Estimates of epidemiological parameters for H5N1 influenza in humans: a rapid review
====================================================================================
* Jack Ward
* Joshua W. Lambert
* Timothy W. Russell
* James M. Azam
* Adam J. Kucharski
* Sebastian Funk
* Billy J. Quilty
* Oswaldo Gressani
* Niel Hens
* W. John Edmunds
## Abstract
**Background** The ongoing H5N1 panzootic in mammals has amplified zoonotic pathways to facilitate human infection. Characterising key epidemiological parameters for H5N1 is critical should this become widespread.
**Aim** To identify and estimate critical epidemiological parameters for H5N1 from past and current outbreaks, and to compare their characteristics with human influenza subtypes.
**Methods** We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library for systematic reviews reporting parameter estimates from primary data or meta-analyses. To address gaps, we searched Google Scholar for studies of any design providing relevant estimates. We estimated the basic reproduction number for the outbreak in the US and estimated the serial interval using data from previous household clusters in Indonesia. We also applied a branching process model to simulate transmission chain size and duration to assess if simulated transmission patterns align with observed dynamics.
**Results** From 32 studies, we identified H5N1’s epidemiological profile as having lower transmissibility (R0 < 0.2) but higher severity compared to human subtypes. Evidence suggests H5N1 has longer incubation (~4 days vs ~2 days) and serial intervals (~6 days vs ~3 days) than human subtypes, impacting transmission dynamics. Key gaps remain regarding latent and infectious periods.
**Conclusions** We characterised critical epidemiological parameters for H5N1 infection. The current U.S. outbreak shows lower pathogenicity but similar transmissibility compared to prior outbreaks. Longer incubation and serial intervals may enhance contact tracing feasibility. These estimates offer a baseline for monitoring changes in H5N1 epidemiology.
## Introduction
Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza A (H5N1) was first isolated in 1997 in Hong Kong [1]. The primary reservoir of H5N1 are aquatic birds [2], with outbreaks occurring in the last two decades in poultry and wild bird populations [3]. This has accelerated in recent years following the emergence of a new genotype (belonging to clade 2.3.4.4b) following reassortment with low pathogenic avian influenza viruses in the Western hemisphere in 2020 [4]. This has subsequently spread globally in wild bird populations [5] and caused devastating outbreaks in domestic flocks across the globe In addition, there is evidence of sustained mammal to mammal transmission of these viruses in European fur farms, marine mammals in South America and dairy cattle in the United States (US) [5].The H5N1 outbreak in US dairy cattle was detected in February 2024, in Texas [6], before spreading to other states [7]. As of 5th December 2024, there have been 58 documented human cases in the US, including two, from Missouri and California, without any known exposure to sick or infected animals [8] (**Supplementary Table S1**).
H5N1 continues to pose a threat to global biosecurity. Given the risk of viral reassortment within a dually infected human or other mammalian species infected with a human influenza virus, there is a possibility that the resulting variant could be capable of sustained human to human transmission[9]. Longini et al., emphasise the importance of key epidemiological parameters required at the start of an outbreak; the reproduction number, incubation, latent and infectious periods, the serial interval and the case fatality ratio (CFR) [9]. Outside of CFR and the reproduction number, the key parameters for H5N1 have not been well characterised in relation to human influenza. There is some evidence to suggest a longer incubation period for H5N1 infection [10], however key parameters such as the serial interval are not available. Given increased mammalian H5N1 infection and the increasing level of human exposure at the human-mammal interface, these parameters become key to understanding how H5N1 can be controlled compared to traditional human influenza outbreaks.
This rapid review examines these critical epidemiological parameters for H5N1, incorporating seropositivity data, and provides a comparative analysis with other influenza subtypes. To address gaps in existing estimates, we utilised mathematical models to estimate the reproduction number for the current U.S. outbreak and calculated the serial interval using data from previous household clusters in Indonesia. Additionally, we applied a branching process model to simulate transmission chain size and duration, enabling us to assess whether simulated patterns align with observed outbreak dynamics.
## Methods
### Review of critical parameters estimates from previous outbreaks
We conducted a rapid review to identify existing estimates of critical epidemiological parameters for H5N1 and to compare these with other human influenza subtypes. The review consisted of two stages. First, an initial search for systematic reviews was conducted in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library. We included systematic reviews that provided parameter estimates for the reproduction number (R0), dispersion parameter (k), incubation period, latent and infectious periods, CFRs, IFRs, or serological estimates (for H5N1 only) in humans. The search terms used are listed in **Supplementary Table S2**. Studies were included if they provided quantitative estimates based on primary epidemiological data or meta-analyses of such data. Studies were excluded if they lacked quantitative estimates, focused solely on animal models, or did not distinguish between influenza strains.
Following the initial search, a tailored search was conducted in Google Scholar (**Supplementary Table S2**) to address gaps and identify missing parameters. This search targeted studies reporting estimates for the dispersion parameter, incubation period, latent and infectious periods, and CFR in humans as these were not adequately covered by the initial search. Search terms were adapted to capture specific epidemiological parameters and chosen to broaden the scope of studies which would appear in the search. We included studies of any design that provided relevant estimates using epidemiological data. We excluded studies which reported assumed values (parameters had been assumed for modelling purposes and had been based on opinion or other data sources). The Google Scholar search was limited to the first 30 results per query (sorted by relevance) to ensure relevance and feasibility within the constraints of the rapid review. All searches were conducted up to and including November 25, 2024. In addition we included pertinent studies which had been identified without a focused search strategy.
For each included study, the study design, the study description, parameter estimate, subtype and, in the case of systematic reviews, the original studies referenced were extracted. This information was consolidated into a central database, which is provided as a supplementary resource. Ethical approval was not required as this was a review of published literature.
A meta-analysis was not conducted due to the large heterogeneity across the included studies. Additionally, the limited availability of comparable data for certain parameters, such as the dispersion parameter and infectious periods, constrained the practicality of pooling results. Given the evolving situation, a narrative approach was deemed more appropriate for summarising existing evidence and identifying gaps in the literature.
### Reproduction number estimation
We estimated the basic reproduction number for the current outbreak in the US using the package {epichains} [11,12]. We estimated the R0 distribution under two scenarios. Scenario 1 assuming 56 single spillover cases and two clusters of two cases: the Missouri case of unknown exposure with a hypothetical source case, and the Californian case of unknown exposure with a hypothetical source case [8]. Scenario 2 assuming 56 independent spillover cases, a cluster of 3 (the Missouri case of unknown exposure, their probable household contact, and a hypothetical source case), and a cluster of two (Californian case with a hypothetical source case) [8]. Full details are given in the Supplementary Information.
### Serial interval estimation
We did not identify any primary estimates for the serial interval of H5N1 in the literature. To address this, we estimated the serial interval using data collected by Aditama et al. from 22 human cases not exposed to zoonotic sources during H5N1 outbreaks in Indonesia between 2005 and 2009 [13] (**Supplementary Figure S3**). We fitted lognormal and gamma distributions to the number of onsets for a given day from this data to estimate the serial interval. Full details are given in the Supplementary Information.
### Outbreak size distribution estimation
To assess how varying transmission parameters influence H5N1 outbreak size and duration, we used a branching process model to explore the transmission chain size and length, across scenarios of varying reproduction numbers, dispersion (k), and offspring distributions. We used a reproduction number between 0 and 1.1 at 0.1 intervals, and for the Negative Binomial offspring distribution we varied the dispersion parameter (*k*) at 0.1, 0.5, 1, 5, 1000. Outbreaks with no secondary transmission were categorised as size and length 0. Full details for the branching process are given in the Supplementary Information.
## Results
We included 32 studies in this review (**Supplementary Figure S1**), comprising of 7 systematic reviews, 14 modelling studies (including 1 preprint), 2 observational or retrospective studies, 2 seroprevalence studies (including 1 preprint), 2 reviews/commentaries, 1 viral dynamics study, 1 human challenge study, 2 sources of grey literature and 1 news article (to confirm case recovery in the US).
### H5N1 transmission dynamics
H5N1 reproduction number estimates were reported in one systematic review and two additional studies, ranging from 0—0.25 [13–17], with one outlier: Yang et al. reported an R0 of 1.14 (95% CI: 0.61—2.14) during a 2006 household outbreak in Indonesia [18]. A systematic review by Biggerstaff et al. summarised reproduction number estimates for human influenza subtypes[17], reporting median values between 1.27 and 1.80 [17] (**Figure 1**). In our analysis, we estimated the median R0 for the US outbreak as 0.04 (95%CI: 0.02–0.08) for scenario 1, and 0.05 (95%CI: 0.02–0.10) for scenario 2 (**Supplementary Figure S2**). For scenario 1, the posterior estimate for *k* was extremely high (median = 4030), due to the predominance of single spillover cases. For scenario 2, *k* was estimated as a median of 2.69 (95% CI: 0.06–6.0). One study provided a *k* estimate for H5N1 of 0.75 [16], while Fraser et al. estimated *k* for H1N1 at 0.94 (95% CI: 0.59—1.72) [19].
[Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/12/12/2024.12.11.24318702/F1)
Figure 1. Reproduction number estimates for influenza
Estimates for H5N1 from the current US outbreak and previous outbreaks where a reproduction number was reported. Compared to estimates from previous influenza pandemics (Median point estimate of R in the community setting for all waves of illness). Solid coloured bars represent the uncertainty around the central estimate, which was reported as IQR, and 95% CI.
We used a branching process model to further illustrate H5N1 transmission dynamics. With a Poisson offspring distribution, most outbreaks result in no secondary transmission when R < 0.6, and clusters of more than 20 are rare but can occur when R > 0.5 (**Figure 2A**). Introducing moderate heterogeneity (*k* = 0.5) reduces secondary transmission and limits outbreaks to fewer than 50 cases, even for R = 1.1 (**Supplementary Figure S4**). Variations in *k*, from 0.1 (highly heterogeneous) to 1000 (approximately Poisson), show that greater heterogeneity leads to smaller and shorter outbreaks [20], typically lasting fewer than five transmission generations (**Figure 2B & Supplementary Figure S5)**. These patterns align with observed dynamics, suggesting limited potential for large outbreaks under current transmission parameters.
[Figure 2.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/12/12/2024.12.11.24318702/F2)
Figure 2. Simulated H5N1 outbreak size
Simulated outbreak size (secondary cases excluding the index case) using a single-type branching process model across values of the reproduction number (R), with (A) a Poisson offspring distribution and (B) a Negative binomial offspring distribution. The latter with varied values of *k* between 0.1 and 1000.
#### Incubation period
Three studies (one systematic review) identified five estimates for the incubation period for H5N1, with estimates ranging from 2 to 9.5 days [18,21–25]. Seven studies (including one systematic review) reported eight incubation period estimates for human influenza subtypes. Estimates for Influenza A subtypes ranged from 1.34 to 2.1 [26–32]. One estimate was identified for Influenza B, with a median incubation period of 0.6 days [31] (**Figure 3**).
[Figure 3.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/12/12/2024.12.11.24318702/F3)
Figure 3. Incubation period estimates across influenza subtypes
Incubation period estimates for H5N1 from previous outbreaks, compared to estimates for other influenza subtypes. Mean estimates are represented by triangle points, and median estimates are shown using circle points. Uncertainty is represented 95% CI, IQR and range.
#### Latent & Infectious period
We could not identify any estimates of the latent period distribution for human H5N1 infections. The latent period for human influenza subtypes were reported in four studies with mean values ranging from 0.4 to 2.62 days [32–35] (**Supplementary Figure S6**). There was limited literature regarding the infectious period for H5N1. One study reported a probable range of 5–13 days for a household outbreak in Indonesia 2006 [18]. Five studies reported seven estimates for the infectious period for human influenza subtypes, the mean infectious period ranged from 1 to 3.8 days [32–36] (**Supplementary Figure S6**).
#### Serial interval
From the outbreak in Indonesia we estimated the serial interval distribution to have a median of 6.8 days (95% CrI: 0.3–13.3) when fit to a gamma distribution, and a median of 6.4 days (95% CrI: 0.3–12.7) when fit to a lognormal distribution (**Supplementary Figure S3**). The results from the LOO analysis suggested that the gamma distribution would predict unseen data more accurately, and is therefore the preferable parametric distribution in this case (**Supplementary Table S3**). We did not identify other studies providing serial interval estimates for H5N1 specifically. However, for human influenza subtypes, four studies (including one systematic review) reported 15 serial interval estimates which ranged from 1.7–3.7 days [32,35,37,38] (**Figure 4**).
[Figure 4.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/12/12/2024.12.11.24318702/F4)
Figure 4. Serial interval estimates across influenza subtypes
Serial interval estimates for H5N1 from previous outbreaks, compared to estimates for other influenza subtypes. Mean estimates are represented by triangle points, and median estimates are shown using circle points. Uncertainty is represented by 95% CI, 95% CrI and range. Data source studies for the Vink et al. estimates are referenced in the data collection document. The upper 95% Crls for the two estimated values extend to 13.3 (gamma) and 12.6 days (log normal)
### Serological evidence of H5N1 human infections
We identified a systematic review by Chen et al. [39], which provides a comprehensive estimate of serological evidence of human infections with H5N1, across populations with different occupational and behavioural exposures[39]. Studies adhering to the WHO seropositivity criteria (neutralising antibody titer ≥1:80 confirmed by a second assay, such as hemagglutination inhibition test [HAI, titer ≥1:160], enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, or western blot [39]) reported higher seroprevalence among high-risk occupational groups, particularly poultry cullers and workers [39]. In contrast, no seropositive results were detected among close contacts of cases in healthcare, household, or social settings [39] (**Figure 5**). Chen et al. also reported estimates of seroprevalence utilising non-standardised antibody titer criteria (different antibody titer threshold defined by each study [39]) (**Figure 5**). Since this review was published, there have been three further serological studies in high-risk occupational settings specific to the 2.3.4.4b clade. Gomaa et al. reported an estimated seroprevalence of 4.6% (95% CI: 3.3—6.2) in workers exposed to poultry infected with clade 2.3.4.4b H5N1 in five live bird markets in Egypt [40]. The criteria for seropositivity was not clearly defined in this study. In the US, Shittu et al. conducted microneutralization assays (MN) on sera samples taken from 14 recently symptomatic farm workers at two Texas dairy farms. Two (14.3% 95% CI: 4.0—40) showed evidence of having neutralising antibodies to a recombinant influenza A H5N1 virus [41], although only MN assay results were reported. A larger study by Mellis et al. 2024 analysed sera samples from 115 dairy workers from dairy farms in Michigan and Colorado [42]. Workers were deemed eligible for sampling if they had worked on dairies with herds with laboratory-confirmed infection with HPAI A(H5) viruses within 90 days prior to sampling and had reported no illness on the day of specimen collection [42]. Out of the 115 workers, 8 (7%, 95% CI: 3.6—13.1) had serological evidence of recent infection with H5N1. All positive cases reported milking cows or cleaning the milking parlour [42]. This study reported neutralising antibody titers and HAI antibody titers ≥1:40 which does not meet the WHO criteria.
[Figure 5.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/12/12/2024.12.11.24318702/F5)
Figure 5. Serological evidence of H5N1 human infections
Relevant serological evidence of H5N1 human infections across estimates from 1997—2020, Egypt 2022—2023 and the current outbreak in the US. WHO seropositivity criteria refers to neutralising antibody titer ≥ 1:80 with a positive result using a 2nd confirmatory assay [i.e., hemagglutination inhibition test (HAI) (HAI antibody titer ≥ 1:160), enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, or western blot assay] [39]. Non-standard (NS) criteria refers to different antibody titer threshold defined by each study rather than a neutralising (NT) antibody titer ≥1:80 with a positive result confirmed by a 2nd assay (i.e. HAI antibody titer ≥1:40, ELISA or western blot assay) [39]
### Severity profile of Infections
We identified a systematic review by Lai et al. which reported the CFR of H5N1 from 1997 to 2015 [43]. The overall CFR was estimated to be 53.5% with clade-specific CFRs ranging from 33.3% to 100% [43] (**Figure 6)**. This is significantly higher than estimates from previous influenza pandemics reported by the WHO, which range from 0.02% to 3% [44] (**Figure 6**). Additionally, three other studies provided five human influenza CFR estimates, ranging from 0.016% to 4.08% [33,45,46] (**Figure 6**). For the current outbreak in the US, as of the 7th November 2024, the CFR is 0% (95% CI: 0-7.71) with all 46 documented cases having recovered [8,47].
[Figure 6.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/12/12/2024.12.11.24318702/F6)
Figure 6. Severity profile of previous H5N1 outbreaks compared across influenza subtypes
Fatality risk estimates by outbreak. Case fatality risk (CFR) estimates are represented by circles and infection fatality risk (IFR) estimates by triangles. Uncertainty around these estimates are represented by 95% CI, IQR and range.
One study, conducted by Li et al, estimated the IFR for H5N1, using surveillance and seroprevalence studies [48]. The authors analyse the 1997 Hong Kong and 2006 Turkey outbreaks and estimate IFRs of 14% (95% CI: 7—29) and 33% (95% CI: 14—61) (respectively) [48]. In contrast, IFR estimates for human H1N1 influenza were estimated in Hong Kong from the 2009 pandemic by Wong et al. [49], where they estimated an IFR of 0.00001% in children and 0.01% in 60–69 year olds [49].
## Discussion
We reviewed the critical parameters for H5N1 and human influenza subtypes, and additionally we estimated the R0 for the current H5N1 outbreak in the US and the serial interval for H5N1. To our knowledge this is the first estimate for the serial interval distribution for H5N1 using H5N1 epidemiological data. We show that H5N1 has a different epidemiological profile when compared to human influenza subtypes. Currently, H5N1 has a much lower transmission potential than previous pandemic or seasonal human influenza subtypes, with R0 < 0.2. H5N1 also appears to have a longer incubation period (~4 days vs ~2 days) and likely has a longer serial interval than is typical of human influenza (~6 days vs ~3 days). Latent and infectious period estimates are limited. Previous outbreaks of H5N1 have been typified by a high CFR and IFR, however the current US outbreak has yet to record a fatality [47], which places it as an outlier. Serological studies point to poultry workers and cullers being the groups at most risk of infection, though this risk is low. There may be weak evidence indicating that workers exposed to infection with Clade 2.3.4.4b in similar settings might be more likely to be seropositive than workers exposed to other strains of H5N1(**Figure 5**) [40–42].
Our results reaffirm the low transmissibility of H5N1 to or between humans. This could be attributed to its replication preference for α2,3-linked sialic acid receptors predominantly located in the lower respiratory tract (LRT) and the eye [10], specifically lung alveoli and conjunctiva [50] in humans. In comparison human influenza viruses preferentially bind to α2,6-linked sialic acid receptors (SAα2,6) [51], which are found in higher levels in the upper respiratory tract (URT) [52].
We found the incubation period of H5N1 to be longer compared to human subtypes (**Figure 3**). This may be partially explained by H5N1’s potential use of the eye as a portal of entry before subsequent transmission to the respiratory tract [10]. Initial ocular infection may be mild or subclinical, prolonging the incubation period before respiratory symptoms appear [10]. Relevant for contact tracing purposes, we found limited evidence of a longer infectious period of 5–13 days [18] though further studies are clearly required to confirm or refute these data (**Supplementary Figure S6**). For the serial interval we estimated a median of ~6 days. This is nearly double the length of typical human influenza subtypes [37] (**Figure 4**). There is limited literature to provide a direct comparison for our estimate for H5N1 however avian influenza A (H7N9) was estimated to have a median serial interval of 9 days in humans [53], providing further evidence that avian influenza may exhibit longer serial intervals in humans. The prolonged incubation period and serial interval of H5N1 may also be influenced by reduced host susceptibility. It has been suggested that the expression of initial symptoms after H5N1 infection stems from cellular damage compared to human subtypes where initial symptoms may arise earlier due to the adaptive immune response triggered by previous exposure [54].
A systematic review by Chen et al. indicated that individuals involved in poultry culling and processing are at the highest risk of H5N1 infection [39]. Recent US studies additionally highlight the risks of occupational exposure, suggesting that milking cows or cleaning milking machinery pose significant risks [42]. The seroprevalence rates among both the dairy workers in the US and the poultry workers in Egypt exceed those of poultry workers reviewed by Chen [39,41,42] (**Figure 5**), perhaps pointing to higher levels of asymptomatic infection in workers exposed to Clade 2.3.4.4b viruses compared with other H5N1 viruses. However, the seroprevalence estimates in the US and potentially the Egyptian study did not follow WHO criteria for defining thresholds for seropositivity. It is also not possible to standardise exposure across these studies and as such, it is not clear whether there is higher seropositivity in workers exposed to clade 2.3.4.4b than other H5N1 clades. Nevertheless, this finding does suggest that the level of asymptomatic infection needs to be monitored closely.
The reported CFR and IFR for H5N1, based on previous outbreaks, were much higher than previous seasonal and pandemic influenza strains [44]. Despite this historical severity, the current U.S. outbreak remains unique, with no fatalities reported among 46 cases with a reported outcome (as of 7th November 2024) [8,47]. As of 7th November, all cases have presented with either mild respiratory symptoms and/or conjunctivitis [47], contrasting with previous outbreaks where symptoms typically included fever, cough, shortness of breath, and pneumonia [55]. High rates of conjunctivitis as a primary symptom have been observed in other avian influenza outbreaks, such as the 2007 H7N7 outbreak in the Netherlands, where 88% of cases developed conjunctivitis as their only symptom, one fatality (1.1% CFR) was recorded in a patient who developed pneumonia [56]. However, given the high prevalence of H5N1 among cattle[57] and level of human exposure, there is risk of reassortment leading to a subtype capable of sustaining human to human transmission. Therefore, proactive containment measures are crucial to mitigate the potential for a global health crisis.
## Conclusion
We have assessed and estimated critical epidemiological parameters for H5N1 based on past and current outbreaks. The outbreak in the US appears to have lower pathogenicity than observed in previous H5N1 outbreaks, but appears similar in terms of transmissibility. H5N1 may have a longer incubation period, and serial interval compared to human influenza subtypes. These characteristics may allow for more effective contact tracing more than is typically the case for influenza. Despite these insights, data on H5N1 infections remain sparse and critical gaps remain in our understanding. Addressing these gaps and continually monitoring the epidemiology is imperative to enhance our preparedness and assess whether the risk from these viruses is potentially escalating.
## Supporting information
Data extraction sheet [[supplements/318702_file02.xlsx]](pending:yes)
Supplementary Information [[supplements/318702_file03.pdf]](pending:yes)
## Data Availability
All data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript
[https://github.com/epiverse-trace/howto/blob/h5\_example/analyses/quantify\_transmission/reproduction\_number\_cluster\_size.qmd](https://github.com/epiverse-trace/howto/blob/h5\_example/analyses/quantify\_transmission/reproduction_number_cluster_size.qmd)
[https://github.com/jamesmbaazam/h5n1\_uk\_scenario\_modelling](https://github.com/jamesmbaazam/h5n1_uk_scenario_modelling)
* Received December 11, 2024.
* Revision received December 11, 2024.
* Accepted December 12, 2024.
* © 2024, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
This pre-print is available under a Creative Commons License (Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International), CC BY-NC-ND 4.0, as described at [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
## References
1. [1].Claas EC, Osterhaus AD, van Beek R, De Jong JC, Rimmelzwaan GF, Senne DA, et al. Human influenza A H5N1 virus related to a highly pathogenic avian influenza virus. Lancet 1998;351:472–7.
[CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S0140-6736(97)11212-0&link_type=DOI)
[PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=9482438&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F12%2F12%2F2024.12.11.24318702.atom)
[Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000072097700010&link_type=ISI)
2. [2].Charostad J, Rezaei Zadeh Rukerd M, Mahmoudvand S, Bashash D, Hashemi SMA, Nakhaie M, et al. A comprehensive review of highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) H5N1: An imminent threat at doorstep. Travel Med Infect Dis 2023;55:102638.
[PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=37652253&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F12%2F12%2F2024.12.11.24318702.atom)
3. [3].CDC. Current Bird Flu Situation in Wild Birds. Avian Influenza (Bird Flu) 2024. [https://www.cdc.gov/bird-flu/situation-summary/wildbirds.html](https://www.cdc.gov/bird-flu/situation-summary/wildbirds.html) (accessed December 06, 2024).
4. [4].Youk S, Torchetti MK, Lantz K, Lenoch JB, Killian ML, Leyson C, et al. H5N1 highly pathogenic avian influenza clade 2.3.4.4b in wild and domestic birds: Introductions into the United States and reassortments, December 2021-April 2022. Virology 2023;587:109860.
[CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.virol.2023.109860&link_type=DOI)
[PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=37572517&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F12%2F12%2F2024.12.11.24318702.atom)
5. [5].Peacock T, Moncla L, Dudas G, VanInsberghe D, Sukhova K, Lloyd-Smith JO, et al. The global H5N1 influenza panzootic in mammals. Nature 2024:1–2.
6. [6].Burrough ER, Magstadt DR, Petersen B, Timmermans SJ, Gauger PC, Zhang J, et al. Highly pathogenic avian influenza A(H5N1) clade 2.3.4.4b virus infection in domestic dairy cattle and cats, United States, 2024. Emerg Infect Dis 2024;30:1335–43.
[PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=38683888&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F12%2F12%2F2024.12.11.24318702.atom)
7. [7].Sah R, Srivastava S, Kumar S, Mehta R, Donovan S, Sierra-Carrero L, et al. Concerns on H5N1 avian influenza given the outbreak in U.S. dairy cattle. Lancet Reg Health Am 2024;35:100785.
[PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=38818112&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F12%2F12%2F2024.12.11.24318702.atom)
8. [8].CDC. H5 Bird Flu: Current Situation. Avian Influenza (Bird Flu) 2024. [https://www.cdc.gov/bird-flu/situation-summary/index.html](https://www.cdc.gov/bird-flu/situation-summary/index.html) (accessed December 6, 2024).
9. [9].Longini IM Jr., Nizam A, Xu S, Ungchusak K, Hanshaoworakul W, Cummings DAT, et al. Containing pandemic influenza at the source. Science 2005;309:1083–7.
[Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6Mzoic2NpIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjEzOiIzMDkvNTczNy8xMDgzIjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjQvMTIvMTIvMjAyNC4xMi4xMS4yNDMxODcwMi5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=)
10. [10].Kumlin U, Olofsson S, Dimock K, Arnberg N. Sialic acid tissue distribution and influenza virus tropism. Influenza Other Respi Viruses 2008;2:147–54.
[CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/j.1750-2659.2008.00051.x&link_type=DOI)
[PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=19453419&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F12%2F12%2F2024.12.11.24318702.atom)
[Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000267761700001&link_type=ISI)
11. [11].Azam JM, Funk S, Finger F. epichains: Simulating and Analysing Transmission Chain Statistics Using #> Branching Process Models 2024.
12. [12].Valle A. howto: How-To Guides For Outbreak Analytics R Packages. 2023.
13. [13].Aditama TY, Samaan G, Kusriastuti R, Sampurno OD, Purba W, Misriyah, et al. Avian influenza H5N1 transmission in households, Indonesia. PLoS One 2012;7:e29971.
[CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1371/journal.pone.0029971&link_type=DOI)
[PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=22238686&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F12%2F12%2F2024.12.11.24318702.atom)
14. [14].Bettencourt LMA, Ribeiro RM. Real time bayesian estimation of the epidemic potential of emerging infectious diseases. PLoS One 2008;3:e2185.
[CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1371/journal.pone.0002185&link_type=DOI)
[PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=18478118&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F12%2F12%2F2024.12.11.24318702.atom)
15. [15].Ferguson NM, Fraser C, Donnelly CA, Ghani AC, Anderson RM. Public health. Public health risk from the avian H5N1 influenza epidemic. Science 2004;304:968–9.
[Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6Mzoic2NpIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjEyOiIzMDQvNTY3My85NjgiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyNC8xMi8xMi8yMDI0LjEyLjExLjI0MzE4NzAyLmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==)
16. [16].Saucedo O, Martcheva M, Annor A. Computing human to human Avian influenza ℜ via transmission chains and parameter estimation. Math Biosci Eng 2019;16:3465–87.
[PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=31499624&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F12%2F12%2F2024.12.11.24318702.atom)
17. [17].Biggerstaff M, Cauchemez S, Reed C, Gambhir M, Finelli L. Estimates of the reproduction number for seasonal, pandemic, and zoonotic influenza: a systematic review of the literature. BMC Infect Dis 2014;14:480.
[CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/1471-2334-14-480&link_type=DOI)
[PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=25186370&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F12%2F12%2F2024.12.11.24318702.atom)
18. [18].Yang Y, Halloran ME, Sugimoto JD, Longini IM Jr.. Detecting human-to-human transmission of avian influenza A (H5N1). Emerg Infect Dis 2007;13:1348–53.
[CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.3201/eid1309.070111&link_type=DOI)
[PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=18252106&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F12%2F12%2F2024.12.11.24318702.atom)
[Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000249148500011&link_type=ISI)
19. [19].Fraser C, Cummings DAT, Klinkenberg D, Burke DS, Ferguson NM. Influenza transmission in households during the 1918 pandemic. Am J Epidemiol 2011;174:505–14.
[CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/aje/kwr122&link_type=DOI)
[PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=21749971&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F12%2F12%2F2024.12.11.24318702.atom)
[Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000294356800001&link_type=ISI)
20. [20].De Serres G, Gay NJ, Farrington CP. Epidemiology of transmissible diseases after elimination. Am J Epidemiol 2000;151:1039–48; discussion 1049–52.
[CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/aje/152.11.1039&link_type=DOI)
[PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10873127&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F12%2F12%2F2024.12.11.24318702.atom)
[Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000087390000001&link_type=ISI)
21. [21].Beigel JH, Farrar J, Han AM, Hayden FG, Hyer R, de Jong MD, et al. Avian Influenza A (H5N1) Infection in Humans. N Engl J Med 2005;353:1374–85.
[CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1056/NEJMra052211&link_type=DOI)
[PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=16192482&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F12%2F12%2F2024.12.11.24318702.atom)
[Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000232146200009&link_type=ISI)
22. [22].Huai Y, Xiang N, Zhou L, Feng L, Peng Z, Chapman RS, et al. Incubation period for human cases of avian influenza A (H5N1) infection, China. Emerg Infect Dis 2008;14:1819–21.
[CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.3201/eid1411.080509&link_type=DOI)
[PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=18976586&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F12%2F12%2F2024.12.11.24318702.atom)
[Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000260617000037&link_type=ISI)
23. [23].Cowling BJ, Jin L, Lau EHY, Liao Q, Wu P, Jiang H, et al. Comparative epidemiology of human infections with avian influenza A H7N9 and H5N1 viruses in China: a population-based study of laboratory-confirmed cases. Lancet 2013;382:129–37.
[CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S0140-6736(13)61171-X&link_type=DOI)
[PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23803488&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F12%2F12%2F2024.12.11.24318702.atom)
[Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000322115300028&link_type=ISI)
24. [24].Oner AF, Bay A, Arslan S, Akdeniz H, Sahin HA, Cesur Y, et al. Avian influenza A (H5N1) infection in eastern Turkey in 2006. N Engl J Med 2006;355:2179–85.
[CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1056/NEJMoa060601&link_type=DOI)
[PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=17124015&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F12%2F12%2F2024.12.11.24318702.atom)
[Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000242170900004&link_type=ISI)
25. [25].Bui C, Bethmont A, Chughtai AA, Gardner L, Sarkar S, Hassan S, et al. A Systematic Review of the Comparative Epidemiology of Avian and Human Influenza A H5N1 and H7N9 - Lessons and Unanswered Questions. Transbound Emerg Dis 2016;63:602–20.
[PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=25644240&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F12%2F12%2F2024.12.11.24318702.atom)
26. [26].Tom BDM, Van Hoek AJ, Pebody R, McMenamin J, Robertson C, Catchpole M, et al. Estimating time to onset of swine influenza symptoms after initial novel A(H1N1v) viral infection. Epidemiol Infect 2011;139:1418–24.
[CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1017/S0950268810002566&link_type=DOI)
[PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=21087539&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F12%2F12%2F2024.12.11.24318702.atom)
27. [27].Carrat F, Vergu E, Ferguson NM, Lemaitre M, Cauchemez S, Leach S, et al. Time lines of infection and disease in human influenza: a review of volunteer challenge studies. Am J Epidemiol 2008;167:775–85.
[CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/aje/kwm375&link_type=DOI)
[PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=18230677&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F12%2F12%2F2024.12.11.24318702.atom)
[Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000254469500002&link_type=ISI)
28. [28].Ferguson NM, Cummings DAT, Cauchemez S, Fraser C, Riley S, Meeyai A, et al. Strategies for containing an emerging influenza pandemic in Southeast Asia. Nature 2005;437:209–14.
[CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/nature04017&link_type=DOI)
[PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=16079797&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F12%2F12%2F2024.12.11.24318702.atom)
[Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000231696900046&link_type=ISI)
29. [29].Nishiura H. Early efforts in modeling the incubation period of infectious diseases with an acute course of illness. Emerg Themes Epidemiol 2007;4:2.
[CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/1742-7622-4-2&link_type=DOI)
[PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=17466070&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F12%2F12%2F2024.12.11.24318702.atom)
30. [30].Nishiura H, Inaba H. Estimation of the incubation period of influenza A (H1N1-2009) among imported cases: addressing censoring using outbreak data at the origin of importation. J Theor Biol 2011;272:123–30.
[CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.jtbi.2010.12.017&link_type=DOI)
[PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=21168422&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F12%2F12%2F2024.12.11.24318702.atom)
[Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000287227700013&link_type=ISI)
31. [31].Lessler J, Reich NG, Brookmeyer R, Perl TM, Nelson KE, Cummings DAT. Incubation periods of acute respiratory viral infections: a systematic review. Lancet Infect Dis 2009;9:291–300.
[CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S1473-3099(09)70069-6&link_type=DOI)
[PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=19393959&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F12%2F12%2F2024.12.11.24318702.atom)
[Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000265805200017&link_type=ISI)
32. [32].Canini L, Carrat F. Population modeling of influenza A/H1N1 virus kinetics and symptom dynamics. J Virol 2011;85:2764–70.
[Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoianZpIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjk6Ijg1LzYvMjc2NCI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDI0LzEyLzEyLzIwMjQuMTIuMTEuMjQzMTg3MDIuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9)
33. [33].Tuite AR, Greer AL, Whelan M, Winter A-L, Lee B, Yan P, et al. Estimated epidemiologic parameters and morbidity associated with pandemic H1N1 influenza. CMAJ 2010;182:131–6.
[Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NDoiY21haiI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czo5OiIxODIvMi8xMzEiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyNC8xMi8xMi8yMDI0LjEyLjExLjI0MzE4NzAyLmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==)
34. [34].Cori A, Valleron AJ, Carrat F, Scalia Tomba G, Thomas G, Boëlle PY. Estimating influenza latency and infectious period durations using viral excretion data. Epidemics 2012;4:132–8.
[CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.epidem.2012.06.001&link_type=DOI)
[PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=22939310&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F12%2F12%2F2024.12.11.24318702.atom)
35. [35].Chan LYH, Morris SE, Stockwell MS, Bowman NM, Asturias E, Rao S, et al. Estimating the generation time for influenza transmission using household data in the United States. medRxiv 2024:2024.08.17.24312064.
36. [36].Cauchemez S, Carrat F, Viboud C, Valleron AJ, Boëlle PY. A Bayesian MCMC approach to study transmission of influenza: application to household longitudinal data. Stat Med 2004;23:3469–87.
[CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/sim.1912&link_type=DOI)
[PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=15505892&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F12%2F12%2F2024.12.11.24318702.atom)
[Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000224868600006&link_type=ISI)
37. [37].Vink MA, Bootsma MCJ, Wallinga J. Serial intervals of respiratory infectious diseases: a systematic review and analysis. Am J Epidemiol 2014;180:865–75.
[CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/aje/kwu209&link_type=DOI)
[PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=25294601&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F12%2F12%2F2024.12.11.24318702.atom)
[Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000344600900001&link_type=ISI)
38. [38].Levy JW, Cowling BJ, Simmerman JM, Olsen SJ, Fang VJ, Suntarattiwong P, et al. The serial intervals of seasonal and pandemic influenza viruses in households in Bangkok, Thailand. Am J Epidemiol 2013;177:1443–51.
[CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/aje/kws402&link_type=DOI)
[PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23629874&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F12%2F12%2F2024.12.11.24318702.atom)
[Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000320062700013&link_type=ISI)
39. [39].Chen X, Wang W, Wang Y, Lai S, Yang J, Cowling BJ, et al. Serological evidence of human infections with highly pathogenic avian influenza A(H5N1) virus: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Med 2020;18:377.
[CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/s12916-020-01836-y&link_type=DOI)
[PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=33261599&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F12%2F12%2F2024.12.11.24318702.atom)
40. [40].Gomaa M, Moatasim Y, El Taweel A, Mahmoud SH, El Rifay AS, Kandeil A, et al. We are underestimating, again, the true burden of H5N1 in humans. BMJ Glob Health 2023;8:e013146.
[FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiRlVMTCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NToiYm1qZ2giO3M6NToicmVzaWQiO3M6MTE6IjgvOC9lMDEzMTQ2IjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjQvMTIvMTIvMjAyNC4xMi4xMS4yNDMxODcwMi5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=)
41. [41].Shittu I, Silva D, Oguzie JU, Marushchak LV, Olinger GG, Lednicky JA, et al. A one health investigation into H5N1 avian influenza virus epizootics on two dairy farms. medRxiv 2024:2024.07.27.24310982. doi:10.1101/2024.07.27.24310982.
[Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NzoibWVkcnhpdiI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czoyMToiMjAyNC4wNy4yNy4yNDMxMDk4MnYxIjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjQvMTIvMTIvMjAyNC4xMi4xMS4yNDMxODcwMi5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=)
42. [42].Mellis AM, Coyle J, Marshall KE, Frutos AM, Singleton J, Drehoff C, et al. Serologic evidence of recent infection with highly pathogenic avian influenza A(H5) virus among dairy workers — Michigan and Colorado, June–august 2024. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2024;73:1004–9.
[CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.15585/mmwr.mm7344a3&link_type=DOI)
[PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=39509348&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F12%2F12%2F2024.12.11.24318702.atom)
43. [43].Lai S, Qin Y, Cowling BJ, Ren X, Wardrop NA, Gilbert M, et al. Global epidemiology of avian influenza A H5N1 virus infection in humans, 1997-2015: a systematic review of individual case data. Lancet Infect Dis 2016;16:e108–18.
[CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S1473-3099(16)00153-5&link_type=DOI)
[PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=27211899&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F12%2F12%2F2024.12.11.24318702.atom)
44. [44].WHO. Pandemic Influenza Risk Management. 2017.
45. [45].Donaldson LJ, Rutter PD, Ellis BM, Greaves FEC, Mytton OT, Pebody RG, et al. Mortality from pandemic A/H1N1 2009 influenza in England: public health surveillance study. BMJ 2009;339:b5213.
[CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1136/bmj.b5213&link_type=DOI)
[PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=20007665&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F12%2F12%2F2024.12.11.24318702.atom)
46. [46].McDonald SA, Teirlinck AC, Hooiveld M, van Asten L, Meijer A, de Lange M, et al. Inference of age-dependent case-fatality ratios for seasonal influenza virus subtypes A(H3N2) and A(H1N1)pdm09 and B lineages using data from the Netherlands. Influenza Other Respi Viruses 2023;17:e13146.
47. [47].Kekatos M. CDC updates recommendations for bird flu testing, treatment after more infections found among dairy workers. ABC News 2024. [https://abcnews.go.com/Health/cdc-updates-recommendations-bird-flu-testing-treatment-after/story?id=115600423](https://abcnews.go.com/Health/cdc-updates-recommendations-bird-flu-testing-treatment-after/story?id=115600423) (accessed November 11, 2024).
48. [48].Li FCK, Choi BCK, Sly T, Pak AWP. Evidence-based public health policy and practice: Finding the real case-fatality rate of H5N1 avian influenza. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health (1979-) 2008;62:555–9.
[Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NDoiamVjaCI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czo4OiI2Mi82LzU1NSI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDI0LzEyLzEyLzIwMjQuMTIuMTEuMjQzMTg3MDIuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9)
49. [49].Wong JY, Wu P, Nishiura H, Goldstein E, Lau EHY, Yang L, et al. Infection fatality risk of the pandemic A(H1N1)2009 virus in Hong Kong. Am J Epidemiol 2013;177:834–40.
[CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/aje/kws314&link_type=DOI)
[PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23459950&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F12%2F12%2F2024.12.11.24318702.atom)
[Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000317435600013&link_type=ISI)
50. [50].Granata G, Simonsen L, Petrosillo N, Petersen E. Mortality of H5N1 human infections might be due to H5N1 virus pneumonia and could decrease by switching receptor. Lancet Infect Dis 2024;24:e544–5.
[PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=39067462&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F12%2F12%2F2024.12.11.24318702.atom)
51. [51].Zeng H, Goldsmith CS, Maines TR, Belser JA, Gustin KM, Pekosz A, et al. Tropism and infectivity of influenza virus, including highly pathogenic avian H5N1 virus, in ferret tracheal differentiated primary epithelial cell cultures. J Virol 2013;87:2597–607.
[Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoianZpIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjk6Ijg3LzUvMjU5NyI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDI0LzEyLzEyLzIwMjQuMTIuMTEuMjQzMTg3MDIuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9)
52. [52].Couceiro JNSS, Paulson JC, Baum LG. Influenza virus strains selectively recognize sialyloligosaccharides on human respiratory epithelium; the role of the host cell in selection of hemagglutinin receptor specificity. Virus Res 1993;29:155–65.
[CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/0168-1702(93)90056-S&link_type=DOI)
[PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=8212857&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F12%2F12%2F2024.12.11.24318702.atom)
[Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1993LU41400005&link_type=ISI)
53. [53].Zhou L, Li Q, Uyeki TM. Estimated Incubation Period and Serial Interval for Human-to-Human Influenza A(H7N9) Virus Transmission. Emerg Infect Dis 2019;25:1982–3.
[PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=31264568&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F12%2F12%2F2024.12.11.24318702.atom)
54. [54].Hermesh T, Moltedo B, López CB, Moran TM. Buying time-the immune system determinants of the incubation period to respiratory viruses. Viruses 2010;2:2541–58.
[CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.3390/v2112541&link_type=DOI)
[PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=21994630&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F12%2F12%2F2024.12.11.24318702.atom)
55. [55].Peiris JSM, de Jong MD, Guan Y. Avian influenza virus (H5N1): a threat to human health. Clin Microbiol Rev 2007;20:243–67.
[Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiY21yIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjg6IjIwLzIvMjQzIjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjQvMTIvMTIvMjAyNC4xMi4xMS4yNDMxODcwMi5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=)
56. [56].Fouchier RAM, Schneeberger PM, Rozendaal FW, Broekman JM, Kemink SAG, Munster V, et al. Avian influenza A virus (H7N7) associated with human conjunctivitis and a fatal case of acute respiratory distress syndrome. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2004;101:1356–61.
[Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NDoicG5hcyI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czoxMDoiMTAxLzUvMTM1NiI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDI0LzEyLzEyLzIwMjQuMTIuMTEuMjQzMTg3MDIuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9)
57. [57].CDC. Current H5N1 Bird Flu Situation in Dairy Cows. Avian Influenza (Bird Flu) 2024. [https://www.cdc.gov/bird-flu/situation-summary/mammals.html](https://www.cdc.gov/bird-flu/situation-summary/mammals.html) (accessed November 26, 2024).