Challenges to the Poultry Industry: Current Perspectives and Strategic Future After the COVID-19 Outbreak

The world is in the grip of the COVID-19 pandemic. Public health measures that can reduce the risk of infection and death in addition to quarantines are desperately needed. This article reviews the roles of vitamin D in reducing the risk of respiratory tract infections, knowledge about the epidemiology of influenza and COVID-19, and how vitamin D supplementation might be a useful measure to reduce risk. Through several mechanisms, vitamin D can reduce risk of infections. Those mechanisms include inducing cathelicidins and defensins that can lower viral replication rates and reducing concentrations of pro-inflammatory cytokines that produce the inflammation that injures the lining of the lungs, leading to pneumonia, as well as increasing concentrations of anti-inflammatory cytokines. Several observational studies and clinical trials reported that vitamin D supplementation reduced the risk of influenza, whereas others did not. Evidence supporting the role of vitamin D in reducing risk of COVID-19 includes that the outbreak occurred in winter, a time when 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) concentrations are lowest; that the number of cases in the Southern Hemisphere near the end of summer are low; that vitamin D deficiency has been found to contribute to acute respiratory distress syndrome; and that case-fatality rates increase with age and with chronic disease comorbidity, both of which are associated with lower 25(OH)D concentration. To reduce the risk of infection, it is recommended that people at risk of influenza and/or COVID-19 consider taking 10,000 IU/d of vitamin D3 for a few weeks to rapidly raise 25(OH)D concentrations, followed by 5000 IU/d. The goal should be to raise 25(OH)D concentrations above 40–60 ng/mL (100–150 nmol/L). For treatment of people who become infected with COVID-19, higher vitamin D3 doses might be useful. Randomized controlled trials and large population studies should be conducted to evaluate these recommendations.

Abstract An outbreak of a novel coronavirus (COVID‐19 or 2019‐CoV) infection has posed significant threats to international health and the economy. In the absence of treatment for this virus, there is an urgent need to find alternative methods to control the spread of disease. Here, we have conducted an online search for all treatment options related to coronavirus infections as well as some RNA‐virus infection and we have found that general treatments, coronavirus‐specific treatments, and antiviral treatments should be useful in fighting COVID‐19. We suggest that the nutritional status of each infected patient should be evaluated before the administration of general treatments and the current children's RNA‐virus vaccines including influenza vaccine should be immunized for uninfected people and health care workers. In addition, convalescent plasma should be given to COVID‐19 patients if it is available. In conclusion, we suggest that all the potential interventions be implemented to control the emerging COVID‐19 if the infection is uncontrollable.

Infectious bronchitis virus (IBV), the coronavirus of the chicken (Gallus gallus), is one of the foremost causes of economic loss within the poultry industry, affecting the performance of both meat-type and egg-laying birds. The virus replicates not only in the epithelium of upper and lower respiratory tract tissues, but also in many tissues along the alimentary tract and elsewhere e.g. kidney, oviduct and testes. It can be detected in both respiratory and faecal material. There is increasing evidence that IBV can infect species of bird other than the chicken. Interestingly breeds of chicken vary with respect to the severity of infection with IBV, which may be related to the immune response. Probably the major reason for the high profile of IBV is the existence of a very large number of serotypes. Both live and inactivated IB vaccines are used extensively, the latter requiring priming by the former. Their effectiveness is diminished by poor cross-protection. The nature of the protective immune response to IBV is poorly understood. What is known is that the surface spike protein, indeed the amino-terminal S1 half, is sufficient to induce good protective immunity. There is increasing evidence that only a few amino acid differences amongst S proteins are sufficient to have a detrimental impact on cross-protection. Experimental vector IB vaccines and genetically manipulated IBVs--with heterologous spike protein genes--have produced promising results, including in the context of in ovo vaccination.