Skip directly to site content Skip directly to page options Skip directly to A-Z link Skip directly to A-Z link Skip directly to A-Z link
Volume 16, Number 2—February 2010
Research

Investigating an Airborne Tularemia Outbreak, Germany

Anja M. HauriComments to Author , Iris Hofstetter, Erik Seibold, Philip Kaysser, Juergen Eckert, Heinrich Neubauer, and Wolf D. Splettstoesser1
Author affiliations: Hesse State Health Office, Dillenburg, Germany (A.M. Hauri); Public Health Authority Darmstadt-Dieburg, Darmstadt, Germany (I. Hofstetter, J. Eckert); National Reference Laboratory for Tularemia, Munich, Germany (E. Seibold, P. Kaysser, W.D. Splettstoesser); Institute of Bacterial Zoonoses, Jena, Germany (H. Neubauer).

Main Article

Table 2

Attack rates among exposed and nonexposed hare hunters, according to potential risk factors for Francisella tularensis infection, Germany, 2005*

Potential risk factor Exposed
 Not exposed
 RR (95% CI) p value
No. cases No. hunters Attack rate, % No. cases No. hunters Attack rate, %
Hunted 8 27 29.6 2 10 20.0 1.5 (0.4–5.8) 0.45
Had direct contact with dead hares 10 34 29.4 0 4 0 – 0.2
Wore gloves during contact with dead hares 2 5 40.0 8 21 38.1 1.5 (0.4–4.9) 0.6
Injured skin 4 8 50.0 5 25 20.0 2.5 (0.9–7.1) 0.12
Disemboweled hares 7 11 63.6 3 27 11.1 5.7 (1.8–18.2) 0.002
Injured while disemboweling hares 1 2 50.0 9 36 25.0 2.0 (0.5–8.9) 0.46
Rinsed hares at the lodge 4 6 66.7 6 32 18.8 3.6 (1.4–8.9) 0.03
Presence within 5 m of where disemboweled hares were rinsed 9 11 81.8 1 27 3.7 22.1 (3.2–154.3) <0.0001
Skinned hares 5 9 55.6 5 29 17.2 3.2 (1.2–0.7) 0.04
Injured while skinning hares 1 1 100 9 37 24.3 4.1 (2.3–7.3) 0.26
Had contact with raised dust 4 5 80.8 6 33 18.2 4.4 (1.9–10.3) 0.01
Had contact with puddle or ditch water 0 1 0 10 37 27.0 – 0.74
Received tick bite on the hunting day 0 0 – 10 38 26.3 – –
Consumed hares hunted on October 29, 2005 0 4 0.0 10 34 29.4 – 0.28
Attended the common lunch/supper 9 35 25.7 1 3 33.3 0.8 (0.0–4.2) 0.61
Stayed abroad in October 2005 4 7 57.1 6 30 20.0 2.9 (1.1–7.5) 0.07

*RR, risk ratio; CI, confidence interval. Totals vary because of answers of “do not know.”

Main Article

1Current affiliation: University Hospital Rostock, Rostock, Germany.

Page created: December 10, 2010
Page updated: December 10, 2010
Page reviewed: December 10, 2010
The conclusions, findings, and opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the official position of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors' affiliated institutions. Use of trade names is for identification only and does not imply endorsement by any of the groups named above.
file_external