Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-25wd4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T14:50:53.563Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Q fever in Great Britain. Epidemiological information from a serological survey of healthy adults in Kent and East Anglia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

B. P. Marmion ,
M. G. P. Stoker ,
C. B. V. Walker  and
R. G. Carpenter
B. P. Marmion
Affiliation:
Department of Pathology, University of Cambridge
M. G. P. Stoker
Affiliation:
Department of Pathology, University of Cambridge
C. B. V. Walker
Affiliation:
Regional Blood Transfusion Centre, Cambridge
R. G. Carpenter
Affiliation:
Department of Human Ecology, University of Cambridge
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

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.

1. Eleven thousand two hundred and twenty-eight sera from persons, mostly blood donors, living in Kent and seven counties in East Anglia, have been tested and 379 (3·4%) found to have complement-fixing antibody to Rickettsia burneti at a serum titre of 1/10 or greater.

2. A group of 396 donors in Kent and East Anglia, composed of 190 donors with antibody, and 206 donors from those without antibody to serve as controls, were interviewed, and an epidemiological history was obtained on the possible ways in which they had been exposed to R. burneti during the period 1942–53.

3. A comparison of the epidemiological histories of the positive and negative donors showed that donors in Kent who had constant occupational exposure to cattle and sheep including unprocessed materials from them, or who had had a raw milk supply to their homes for all or part of the period 1942–53, more frequently had antibody than those donors without such qualities. In East Anglia the positive serological state among donors was associated only with the use of raw milk and not with occupational exposure to animals. There were suggestive findings among Kentish donors that those who visited farms or other potentially infectious places, either during the course of their job or during their leisure, also experienced greater risk of infection.

4. In general, these findings of infection from occupational exposure, from visits to infectious localities, or from the use of raw milk in the home, confirmed the tentative epidemiological conclusions drawn from a previous investigation of patients with Q fever. It was not found in this survey, however, that residence near dairy farms, receipt of objects from potentially infectious localities, or contact with persons from such localities was associated with a special risk of infection.

5. No association was found between the donors' serological state and the keeping of dogs, cats, poultry, pigs, rabbits, psittacine birds in the vicinity of the home or its infestation by mice, rats or mosquitoes.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 54 , Issue 1 , March 1956 , pp. 118 - 140
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1956

References

REFERENCES

Babudieri, B. & Moscovici, C. (1952). Nature, Lond., 169, 195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, J. A., Beck, M. D. & Huebner, R. J. (1950). J. Amer. med. Ass. 142, 868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, W. H., Lennette, E. H. & Romer, M. S. (1951). Amer. J. Hyg. 54, 319.Google Scholar
Derrick, E. H. (1953). Med. J. Aust. 1, 245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, R. A. & Yates, F. (1948). Statistical tables for Biological, Agricultural and Medical Research. Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd.Google Scholar
Freeman, G. H. & Halton, J. H. (1951). Biometrika, 38, 141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, M. M. & Hulse, E. C. (1953). W.H.O. Monograph series, no. 19, p. 175.Google Scholar
Marmion, B. P., Stewart, J., Richmond, P., Barber, H. & Stoker, M. G. P. (1954). Lancet, 1, 1288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marmion, B. P. & Stoker, M. G. P. (1950). Lancet, 2, 611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marmion, B. P., Stoker, M. G. P., McCoy, J. H., Malloch, R. A. & Moore, B. (1953). Lancet, 1, 503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pérez Gallardo, F., Clavero, G., Hernandez, S. (1952). Rev. Sanid. Hig. publ., Madr., 26, 81.Google Scholar
Saint, E. G., Drummond, A. F. & Thorburn, I. O. (1954). Med. J. Aust. 2, 731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stoker, M. G. P. (1953 a). Brit. med. Bull. 9, 231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stoker, M. G. P. (1953 b). J. Hyg., Camb., 51, 311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stoker, M. G. P., Brown, R. D., Kett, F. J. L., Collings, P. C. & Marmion, B. P. (1955 a). J. Hyg., Camb., 53, 313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stoker, M. G. P., Page, Z. & Marmion, B. P. (1955 b). Bull. World Hlth. Org. 13, 807.Google Scholar
Strauss, E. & Sulkin, S. E. (1949). Amer. J. Publ. Hlth. 39, 1041.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tonge, J. (1955). Personal communication.Google Scholar
Wolfe, D. M. & Kornfeld, L. (1949). J. Immunol. 61, 297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kempthorne, O. (1952). Design and Analysis of Experiments. John Wiley Inc. New York.Google Scholar