| Literature DB >> 20333310 |
Stacy M Holzbauer1, Aaron S DeVries, James J Sejvar, Christine H Lees, Jennifer Adjemian, Jennifer H McQuiston, Carlota Medus, Catherine A Lexau, Julie R Harris, Sergio E Recuenco, Ermias D Belay, James F Howell, Bryan F Buss, Mady Hornig, John D Gibbins, Scott E Brueck, Kirk E Smith, Richard N Danila, W Ian Lipkin, Daniel H Lachance, P James B Dyck, Ruth Lynfield.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In October 2007, a cluster of patients experiencing a novel polyradiculoneuropathy was identified at a pork abattoir (Plant A). Patients worked in the primary carcass processing area (warm room); the majority processed severed heads (head-table). An investigation was initiated to determine risk factors for illness. METHODS ANDEntities:
Mesh:
Year: 2010 PMID: 20333310 PMCID: PMC2841649 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0009782
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Figure 1Case definition of immune-mediated polyradiculoneuropathy[1].
Figure 2Minnesota, Indiana, and Nebraska immune-mediated polyradiculoneuropathy cases by month of illness onset and state.
Figure 3Schematic of warm-room processing area.
Schematic represents the work stations on an assembly line within the warm-room of Plant A for the 13 cases that were able to be contacted. All cases reported working at or frequently visiting the head-table or exposure to brain tissue in Plant A.
Univariate analysis and multivariate analysis of risk factors for immune-mediated polyradiculoneuropathy.
|
| ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Female, no. (%) | 7 (54%) | 12 (24%) | 3.6 (0.9–15.5) | 0.09 | 2.7 (0.6–13.0) | 0.19 |
| Age, years | ||||||
| Median | 32 | 27 | 0.23 | 0.37 | ||
| (range) | (21–51) | (18–59) | ||||
| Ever worked at head-table, no. (%) | 9 (69%) | 12 (24%) | 6.9 (1.8–26.6) | 0.006 | 6.6 (1.6–26.7) | 0.008 |
|
| 4 (31%) | 2 (4%) | 10.4 (1.7–65.8) | 0.01 | 6.3 (0.8–47.1) | 0.07 |
| Ever Backed heads/Removed brains, no. (%) | 5 (38%) | 2 (4%) | 14.7 (2.4–89.1) | 0.003 | 10.3 (1.5–68.5) | 0.01 |
| Median distance from brain operation, m (ft) | 5.8 (19.1) | 13.8 (45.2) | 0.04 | 0.14 | ||
| Median minimum distance from brain | 3.9 (12.9) | 7.6 (24.8) | 0.01 | 0.07 | ||
| operation, m (ft) | ||||||
|
| 5 (38%) | 2 (5%) | 17.5 (2.5–122.5) | 0.004 | 9.9 (1.2–80.0) | 0.03 |
|
| 4 (29%) | 10 (25%) | 2.8 (0.6–13.4) | 0.20 | 2.7 (0.5–13.4) | 0.20 |
| no. (%) | ||||||
|
| 4 (29%) | 28 (70%) | Referent | Referent | ||
| Total time at Plant A, months | ||||||
| Median | 18.3 | 15 | 0.84 | |||
| (range) | (3–251) | (2–190) | ||||
|
| ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Female, no. (%) | 4 (44%) | 13 (23%) | 2.7 (0.5–13.9) | 0.23 | 1.3 (0.19–8.8) | 0.80 |
| Age, years | ||||||
| Median | 37 | 29 | 0.01 | 0.01 | ||
| (range) | (27–51) | (19–61) | ||||
|
| 4 (44%) | 6 (11%) | 6.7 (1.4–31.8) | 0.03 | 7.7 (1.1–53.0) | 0.04 |
| Ever Backed heads/Removed brains, no. (%) | 5 (56%) | 8 (14%) | 7.5 (1.7–34.0) | 0.01 | 13.5 (1.9–96.2) | 0.009 |
| Median distance from brain operation, feet | 14.7 | 20.2 | 0.04 | 0.20 | ||
| Median minimum distance from brain | 6.7 | 14.89 | 0.01 | 0.01 | ||
| operation, feet | ||||||
|
| 5 (56%) | 8 (15%) | 7.2 (1.6–32.7) | 0.01 | 12.7 (1.8–91.4) | 0.007 |
|
| 4 (40%) | 46 (85%) | Referent | Referent | ||
| Total time at Plant A, months | ||||||
| Median | 18.8 | 18 | 0.76 | |||
| (range) | (3–251) | (1–203) | ||||
Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; OR, odds ratio; AOR, adjusted odds ratio
P value of<0.05 was considered statistically significant. All probabilities are two-tailed.
Job and work location variables were entered into separate multivariate logistic-regression models along with sex and age. Multivariate results for sex and age (OR, 95% CI and P values) taken from model that included work location.
Removing skeletal muscle from the back of hog heads.
Some employees reported multiple job stations. Distance categories were created using the distance of the closest reported job station from the brain removal operation.
All workers at the head-table were <6.2 m (20 ft) from the brain removal operation, so only two distance categories were used.
Figure 4Photograph of brain removal compressed-air device during operation.
Serologic testing performed for human and swine infectious agents in the laboratory evaluation of immune- mediated polyradiculoneuropathy among cases and controls.
| Infectious Agent | Cases n (%) | Controls n (%) | OR (95% CI) |
|
|
| ||
| Swine influenza virus (H2) IgG + | 4 (31%) | 3 (4%) |
|
| Encephalomyocarditis virus IgG + | 0 (0%) | 4 (5%) | |
| Porcine circovirus Type 2 IgG + | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | |
| Porcine enterovirus IgG subtype 1–8 + | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | |
| Porcine reproductive and respiratory | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | |
| syndrome (PRRS) virus IgG + | |||
| Porcine hemagglutinating | 2 (15%) | 1 (1%) |
|
| encephalomyelitis virus IgG + | |||
|
| 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | |
| Hepatitis E virus (HEV) |
|
| |
| HEV IgG + | 4 (27%) | 17 (20%) | 1.42 (0.41–5.1) |
| HEV IgM + | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) |
Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; OR, odds ratio.
Blood specimens were collected on 102 consenting participants in the Minnesota case-control study. Not all cases or controls had adequate specimen for the complete battery of blood tests performed.
Differences between cases and controls were noted in the serology results for swine influenza virus and porcine hemagglutinating encephalomyelitis virus; however, these results accounted for <32% of the cases.
Serum was evaluated by commercially available (MP Diagnostics) and in-house enzyme immunoassays using recombinant ORF-2 and ORF-3 proteins as antigens. Stools from three IP cases were evaluated for HEV RNA by RT PCR, of which all were negative.
Figure 5Serum IFNγ levels among swine abattoir workers experiencing immune mediated polyradiculoneuropathy versus non-ill workers.
Figure 6Two principal component analysis of ill, exposed non-ill, and non-exposed, non-ill workers.
Two principal components explain nearly a third of the variance in cytokines and chemokine levels among swine abattoir workers experiencing immune-mediated polyradiculoneuropathy, exposed non-ill workers, and non-exposed, non-ill workers. Analysis includes cases and controls from the Minnesota and Indiana abattoir. Exposed ill individuals include 15 probable or confirmed cases. Exposed non-ill includes 25 unaffected individuals that worked at the headtable or in the headroom. Non-exposed non-ill includes 28 unaffected individuals that did not work at the headtable or in the headroom.