| Literature DB >> 24447721 |
Ian Kracalik, Lile Malania, Nikoloz Tsertsvadze, Julietta Manvelyan, Lela Bakanidze, Paata Imnadze, Shota Tsanava, Jason K Blackburn.
Abstract
We assessed the occurrence of human cutaneous anthrax in Georgia during 2010--2012 by examining demographic and spatial characteristics of reported cases. Reporting increased substantially, as did clustering of cases near urban centers. Control efforts, including education about anthrax and livestock vaccination, can be directed at areas of high risk.Entities:
Keywords: Bacillus anthracis; Georgia; anthrax; bacteria; cutaneous anthrax; livestock; zoonoses
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24447721 PMCID: PMC3901487 DOI: 10.3201/eid2002.130522
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Emerg Infect Dis ISSN: 1080-6040 Impact factor: 6.883
Figure 1Total number of human cutaneous anthrax cases (light gray) and livestock cases (dark gray), Georgia, 2010–2012. Incidence rates (IRs) (95% CIs) of human cutaneous anthrax per million population are displayed above the bars.
Characteristics of human cutaneous anthrax, Georgia, 2010–2012
| Characteristic | Male case-patients | Female case-patients | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No., n = 209 | Population* | No., n = 42 | Population* | ||
| Age, y | |||||
| 5–19 | 14 | 522,736 | 2 | 506,785 | |
| 20–34 | 57 | 458,998 | 8 | 480,276 | |
| 35–49 | 62 | 443,820 | 12 | 502,732 | |
| 50–64 | 61 | 292,713 | 15 | 361,370 | |
| 65–79 | 15 | 196,171 |
| 5 | 286,839 |
| Self-reported infection source | |||||
| Slaughtering cattle | 143 | 3 | |||
| Processing meat | 39 | 28 | |||
| Field work/sowing and harvesting crops | 20 | 7 | |||
| Unknown | 7 | 3 | |||
*Population estimates were obtained from the Georgian State Statistical Office (GeoStat, http://geostat.ge) and are based on median year population totals for the study period.
Results of the negative binomial regression model examining risk factors for human cutaneous anthrax Georgia
| Patient characteristic | IRR* | 95% CI† | p value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Univariate | Adjusted | |||
| Age, y | ||||
| 5–19 | 0.12 | 0.11 | 0.05–0.26 | <0.01 |
| 20–34 | 0.57 | 0.46 | 0.23–0.91 | 0.03 |
| 35–49 | 0.65 | 0.58 | 0.30–1.14 | 0.11 |
| 50–64 | Referent | Referent | – | |
| 65–79 | 0.37 | 0.36 | 0.16–0.78 | 0.01 |
| Sex | ||||
| F | Referent | Referent | – | |
| M | 5.75 | 4.95 | 2.91–8.42 | <0.01 |
| Self-reported infection source | ||||
| Slaughtering/butchering cattle | Referent | Referent | – | |
| Processing/handling meat | 0.45 | 0.75 | 0.40–1.39 | 0.36 |
| Field work/sowing and harvesting crops | 0.18 | 0.26 | 0.13–0.51 | <0.01 |
| Unknown | 0.07 | 0.09 | 0.04–0.20 | <0.01 |
*χ2 goodness-of-fit test indicated the model fit the data (df = 31, χ2 = 40.71, p = 0.11). IRR, incidence risk ratio. †Wald 95% CIs.
Figure 2A) Empirical Bayes Smoothing cumulative incidence (per 10,000 population) of human cutaneous anthrax at the community level, Georgia, 2010–2012. Green star indicates the location of the capital, Tbilisi; gray star indicates the fourth most populous city, Rustavi. The total number of livestock cases during the study period is shown by region. B) Risk surface representing the estimated smoothed cumulative incidence per square kilometer. C) Spatial clustering of human cutaneous anthrax cases as determined by using SaTScan (). RR, risk ratio.