4.5 Article

The challenging task to select Salmonella target serovars in poultry: the Italian point of view

期刊

EPIDEMIOLOGY AND INFECTION
卷 149, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0950268821001230

关键词

Epidemiology; Poultry; Public health; Salmonella

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study reveals that controlling S. Virchow and S. Hadar is no longer a priority in Italy, while S. Napoli and S. Derby, not included in the EU target serovars, are among the most frequent serovars isolated from humans in Italy. S. Napoli, frequently isolated from breeding poultry flocks and causing severe human illness, is identified as a potential target Salmonella serovar in Italy.
According to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) annual report, human salmonellosis is mostly related to consumption of contaminated poultry products. Since 2003 in Europe, the Salmonella serovars considered relevant for human health and subject to control in breeding hens of Gallus gallus are: S. Enteritidis, S. Typhimurium (including the monophasic variant), S. Infantis, S. Hadar and S. Virchow. Herein, we investigated the Italian epidemiological situation from 2016 to 2018, comparing Salmonella serovar distributions in humans and poultry, in order to identify the target Salmonella serovars that, if controlled, would potentially have the largest public health impact in Italy. The results showed that control of S. Virchow and S. Hadar does no longer seem to be a priority in Italy and that S. Napoli and S. Derby, which are not included in the group of EU target serovars, are among the most frequent serovars isolated from humans in Italy. While S. Derby has its main reservoir in pigs, S. Napoli does not have a specific reservoir. However, because this serovar is frequently isolated from breeding poultry flocks and is characterised by causing severe human illness, it is a potential target Salmonella serovar in breeding hens of Gallus gallus in Italy.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据