Document Detail

Campylobacteriosis, Eastern Townships, Quebec.
Jump to Full Text
MedLine Citation:
PMID:  15504275     Owner:  NLM     Status:  MEDLINE    
Abstract/OtherAbstract:
Independent risk factors for campylobacteriosis (eating raw, rare, or undercooked poultry; consuming raw milk or raw milk products; and eating chicken or turkey in a commercial establishment) account for <50% of cases in Quebec. Substantial regional and seasonal variations in campylobacteriosis were not correlated with campylobacter in chickens and suggested environmental sources of infection, such as drinking water.
Authors:
Sophie Michaud; Suzanne Ménard; Robert D Arbeit
Related Documents :
8091885 - Relationship between milk acetone and milk yield in individual cows.
1241375 - Effect of preservation and skimming on the nutritional value of raw milks under house c...
6546615 - Breast milk iodide: reassessment in the 1980s.
11285335 - Feeding colostrum, its composition and feeding duration variably modify proliferation a...
9659985 - Specific changes in food intake elicited by blockade or activation of glutamate recepto...
14698925 - Mean total arsenic concentrations in chicken 1989-2000 and estimated exposures for cons...
Publication Detail:
Type:  Journal Article; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't    
Journal Detail:
Title:  Emerging infectious diseases     Volume:  10     ISSN:  1080-6040     ISO Abbreviation:  Emerging Infect. Dis.     Publication Date:  2004 Oct 
Date Detail:
Created Date:  2004-10-26     Completed Date:  2004-12-13     Revised Date:  2012-09-24    
Medline Journal Info:
Nlm Unique ID:  9508155     Medline TA:  Emerg Infect Dis     Country:  United States    
Other Details:
Languages:  eng     Pagination:  1844-7     Citation Subset:  IM    
Affiliation:
Department of Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, Faculté de Médecine de l'Université de Sherbrooke, Québec J1H 5N4, Canada. Sophie.Michaud@USherbrooke.ca
Export Citation:
APA/MLA Format     Download EndNote     Download BibTex
MeSH Terms
Descriptor/Qualifier:
Adolescent
Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Animals
Campylobacter / isolation & purification
Campylobacter Infections / epidemiology*
Case-Control Studies
Chickens / microbiology
Child
Child, Preschool
Disease Outbreaks
Female
Food Microbiology
Humans
Infant
Infant, Newborn
Male
Meat / microbiology
Quebec / epidemiology
Risk Factors
Seasons
Time Factors
Turkeys / microbiology
Comments/Corrections

From MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine

Full Text
Journal Information
Journal ID (nlm-ta): Emerg Infect Dis
Journal ID (iso-abbrev): Emerging Infect. Dis
Journal ID (publisher-id): EID
ISSN: 1080-6040
ISSN: 1080-6059
Publisher: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Article Information
Download PDF

Print publication date: Month: 10 Year: 2004
Volume: 10 Issue: 10
First Page: 1844 Last Page: 1847
ID: 3323265
PubMed Id: 15504275
Publisher Id: 04-0228
DOI: 10.3201/eid1010.040228

Campylobacteriosis, Eastern Townships, Québec Alternate Title:Campylobacteriosis, Québec
Sophie Michaud*
Suzanne Ménard
Robert D. Arbeit
*Faculté de Médecine de l'Université de Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada;
Régie Régionale de la Santé et des Services Sociaux de l'Estrie, Québec, Canada;
Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
Correspondence: Address for correspondence: Sophie Michaud, Department of Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, Faculté de Médecine de l'Université de Sherbrooke, 3001, 12e Avenue Nord, Sherbrooke, Québec J1H 5N4; fax: 819-564-5392; email: Sophie.Michaud@USherbrooke.ca

Published case-control studies provide conflicting results regarding the risk factors for sporadic campylobacteriosis. Poultry is commonly considered the principal source, and in some studies, was implicated in 50% to 70% of endemic cases (1,2). Campylobacter have been frequently cultured from poultry during processing (47%–82%) and retail distribution (23%–62%) (36). However, some studies observed no significant risk associated with eating chicken (7,8); in other studies, this factor was actually protective (9,10). We describe a prospective case-control study of domestically acquired Campylobacter infections combined with a prevalence study of Campylobacter spp. in whole retail chickens purchased in the Eastern Townships, Québec.


The Study

The Eastern Townships comprise seven counties and total ≈300,000 inhabitants. Hospital microbiology laboratories routinely report all Campylobacter enteritis cases to the regional public health department. All the laboratories in the study region, except in Granit County, routinely evaluated stool specimens for Campylobacter by using comparable standard methods for isolation and identification (Karmali or Skirrow media incubated for 72 h at 42°C in a microaerobic atmosphere). Granit County's laboratory sent stool specimens for Campylobacter culture to our hospital microbiology laboratory on special medical request only. Incidence rates of campylobacteriosis in the Eastern Townships and Québec Province were calculated with demographic and reportable diseases data from provincial registers.

All cases reported from July 1, 2000, through September 30, 2001, were eligible. Case-patients were excluded if the infection was acquired outside Québec (i.e., travel abroad during the 10-day period before the onset of symptoms) or if the interval between the onset of symptoms and reporting was >6 weeks. All investigations were conducted within 2 weeks of reporting. For participants with infections reported on multiple occasions during the study period, the first episode of infection was considered. The median interval from the onset of symptoms to the interview of the cases was 13 days (range 5–56 days; 90th percentile, 23 days).

Each case was matched for sex and age group (<1, 1–4, 5–14, 15–34, 35–64, and >65 years) to two controls living in the Eastern Townships, who were identified through random digit dialing. Patients and controls were interviewed by telephone with a structured questionnaire to capture demographic and clinical data, travel history, food history, water consumption, recreational water activity, animal contacts, and other illness during the 10 days before the onset of symptoms. Controls had to be interviewed within 3 weeks of the patient and were excluded if they could not be reached after three telephone calls; had fever, abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, or bloody stools; traveled abroad during the 10-day period before the patient's onset of symptoms; or refused to participate. Controls did not have stool samples tested for Campylobacter. A surrogate parent was interviewed when the patient or control was a child <14 years of age. The interviewers were not blinded to the patient or control status of study participants.

Risk factors for campylobacteriosis were evaluated by conditional logistic regression for matched data adjusted for the county of residency. All risk factors with p < 0.05 by univariate analysis were included in a multivariate, conditional, logistic regression, stepwise selection model for matched data. All statistical analyses were performed using SAS version 6.1 (SAS, Cary, NC).

During the study, four fresh, eviscerated whole chickens were bought weekly in different counties (one chicken per store); for each county, the number of chickens sampled monthly was proportional to the population. Retail chickens sold in the Eastern Townships are produced by multiple companies based elsewhere in Québec Province.

The chickens were stored at 4°C overnight and washed vigorously with 250 mL of nutrient broth. The broth was filtered through cheesecloth and centrifuged at 16,300 x g for 15 min. The sediment was suspended in 5 mL of brucella broth; 100 mL of Park and Sanders' selective enrichment broth with 0.5 mL of Supplement A (0.2% vancomycin and 0.2% trimethoprim lactate) and 5 mL of Supplement B (0.064% sodium cefoperazone in brucella broth) (11) were added to the suspension, gently mixed, and incubated under microaerobic atmosphere at 37°C for 4 h, then at 42°C for 48 h. Three loopfuls (0.05 mL) of the suspension were plated on Karmali agar and incubated at 42°C for 48 h under microaerobic conditions. Isolates of Campylobacter were identified to the species level by routine phenotypic methods.

From July 2000 through October 2001, a total of 201 cases of campylobacteriosis were reported, of which 43 were excluded: 18 patients acquired their infection outside Québec, 18 resided outside the Eastern Townships, 6 could not be interviewed within 6 weeks after the onset of symptoms, and 1 patient declined to participate. All but two patients were matched to two controls each; consequently, the final dataset comprised 158 cases and 314 controls. Cases and controls were well-distributed across the seven counties, except in Val St-François, which represented 15% of cases and 7% of controls (data not shown).

During the study period, the mean crude incidence of campylobacteriosis was 63.1/100,000 in the Eastern Townships, compared to 44.5/100,000 in the remainder of Québec Province (p < 0.0001). Most cases occurred during July, August, and September (Figure 1). The median age of the case-patients was 31 years (range 11 days to 91 years). The incidence of campylobacteriosis varied considerably by age (Figure 2), with the highest rates among children 0–4 years of age (169.2/100,000) and young adults 15–34 years of age (mean = 79.4/100,000). Overall, 64 (40.5%) participants were female.

The rates varied from 38.3/100,000 in Memphrémagog to 113.5/100,000 in Asbestos (excluding Granit, where case ascertainment was different); these interregional differences persisted after stratification for age (Table 1). The risk of campylobacteriosis was 2.4-fold higher in Asbestos (p = 0.0001) and 1.3-fold higher in Val St-François (p = 0.04) than elsewhere in the Eastern Townships.

Among 41 exposure factors evaluated by univariate conditional logistic regression, four achieved p values < 0.01 (Table 2). Two were associated with poultry: eating raw, rare, or undercooked poultry (p = 0.003) and eating turkey or chicken in a restaurant, a fast food establishment, or a buffet (p = 0.004). Two were associated with other exposures: consuming raw milk or raw milk products (p = 0.0001) and professional exposure to animals or a contact with farm or zoo animals (p = 0.0003). No other activity related to consuming or handling poultry appeared related to infection (Table 2).

Conditional multivariate analysis adjusted for the county of residency resolved only three independent risk factors: raw, rare, or undercooked poultry (odds ratio [OR] 5.00, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.79–13.98, p = 0.002), raw milk or raw milk products (OR 3.67, 95% CI 1.95–6.90, p = 0.0001), and turkey or chicken eaten in a restaurant, a fast food or a buffet (OR 1.96, 95% CI 1.24–3.11, p = 0.004). These factors accounted for 8%, 18%, and 20% of cases, respectively.

A total of 177 chickens from 58 different food stores were cultured (median per month, 16; range 8–20). Campylobacter spp. were cultured from 41 (23%) (37 C. jejuni; 4 C. coli). The prevalence of Campylobacter was low from November 2000 to July 2001 inclusively, with 0–2 positive chickens (0%–25%) per month (Figure 1) but increased sharply in August, September, and October 2001, with rates reaching 69%, 55%, and 56%, respectively. The number of locally acquired Campylobacter enteritis in humans peaked at 16 cases in July 2001 (i.e., 1 month before the peak of chicken contamination) and then decreased to 11, 3, and 3 cases in August, September, and October 2001, respectively. Further, we analyzed data for each county separately and found no geographic correlation between campylobacteriosis in humans and Campylobacter in chickens (p = 0.42). Thus, although chicken consumption is an important risk factor for Campylobacter enteritis, it does not explain either the seasonal or regional variations in the incidence of sporadic cases of campylobacteriosis in humans.


Conclusions

Exposures to poultry account for fewer than half the episodes of sporadic Campylobacter infection. Substantial seasonal and interregional variations suggest environmental sources of infection. In the univariate analysis, drinking tap water at home or at work tended to be associated with an increased risk for infection (OR 1.90, p = 0.03), and in a subanalysis of cases in Asbestos County, which had the highest incidence, drinking tap water from a deep well at home was the only risk factor identified (53% of cases compared to 23% of controls; OR 3.83, p = 0.06 by univariate analysis and OR 3.96, p = 0.06 after adjusting for age group and sex). A recent case-control study (12) identified drinking water that was not disinfected as an independent risk factor for campylobacteriosis, with an etiologic fraction of 26%. These results are consistent with the hypothesis that the waterborne route of infection may be the common underlying pathway linking infection in humans, poultry, other domestic animals, and wild birds.

In waterborne outbreaks associated with Campylobacter, fecal contamination of the drinking water source has been traced to runoff of surface water after rain or to leakage from a sewage line into an adjacent drinking water pipe (1315). Since a few hundred viable organisms represent an infectious dose, even apparently low levels of contamination could result in infection. The true importance of drinking water as a source of sporadic infection in humans may have been underestimated in the past and should be investigated in future studies.


Notes

Suggested citation for this article: Michaud S, Ménard S, Arbeit RD. Campylobacteriosis, Eastern Townships, Québec. Emerg Infect Dis [serial on the Internet]. 2004 Oct [date cited]. http://dx.doi.org/10.3201/eid1010.040228

Acknowledgments

We thank Diane Dion, Danielle Proulx, Linda Billard, and Mélanie Proulx for data collection; Reno Proulx for designing the random digit dial system; and Bruno Maynard for his appreciable help in purchasing chickens.

Financial support was provided by Ministère de la Santé et des Services Sociaux du Québec, the Régie Régionale de la Santé et des Services Sociaux de l'Estrie, and the Centre de Recherche Clinique du Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Sherbrooke.

Dr. Michaud is a medical microbiologist and an infectious diseases specialist at the Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Sherbrooke and an adjunct professor at the Faculté de Médecine de l'Université de Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada. Her primary research interests are the clinical and molecular epidemiology of C. jejuni enteritis.


References
1. . NealKR, SlackRCThe autumn peak in Campylobacter gastroenteritis. Are the risk factors the same for travel- and UK-acquired Campylobacter infections?J Public Health Med. Year: 1995;17:98–10277865777786577
2. . HarrisNV, WeissNS, NolanCMThe role of poultry and meats in the etiology of Campylobacter jejuni/coli enteritis.Am J Public Health. Year: 1986;76:407–1110.2105/AJPH.76.4.40739539173953917
3. . ParkCE, StankiewiczZK, LovettJ, HuntJIncidence of Campylobacter jejuni in fresh eviscerated whole market chickens.Can J Microbiol. Year: 1981;27:841–210.1139/m81-12972964147296414
4. . HarrisNV, ThompsonD, MartinDC, NolanCMA survey of Campylobacter and other bacterial contaminants of pre- market chicken and retail poultry and meats, King County, Washington.Am J Public Health. Year: 1986;76:401–610.2105/AJPH.76.4.40139539163953916
5. . BryanFL, DoyleMPHealth risks and consequences of Salmonella and Campylobacter jejuni in raw poultry.J Food Prot. Year: 1995;58:326–44
6. . PrescottJF, GellnerOSIntestinal carriage of Campylobacter jejuni and Salmonella by chicken flocks at slaughter.Can J Comp Med. Year: 1984;48:329–3163835796383579
7. . RodriguesLC, CowdenJM, WheelerJG, SethiD, WallPG, CumberlandP, et al. The study of infectious intestinal disease in England: risk factors for cases of infectious intestinal disease with Campylobacter jejuni infection.Epidemiol Infect. Year: 2001;127:185–9310.1017/S09502688010060571169349511693495
8. . EfflerP, IeongMC, KimuraA, NakataM, BurrR, CremerE, et al. Sporadic Campylobacter jejuni infections in Hawaii: associations with prior antibiotic use and commercially prepared chicken.J Infect Dis. Year: 2001;183:1152–510.1086/3192921123784711237847
9. . AdakGK, CowdenJM, NicholasS, EvansHSThe Public Health Laboratory Service national case-control study of primary indigenous sporadic cases of campylobacter infection.Epidemiol Infect. Year: 1995;115:15–2210.1017/S095026880005807676418287641828
10. . Eberhart-PhillipsJ, WalkerN, GarrettN, BellD, SinclairD, RaingerW, et al. Campylobacteriosis in New Zealand: results of a case-control study.J Epidemiol Community Health. Year: 1997;51:686–9110.1136/jech.51.6.68695191339519133
11. . SandersG Isolation of Campylobacter from food. Laboratory Procedure MFLP-46. Ottawa, Canada: Health Protection Branch; Year: 1998
12. . KapperudG, EspelandG, WahlE, WaldeA, HerikstadH, GustavsenS, et al. Factors associated with increased and decreased risk of Campylobacter infection: a prospective case-control study in Norway.Am J Epidemiol. Year: 2003;158:234–4210.1093/aje/kwg1391288294512882945
13. . Waterborne outbreak of gastroenteritis associated with a contaminated municipal water supply, Walkerton, Ontario, May–June 2000.Can Commun Dis Rep. Year: 2000;26:170–31121170111211701
14. . HanninenML, HaajanenH, PummiT, WermundsenK, KatilaML, SarkkinenH, et al. Detection and typing of Campylobacter jejuni and Campylobacter coli and analysis of indicator organisms in three waterborne outbreaks in Finland.Appl Environ Microbiol. Year: 2003;69:1391–610.1128/AEM.69.3.1391-1396.20031262082112620821
15. . KoenraadPMFJ, RomboutsFM, NotermansSHWEpidemiological aspects of thermophilic Campylobacter in water-related environments: a review.Water Environ Res. Year: 1997;69:52–6310.2175/106143097X125182

Figures

[Figure ID: F1]
Figure 1 

Monthly distribution of the number of sporadic cases of Campylobacter infections in humans from July 2000 to October 2001 (columns) and of the prevalence of Campylobacter in whole retail chickens from November 2000 to October 2001 (line graph).



[Figure ID: F2]
Figure 2 

Distribution of the incidence rates of Campylobacter infection by age in the Eastern Townships.



Tables
[TableWrap ID: T1] Table 1  Incidence rates of campylobacteriosis in each county in the Eastern Townships with crude and age-stratified relative risk compared with incidence rates in the other counties in the regiona
County No. of cases Total population Incidence rate per 100,000 Crude RR RR stratified for ageb p valuec
Asbestos 17 14,975 113.5 2.23 2.37 0.0001
Val St-François 23 28,809 79.8 1.48 1.33 0.04
Sherbrooke 85 143,792 59.1 1.09 1.14 NS
Coaticook 9 16,444 54.7 0.97 0.85 NS
Memphrémagog 16 41,785 38.3 0.64 0.79 NS
Haut St-François 10 22,358 44.7 0.78 0.74 NS
Granit 4 21,905 NDd NDd NDd NDd

aNS, not significant; ND, not done.
bThe relative risk (RR) represents the incidence rate of campylobacteriosis in one county compared to the incidence rate in the other counties taken as a whole, before (crude RR) and after stratification for age (stratified RR).
cThe p values apply to the stratified relative risks.
dRates not calculated for County of Granit because of different case ascertainment process used there; see text for details.


[TableWrap ID: T2] Table 2  Exposure factors significantly associated with campylobacteriosisa and other factors relating to consuming and handling poultryb,c
Factor Case-patients Controls OR 95% CI
Eating raw, rare or undercooked poultry 13/154 7/310 4.51 1.67–12.14
Consuming raw milk or raw milk products 33/153 25/310 3.12 1.78–5.48
Professional exposure to animals or contact with farm or zoo animals 39/158 36/312 2.53 1.44–4.13
Eating turkey or chicken in a restaurant, a fast food restaurant, or a buffet 57/140 77/289 1.89 1.23–2.90
Eating smoked turkey or chicken
In a restaurant, a fast food restaurant, or a buffet 5/156 6/309 1.67 0.50–5.57
At home 42/153 93/310 0.90 0.58–1.38
Eating poultry cooked in fondue 5/156 7/312 1.49 0.46–4.79
Eating microwaved poultry 2/158 3/309 1.36 0.22–8.26
Eating barbecued poultry 34/157 66/310 1.02 0.64–1.64
Handling raw poultry 78/153 160/314 0.97 0.66–1.44
Eating microwaved chicken croquettes 5/157 11/308 0.92 0.31–2.72
Using the same plate to carry raw meat or poultry and to take it back once cooked 38/156 66/302 0.78 0.48–1.29
Eating turkey or chicken at home 128/140 274/289 0.58 0.26–1.27
Eating ground turkey or chicken 3/158 12/314 0.50 0.14–1.79

aBy univariate conditional logistic regression for matched data adjusted for the county of residency.
bNot associated with campylobacteriosis.
cOR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval.



Article Categories:
  • Dispatch
Article Categories:
  • Dispatch

Keywords: Keywords: Campylobacter, case-control studies, risk factors, epidemiology, chickens, dispatch.

Previous Document:  Long-term SARS coronavirus excretion from patient cohort, China.
Next Document:  Laboratory-acquired brucellosis.