A systematic review of mechanistic models used to study avian influenza virus transmission and control

The global spread of avian influenza A viruses in domestic birds is causing increasing socioeconomic devastation.

Various mechanistic models have been developed to better understand avian influenza transmission and evaluate the effectiveness of control measures in mitigating the socioeconomic losses caused by these viruses.

However, the results of models of avian influenza transmission and control have not yet been subject to a comprehensive review.

Such a review could help inform policy makers and guide future modeling work.

To help fill this gap, we conducted a systematic review of the mechanistic models that have been applied to field outbreaks.

Our three objectives were to: (1) describe the type of models and their epidemiological context, (2) list estimates of commonly used parameters of low pathogenicity and highly pathogenic avian influenza transmission, and (3) review the characteristics of avian influenza transmission and the efficacy of control strategies according to the mechanistic models.

We reviewed a total of 46 articles.

Of these, 26 articles estimated parameters by fitting the model to data, one evaluated the effectiveness of control strategies, and 19 did both.

Values of the between-individual reproduction number ranged widely: from 2.18 to 86 for highly pathogenic avian influenza viruses, and from 4.7 to 45.9 for low pathogenicity avian influenza viruses, depending on epidemiological settings, virus subtypes and host species.

Other parameters, such as the durations of the latent and infectious periods, were often taken from the literature, limiting the models’ potential insights.

Concerning control strategies, many models evaluated culling ( n  = 15), while vaccination received less attention ( n  = 6).

According to the articles reviewed, optimal control strategies varied between virus subtypes and local conditions, and depended on the overall objective of the intervention.

For instance, vaccination was optimal when the objective was to limit the overall number of culled flocks.

In contrast, pre-emptive culling was preferred for reducing the size and duration of an epidemic.

Early implementation consistently improved the overall efficacy of interventions, highlighting the need for effective surveillance and epidemic preparedness.