Skip directly to search Skip directly to A to Z list Skip directly to page options Skip directly to site content

Volume 14, Number 2—February 2008

Research

Effectiveness of Personal Protective Measures to Prevent Lyme Disease

Marietta Vázquez*Comments to Author , Catherine Muehlenbein*, Matthew Cartter†, Edward B. Hayes‡, Starr Ertel†, and Eugene D. Shapiro*
Author affiliations: *Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA; †State of Connecticut Department of Public Health, Hartford, Connecticut, USA; ‡Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA;

Main Article

Table 4

Risk factors for Lyme disease, Connecticut, July 2000 through February 2003

Risk factors Case-patients, no. (%) Matched controls, no. (%) Odds ratio* (95% CI†) p value
Having an occupational exposure
Definite 68 (15) 
N = 462 80 (11) 
N = 699 1.4 (0.9–2.0) 0.074
Definite and possible 87 (15) 
N = 566 109 (13) 
N = 866 1.2 (0.9–1.6) 0.32
Unlikely
38 (28) 
N = 136
27 (12) 
N = 222
3.1 (1.6–5.9)
0.0007
Engaging frequently in outdoor activities
Definite 400 (86) 
N = 467 598 (83) 
N = 724 1.2 (0.9–1.7) 0.26
Definite and possible 489 (85) 
N = 572 745 (83) 
N = 898 1.2 (0.9–1.6) 0.34
Unlikely
117 (85) 
N = 137
197 (86) 
N = 230
0.9 (0.5–1.7)
0.78
Living close to grassy or heavily wooded area
Definite 444 (95) 
N = 467 676 (93) 
N = 724 1.4 (0.8–2.3) 0.23
Definite and possible 546 (95) 
N = 572 841 (94) 
N = 898 1.4 (0.9–2.3) 0.18
Unlikely
131 (96) 
N = 137
218 (95) 
N = 230
0.9 (0.3–2.6)
0.89
Having pets at home
Definite 283 (73) 
N = 386 488 (72) 
N = 681 1.2 (0.9–1.7) 0.17
Definite and possible 355 (75) 
N = 472 599 (71) 
N = 838 1.2 (0.9–1.6) 0.17
Unlikely 81 (77) 
N = 105 151 (72) 
N = 210 1.4 (0.8–2.6) 0.27

*All estimates were adjusted for possible confounders (sex, race, receipt of Lyme vaccine, and use of other personal protective measures) with conditional logistic regression.
†CI, confidence interval.

Main Article

TOP