synergistic antibacterial activity against A. paragallinarum in vitro [29]. Chinese herbal medicine extracts also demonstrated bacteriostatic activity, with potential as a complementary strategy [31].

Control and Prevention

A comprehensive control program integrates biosecurity, vaccination, and management practices.

Biosecurity

Strict biosecurity measures are the cornerstone of infectious coryza prevention. All-in/all-out management, segregation of age groups, quarantine of new birds, and disinfection of equipment and personnel are essential [7, 2]. Case-control surveys have identified purchase of replacement pullets from infected sources and shared farm equipment as significant risk factors [7]. In regions with endemic circulation, such as parts of China and the United States, adherence to biosecurity protocols is associated with a lower probability of outbreaks [6, 4].

Vaccination

Vaccination is widely practiced in layer flocks to protect against the drop in egg production. Both inactivated (killed) vaccines and live attenuated vaccines are available. Inactivated vaccines, often bivalent or trivalent (serovars A, B, and C), are administered by subcutaneous or intramuscular injection and provide protection for several months [24, 2]. The efficacy of inactivated vaccines can be enhanced by the addition of adjuvants, such as polymeric nanocarriers, which improve mucosal immunity [32].

Live attenuated vaccines have been developed from naturally occurring or laboratory-attenuated strains. An attenuated mutant strain lacking virulence factors induced protective immunity in experimental trials and represents a promising candidate for field use [33]. The choice of vaccine serotype must match the circulating strain; serovar B variants from Argentina, for example, required a homologous vaccine to achieve adequate protection [24].

Probiotic supplementation with E. faecium has been shown to enhance the humoral and cellular immune responses to inactivated infectious coryza vaccines, as demonstrated by increased antibody titers and reduced clinical signs after challenge [30]. This approach may allow dose-sparing or improved efficacy in flocks with suboptimal vaccine responses.

Integrated Management

No single intervention is sufficient to eradicate infectious coryza from an endemic flock. An integrated strategy combining vaccination, antimicrobial stewardship (guided by susceptibility testing), biosecurity, and environmental management (e.g., proper ventilation, reduced dust, and litter management) is required [2, 34]. The grave economic consequences of the disease in small flocks, as highlighted by questionnaire studies, underscore the need for accessible diagnostic services and extension education [34].

The following Mermaid decision tree summarizes the diagnostic and control workflow for infectious coryza.

flowchart TD
    A[Flocks with respiratory signs \n and drop in egg production], > B{Clinical suspicion \n of infectious coryza}
    B, > C[Collect sinus/nasal swabs]
    C, > D{Diagnostic testing}
    D, > E[PCR (HMTp210) \n with pathotype differentiation]
    D, > F[Culture + selective media]
    E, > G{Positive for \n pathogenic A. paragallinarum?}
    F, > G
    G, Yes, > H[Serotype/genotype \n (HI or HMTp210 sequencing)]
    G, No, > I[Consider other causes: \n fowl cholera, mycoplasmosis, \n avian influenza, colibacillosis]
    H, > J[Antimicrobial susceptibility \n (broth microdilution)]
    J, > K[Select appropriate \n antimicrobial therapy]
    K, > L[Vaccinate with \n homologous serotype \n if indicated]
    L, > M[Implement enhanced \n biosecurity measures]
    M, > N[Monitor recovery and \n prevent recurrence]
    I, > O[Further differential \n diagnostic workup]
    O, > P[Refer to articles on \n Avian Cholera, Avian Mycoplasmosis, \n Avian Influenza]

Additional cross-references for differential diagnosis include Avian Cholera (Pasteurella multocida), Avian Mycoplasmosis, and Avian Colibacillosis.

Conclusions

Infectious coryza remains a significant cause of economic loss in the global poultry industry, particularly in layer flocks. Recent advances in genomics have deepened our understanding of the pathogen's diversity, the existence of nonpathogenic strains, and the mechanisms of antimicrobial resistance. Diagnostic tools that differentiate pathogenic from nonpathogenic A. paragallinarum are now available and should be adopted in routine surveillance. Vaccination programs tailored to the serotypes present in a region, combined with probiotics and enhanced biosecurity, offer the best prospects for sustained control. Future research should focus on the development of cross-protective vaccines and on the elucidation of the ecological role of nonpathogenic isolates in the respiratory microbiota.

References

[1] 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 Pathol. 2026. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42210853/

[2] El-Gazzar M, Gallardo R, Bragg R, et al. Avibacterium paragallinarum, the Causative Agent of Infectious Coryza: A Comprehensive Review. Avian Dis. 2025. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40249575/

[3] Gupta A, Girard T, Bowling H, et al. Infectious coryza outbreak in a table egg layer flock in Alberta. Can Vet J. 2026. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41716501/

[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 Dis. 2025. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40249577/

[5] Davison S, Tracy L, Kelly DJ, et al. Infectious Coryza in Pennsylvania. Avian Dis. 2024. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39400211/

[6] Wang Y, Si M, Qiu J, et al. Prevalence, risk factors, and regional insights of infectious coryza among poultry populations in China during 1993-2024: a meta-analysis. J Vet Med Sci. 2026. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41320253/

[7] 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 Dis. 2025. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40249578/

[8] Li KP, Tan DH, Ou SJ, et al. Regions Important for Hemagglutination Activity and Serotypes of Avibacterium paragallinarum HMTp210 Protein. Avian Dis. 2023. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37556294/

[9] Buter R, Feberwee A, de Wit S, et al. Molecular characterization of the HMTp210 gene of Avibacterium paragallinarum and the proposition of a new genotyping method as alternative for classical serotyping. Avian Pathol. 2023. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37470411/

[10] Shelkamy MMS, Hashish A, Srednik ME, et al. Eight complete and four draft genome sequences of nonpathogenic Avibacterium paragallinarum isolates from naive, healthy layer chickens in the USA. Microbiol Resour Announc. 2025. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40815000/

[11] Shelkamy MMS, Hashish A, Srednik ME, et al. Prevalence of Nonpathogenic Avibacterium paragallinarum in Naïve-Healthy Layer Flocks Across Multiple States in the United States. Transbound Emerg Dis. 2025. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40420864/

[12] 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 Dis. 2025. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40249576/

[13] Chen L, Sun J, Hu J, et al. Identification and characterization of biosynthetic loci of lipooligosaccharide and capsular polysaccharide in Avibacterium paragallinarum. Vet Microbiol. 2024. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39612782/

[14] Guo M, Wang H, Zhang H, et al. Identification of the genes involved in biofilm formation of Avibacterium paragallinarum using random transposon mutagenesis. Vet Microbiol. 2025. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39892023/

[15] Liu D, Zhang H, Tan H, et al. Basic Characterization of Natural Transformation in Avibacterium paragallinarum. Microbiol Spectr. 2023. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37212663/

[16] Xu J, Mei C, Zhi Y, et al. Comparative Genomics Analysis and Outer Membrane Vesicle-Mediated Horizontal Antibiotic-Resistance Gene Transfer in Avibacterium paragallinarum. Microbiol Spectr. 2022. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36000914/ *** Disclaimer: This article is for educational and informational purposes only. It is not intended to substitute for professional veterinary advice, diagnosis, treatment, or regulatory guidance. Always consult a licensed veterinarian or qualified specialist regarding animal health, disease diagnosis, and therapeutic decisions.

[17] Bashashati M, Moradi Haghgou L, Nouri A, et al. Genetic diversity of Avibacterium paragallinarum: uncovering novel genotypes in Iranian poultry farms. Avian Pathol. 2026. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41178666/

[18] Deresse G, Assefa E, Tesfaw L, et al. Isolation, molecular detection, and sequence analysis of Avibacterium paragallinarum from suspected cases of infectious coryza infected chickens from different areas of Ethiopia, 2022-2024. BMC Microbiol. 2025. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40087555/

[19] Stępień-Pyśniak D, Dec M, Hauschild T, et al. Case reports involving coinfection with Avibacterium paragallinarum and Ornithobacterium rhinotracheale in broiler chickens and Avibacterium endocarditis in broiler breeding hens in Poland. Avian Pathol. 2024. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38385975/

[20] Ghanem M, Harris A, Timilsina M, et al. A standardized, genome-guided MLST scheme for Avibacterium paragallinarum: enhanced epidemiological typing and validation against existing methods. J Clin Microbiol. 2026. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41665375/

[21] Guo Y, Yin M, Zhang T, et al. Research Note: Isolation and genomic characterization of Avibacterium paragallinarum from the Hubei Province, China. Poult Sci. 2025. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40644909/

[22] Chen L, Hu J, Dai N, et al. Genotypic and Biochemical Divergence of Avibacterium paragallinarum Isolates in China. Avian Dis. 2025. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40643936/

[23] Wen J, Liao Z, Yin L, et al. Molecular serotyping and virulence assessment of Avibacterium paragallinarum strains circulating in Chinese poultry flocks. Front Vet Sci. 2026. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41815498/

[24] Huberman YD, Méndez LL, Méndez 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 Dis. 2025. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41003436/

[25] Mei C, Zhi Y, Xu J, et al. Characterization of a highly virulent Avibacterium paragallinarum isolate. J Anim Sci. 2023. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37882211/

[26] Srednik ME, Shelkamy MMS, Hashish A, et al. Development of selective culture media for efficient isolation of Avibacterium paragallinarum from chickens. J Clin Microbiol. 2025. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40679850/

[27] Gütgemann F, Heuvelink A, Müller A, et al. Recommendation of a standardized broth microdilution method for antimicrobial susceptibility testing of Avibacterium paragallinarum and resistance monitoring. J Clin Microbiol. 2024. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38363142/

[28] Cao X, Huang X, Lin Y, et al. Prevalence and genomic-based antimicrobial resistance analysis of Avibacterium paragallinarum isolates in Guangdong Province, China. Poult Sci. 2024. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38652951/

[29] Thapa K, Phan A, Lin S, et al. Implication of probiotics with berry phenolic extracts against Avibacterium paragallinarum. Microb Pathog. 2026. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42097187/

[30] Cui W, Wang C, Wu Y, et al. Epidemiological Investigation of Infectious Coryza in Central China and the Effect of Enterococcus faecium on Improving Vaccine Immunity. Poult Sci. 2025. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40769017/

[31] Yue Z, Li Y, Chen L, et al. Study on bacteriostasis of Chinese herbal medicine extracts to Avibacterium paragallinarum. Poult Sci. 2026. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41579597/

[32] Ibrahim HM, Mohammed GM, Sayed RH, et al. Polymeric nanocarrier-based adjuvants to enhance a locally produced mucosal coryza vaccine in chicken. Sci Rep. 2024. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38961116/

[33] Guo M, Wang H, Liu D, et al. Development and evaluation of an attenuated Avibacterium paragallinarum strain as a live vaccine candidate for infectious coryza. Vet Res. 2025. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40490807/

[34] Etterlin PE, Comin A, Eriksson H, et al. Questionnaire study suggests grave consequences of infectious laryngotracheitis, infectious coryza and mycoplasmosis in small chicken flocks. Acta Vet Scand. 2023. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37710285/

[35] Sun J, Chen L, He G, et al. Development of a counterselection system for efficient marker-free genetic manipulation in Avibacterium paragallinarum. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2026. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41910236/