Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-d8cs5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-11T00:00:46.089Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Public Health Laboratory Service national case-control study of primary indigenous sporadic cases of campylobacter infection

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

G. K. Adak ,
J. M. Cowden ,
S. Nicholas  and
H. S. Evans
G. K. Adak
Affiliation:
PHLS Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre, 61 Colindale Avenue, London NW9 5EQ
J. M. Cowden
Affiliation:
PHLS Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre, 61 Colindale Avenue, London NW9 5EQ
S. Nicholas
Affiliation:
PHLS Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre, 61 Colindale Avenue, London NW9 5EQ
H. S. Evans
Affiliation:
PHLS Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre, 61 Colindale Avenue, London NW9 5EQ
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The aetiology of sporadic campylobacter infection was investigated by means of a multicentre case-control study. During the course of the study 598 cases and their controls were interviewed.

Conditional logistic regressional analysis of the data collected showed that occupational exposure to raw meat (odds ratio [OR] 9·37; 95 % confidence intervals [CI] 2·03, 43·3), having a household with a pet with diarrhoea (OR 2·39; CI 1·09. 5·25), and ingesting untreated water from lakes, rivers and streams (OR 4·16; CI 1·45. 11·9) were significant independent risk factors for becoming ill with campylobacter. Handling any whole chicken in the domestic kitchen that had been bought raw with giblets, or eating any dish cooked from chicken of this type in the home (OR 0·41–0·44; CI 0·24, 0·79) and occupational contact with livestock or their faeces (OR 0·44; CI 0·21, 0·92) were significantly associated with a decrease in the risk of becoming ill with campylobacter.

Type
Research Article
Information
Epidemiology & Infection , Volume 115 , Issue 1 , August 1995 , pp. 15 - 22
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

References

1.Galbraith, NS. Campylobacter enteritis. B M J 1988; 297: 1219–20.Google ScholarPubMed
2.Skirrow, MB. Campylobacter enteritis: a ‘new’ disease. B M J 1977; 2: 9–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.PHLS Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre. Other gastrointestinal tract infections, England & Wales, Regular summary data. Commun Dis Rep 1993; 3: 10.Google Scholar
4.Park, CE, Stankiewicz, ZK, Lovett, J et al. , Incidence of Campylobacter jejuni in fresh eviscerated whole market chickens. Can J Microbiol 1981; 27: 841–2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Stern, NJ, Hernandez, MP, Blakenship, L et al. , Prevalence and distribution of Campylobacter jejuni and Campylobacter coli in retail meats. J Food Protect 1985; 48: 595–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Hutchinson, DN, Bolton, FJ, Hinchliffe, PM et al. , Evidence of udder excretion of Campylobacter jejuni as the cause of a milk-borne campylobacter outbreak. J Hyg 1985; 94: 205–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.Skirrow, MB, Fidoe, RG, Jones, DM. An outbreak of presumptive foodborne Campylobacter enteritis. J Infect 1981; 3: 234–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Blaser, MJ, Taylor, DN, Feldman, RA. Epidemiology of Campylobacter jejuni infections. Epidemiol Rev 1983; 5: 157–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.Barrett, NJ. Communicable disease associated with milk and dairy products in England and Wales: 1983–1984. J Infect 1986; 12: 265–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10.Stehr-Green, J, Mitchell, P, Nicholas, C et al. , Campylobacter enteritis – New Zealand. M M W R 1991; 40: 116–7.Google Scholar
11.Salfield, NJ, Pugh, EJ. Campylobacter enteritis in young children living in households with puppies. BMJ 1977; 2: 21–2.Google Scholar
12.Lighten, LL, Kaczmarski, EB, Jones, DM. A study of risk factors for Campylobacter infection in late spring. Publ Hlth 1991; 105: 199–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13.Southern, JP, Smith, RMM, Palmer, SR. Bird attack on milk bottles: possible mode of transmission of Campylobacter jejuni to man. Lancet 1990; 336: 1425–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14.Breslow, NE, Day, NE. The analysis of case–control studies. In: Statistical methods in cancer research, vol. I. 1980.Google Scholar
15.Francis, B, Green, M, Payne, C, eds. The GLIM system release 4 manual. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16.Hopkins, RS, Scott, AB. Handling raw chicken as a source for sporadic Campylobacter jejuni infections. J Infect Dis 1983; 148: 770.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17.Hopkins, RS, Olmsted, R, Istre, GR. Endemic Campylobacter jejuni infection in Colorado: identified risk factors. Publ Hlth Briefs 1984; 74: 249–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18.Cowden, JM, Lynch, D, Joseph, CA et al. , Case–control study of infections with Salmonella enteritidis phage type 4 in England. B M J 1989; 299: 771–3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19.Wilson, JB, Clarke, RC, Renwick, S et al. , Verocytotoxigenic Escherichia coli on dairy farms in Southern Ontario. In: Karmali, MA, Goglio, AG, eds. Recent advances in verocytotoxin-producing Escherichia coli infections. Elsevier: Amsterdam, 1994: 61–4.Google Scholar
20.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Update: multistate outbreak of Escherichia coli O157: H7 infections from hamburgers – western United States. 1992–1993. M M W R 1993: 42: 258–63.Google Scholar
21.Newell, DG, Nachamkin, I. Immune responses directed against Campylobacter jejuni. In: Nachamkin, I, Blaser, MJ, Tompkins, LS, eds. Campylobacter jejuni: current status and future trends. Washington, D.C.: American Society of Microbiology, 1992: 201–6.Google Scholar