Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T15:33:54.944Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A demographic survey of campylobacter, salmonella and shigella infections in England: A Public Health Laboratory Service Survey*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 October 2009

M. B. Skirrow
Affiliation:
Department of Microbiology, Worcester Royal Infirmary, Worcester WR1 3AS
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.

Five laboratories serving a population of 1·5 million participated in a 2-year survey of campylobacter, salmonella and shigella infections in patients suffering from gastrointestinal symptoms. In total, 33857 faecal specimens were examined of which 5·5% yielded campylobacters, 3·4% salmonellas and 0·8% shigellas; incidence of infection (per 100,000 population per year) was 58, 38 and 9 respectively. Peak incidences occurred at different ages for each organism: campylobacter, 1–4 years (183); salmonella, less than 1 year (181); shigella, 1–4 years (17). There was a secondary peak in campylobacter incidence in patients aged 15–24 years (87), which was not seen with salmonella or shigella infections.

By recording the age and sex of all patients submitting faecal specimens, it was shown that sampling rates were disproportionately high in infants aged less than 1 year (12:1 relative to other ages). Thus the percentage of faecal samples positive in infants – in sharp contrast to incidence values – was the lowest of any age group for all three organisms. By taking the numbers of faecal specimens tested as denominators in this way, the highest campylobacter isolation rates were in young adults, with a notable male predominance in the 15–24 year (1·7:1) and 45–54 year (1·6:1) age groups. This male predominance was accentuated during the summer (2·1:1) when incidence was generally high. The maximum percentage isolation recorded by any laboratory was 32·5% in males aged 15–24 years in June.

The reasons for this pattern of campylobacter infection are unknown, but the similarity of the results between laboratories and the regularity of the seasonal fluctuations recorded over the last G years indicate that the sources and routes of infection are geographically similar and stable, yet different from those of salmonellosis.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1987

References

REFERENCES

Blaser, M. J., Taylor, D. N. & Feldman, R. A. (1983). Epidemiology of Campylobacter jejuni infections. Epidemiologic Reviews 5, 157176.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Butzler, J. P. & Skirrow, M. B. (1979). Campylobacter enteritis. Clinics in Gastroenterology 8, 737765.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coles, B. M., Tanner, K., McMynk, P., Matheson, T. & Black, W. A. (1985). Campylobacter enteritis in British Columbia – a 30 month study. Canadian Journal of Public Health 76. 343346.Google ScholarPubMed
Finch, M. J. & Riley, L. W. (1984). Campylobacter infections in the United States. Archives of Internal Medicine 44, 16101612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopkins, R. S. & Olmsted, R. N. (1985). Campylobacter jejuni infection in Colorado: unexplained excess of cases in males. Public Health Reports, Washington 100, 333336.Google ScholarPubMed
Johnson, K. E., Nolan, C. M. & The Campylobacter Laboratory Surveillance Group (1985). Community-wide surveillance of Campylobacter jejuni infection: evaluation of a laboratory-based method. Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Diseases 3, 389396.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kist, M. & Rossner, R. (1985). Infection with Campylobacter jejuni, C. coli and other enteric pathogens compared: a five year case-control study. In Campylobacter III: Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on Campylobacter Infections (ed. Pearson, A. D., Skirrow, M. B., Lior, H. and Rowe, B.), pp. 255258. London: Public Health Laboratory Service.Google Scholar
Lafong, A. C. & Bamford, K. B. (1986). Low incidence of campylobacter enteritis in Northern Ireland. Journal of Hygiene 97, 479482.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pearson, A. D., Hooper, W. L., Lior, H., Greenwood, M., Donaldson, P. A. C. & Hawtin, P. (1985). Why investigate sporadic cases? The significance of fresh and New York dressed chicken as a source of campylobacter infection. In Campylobacter III: Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on Campylobacter Infections (ed. Pearson, A. D., Skirrow, M. B.. Lior, H. and Rowe, B.), pp. 290291. London: Public Health Laboratory Service.Google Scholar
Riley, L. W. & Finch, M. J. (1985). Results of the first year of national surveillance of campylobacter infections in the United States. Journal of Infectious Diseases 151, 956959.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Skirrow, M. B. & Benjamin, J. (1980). Differentiation of enteropathogenic eampylobacter. Journal of Clinical Pathology 33, 1122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tauxe, R. V., Deming, M. S. & Blake, P. A. (1985). Campylobacter jejuni infections on college campuses: a national survey. American Journal of Publich Health 75, 659660.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vernon, A. A., Jarvis, R. N., Morgan, J. F. & Rogers, M. G. (1984). Campylobacter on campuses. Annals of Internal Medicine 100, 615.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed