Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

Spatial-temporal epidemiology of human Salmonella Enteritidis infections with major phage types (PTs 1, 4, 5b, 8, 13, and 13a) in Ontario, Canada, 2008–2009

  • Csaba Varga1, 2Email author,
  • David L. Pearl1,
  • Scott A. McEwen1,
  • Jan M. Sargeant1, 3,
  • Frank Pollari4 and
  • Michele T. Guerin1
BMC Public Health201515:1247

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-015-2592-6

Received: 17 June 2015

Accepted: 9 December 2015

Published: 17 December 2015

Abstract

Background

In Ontario and Canada, the incidence of human Salmonella enterica serotype Enteritidis (S. Enteritidis) infections have increased steadily during the last decade. Our study evaluated the spatial and temporal epidemiology of the major phage types (PTs) of S. Enteritidis infections to aid public health practitioners design effective prevention and control programs.

Methods

Data on S. Enteritidis infections between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2009 were obtained from Ontario’s disease surveillance system. Salmonella Enteritidis infections with major phage types were classified by their annual health region-level incidence rates (IRs), monthly IRs, clinical symptoms, and exposure settings. A scan statistic was employed to detect retrospective phage type-specific spatial, temporal, and space-time clusters of S. Enteritidis infections. Space-time cluster cases’ exposure settings were evaluated to identify common exposures.

Results

1,336 cases were available for analysis. The six most frequently reported S. Enteritidis PTs were 8 (n = 398), 13a (n = 218), 13 (n = 198), 1 (n = 132), 5b (n = 83), and 4 (n = 76). Reported rates of S. Enteritidis infections with major phage types varied by health region and month. International travel and unknown exposure settings were the most frequently reported settings for PT 5b, 4, and 1 cases, whereas unknown exposure setting, private home, food premise, and international travel were the most frequently reported settings for PT 8, 13, and 13a cases.

Diarrhea, abdominal pain, and fever were the most commonly reported clinical symptoms. A number of phage type-specific spatial, temporal, and space-time clusters were identified. Space-time clusters of PTs 1, 4, and 5b occurred mainly during the winter and spring months in the North West, North East, Eastern, Central East, and Central West regions. Space-time clusters of PTs 13 and 13a occurred at different times of the year in the Toronto region. Space-time clusters of PT 8 occurred at different times of the year in the North West and South West regions.

Conclusions

Phage type-specific differences in exposure settings, and spatial-temporal clustering of S. Enteritidis infections were demonstrated that might guide public health surveillance of disease outbreaks. Our study methodology could be applied to other foodborne disease surveillance data to detect retrospective high disease rate clusters, which could aid public health authorities in developing effective prevention and control programs.

Keywords

Phage type Surveillance Retrospective Travel Restaurant Scan statistic Salmonella Enteritidis Canada

Background

Salmonellosis is a major foodborne bacterial infection that continuously poses a significant human health burden worldwide [1]. In Canada, salmonellosis is the main cause of hospitalization and death among domestically acquired foodborne infections [2], causing an estimated 87,510 illnesses annually [3]. In the last decade, Salmonella enterica serotype Enteritidis (S. Enteritidis) became the top serovar among the non-typhoidal salmonellae in Canada [4], the United States of America (US) [5, 6], and the European Union [7].

Currently in Canada, the predominant S. Enteritidis phage types (PTs) among human cases are PT 8, 13a, 13, 1, 4, and 5b [4]. Between 2006 and 2010, Canadian integrated surveillance systems identified the emergence of PT 13a and an increase in the number of cases of PT 8 [4].

Several research studies conducted in North America have evaluated phage type-specific risk factors for S. Enteritidis infections in humans. In Ontario, Canada, researchers demonstrated that cases with PT 8 were more likely to have had contact with dogs compared to cases with other phage types [8]. In British Columbia, Canada, a concurrent increase in the incidence of S. Enteritidis infections with PT 8 in humans and the prevalence of PT 8 in poultry was observed between 2007 and 2010 [9]. The researchers demonstrated increased odds of infection with PT 8 in human cases who consumed illegally-sourced ungraded eggs compared to controls [9]. In Alberta, Canada, an outbreak of PT 8, 13, and atypical PTs was linked to the consumption of food products purchased from mobile lunch trucks that were contaminated by illegally-obtained eggs and/or by infected food handlers [10]. In the US, PT 8 cases were more likely to have consumed chicken or be the owner of a lizard than controls, whereas PT 13 cases were more likely to have eaten undercooked eggs in their home than controls [11].

In Ontario and Canada, an increase in the reported number of human S. Enteritidis cases was observed during the last decade [12, 13]. Current Ontario studies revealed that the majority of S. Enteritidis cases with PT 1, 4, or 6a were international travel-related, whereas cases with PT 8, 13, or 13a were mainly acquired domestically [14, 15]. These studies provided valuable information on the seasonality and exposure locations of S. Enteritidis cases, although they lacked information on cases’ geographical distribution and spatial-temporal clustering. Identifying areas with high rates of reported S. Enteritidis cases can be useful for targeting prevention and control programs [12, 16].

There have been a limited number of studies that evaluated foodborne disease surveillance data by incorporating geographical information system (GIS) data, spatial-temporal scan statistic results, exposure setting information, and clinical syndrome history. Scan statistics have been effectively used to evaluate clustering and transmission dynamics of pandemic influenza A (H1N1) in Hong Kong, China [17], to detect Escherichia coli O157:H7 outbreaks involving common molecular subtypes in Alberta, Canada [18], to identify the location of high and low rate areas of campylobacteriosis incidence in Manitoba, Canada [19], to identify high incidence clusters of tuberculosis in Linyi City, China [20], and to find childhood cancer clusters in Alberta, Canada [21].

This study assesses the spatial and temporal epidemiology of the phage types of S. Enteritidis that predominate in Ontario health regions by: 1) estimating phage type-specific health region-level incidence rates (IRs); 2) estimating phage type-specific monthly IRs; 3) describing phage type-specific exposure settings and clinical symptoms; 4) detecting phage-type-specific spatial, temporal, and space-time clusters of cases; and 5) examining the exposure settings of cases identified within space-time clusters. The results of this study are expected to assist public health officials with the development of disease prevention programs within the province.

Methods

Study setting and data sources

Our study was conducted in Ontario, Canada. In 2009, an estimated 13 million people lived in Ontario, accounting for 39 % of Canada’s total population [22]. There are 36 public health units (PHUs) in Ontario that are mandated by the provincial ministry of health to administer health promotion and disease prevention programs [23]. These PHUs are grouped into seven planning regions, which were used for the purposes of our study (Fig. 1; Additional file 1: Legend 1).
Fig. 1

Health regions in Ontario, Canada. The names and population estimates for the public health units (indicated by labels 0 through 35), are presented in Additional file 1: Legend 1

Salmonellosis is a reportable disease under provincial legislation [23], and is diagnosed by public health, hospital, and private laboratories after isolation of Salmonella spp. (excluding Salmonella Typhi or Paratyphi) from stool (the majority of samples), rectal swabs, urine, blood, or any other sterile site [24]. All Salmonella isolates are sent to the Public Health Ontario Laboratories-Toronto for confirmation and serotyping using serological confirmation of compatible somatic and flagellar antigens (Kauffmann-White classification) [25]. All isolates serotyped as S. Enteritidis are sent to the National Microbiology Laboratory in Winnipeg, Manitoba for phage typing using techniques defined by Ward and colleagues [26].

Staff at each PHU in Ontario must follow up with every S. Enteritidis case to identify exposure settings during the illness incubation period and the clinical symptoms during illness. Case investigation records must be reported to the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care (MOHLTC) through the integrated Public Health Information System (iPHIS). Each PHU has its own case follow-up protocol, and currently there is no standardized follow-up form or set timeline for initial case contact. The exposure setting information is based on what the case reported and was considered significant by the investigator. Exposure settings in the surveillance database were categorized as: international travel (i.e., travelled outside of Canada), private home, food premises (e.g., restaurant, grocery store, bakery, deli, caterer, mobile food premise), other (e.g., institution, hospital, farm, petting zoo, child care centre), or unknown (if the only exposure reported was “unknown”). Cases without exposure setting details were excluded from the exposure setting analysis. When more than one exposure setting was reported, the primary exposure was included in our analysis. Secondary exposure was only considered when the primary exposure was reported as “unknown”.

Statistical analysis

Data management

Data pertaining to the S. Enteritidis cases’ phage type, age, sex, reporting PHU, date of illness onset, exposure setting, and clinical symptoms were acquired from the iPHIS passive surveillance database. Data were entered into a spreadsheet program (Microsoft Excel 2010, Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, US), reviewed for missing values, and subsequently imported into STATA Intercooled statistical software, version 10.1 (Stata Corporation, College Station, TX, US) for descriptive statistical analysis. Data were available from January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2009; however, due to the large amount of missing phage type information in 2007, all cases from 2007 were excluded from the analyses. Therefore, we evaluated all S. Enteritidis cases that were captured within the iPHIS database between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2009. The frequency of Salmonella Enteritidis phage types was calculated, the most commonly reported phage types were identified (>5 % of the total number of S. Enteritidis cases that were phage typed during the 2-year study period), and the spatial and temporal epidemiology of these phage types were assessed by following several analytical steps, which are outlined in Fig. 2 and described in detail below. Cartographical boundary files and population estimates for each health region were acquired from Statistics Canada [27].
Fig. 2

Flow chart outlining the analytical steps used to evaluate Salmonella Enteritidis cases with major phage types

Phage type-specific incidence rates

Health region-level IRs for the six most commonly reported S. Enteritidis phage type cases were calculated by dividing the number of cases in a health region with the phage type during the 2-year study period by the population estimate for the health region for the 2-year study period. Health region-level phage-type specific IRs were illustrated in choropleth maps using ArcGIS 10 software (ESRI Inc., Redlands, CA, US).

For the entire province, monthly IRs for the six most frequent phage types were calculated by dividing the number of cases in a month with the phage type by the monthly population estimate. Smoothed IRs based on a simple 3-month moving average were calculated in Microsoft Excel 2010 and plotted together with the monthly raw IRs.

Scan statistic

Individual models were built for the 2-year study period for the six most frequent phage types in Ontario. Scan statistics using discrete Poisson models [28] in SaTScan software version 9.0 [29] were conducted to identify purely spatial, purely temporal, and space-time clusters of S. Enteritidis cases. The assumption of the Poisson model is that the number of cases in each health region are Poisson-distributed, based on a known underlying population at risk [28, 30]. Cartesian coordinates of latitude and longitude for each health region centroid were calculated in ArcGIS 10. The smallest spatial and temporal unit was the centroid of a health region and the month of disease onset, respectively. Only high rate clusters were investigated. Secondary clusters were reported if they did not overlap in space with the primary cluster. The scan statistic uses a circular scanning window in space, an interval in time, and a cylinder with a circular spatial base and height corresponding to time in space-time [28, 30]. The scanning window of variable radii gradually moves through time and/or space comparing the rate of cases inside the scanning window to outside the window. When the rate inside the scanning window compared to outside is higher than expected by random chance alone, a high rate cluster is identified. A relative risk and a p-value obtained through Monte Carlo hypothesis testing using 999 replications were estimated for each cluster [31]. A p-value ≤0.05 was considered to be significant. The maximum scanning window size was set to include up to 50 % of the population at risk and up to 50 % of study period [28, 30]. Analyses were adjusted for age (0–9, 10–24, 25–34, 35–49, ≥ 50 years) and sex covariates [28]. Statistically significant spatial and space-time clusters were illustrated using a map with health region boundaries in ArcGIS 10. The exposure settings of cases that were part of statistically significant space-time clusters were obtained from iPHIS and examined to assess if a common exposure explained the clustering of cases in space-time.

Results

A total of 1,364 S. Enteritidis cases were recorded in the iPHIS database during the study period; of these, 28 cases were missing phage type information, leaving 1,336 cases (97.9 %) available for analysis. The most commonly reported phage types were PT 8 (n = 398), PT 13a (n = 218), PT 13 (n = 198), PT 1 (n = 132), PT 5b (n = 83), and PT 4 (n = 76), which together accounted for 82.7 % of all S. Enteritidis cases in Ontario with known phage types during the study period (Table 1). One PT 8 case was excluded from the scan statistics because of missing sex information. No outbreaks (e.g., two or more cases linked epidemiologically) were declared by the MOHLTC during the study period.
Table 1

Frequency of Salmonella Enteritidis cases with different phage types in Ontario, Canada, 2008-2009 (n = 1,336)

Phage type

n (n/N %)

Phage type

n (n/N%)

PT 8

398 (29.8)

PT 1a

11 (0.8)

PT 13a

218 (16.3)

PT 21

11 (0.8)

PT 13

198 (14.8)

PT 1b

10 (0.7)

PT 1

132 (9.9)

PT 14b

10 (0.7)

PT 5b

83 (6.2)

PT 22

9 (0.7)

PT 4

76 (5.7)

PT 23

8 (0.6)

PT 6a

49 (3.7)

PT 19

7 (0.5)

atypical

33 (2.5)

PT 51

6 (0.4)

PT 6

20 (1.5)

other

57 (4.3)

n = number of S. Enteritidis cases with the phage type. N = total number of S. Enteritidis cases that were phage typed during the 2-year study period = 1,336

Health region-level incidence rates

Figure 3 illustrates the annual health region-level IRs of S. Enteritidis infections per 100,000 person-years for the six most frequent phage types in Ontario, and described below. For PT 1, the IR ranged from 0.25 to 0.62 units (mean = 0.48), with the highest IRs observed in the Central West and Central East regions. For PT 4, the IR ranged from 0.09 to 0.44 units (mean = 0.25), with the highest IRs observed in the Central West and Central East regions. For PT 5b, the IR ranged from 0.19 to 0.58 units (mean = 0.31), with the highest IRs observed in the Central West and North East regions. For PT 8, the IR ranged from 0.79 to 4.57 units (mean = 1.84), with the highest IRs observed in the North West and Toronto regions. For PT 13, the IR ranged from 0.35 to 1.39 units (mean = 0.75), with the highest IRs observed in the Toronto and North West regions. For PT 13a, the IR ranged from 0 to 1.18 units (mean = 0.74), with the highest IRs observed in the Toronto and Eastern regions.
Fig. 3

Health region-level raw incidence rates of Salmonella Enteritidis cases with major phage types in Ontario, Canada, 2008–2009

Monthly raw and smoothed incidence rates

Time-series of raw and smoothed IRs of S. Enteritidis infections per 100,000 person-months for the six most frequent phage types in Ontario are illustrated in Fig. 4, and are described below. The monthly IR ranged from 0 to 0.14 units (mean = 0.04) for PT 1, 0 to 0.09 units (mean = 0.02) for PT 4, 0 to 0.08 units (mean = 0.03) for PT 5b, 0.05 to 0.20 units (mean = 0.13) for PT 8, 0 to 0.12 units (mean = 0.06) for PT 13, and 0 to 0.16 units (mean = 0.07) for PT 13a.
Fig. 4

Monthly raw and smoothed incidence rates of Salmonella Enteritidis cases with major phage types in Ontario. Smoothed IRs were based on a 3-month simple rolling average

Visually assessing the smoothed trend lines, a number of patterns were observed (Fig. 4). For PT 1, there were steep up slopes and gradual down slopes, with peaks occurring in January 2008, May 2009, and December 2009. For PT 4, there were three small peaks, which occurred in February 2008, November 2008, and March 2009. For PT 5b, there was one high peak in January 2009. For PT 8, there were monthly variations with five peaks, which occurred in February 2008, November 2008, February 2009, May 2009, and October 2009. For PT 13, there were two peaks, which occurred in May 2008 and May 2009. For PT 13a, there was a high plateau between August 2008 and October 2008, a small plateau between August 2009 and October 2009, and a small peak in December 2009.

Clinical symptoms

Of the 1,336 S. Enteritidis cases with known phage types, 1,123 cases (84.1 %) had clinical symptom information available. The most commonly reported symptoms were diarrhea (89–97 % of cases depending on the phage type), abdominal pain (49–64 %), fever (43–55 %), vomiting (23–33 %), and nausea (28–36 %) (Table 2).
Table 2

Clinical symptoms of Salmonella Enteritidis cases with major phage types in Ontario, Canada, 2008–2009 (N = 1,123)

Phage Type

 

Symptom

 
 

Diarrhea

Bloody diarrhea

Abdominal pain

Fever

Vomiting

Nausea

 

n (n/N %)

n (n/N %)

n (n/N %)

n (n/N %)

n (n/N %)

n (n/N %)

PT 1 (N = 114)

106 (93)

3 k

67 (59)

49 (43)

34 (30)

36 (32)

PT 4 (N = 63)

61 (97)

3 (5)

38 (60)

33 (52)

21 (33)

19 (30)

PT 5b (N = 75)

70 (93)

5 (7)

37 (49)

36 (48)

17 (23)

27 (36)

PT 8 (N = 333)

315 (95)

33 (10)

213 (64)

178 (54)

96 (29)

95 (29)

PT 13 (N = 169)

150 (89)

18 (11)

95 (56)

86 (51)

53 (31)

33 (20)

PT 13a (N = 178)

171 (96)

19 (11)

111 (62)

96 (54)

48 (30)

49 (28)

PT Others (N = 191)

180 (94)

12 (6)

117 (61)

105 (55)

59 (31)

62 (32)

All PTs (N = 1,123)

1,053 (94)

93 (8)

678 (60)

583 (52)

328 (29)

321 (29)

Of the 1,336 S. Enteritidis cases with known phage types, 1,123 cases had clinical symptom information available. n = number of S. Enteritidis cases that had the symptom. N = number of S. Enteritidis cases with the phage type. Within a row, the percentages can add up to greater than 100 % because a case could have more than one symptom

Exposure settings

Of the 1,336 S. Enteritidis cases with known phage types, 372 (27.8 %) cases were missing exposure setting information, leaving 964 cases (72.2 %) available for exposure setting analysis (Table 3). International travel (19.7 % of 1,336 cases), private home (7.0 %), and food premise (6.4 %) were the most commonly reported known exposure settings. Unknown exposure setting was reported for 37.9 % of cases.
Table 3

Exposure settings of Salmonella Enteritidis cases with major phage types in Ontario, Canada, 2008–2009

Phage type

Exposure setting

  
 

Private home

Food premise

International travel

Other setting

Unknown

Missing

 

n (n/M %)

n (n/M %)

n (n/M %)

n (n/M %)

n (n/M %)

(n/N %)

PT 1 (N = 132) (M = 93)

3 (3)

4 (4)

60 (65)

0

26 (28)

39 (30)

PT 4 (N = 76) (M = 48)

0

3 (6)

33 (69)

1 (2)

11 (23)

28 (37)

PT 5b (N = 83) (M = 58)

0

1 (2)

44 (76)

0

13 (22)

25 (30)

PT 8 (N = 398) (M = 285)

38 (13)

33 (12)

29 (10)

4 (1)

181 (64)

113 (28)

PT 13 (N = 198) (M = 158)

21 (13)

24 (15)

10 (6)

3 (2)

100 (64)

40 (20)

PT 13a (N = 218) (M = 157)

22 (14)

14 (9)

14 (9)

4 (2)

103 (66)

61 (28)

PT Others (N = 231) (M = 165)

9 (6)

7 (4)

73 (44)

4 (2)

72 (44)

66 (29)

Total (N = 1336) (M = 964)

93 (10)

86 (9)

263 (27)

16 (2)

506 (52)

372 (28)

Of the 1,336 S. Enteritidis cases with known phage types, 964 cases had exposure setting information available. n = number of S. Enteritidis cases with the exposure setting. M = number of S. Enteritidis cases that had exposure setting information available. N = number of S. Enteritidis cases with the phage type. Exposure settings in the surveillance database were categorized as: international travel (i.e., travelled outside of Canada), private home, food premise (e.g., restaurant, grocery store, bakery, deli, caterer, mobile food premise), other (e.g., institution, hospital, farm, petting zoo, child care centre), or unknown (if the only exposure reported was “unknown”)

Of the six most frequent S. Enteritidis phage types (n = 1,105), 306 (27.7 %) cases were missing exposure setting information, leaving 799 (72.3 %) cases available for exposure setting analysis. Unknown exposure setting was reported for 434 (39.3 %) of cases. Known exposure setting information was reported for 365 (33.03 %) of cases: 67 PT 1 cases (50.8 % of all PT 1 cases), 37 PT 4 cases (48.7 % of all PT 4 cases), 45 PT 5b cases (54.2 % of all PT 5b cases), 104 PT 8 cases (26.2 % of all PT 8 cases), 58 PT 13 cases (29.3 % of all PT 13 cases), and 54 PT 13a cases (24.8 % of all PT 13a cases).

Of the cases that had exposure setting information available, international travel and unknown exposure settings were the most frequently reported settings for PT 5b cases (76 and 22 % of PT 5b cases, respectively), PT 4 cases (69 and 23 % of PT 4 cases, respectively), and PT 1 cases (65 and 28 % of PT 1 cases, respectively). Unknown, private home, food premise, and international travel were the most frequently reported exposure settings for PT 8 cases (64, 13, 12, and 10 % of PT 8 cases, respectively), PT 13 cases (64, 13, 15, and 6 % of PT 13 cases, respectively), and PT 13a cases (66, 14, 9, and 9 % of PT 13a cases, respectively) (Table 3).

Scan statistics

Purely spatial clusters of S. Enteritidis cases

Four significant high rate spatial clusters were detected (Table 4 and Fig. 5). A cluster of 29 PT 5b cases was identified in the Central West region (RR = 2.26, p = 0.003). A cluster of 22 PT 8 cases was identified in the North West region (RR = 3.10, p ≤ 0.001). A cluster of 74 PT 13 cases was identified in the Toronto region (RR = 2.31, p ≤ 0.001). A cluster of 63 PT 13a cases was identified in the Toronto region (RR = 1.58, p = 0.018).
Table 4

Clusters of Salmonella Enteritidis cases with the six most frequent phage types in Ontario, Canada, 2008–2009

Phage type (N)

Annual cases per 100,000

Cluster type

Region

Time frame (Year/Month)

Observed

Expected

O/E

RR

P-value

PT 1 ( N  = 132)

0.05

Space-time

North West, North East, Eastern, Central East

2008/1 to 2008/2

20

5.17

3.87

4.38

≤0.001

Central West

2008/1 to 2008/5

16

5.24

3.05

3.33

0.046

Temporal

All

2008/1 to 2008/3

40

16.36

2.38

3.07

0.001

PT 4 ( N  = 76)

0.03

Space-time

Eastern, Central East

2008/2 to 2008/4

15

3.89

3.85

4.55

0.010

Temporal

All

2008/1 to 2008/11

51

34.67

1.47

2.43

0.009

PT 5b ( N  = 83)

0.03

Spatial

Central West

NA

29

15.93

1.82

2.26

0.003

Space-time

Central West

2008/9 to 2009/4

17

5.27

3.22

3.80

0.016

Temporal

All

2008/12 to 2009/3

29

13.77

2.11

2.70

0.002

PT 8 ( N  = 397)

0.20

Spatial

North West

NA

22

7.37

2.98

3.10

≤0.001

Space-time

North West

2009/2 to 2009/5

15

1.20

12.46

12.91

≤0.001

South West

2008/9 to 2008/12

21

8.11

2.59

2.68

0.046

PT 13 ( N  = 198)

0.08

Spatial

Toronto

NA

74

40.71

1.82

2.31

≤0.001

Space-time

Toronto

2008/4 to 2008/10

40

11.87

3.37

3.97

≤0.001

Temporal

All

2008/4 to 2008/5

29

16.46

1.76

1.89

0.051

PT 13a (N = 218)

0.08

Spatial

Toronto

NA

63

44.70

1.41

1.58

0.018

  

Space-time

Toronto

2009/10 to 2009/12

18

5.64

3.19

3.39

0.018

  

Temporal

All

2008/7 to 2008/10

63

36.51

1.73

2.02

0.001

N = number of S. Enteritidis cases with the phage type. Results based on discrete Poisson models using the SaTScan™ software. Study period: January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2009. Time aggregation units: month. Time aggregation length: 1 month. Circular scanning window size: up to 50 % of the population at risk and/or 50 % of time the study period. Confounders controlled for: age (0–9, 10–24, 25–34, 35–49, ≥ 50 years) and sex. Criteria for reporting secondary clusters: no geographical overlap. Type of clusters investigated: high rate only. NA = not applicable. O/E = observed divided by expected. RR = relative risk. Significance level: p ≤ 0.05

Fig. 5

Spatial clusters of Salmonella Enteritidis cases with major phage types in Ontario, Canada, 2008–2009. Results based on discrete Poisson models using the SaTScan™ software. Study period: January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2009. Circular scanning window size: up to 50 % of the population at risk. Confounders controlled for: age (0–9, 10–24, 25–34, 35–49, ≥ 50 years) and sex. Criteria for reporting secondary clusters: no geographical overlap. Type of clusters investigated: high rate only. RR = relative risk. Significance level: p ≤ 0.05

Purely temporal clusters of S. Enteritidis cases

Five significant high rate temporal clusters were detected (Table 4). A cluster of 40 PT 1 cases occurred from January to March 2008 (RR = 3.07, p = 0.001). A cluster of 51 PT 4 cases occurred from January to November 2008 (RR = 2.43, p = 0.009). A cluster of 29 PT 5b cases occurred from December 2008 to March 2009 (RR = 2.70, p = 0.002). A cluster slightly above the rejection threshold of 29 PT 13 cases occurred from April to May 2008 (RR = 1.89, p = 0.051). A cluster of 63 PT 13a cases occurred from July to October 2008 (RR = 2.02, p = 0.001).

Space-time clusters of S. Enteritidis cases

Eight significant high rate space-time clusters were detected, including two secondary clusters (Table 4 and Fig. 6). Two clusters of PT1 cases were identified: a primary cluster of 20 cases occurred from January to February 2008 in the North West, North East, Eastern, and Central East regions (RR = 4.38, p ≤ 0.001); and a secondary cluster of 16 cases occurred from January to May 2008 in the Central West region (RR = 3.33, p = 0.046). A cluster of 15 PT 4 cases occurred from February to April 2008 in the Eastern and Central East regions (RR = 4.55, p = 0.010). A cluster of 17 PT 5b cases occurred from September 2008 to April 2009 in the Central West region (RR = 3.80, p = 0.016). Two clusters of PT 8 cases were identified: a primary cluster of 15 cases occurred from February to May 2009 in the North West region (RR = 12.91, p ≤ 0.001); and a secondary cluster of 21 cases occurred from September to December 2008 in the South West region (RR = 2.68, p = 0.046). A cluster of 40 PT 13 cases occurred from April to October 2008 in the Toronto region (RR = 3.97, p ≤ 0.001). A cluster of 18 PT 13a cases occurred from October to December 2009 in the Toronto region (RR = 3.39, p = 0.018).
Fig. 6

Space-time clusters of Salmonella Enteritidis cases with major phage types in Ontario, Canada, 2008-2009. Results based on discrete Poisson models using the SaTScan™ software. Study period: January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2009. Circular scanning window size: up to 50 % of the population at risk and 50 % of the study period. Confounders controlled for: age (0–9, 10–24, 25–34, 35–49, ≥ 50 years) and sex. Time aggregation units: month. Time aggregation length: 1 month. Criteria for reporting secondary clusters: no geographical overlap. Type of clusters investigated: high rate only. RR = relative risk. Significance level: p ≤ 0.05

Space-time cluster cases’ exposure settings

Exposure setting information was unknown or missing for many of the cases that were part of the space-time clusters (Table 5). For the primary PT 1 cluster, exposure setting information was known for 9 of the 20 cases; seven cases reported international travel and two cases reported food premises as their exposure setting. For the secondary PT 1 cluster, exposure setting information was known for 4 of the 16 cases; all four cases reported international travel as their exposure setting. For the PT 4 cluster, exposure setting information was known for 9 of the 15 cases; all nine cases reported international travel as their exposure setting. For the PT 5b cluster, exposure setting information was known for 9 of the 17 cases; all nine cases reported international travel as their exposure setting. For the primary PT 8 cluster, no exposure setting information was known for the 15 cases. For the secondary PT 8 cluster, exposure setting information was known for 7 of the 21 cases; three cases reported food premises, two cases reported private homes, one case reported other setting, and one case reported international travel as their exposure setting. For the PT 13 cluster, exposure setting information was known for 14 of the 40 cases; 10 cases reported food premises, two cases reported private homes, one case reported other setting, and one case reported international travel as their exposure setting. For the PT 13a cluster, exposure setting information was known for 11 of the 18 cases; seven cases reported food premises, three cases reported international travel, and one case reported private home as their exposure setting.
Table 5

Exposure settings of the Salmonella Enteritidis cases included in the space-time clusters for the six most frequent phage types in Ontario, Canada, 2008-2009

Phage type Cluster

Exposure setting

 

Phage type (N)

Region

Cases (n)

Private home (n)

Food premise (n)

International travel (n)

Other setting (n)

Unknown (n)

Missing (n)

PT 1 (N = 132)

North West, North East, Eastern, Central East

20

0

2

7

0

4

7

Central West

16

0

0

4

0

3

9

PT 4 (N = 76)

Eastern, Central East

15

0

0

9

0

1

5

PT 5b (N = 83)

Central West

17

0

0

9

0

4

4

PT 8 (N = 397)

North West

15

0

0

0

0

13

2

South West

21

2

3

1

1

5

9

PT 13 (N = 198)

Toronto

40

2

10

1

1

26

0

PT 13a (N = 218)

Toronto

18

1

7

3

0

7

0

N = number of S. Enteritidis cases with the phage type. n = number of S. Enteritidis cases with the exposure setting. Results based on discrete Poisson models using the SatTScan™ software. Study period: January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2009. Time aggregation units: month. Time aggregation length: 1 month. Circular scanning window size: up to 50 % of the population at risk and 50 % of the study period. Confounders controlled for age (0–9, 10–24, 25–34, 35–49, ≥ 50 years) and sex. Criteria for reporting secondary clusters: no geographical overlap. Type of clusters investigated: high rate only. Exposure settings in the surveillance database were categorized as: international travel (i.e., travelled outside of Canada), private home, food premise (e.g., restaurant, grocery store, bakery, deli, caterer, mobile food premise), or other (e.g., institution, hospital, farm, petting zoo, child care centre)

Discussion

Our study enhanced the current knowledge on the spatial and temporal epidemiology of the phage types of S. Enteritidis that predominate in Ontario health regions. We used a step-wise approach, starting with a general exploratory analysis followed by a more specific statistical analysis. A number of phage type-specific high rate areas and time periods were identified during the exploratory analysis that were confirmed by the statistical analysis as significant spatial, temporal, or space-time clusters of cases.

Foodborne disease clusters are generally defined as the occurrence of a higher than expected number of cases for a given location and/or time period. These clusters may or may not meet the definition of an outbreak [32, 33]. Subtype-based surveillance systems frequently use the term “cluster” to describe a group of cases infected with identical microbial strains [32]. Subtyping is useful for differentiating between endemic and outbreak cases, especially for common Salmonella serotypes, such as Enteritidis, that occur sporadically throughout the year [34]. Differences in reservoirs and exposure settings might exist for different S. Enteritidis phage types, and molecular differentiation can help to understand potential sources of the different phage types [8, 34]. We defined a cluster as a health region, time period, or a health region during a particular time period with a statistically significant higher than expected phage type-specific S. Enteritidis infection rate. Thus, we demonstrated the effectiveness of using cluster detection tests, in conjunction with subtyping methods to understand the epidemiology of a foodborne pathogen.

A number of patterns were observed when assessing the geographical heterogeneity of health region-level IRs of S. Enteritidis infections for the most frequent phage types. The Central West region had the highest IRs for PTs 1, 4, and 5b, whereas the Toronto region had the highest IRs for PTs 13 and 13a. Several of these regions were later confirmed by the spatial scan statistic as regions with significant high rate clusters (e.g., cases of PT 5b significantly clustered in the Central West region and cases of PTs 13 and 13a significantly clustered in the Toronto region).

We used a smoothing method for our time-series graph to reduce the month-to-month random variation of infection rates and make the overall trends clearer. The observed trends were relatively consistent with the results of the purely temporal scan statistic, albeit not as definitive. With the exception of PT 5b, all temporal clusters occurred during 2008. Further, most clusters occurred during a distinct season. Cases of PTs 1 and 5b clustered during the winter months, cases of PT 13 clustered during the spring months, and cases of PT 13a clustered during the summer and fall months. Differences in the duration of the temporal clusters were also observed. The majority of clusters (PTs 1, 5b, 13, and 13a) were of relatively short duration (2–4 months), whereas the PT 4 cluster was of long duration (11 months). Of note, the most commonly reported phage type (PT 8) did not cluster temporally, suggesting a fairly even distribution of PT 8 cases over time throughout Ontario. A study conducted in Alberta, Canada, examining Salmonella serotypes rather than phage types, detected several serotype-specific temporal clusters during the 11-year study period (January 1990 to January 2002) [35]; for S. Enteritidis, the clusters were of short duration and occurred during the winter and spring months.

The exposure setting information is rarely confirmed by data obtained through environmental health investigations or statistical associations obtained through case-control or cohort studies [36]; however, it is considered to be useful epidemiological data for foodborne illness source attribution [37]. Knowing when, where, and why clusters occurred can aid in the development of effective outbreak detection, prevention, and control programs. Our study identified differences between phage types with respect to the time and duration of the space-time clusters, even for clusters occurring in the same region. For example, the PT 13 and 13a clusters both occurred in the Toronto region, but during different time periods (the cluster of cases with PT 13 occurred in 2008, whereas the cluster of cases with PT 13a occurred in 2009). Moreover, the cluster of cases with PT 13 was of long duration (7 months), whereas the cluster of cases with PT 13a was of short duration (3 months). Short duration clusters might signify that cases were exposed to a single infection source (e.g., point source outbreak). Long duration clusters might signify that cases were exposed to a single source (e.g., contaminated food) over a longer time period (e.g., continuous common source outbreak) [32, 33, 35], to multiple sources (e.g., continuous multiple source outbreak) [32, 33], to the occurrence of secondary infections [35], to poor food preparation practices over a prolonged period, or that the typing method used was not of high enough resolution to differentiate between different strains.

Many of the cases with PT 13 or 13a that were part of a space-time cluster reported food premises (e.g., restaurant, grocery store, bakery, deli, caterer, mobile food premise) as their main exposure setting. In North America, restaurants have been shown to be an important exposure setting for S. Enteritidis infections [3841]. A number of predisposing factors for food contamination with S. Enteritidis in restaurants were identified, including cross contamination from raw chicken meat to food server’s hands or cutting boards due to high food volumes and food handler’s improper food safety practices during food preparation [36, 38], inadequate heat treatment of foods [38], inappropriate food storage [38], and direct contamination of food served by infected food handlers [10, 3941]. In Ontario, S. Enteritidis accounted for only 10.1 % of the Salmonella isolates collected at pre-harvest from conventionally-raised broiler chicken flocks between July 2010 and April 2012; 65 % of the isolates were PT 13a (Tara Roberts, 2014, personal communication).

A few of the cases that were part of a PT 8, 13, or 13a space-time cluster reported private homes as their exposure setting. Previous studies identified private homes as an important exposure setting for sporadic, home-based foodborne infections [4244]. Several predisposing factors of home-based infections have been identified, including inappropriate food handling, storage, and food preparation [42, 43]; consumption of contaminated raw and undercooked foods [42]; and person-to-person [44] and animal-to-person [45, 46] transmission.

Space-time clusters of cases with PT 1 or 4 included several overlapping health regions, occurred during nearly identical winter and spring months, and were of short duration (2-3 months). The majority of these cases reported international travel as their exposure setting. International travel was demonstrated by a number of studies as an important risk factor for S. Enteritidis infections in North America [15, 47, 48]. In the US, among all salmonellosis cases between 2004 and 2008, 11 % reported international travel as their exposure setting, and among those, the most commonly reported serotype was Enteritidis (22 % of travel cases) [47]. In the region of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, between June 2005 and May 2009, 48.7 % of S. Enteritidis cases were international travel-related [48]. In Ontario, Canada, between July 2010 and June 2011, 51.9 % of S. Enteritidis infections were international travel-related, and certain phage types (e.g., 1, 4, and 5b) were isolated from cases who visited all-inclusive resorts in the Caribbean or Mexico during the winter and spring months [15]. The seasonal spike of PT 1 and 4 cases in late winter and early spring, when people often travel to warmer destinations, warrants creating advisories to inform travelers about the risks of eating abroad and how they can protect themselves against S. Enteritidis infections.

A number of limitations should be recognized before interpreting our study results. Surveillance programs underestimate the true burden of infections due to under-diagnosis and under-reporting of cases [3]. In Canada, it was estimated that for every reported salmonellosis case there were 26.1 unreported cases in the general population [3]. Under-reporting and under-diagnosis can be influenced by differences in populations’ medical care seeking behaviour and access to medical care [49], physicians’ specimen request and diagnosis practices [50], and laboratories testing protocols and reporting standards [50]. Regional differences in successful case follow-up should also be considered. Loss to follow-up of cases might be greater in low population density regions of the province due to difficulties encountered by public health staff in contacting cases. A large number of cases had missing or unknown exposure setting information, which might have biased our study results. The proportion and accuracy of known exposure setting information reported by investigators can depend on several factors [36], including time passed from exposure to case interview and the related recall bias, difficulty and the effort made by the investigator to contact a case, follow-up protocol and questionnaire used by the investigator (e.g., face to face interview vs. phone interview vs. questionnaire sent through the mail), a case’s willingness to be interviewed, and possible survival bias. In our study, differences in unknown exposure setting among phage types were noted. The proportion of unknown exposure setting information was higher for cases with PT 8, 13, or 13a (64–66 %) compared to cases with PT 1, 4, or 5b (22–28 %), suggesting that international travel cases had more readily available exposure history; therefore in our study, the overall proportion of cases who reported international travel as their major exposure setting was likely slightly over-estimated. Lastly, misclassification of international travel-related cases might have also occurred, especially for cases for which the incubation period was short, and for cases with a longer disease incubation period who became infected before departure [48].

Obtaining exposure setting information is a first step toward developing effective prevention and control programs; however, the location and the primary source of contamination of food products that lead to infections are not always identical [51-52]. Therefore, future research studies are needed to identify the primary source of contamination, and the type of food products that cause infections.

This study demonstrated the utility of retrospective spatial and temporal analysis of subtype-based surveillance data using exploratory and statistical methods to detect clusters of cases. Phage type-specific spatial and spatial-temporal clusters should be followed up by public health authorities to identify novel local individual-level risk factors. Increased enforcement (e.g., restaurant inspections) and education (e.g., food safety training for restaurant employees and the general public) in health regions with identified spatial or spatial-temporal clusters have the potential to decrease the incidence of PTs 8, 13, and 13a. Further, prevention programs (e.g., travel advisories) that are targeted during the winter and spring months have the potential to decrease the incidence of PTs 1, 4, and 5b. During the study period no outbreaks were reported in Ontario; thus, the evaluation of current outbreak detection methods used by public health staff at various PHUs is warranted. Future studies are needed to evaluate the frequency of false positive clusters, to assess the effectiveness of cluster detection using statistical methods, to compare the more traditional outbreak investigation procedures to scan statistic cluster detection techniques, and to measure the feasibility of statistical methods for identifying infection clusters. Purely spatial or purely temporal clusters might be the result of a space-time cluster, which should be considered when evaluating our study results. There is a need also for prospective research studies to identify clusters of S. Enteritidis infections in real-time (e.g., weeks, months), and to assess and evaluate individual-level risk factors for infections included in these clusters. Moreover, there is a need for high resolution molecular subtyping methods (e.g., multiple locus variable-number tandem repeat analysis or whole genome sequencing) to better understand relationships between cases in a cluster.

Conclusions

This is the first study that has evaluated the spatial and temporal epidemiology of the phage types of S. Enteritidis that predominate in Ontario health regions. This study demonstrated the value of using a number of spatial-temporal and subtyping methods to better understand the epidemiology of a foodborne illness, such as salmonellosis. Our study highlighted phage type-specific differences in spatial distributions, temporal trends, clinical symptoms, exposure settings, and space-time clusters of S. Enteritidis infections. Several health regions were identified with increased phage type-specific S. Enteritidis infection rates where future studies should be conducted to identify novel individual-level risk factors, and where future prevention and control programs should be targeted to reduce the incidence of S. Enteritidis infections. Our study methodology may be applicable to other foodborne disease surveillance data.

Abbreviations

GIS: 

Geographic information system

iPHIS: 

Integrated Public Health Information System

IR: 

Incidence rate

MOHLTC: 

Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care

PHU: 

Public health unit

PT: 

Phage type

S. Enteritidis: 

Salmonella enterica serovar Enteritidis

US: 

United States of America

Declarations

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the MOHLTC for providing the data. We thank the staff of all PHUs and public health laboratories that tested samples, followed up with cases, and entered information into the public health surveillance database. We also acknowledge the Data Resource Centre at the University of Guelph library for their GIS and census support. The views expressed in this study are the views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the MOHLTC.

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Population Medicine, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph
(2)
Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs
(3)
Centre for Public Health and Zoonoses, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph
(4)
Centre for Foodborne, Environmental and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, Public Health Agency of Canada

References

  1. Majowicz SE, Musto J, Scallan E, Angulo FJ, Kirk M, O’Brien SJ, et al. The global burden of nontyphoidal Salmonella gastroenteritis. Clin Infect Dis. 2010;50(6):882–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Ruzante JM, Majowicz SE, Fazil A, Davidson VJ. Hospitalization and deaths for select enteric illnesses and associated sequelae in Canada, 2001–2004. Epidemiol Infect. 2011;139(6):937–45.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Thomas MK, Murray R, Flockhart L, Pintar K, Pollari F, Fazil A, et al. Estimates of the burden of foodborne illness in Canada for 30 specified pathogens and unspecified agents, circa 2006. Foodborne Pathog Dis. 2013;10(7):639–48.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC). National Enteric Surveillance Program (NESP) Annual Summary 2010.Available at: http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2012/aspc-phac/HP37-15-2010-eng.pdf
  5. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Foodborne Diseases Active Surveillance Network (FoodNet). FoodNet Surveillance Report for 2011 (Final Report). Atlanta, Georgia: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, CDC; 2012. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/foodnet/PDFs/2011_annual_report_508c.pdf.Google Scholar
  6. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). National Salmonella Surveillance Data: Salmonella Annual Summary Tables 2009. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, CDC; 2008. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/ncezid/dfwed/PDFs/SalmonellaAnnualSummaryTables2009.pdfGoogle Scholar
  7. European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). The Community Summary Report on trends and sources of zoonoses, zoonotic agents and food-borne outbreaks in the European Union in 2008. EFSA J. 2010;8(1):1496.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Varga C, Middleton D, Walton R, Savage R, Tighe MK, Allen V, et al. Evaluating risk factors for endemic human Salmonella Enteritidis infections with different phage types in Ontario. Canada using multinomial logistic regression and a case-case study approach. BMC Public Health. 2012;12:866.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  9. Taylor M, Leslie M, Ritson M, Stone J, Cox W, Hoang L, et al. Investigation of the concurrent emergence of Salmonella enteritidis in humans and poultry in British Columbia, Canada, 2008-2010. Zoonoses Public Health. 2012;59(8):584–92.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Salmonella enteritidis infections associated with foods purchased from mobile lunch trucks - Alberta, Canada, October 2010-February. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2013. 2011;62(28):567–9.Google Scholar
  11. Marcus R, Varma JK, Medus C, Boothe EJ, Anderson BJ, Crume T, et al. Re-assessment of risk factors for sporadic Salmonella serotype Enteritidis infections: a case–control study in five FoodNet Sites, 2002–2003. Epidemiol Infect. 2007;135(1):84–92.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Lee SS, Wong NS. The clustering and transmission dynamics of pandemic influenza A (H1N1) 2009 cases in Hong Kong. J Infect. 2011;63(4):274–80.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. So HC, Pearl DL, von Königslöw T, Louie M, Chui L, Svenson LW. Spatio-temporal scan statistics for the detection of outbreaks involving common molecular subtypes: using human cases of Escherichia coli O157:H7 provincial PFGE pattern 8 (National Designation ECXAI.0001) in Alberta as an example. Zoonoses Public Health. 2013;60(5):341–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Green CG, Krause DO, Wylie JL. Spatial analysis of campylobacter infection in the Canadian province of Manitoba. Int J Health Geogr. 2006;5:2.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Wang T, Xue F, Chen Y, Ma Y, Liu Y. The spatial epidemiology of tuberculosis in Linyi City, China, 2005-2010. BMC Public Health.2012; 12:885.Google Scholar
  16. Torabi M, Rosychuk RJ. An examination of five spatial disease clustering methodologies for the identification of childhood cancer clusters in Alberta, Canada. Spat Spatiotemporal Epidemiol. 2011;2(4):321–30.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Varga C, Pearl DL, McEwen SA, Sargeant JM, Pollari F, Guerin MT. Incidence, distribution, seasonality, and demographic risk factors of Salmonella Enteritidis human infections in Ontario, Canada, 2007-2009. BMC Infect Dis. 2013;13:212.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Middleton D, Savage R, Tighe MK, Vrbova L, Walton R, Whitfield Y, et al. Risk factors for sporadic domestically acquired Salmonella serovar Enteritidis infections: a case-control study in Ontario, Canada. Epidemiol Infect 2013. 2011;142(7):1411–21.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Nesbitt A, Ravel A, Murray R, McCormick R, Savelli C, Finley R, et al. Integrated surveillance and potential sources of Salmonella Enteritidis in human cases in Canada from 2003 to 2009. Epidemiol Infect. 2012;140(10):1757–72.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Tighe MK, Savage R, Vrbova L, Toolan M, Whitfield Y, Varga C, et al. The epidemiology of travel-related Salmonella Enteritidis in Ontario, Canada, 2010-2011. BMC Public Health. 2012;12(1):310.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Arcury TA, Gesler WM, Preisser JS, Sherman J, Spencer J, Perin J. The effects of geography and spatial behavior on health care utilization among the residents of a rural region. Heal Serv Res. 2005;40(1):135–56.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Statistics Canada. Table 051-0001. Estimates of population, by age group and sex for July 1, Canada, provinces and territories annual (persons unless otherwise noted). Available at: http://www5.statcan.gc.ca/cansim/a26?lang=eng&id=510001.
  23. Government of Ontario. Health Protection and Promotion Act R.S.O.1990 H.7. 1990 Part VI. 77.6 (1) - 77.6 (7). Google Scholar
  24. Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care (MOHLTC). Ontario Public Health Standards. Infectious Diseases Protocol. 2015. Available at: http://www.health.gov.on.ca/en/pro/programs/publichealth/oph_standards/docs/infectious_diseases.pdf
  25. Bale JA, de Pinna EM, Threlfall EJ, Ward LR. Kauffmann-White Scheme - 2007: Salmonella Identification - Serotypes and Antigenic Formulae. London: Health Protection Agency; 2007.Google Scholar
  26. Ward LR, de Sa JDH, Rowe B. A phage typing scheme for Salmonella enteritidis. Epidemiol Infect. 1987;99:291–304.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  27. Statistics Canada. Health region boundary files. Available at: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/82-402-x/2009001/rg-eng.htm
  28. Kulldorff M. A spatial scan statistic. Commun Stat. 1997;26:1481–96.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  29. Kulldorff M. and Information Management Services, Inc. SaTScanTM v9.0: Software for the spatial and space-time scan statistics. Available at: http://www.satscan.org
  30. Kulldorff M, Athas W, Feuer E, Miller B, Key C. Evaluating cluster alarms: A space-time scan statistic and brain cancer in Los Alamos. Am J Public Health. 1998;88:1377–80.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  31. Besag J, Clifford J. Sequential Monte Carlo p-values. Biometrika. 1991;78:301–30.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  32. World Health Organization. Foodborne disease outbreaks: Guidelines for investigation and control. 2008. Available at: http://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/foodborne_disease/outbreak_guidelines.pdf
  33. Public Health Agency of Canada. Canada’s Foodborne Illness Outbreak Response Protocol (FIORP) 2010: To guide a multi-jurisdictional response. Available at: http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/zoono/fiorp-mitioa/index-eng.php#toc10
  34. Kafatos G, Andrews N, Gillespie IA, Charlett A, Adak GK, De Pinna E, et al. Impact of reduced numbers of isolates phage-typed on the detection of Salmonella outbreaks. Epidemiol Infect. 2009;137(6):821–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Guerin MT, Martin SW, Darlington GA. Temporal clusters of Salmonella serovars in humans in Alberta, 1990-2001. Can J Public Health. 2005;96(5):390–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Vrbova L, Johnson K, Whitfield Y, Middleton D. A descriptive study of reportable gastrointestinal illnesses in Ontario, Canada, from 2007 to 2009. BMC Public Health. 2012;12:970.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  37. Pires SM, Evers EG, van Pelt W, Ayers T, Scallan E, Angulo FJ, et al. Attributing the human disease burden of foodborne infections to specific sources. Foodborne Pathog Dis. 2009;6:417–24.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Kimura AC, Reddy V, Marcus R, Cieslak PR, Mohle-Boetani JC, Kassenborg HD. Chicken consumption is a newly identified risk factor for sporadic Salmonella enterica serotype Enteritidis infections in the United States: a case–control study in FoodNet sites. Clin Infect Dis. 2004;38 Suppl 3:S244–52.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Beatty ME, Shevick G, Shupe-Ricksecker K, Bannister E, Tulu A, Lancaster K, et al. Large Salmonella Enteritidis outbreak with prolonged transmission attributed to an infected food handler, Texas, 2002. Epidemiol Infect. 2009;137(3):417–27.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Hedican E, Hooker C, Jenkins T, Medus C, Jawahir S, Leano F, et al. Restaurant Salmonella Enteritidis outbreak associated with an asymptomatic infected food worker. J Food Prot. 2009;72(11):2332–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Medus C, Smith KE, Bender JB, Leano F, Hedberg CW. Salmonella infections in food workers identified through routine public health surveillance in Minnesota: impact on outbreak recognition. J Food Prot. 2010;73(11):2053–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Scott E. Food safety and foodborne disease in 21st century homes. Can J Infect Dis. 2003;14(5):277–80.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  43. Wagner VR, Silveira JB, Tondo EC. Salmonelloses in the State of Rio Grande do Sul, southern Brazil, 2002 to 2004. Braz J Microbiol. 2014;44(3):723–9.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  44. Ethelberg S, Olsen KE, Gerner-Smidt P, Mølbak K. Household outbreaks among culture-confirmed cases of bacterial gastrointestinal disease. Am J Epidemiol. 2004;159(4):406–12.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Aiken AM, Lane C, Adak GK. Risk of Salmonella infection with exposure to reptiles in England, 2004–2007. Euro Surveill. 2010;15(22):19581.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Sauteur PM, Relly C, Hug M, Wittenbrink MM, Berger C. Risk factors for invasive reptile-associated salmonellosis in children. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2013;13(6):419–21.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  47. Johnson LR, Gould LH, Dunn JR, Berkelman R, Mahon BE, Foodnet Travel Working Group. Salmonella infections associated with international travel: a Foodborne Diseases Active Surveillance Network (FoodNet) study. Foodborne Pathog Dis. 2011;8(9):1031–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Ravel A, Nesbitt A, Marshall B, Sittler N, Pollari F. Description and burden of travel-related cases caused by enteropathogens reported in a Canadian community. J Travel Med. 2011;18:8–19.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Scallan E, Jones TF, Cronquist A, Thomas S, Frenzen P, Hoefer D, et al. Factors associated with seeking medical care and submitting a stool sample in estimating the burden of foodborne illness. Foodborne Pathog Dis. 2006;3(4):432–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. MacDougall L, Majowicz S, Doré K, Flint J, Thomas K, Kovacs S, et al. Under-reporting of infectious gastrointestinal illness in British Columbia, Canada: who is counted in provincial communicable disease statistics? Epidemiol Infect. 2008;136(2):248–56.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Batz MB, Doyle MP, Morris Jr G, Painter J, Singh R, Tauxe RV, et al. Attributing illness to food. Emerg Infect Dis. 2005;11(7):993–9.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  52. Jacob CJ, Powell DA. Where does foodborne illness happen-in the home, at foodservice, or elsewhere-and does it matter? Foodborne Pathog Dis. 2009;6(9):1121–3.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Varga et al. 2015

Advertisement