| Literature DB >> 15757548 |
Abstract
An annual increase in Campylobacter infection in England and Wales begins in May and reaches a maximum in early June. This increase occurs in all age groups and is seen in all geographic areas. Examination of risk factors that might explain this seasonal increase identifies flies as a potential source of infection. The observed pattern of infection is hypothesized to reflect an annual epidemic caused by direct or indirect contamination of people by small quantities of infected material carried by flies that have been in contact with feces. The local pattern of human illness appears random, while having a defined geographic and temporal distribution that is a function of the growth kinetics of one or more fly species. The hypothesis provides an explanation for the seasonal distribution of Campylobacter infections seen around the world.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2005 PMID: 15757548 PMCID: PMC3298251 DOI: 10.3201/eid1103.040460
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Emerg Infect Dis ISSN: 1080-6040 Impact factor: 6.883
Figure 1Distribution of Campylobacter cases per day. When averaged for 1989 to 2002, the epidemic begins at approximately day 130, peaks at approximately day 160, and gradually declines through the rest of the year.
Figure 2Cases of Campylobacter infection in England and Wales based on the patient specimen date. Figure shows broadly similar changes in patterns of infection across the country as measured by laboratory reporting per town or city (cases as a percentage of the annual total) by day of year. Laboratories were ordered by the total number of cases reported over the 14-year period (Appendix).
Risk factors that might affect Campylobacter seasonality*
| Risk factor | Outbreaks | Evidence of seasonality | Credibility as the main seasonal driver |
|---|---|---|---|
| Barbecuing | Yes | Medium | Low |
| Birds | Yes | Strong | Low |
| Bottled water | No | None | Low |
| Chicken | Yes | Medium | Medium |
| Cross-contamination | Yes | None | None |
| Domestic catering | No | None | None |
| Farm visit | Yes | None | None |
| Farm animals | Yes | Weak | Low |
| Flies | No | Strong | High |
| Food handlers | Yes | None | None |
| Food packaging | No | None | None |
| Immunologic response | No | Weak | None |
| Mains supply drinking water | Yes | None | None |
| Nosocomial | Yes | None | None |
| Pets | No | Weak | Low |
| Pools, lakes, streams | No | None | None |
| Private drinking water supplies | Yes | Weak | None |
| Protozoa | No | None | Low |
| Salads and fruit | Yes | Weak | Low |
| Stir-fried food | Yes | None | None |
| The countryside | No | Weak | Medium |
| Transmission in families | Yes | None | None |
| Travel abroad | No | None | None |
| Unpasteurized milk | Yes | Weak | None |
| Weather/climate | No | Medium | Medium |
*Evidence base provided in Appendix.
Figure 3Campylobacter cases by week and Musca domestica larval growth times. Campylobacter cases per day are plotted against the minimum M. domestica growth times for the 14 days before the date for weeks from January 1989 to December 1999. The time taken for M. domestica larvae to develop was based on understood growth temperatures (145 days divided by the number of degrees above 12°C, up to an optimum of 36°C) (8). The temperatures were based on a maximum temperature in 47 temperature sampling sites across England and Wales in the 2 weeks before (Appendix).
Figure A1Temperature station locations.
Evidence for seasonal associations between factors linked to human Campylobacter infections or outbreaks. Download PDF (71Kb, 6 pages).
| Risk factor | Outbreaks | Evidence for factor causing seasonal increase | Evidence against factor causing seasonal increase |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chicken/turkey | (1–7) | Chicken is the food most commonly contaminated with | Chicken is not the vehicle for most sporadic |
| Salads and fruit | (19–21) | Untreated leaf salads and soft fruits might be potential sources of human campylobacteriosis (9,19–21) because these raw products are eaten without any heat treatment. | In most of the outbreaks involving salad items, cross-contamination from contaminated raw foods was thought to be involved. While seasonal import of fresh fruit or vegetables from different countries might represent a potential source of infection it would be surprising if this manifested itself as an annual nationwide outbreak across the whole of England and Wales while remaining refractory to epidemiologic investigation. Fly transmission from animal feces may be important. |
| Cross-contamination from raw meats to ready-to-eat foods | (9) | Cross-contamination from raw meats to ready to eat foods within kitchens and retail premises probably contributes significantly to | Why cross-contamination should be strongly influenced by the season is unclear, unless levels of raw meat contamination change with the seasons. |
| Unpasteurized or inadequately pasteurized milk | (6,22–33) | Unpasteurized or badly pasteurized milk can be a source of | No evidence shows that the seasonality of human disease is largely due to unpasteurized milk because this product is not commonly consumed. No evidence shows that pasteurization varies substantially by season. |
| Birds | (37,38) | Bird-pecked milk is unlikely to be the cause of the worldwide seasonal distribution of | |
| Barbecue | (1) | Barbecue use might be a contributing factor to the total | Barbecue use on its own is unlikely a big enough, or seasonal enough, driver of disease to account for seasonal changes in incidence. |
| Food packaging | The packaging around chickens is commonly contaminated with | Strong seasonal changes in the extent of this contamination would have to exist for this factor to affect the disease epidemiology, and no evidence for these changes exists. | |
| Food handlers/hygiene | (46–50) | Infected food handlers might represent a source of infection in catering premises. | Infections in food handlers probably are seasonal, reflecting the seasonality of |
| Food, stir-fried | (2) | Stir-fried food may be contaminated through inadequately cooking raw ingredients or cross-contamination. | A seasonal change in the contamination of raw ingredients would need to exist to explain the epidemiology. |
| Flies | Flies provide a biological explanation for the spring increase in | Little hard evidence exists for this transmission route. | |
| Mains drinking water | (28,51–60) | With mains water supplies, the relatively even distribution of seasonal changes in the distribution of | |
| Private drinking water supplies/untreated surface water, rain water, or well water | (6,59;61–70) | Waterborne infection associated with private water supplies can result in outbreaks of infection because many people drink the contaminated water (71). | Seasonal changes in water contamination should trigger outbreaks rather than a national increase in sporadic disease. The comparative rarity of outbreaks associated with private supplies suggests that this source does not substantially contribute to the total illness that is seen to change dramatically with the season. Given the influence of surface water on the microbiologic quality of private water supplies, we expect that the seasonal occurrence of |
| Bottled water | In a case-case study of | Sources of water that are used to produce natural mineral water and other bottled waters are relatively well protected. These groundwaters are unlikely to be contaminated with | |
| Pools, lakes, and streams | Potential exists for illness after swallowing contaminated recreational water (73–76). Water sports in natural waters can be a source of exposure. If the contamination of water with | Illness associated with recreational water activity has not been established, and this is unlikely to be the source of the spring increase in campylobacteriosis. Little evidence shows that the change in recreational water activity in the spring is enough to explain the seasonal change in | |
| Within-family transmission | (77) | Person-to-person transmission can occur. | No obvious reason explains why within-household transmission of |
| Domestic catering | Domestic food preparation may contribute to human | Fly transmission within kitchens may contribute to transmission, and this would likely be seasonal. Little else within the kitchen environment, other than the contamination of raw food ingredients, is likely to vary seasonally. | |
| Nursery/childcare/school | (78,79) | As | No evidence shows that infections in childcare are common or that they vary through the year. |
| Nosocomial transmission | (80) | Nosocomial transmission cannot account for the national seasonal increase in cases. | |
| Pets | Pets, particularly kittens and puppies, have been postulated as a source of | Little evidence shows that the seasonal change in | |
| Farm animals | (82) | Any seasonality of | |
| Farm visits | (92) | Visits to farms can expose children to common zoonotic enteric pathogens, including | Any seasonality of farm visits is unlikely to contribute to the seasonal distribution of all cases. |
| The countryside | Direct environmental exposure could occur through walking in the country. | This activity may be seasonal but is unlikely to contribute to the strong seasonal distribution of cases. | |
| Travel | The seasonality of | ||
| Weather/climate | In some developing countries a higher incidence was seen in the rainy season (103,104), which suggests flies might be contributory. Although | Little evidence shows that | |
| Immunologic response | The immunologic response to | Current evidence suggests that seasonal changes in immunologic response to |