Avian Influenza in Poultry: Clinical Signs, Surveillance, and CDC Guidelines

Etiology and Classification of Avian Influenza A Virus

Avian influenza is a highly contagious viral disease of poultry caused by infection with type A influenza viruses of the family Orthomyxoviridae, genus Influenzavirus A [1, 2]. The avian influenza A virus (AIV) genome consists of eight single-stranded negative-sense RNA segments encoding at least 10 proteins, including the surface glycoproteins hemagglutinin (HA) and neuraminidase (NA) [1, 3]. Subtypes are defined by the antigenic specificity of HA (H1 through H16) and NA (N1 through N9) in avian hosts [1, 2]. Viruses of the H5 and H7 subtypes are of particular regulatory concern because they can evolve from low pathogenicity (LPAI) to high pathogenicity (HPAI) forms through the acquisition of a multibasic cleavage site in the HA protein [3, 4]. This molecular conversion, which involves the insertion of basic amino acid residues at the HA cleavage site, confers systemic tropism and high mortality in gallinaceous poultry [3, 4].

The natural reservoir of all AIV subtypes is wild waterfowl, primarily members of the orders Anseriformes (ducks, geese, swans) and Charadriiformes (gulls, terns) [5, 1]. In these reservoir hosts, AIV typically replicates in the intestinal epithelium without causing clinical disease, facilitating fecal-oral transmission to susceptible poultry populations [1, 6]. The emergence of HPAI in poultry is a multistep process involving the introduction of LPAI from wild birds into domestic flocks, followed by adaptation and mutation during circulation in gallinaceous species [3, 4]. The World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) classify notifiable avian influenza as any H5 or H7 virus that is either highly pathogenic or has demonstrated the capacity to become highly pathogenic [7, 8].

Epidemiology and Transmission Dynamics

Transmission of AIV among poultry occurs through direct contact with infected birds, indirect contact via fomites (contaminated equipment, vehicles, feed, water), and airborne routes [5, 9]. Aerosolized viral RNA has been detected at distances of up to 110 meters downwind from infected poultry houses, with measured concentrations ranging from 4.3 to 6.4 log10 RNA copies per cubic meter [9]. The persistence of AIV in the environment is influenced by temperature, pH, and organic matter; the virus remains infectious for extended periods in cold water and on inert surfaces [10, 9].

Risk factors for AIV incursion into poultry holdings include high local poultry density, proximity to water bodies frequented by wild waterfowl, and the presence of live bird markets (LBMs) [5, 11, 12]. In Denmark, a 1 km increase in distance to wetlands was associated with a 5.18% decrease in the odds of AIV detection in wild birds (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.91 to 0.99) [5]. In South Korea, the density of domestic duck farms and the minimum distance to LBMs were identified as leading spatial risk factors for HPAI outbreaks [13]. In Japan, larger flock sizes and shorter distances to water bodies increased infection risk in both layer and broiler farms [14]. The live poultry trade network in China has been shown to exhibit a geographically continuous and repeatable pattern of AIV dissemination, with a community structure that can predict the spread of H5N1, H7N9, and H5N6 subtypes [11].

The European Union (EU) surveillance system, as reported by EFSA, documented 24,290 poultry establishments sampled in 2021, with 27 seropositive for H5 and 4 for H7 [15]. Of these, 3 establishments tested positive by PCR for HPAI or LPAI [15]. In Denmark, HPAI outbreaks in 2020/2021 and 2021/2022 were predominantly caused by clade 2.3.4.4b viruses (H5N1, H5N3, H5N5, H5N8), with turkey and mallard farms showing significantly higher risk than chicken farms [16]. The 2022/2023 UK housing order, which mandated indoor confinement of all poultry, resulted in a reduction of infected premises incidence rates from 1.27 to 0.30 per 100 poultry specialists in high-density regions, three weeks after implementation [17].

Clinical Signs in Poultry

Clinical manifestations of AIV infection in poultry depend on the pathogenicity of the virus strain, the host species, and the age of the bird [6, 2]. LPAI viruses (e.g., H9N2, H10N7) typically cause mild or subclinical disease in gallinaceous poultry, with signs limited to a transient drop in egg production, mild respiratory distress (sneezing, rales), and a slight decrease in feed intake [10, 18]. In contrast, HPAI viruses (e.g., H5N1, H5N8) produce a rapidly fatal systemic disease characterized by sudden death, severe depression, cyanosis of the comb and wattles, edema of the head and neck, and hemorrhagic lesions on the shanks and viscera [16, 4].

A systematic review and meta-analysis of 71 challenge studies identified that virus shedding patterns (mean, peak, and duration) are significantly influenced by species, virus origin, age, inoculation route, and dose [6]. For HPAI, the mean peak shedding titer in chickens can exceed 10^6.5 EID50 per mL of oropharyngeal or cloacal swab material [6]. In ducks, HPAI H5N1 can be shed for up to 9 days without clinical signs, making them efficient silent shedders [19]. The intravenous pathogenicity index (IVPI) is the standard laboratory measure of virulence; an IVPI of 0 indicates no clinical signs (LPAI), while an IVPI greater than 1.2 in 6-week-old chickens defines HPAI [10, 3].

Specific clinical signs by species are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1. Clinical Signs of Avian Influenza in Poultry by Pathogenicity

Diagnostic Surveillance and Laboratory Methods

Surveillance for AIV in poultry is conducted through a combination of active (targeted sampling) and passive (reporting of clinical suspicion) programs [15, 20]. The WOAH-recommended diagnostic algorithm begins with real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) targeting the matrix (M) gene, which is highly conserved across all influenza A viruses [10, 21]. Positive samples are then subtyped using H5- and H7-specific primers and probes, and the HA cleavage site is sequenced to determine pathogenicity [10, 3].

Serological surveillance employs the hemagglutination inhibition (HI) test as the gold standard for antibody subtyping [22]. However, the HI test has variable sensitivity and specificity depending on the antigen used and the species tested [22]. Commercial ELISA kits for detection of anti-nucleoprotein (NP) antibodies are used for flock-level screening, but they do not distinguish between subtypes [22]. The use of environmental water sampling for AIV RNA detection has been validated as a supplementary surveillance tool, particularly in free-range and waterfowl-rich settings [10].

A summary of diagnostic modalities is presented in Table 2.

Table 2. Diagnostic Methods for Avian Influenza Virus Detection in Poultry

CDC Guidelines for Poultry Surveillance and Outbreak Response

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) provides guidelines for the management of AIV in poultry, focusing on biosecurity, surveillance, and outbreak containment [4, 23]. The CDC framework emphasizes a "One Health" approach that integrates veterinary, environmental, and public health surveillance [4]. Key components of the CDC guidelines for poultry include:

1. Prevention through biosecurity: All poultry operations should implement strict biosecurity protocols, including dedicated footwear, clothing, and equipment for each premises; disinfection of vehicles and personnel; and restriction of access to non-essential visitors [5, 17]. The housing order (indoor confinement) is recommended when HPAI is detected in wild birds within a 10 km radius of a poultry farm [17].

2. Active surveillance: The CDC recommends that all commercial poultry flocks with more than 1,000 birds be tested for AIV at least twice per year using rRT-PCR on oropharyngeal and cloacal swabs [15, 21]. In high-risk areas (wetlands, waterfowl migration corridors), sampling frequency should increase to monthly [5].

3. Passive surveillance: Any increase in mortality above the baseline (e.g., >0.5% per day in layers, >1% per day in broilers) must be reported to the state or national veterinary authority within 24 hours [16, 17]. Clinical signs such as a sudden drop in egg production (greater than 20%) or feed consumption (greater than 10%) are triggers for immediate diagnostic testing [10].

4. Stamping out and depopulation: In confirmed HPAI outbreaks, the CDC guidelines mandate the culling of all birds on the infected premises within 24 hours of confirmation, using methods that minimize aerosolization of viral particles (e.g., carbon dioxide gassing, foam depopulation) [7, 8]. The carcasses must be disposed of by composting, incineration, or burial in a manner that prevents environmental contamination [7].

5. Movement control and quarantine: A 3 km protection zone and a 10 km surveillance zone are established around any HPAI-infected premises [12, 14]. All poultry movements (including eggs, meat, and live birds) within the surveillance zone are restricted for a minimum of 21 days after the last confirmed case [12].

6. Vaccination: The CDC supports the use of vaccination as a supplementary control tool, but only with DIVA (Differentiating Infected from Vaccinated Animals) vaccines that allow serological distinction between vaccinated and field-exposed birds [24, 25]. Inactivated whole-virus vaccines and recombinant viral-vectored vaccines (e.g., fowlpox virus, herpesvirus of turkeys) are licensed for use in several countries [24, 26].

Mermaid Workflow: Avian Influenza Surveillance and Response Decision Tree

graph TD
    A[Clinical suspicion in poultry flock], > B{Is mortality >0.5% per day?}
    B, >|Yes| C[Collect oropharyngeal and cloacal swabs]
    B, >|No| D[Continue routine monitoring]
    C, > E[rRT-PCR for M gene]
    E, > F{Positive for AIV?}
    F, >|No| G[Rule out other pathogens]
    F, >|Yes| H[Subtype: H5/H7 specific PCR]
    H, > I{Is HA cleavage site multibasic?}
    I, >|Yes| J[Confirm HPAI]
    I, >|No| K[Confirm LPAI]
    J, > L[Notify WOAH/CDC]
    L, > M[Establish 3 km protection zone]
    M, > N[Depopulate infected premises]
    N, > O[Disinfect and quarantine 21 days]
    K, > P[Monitor for reassortment]
    P, > Q[Implement biosecurity enhancements]

References

[1] Blagodatski A, Trutneva K, Glazova O, et al. Avian Influenza in Wild Birds and Poultry: Dissemination Pathways, Monitoring Methods, and Virus Ecology. Pathogens. 2021. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/1a85623d97aca64e8a62774b24abd9f0c31c8d56

[2] Alexander DJ, Capua I. Avian influenza in poultry. 2008. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/8613c18f9522be352439a1f3222355ef21084fc5

[3] Dhingra M, Artois J, Dellicour S, et al. Geographical and Historical Patterns in the Emergences of Novel Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI) H5 and H7 Viruses in Poultry. Frontiers in Veterinary Science. 2018. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/efc6474885bdaa3bf090343b79c023139ade0ae7

[4] Krammer F, Hermann E, Rasmussen AL. Highly pathogenic avian influenza H5N1: history, current situation, and outlook. Journal of Virology. 2025. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/74ce473d1ad571b6aeefdcb5e8844367978a50e5

[5] Liu Y, Kjær L, Boklund A, et al. Risk factors for avian influenza in Danish poultry and wild birds during the epidemic from June 2020 to May 2021. Frontiers in Veterinary Science. 2024. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/591875ad052776d10f586617abf58c14faca154d

[6] Germeraad E, Sanders P, Hagenaars T, et al. Virus Shedding of Avian Influenza in Poultry: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Viruses. 2019. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/3f02174c617c536459e4a83fe26a1646662512e7

[7] Swayne D, Pavade G, Hamilton K, et al. Assessment of national strategies for control of high-pathogenicity avian influenza and low-pathogenicity notifiable avian influenza in poultry, with emphasis on vaccines and vaccination. Revue Scientifique et Technique. 2011. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/77c611f0d0a17c708b7605f34562db05a3d9f9c7

[8] Capua I, Marangon S. Control of Avian Influenza in Poultry. Emerging Infectious Diseases. 2006. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/14a972a0339629e15fba46363b45b5d380361a28

[9] Scoizec A, Niqueux E, Thomas R, et al. Airborne Detection of H5N8 Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza Virus Genome in Poultry Farms, France. Frontiers in Veterinary Science. 2018. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/53d66907be3c874ef38a8aa8266b5905883e80e2

[10] Germeraad E, Elbers A, de Bruijn ND, et al. Detection of Low Pathogenic Avian Influenza Virus Subtype H10N7 in Poultry and Environmental Water Samples During a Clinical Outbreak in Commercial Free-Range Layers, Netherlands 2017. Frontiers in Veterinary Science. 2020. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/93652c29e4d85dedbaa33e1487fbfd0fa31d4771

[11] Yang Q, Zhao X, Lemey P, et al. Assessing the role of live poultry trade in community-structured transmission of avian influenza in China. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2020. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/11b8df9b595659b6f253d6655bf9c030e9ccc1c6

[12] Boender G, Hagenaars T, Bouma A, et al. Risk Maps for the Spread of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza in Poultry. PLoS Computational Biology. 2007. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/7a859860dfccc88d0f63c315bed4ed6755aeb9ca

[13] Yoo D, Chun B, Hong K, et al. Risk Prediction of Three Different Subtypes of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza Outbreaks in Poultry Farms: Based on Spatial Characteristics of Infected Premises in South Korea. Frontiers in Veterinary Science. 2022. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/4730900af13652d0b4a6948a142a9c6e65b4c850

[14] Yamaguchi E, Hayama Y, Murato Y, et al. A case-control study of the infection risk of H5N8 highly pathogenic avian influenza in Japan during the winter of 2020-2021. Research in Veterinary Science. 2024. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/44e055b1429faa4e6e4ec35998f490fce724b0a0 *** 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.

[15] Aznar I, Baldinelli F, Stoicescu A, et al. Annual report on surveillance for avian influenza in poultry and wild birds in Member States of the European Union in 2021. EFSA Journal. 2022. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/560cb4741300402a3bd55d7c7fb2606a0d42b4bd

[16] Liang Y, Boklund A, Larsen LE, et al. Epidemiological and Virological investigation of high pathogenicity avian influenza outbreaks in Danish poultry during 2020/2021 and 2021/2022. Research in Veterinary Science. 2025. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/4776a597bb1c62104650068ac9928019c9e6a68a

[17] Tammes P. Spread of avian influenza among poultry specialists in England during winter 2022/23: National poultry housing order and environmental drivers. Dialogues in Health. 2024. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/606fc21cc6c04174f24f6cd9011721180574e258

[18] Yang Q, Ji J, Yang J, et al. Diversity of genotypes and pathogenicity of H9N2 avian influenza virus derived from wild bird and domestic poultry. Frontiers in Microbiology. 2024. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/904438a32abb74a9e276793c70577606c366e2ea

[19] Cui P, Shi J, Yan C, et al. Analysis of avian influenza A (H3N8) viruses in poultry and their zoonotic potential, China, September 2021 to May 2022. Eurosurveillance. 2023. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/abde12e0c13c428fc9203f19f9e76aebf02cf9b4

[20] Scott A, Hernandez-Jover M, Groves P, et al. An overview of avian influenza in the context of the Australian commercial poultry industry. One Health. 2020. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/07b5fbe6d4fc773e9135cdc03a268becd854f13

[21] Astill J, Dara R, Fraser EDG, et al. Detecting and Predicting Emerging Disease in Poultry With the Implementation of New Technologies and Big Data: A Focus on Avian Influenza Virus. Frontiers in Veterinary Science. 2018. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/3d68c777b6dc552a3929807b9fb7294f83b4b0c1

[22] Comin A, Toft N, Stegeman A, et al. Serological diagnosis of avian influenza in poultry: is the haemagglutination inhibition test really the 'gold standard'? Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses. 2012. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/d1c3fc9766d4d8c9db9912e41e60b0d9b6db1bf4

[23] Alexakis L, Buczkowski H, Ducatez M, et al. Avian influenza overview December 2024-March 2025. EFSA Journal. 2025. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/7ddd59a34335deef18000b735308e98ac35adb10

[24] Suarez D, Pantin-Jackwood M. Recombinant viral-vectored vaccines for the control of avian influenza in poultry. Veterinary Microbiology. 2017. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/840dd98a256b17cef7d70bd9a961b7bb292fe073

[25] Swayne D, Kapczynski D. Vaccines and vaccination for avian influenza in poultry. 2016. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/1b822cdcd56b44b969af192aa48d34506870ed3b

[26] Kostina LV, Zaberezhny AD, Grebennikova TV, et al. Vaccines against avian influenza in poultry. Voprosy Virusologii. 2017. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/3ce8df522b4906e79aabbda023932dcf9d25967a

[27] Abdelwhab EM, Hafez H. Insight into Alternative Approaches for Control of Avian Influenza in Poultry, with Emphasis on Highly Pathogenic H5N1. Viruses. 2012. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/6fd51c1679989c254fc998005374bb276d557e79

[28] Naeem K, Hussain M. An outbreak of avian influenza in poultry in Pakistan. The Veterinary Record. 1995. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/9724025c2cb6e0ec4e0b1ca3d9a7798007ee6e2f

[29] Gilbert M, Xiao X, Robinson T. Intensifying poultry production systems and the emergence of avian influenza in China: a 'One Health/Ecohealth' epitome. Archives of Public Health. 2017. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/1b110117820b85bd874b086bfa8dd06e6f729032

[30] Monke J, Corn M. Avian Influenza in Poultry and Wild Birds. 2007. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/6fdd5dd360522d7ff40492fb7df2fcd275be20dd

[31] Pavade G, Awada L, Hamilton K, et al. The influence of economic indicators, poultry density and the performance of veterinary services on the control of high-pathogenicity avian influenza in poultry. Revue Scientifique et Technique. 2011. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/2a3fb33db48aa5730f23b90267857466df78d065

[32] Rojas H, Moreira R, Avalos P, et al. Avian influenza in poultry in Chile. The Veterinary Record. 2002. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/194ce0e314007df74c9e08985f4d8a200b60ef90

[33] Capua I. Vaccination for notifiable avian influenza in poultry. Revue Scientifique et Technique. 2007. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/be4d2f8b67529e7e1d8a5a7ea6edb59890dacc08

[34] Ali M, Yaqub T, Mukhtar N, et al. Avian Influenza A(H9N2) Virus in Poultry Worker, Pakistan, 2015. Emerging Infectious Diseases. 2019. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/f0016b35415e26090ef492fb4080cc7f8576f2d7

[35] Xie Z, Yang J, Jiao W, et al. Clade 2.3.4.4b highly pathogenic avian influenza H5N1 viruses: knowns, unknowns, and challenges. Journal of Virology. 2025. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/10e8838255342c489ae6f696651727b1b22f6796