Canada
|
Incidence in Canada
|
Neighbouring US States
|
Incidence in the US (fold difference)a
|
---|
2014
|
2015
|
2016
|
2014
|
2015
|
2016
|
---|
ABb
|
0.2
|
0.3
|
0.2
|
MT
|
0.5 (2.5)
|
0.2 (0.7)
|
1.2 (6.0)
|
MB
|
2.7
|
2.3
|
3.9
|
ND,MN
|
14.4 (5.3)
|
19.1 (8.3)
|
20.9 (5.4)
|
ON
|
1.7
|
2.7
|
2.7
|
MN,WI,MI,NY
|
11.8 (6.9)
|
14.3 (5.3)
|
13.6 (5.0)
|
QC
|
1.5
|
1.9
|
2.1
|
NY,VT,NH,ME
|
23.3 (15.5)
|
21.7 (11.4)
|
22.8 (10.9)
|
NB
|
0.7
|
1.5
|
1.5
|
ME
|
87.9 (62.8c)
|
74.7 (24.9c)
|
86.4 (28.8c)
|
NS
|
12.1
|
26.1
|
34.4
|
ME
|
87.9 (7.3)
|
74.7 (2.9)
|
86.4 (2.5)
|
BC
|
0.1
|
0.3
|
0.8
|
WA
|
0.1 (1.0)
|
0.2 (0.7)
|
0.2 (0.3)
|
- aThe difference between incidence in the US States compared to Canadian Provinces. Note that there are slight differences amongst Canadian provinces in the data provided in surveillance, and consequently the capacity to separate endemically acquired from travel-acquired cases. bOnly travel-related cases have been found in Alberta and neighbouring US states. cThis difference accounts for approximately 50% of reported cases in Maine being EM rash only without laboratory test results (https://www.maine.gov/dhhs/mecdc/infectious-disease/epi/vector-borne/lyme/documents/2017-Lyme-Surveillance-Report.pdf), which would not at the time have been reported in NB