Volume 17, Number 3—March 2011
Research
An Integrated Approach to Identifying International Foodborne Norovirus Outbreaks1
Table A2
Cluster | No. strains (% total in GT) | Minimum no. NT overlap | Transmission mode based on reports† (p value) | Source category | Time span | Countries involved | Reported to FBVE as linked outbreak |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Selection criterion 1: identical clusters within FB genotypes including at least 1 FB outbreak, n = 22 | |||||||
1 (I.1) | 7 (29) | 204 | UN? (0.38) | Shellfish | 2004 Sep–Dec and Feb 2006 | FR, HU, GB | Yes, in FR |
2 (I.1) | 4 (17) | 204 | FB (0.01) | Shellfish | 2000 Apr–Nov and 2001 | FR, NL | Yes, in FR |
3 (I.1) | 2 (8) | 206 | FB? (0.11) | Unknown | 2000 | FR | No |
4 (I.1) | 6 (25) | 221 | UN? (0.20) | Unknown | 2000 Dec–2005 Dec and 2006 | FR, GB, SE | No |
5 (I.4) | 5 (13) | 204 | FB? (0.45) | Water, berries | 2000 and 2002 Feb–2006 Aug | NL, FR, SE | No |
6 (I.4) | 2 (5) | 204 | FB (0.04) | Shellfish | 2000 and 2001 | NL | No |
7 (I.4) | 2 (5) | 215 | FHB (0.00) | RTE | Mar 2006 | DK | Yes |
8 (I.5) | 3 (50) | 204 | FB? (0.25) | Shellfish, delicatessen | 2004 Nov–2006 Feb | IE, FR | No |
9 (I.6) | 5 (25) | 204 | FB (0.07) | Self-served meal, shellfish | 2002 Dec–2006 Jul | HU, NL, SE | No |
10 (I.6) | 3 (13) | 291 | FHB? (0.14) | Self-served meal | 2002 Sep and 2004 | SE | No |
11 (II.1) | 3 (11) | 272 | FB? (0.11) | Water | 2000 Sep–2001 Jan | FR | No |
12 (II.1) | 3 (11) | 268 | FB?(0.29) | Unknown | 2001 Jan–Mar | NL | No |
13 (II.2) | 2 (6) | 255 | FB? (0.14) | Shellfish | 2006 Dec and 2007 Mar | FR | No |
14 (II.2) | 2 (6) | 235 | FB? (0.60) | Shellfish | 2005 Jan and 2008 Feb | FR, GB | No |
15 (II.2) | 2 (6) | 338 | FB? (0.60) | Water | 2002 Oct and 2003 Mar | SE | No |
16 (II.6) | 2 (4) | 255 | FB (0.04) | Paella | 2007 Sep | FR | Yes |
17 (II.6) | 15 (28) | 45 | PTP? (0.22) | Berries, RTE | 2004 Jan–2006 Dec | HU, SE, DK, GB, FR, NL, IT | Yes, multiple countries and genotypes |
18 (II.6) | 2 (4) | 196 | FB? (0.36) | Self-served meal | 2006 Jan–May | GB, NL | No |
19 (II.7) | 28 (49) | 94 | UN?(0.55) | Self-served meal, RTE | 2003 Jun–2006 Apr | GB, DK, NL, FR, SE | No |
20 (II.7) | 2 (4) | 337 | FB (0.05) | RTE | 2004 Feb | SE | No |
21 (II.7) | 5 (9) | 249 | PTP (0.01) | RTE | 2005 Dec–2006 Mar | SE | No |
22 (II.8) |
2 (50) |
338 |
FB? (0.25) |
berries |
2006 Jun and Aug |
SE, PL |
Yes, multiple genotypes, link abroad |
Selection criterion 2: identical clusters significantly associated with FB transmission, n = 5 | |||||||
23 (I.2) | 2 (6) | 206 | FB (0.02) | Unknown | 2000 Apr | FR | No |
24 (I.3) | 2 (5) | 206 | FB (0.02) | Shellfish | 2000 Apr | FR | No |
25 (II.4) | 35 (4) | 140 | FB (0.05) | RTE, shellfish, berries | 2006 Jan–2006 Nov | FR, DK, SL, IE, HU, SE, IT, NL | Yes, local link hospitals |
26 (II.4) | 2 (0) | 238 | FB (0.08) | Unknown | 2008 Feb | FR | Yes |
27 (II.4) |
2 (0) |
249 |
FB (0.08) |
Unknown |
2000 Nov and 2001 Dec |
NL |
No |
Selection criterion 3: identical clusters statistically associated with a specific food class (shellfish, berries, water, other), n = 2 | |||||||
28 (I.3) | 4 (9) | 234 | FB? (0.45) | Water, berries | 2000 and 2002 Feb–2006 Aug | FR, DE, SE | No |
29 (II.4) | 12 (1) | 227 | UN? (0.20) | Shellfish | 2007 Oct–2009 Nov | FR, IE | No |
*Outbreak clusters were selected based on one of 3 criteria: 2a) genotype preferentially found in food-borne outbreaks; 2b) food-borne mode of transmission more commonly reported for cluster and 2c) specific food item more commonly reported in given cluster of outbreaks. Outbreak clusters in boldface were international outbreaks newly identified through the analysis in this study, other international outbreak clusters had already been reported as (suspected) common source events. FBVE, Food-Borne Viruses in Europe; GT, genotype; UN, unknown; FR, France; HU, Hungary; GB, Great Britain; FB, foodborne; NL, Netherlands; SE, Sweden; FHB, foodhandler-borne; RTE, ready-to-eat; DK, Denmark; IE, Ireland; PTP, person-to-person; IT, Italy; PL, Poland.
†Frequency of transmission modes as reported for the single outbreaks within the specific cluster were considered a random draw from the frequencies of this transmission mode from the background population in the Food-borne Viruses in Europe database, i.e., as random draws from a binomial distribution. p values <0.10 were considered significant or borderline significant. p values >0.10 were considered nonsignificant. However, for clusters with none of the transmission modes ending up with a significant p value, the transmission mode with the smallest p value was chosen and presented with a question mark (?).
1Some of these data were presented as a poster during the 15th International Bioinformatics Workshop on Virus Evolution and Molecular Epidemiology, September 7–11, 2009, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
2Members of the Foodborne Viruses in Europe Network who contributed to this study are listed at the end of this article.