Skip Standard Navigation Links
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
 CDC Home Search Health Topics A-Z
peer-reviewed.gif (582 bytes)
eid_header.gif (2942 bytes)
Past Issue

Vol. 11, No. 3
March 2005

Adobe Acrobat logo

EID Home | Ahead of Print | Past Issues | EID Search | Contact Us | Announcements | Suggested Citation | Submit Manuscript

PDF Version | Comments Comments | Email this article Email this article



Acknowledgments
References
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Table
Appendix
Appendix Figure
Appendix Table
Download PDF
(download pdf 71 KB, 6 pages)

Perspective

Fly Transmission of Campylobacter

Gordon L. Nichols*Comments
*Health Protection Agency, London, United Kingdom

Suggested citation for this article


An annual increase in Campylobacter infection in England and Wales begins in May and reaches a maximum in early June. This increase occurs in all age groups and is seen in all geographic areas. Examination of risk factors that might explain this seasonal increase identifies flies as a potential source of infection. The observed pattern of infection is hypothesized to reflect an annual epidemic caused by direct or indirect contamination of people by small quantities of infected material carried by flies that have been in contact with feces. The local pattern of human illness appears random, while having a defined geographic and temporal distribution that is a function of the growth kinetics of one or more fly species. The hypothesis provides an explanation for the seasonal distribution of Campylobacter infections seen around the world.

Campylobacter spp. are the most common bacterial causes of diarrhea in England and Wales (1). The epidemiologic features of Campylobacter infection have proved difficult to discover, and extensive strain typing has failed to clarify the main transmission routes. Testable hypotheses must be established to explain available evidence, particularly the reason for the observed seasonality. Relatively few outbreaks of Campylobacter gastroenteritis occur (2), and most cases are sporadic. In case-control and case-case studies of sporadic Campylobacter infections, most cases remain unexplained by recognized risk factors (3,4).

Figure 1
Figure 1.

Click to view enlarged image

Figure 1. Distribution of Campylobacter cases per day. When averaged for 1989 to 2002, the epidemic begins at approximately day 130...

  

Figure 2

Figure 2.
Click to view enlarged image

Figure 2. Cases of Campylobacter infection in England and Wales based on the patient specimen date...
  

Figure 3

Figure 3.
Click to view enlarged image

Figure 3. Campylobacter cases by week and Musca domestica larval growth times. Campylobacter cases per day are plotted...

The annual increase in Campylobacter infections in England and Wales begins at approximately day 130 (May 9) and reaches a maximum at approximately day 160 (June 8) (Figure 1). Although this seasonal rise is seen in all ages, it is more marked in children (5). Cases in towns and cities across England and Wales show broadly similar seasonal changes in distribution (Figure 2). The relative geographic uniformity of the increase seen in May of most years has the temporal appearance of an annual national epidemic. Because person-to-person infection within the community is uncommon, it is likely that the epidemic is caused by a single main driver for human Campylobacter infection. The possible seasonal drivers were examined, and only vector transmission by flies appears to provide a convincing explanation for the observed seasonal trends (Table).

The seasonal increase in Campylobacter infections in May and June in England and Wales is hypothesized to reflect an annual epidemic caused by direct or indirect exposure of humans to contaminated material carried by several fly species that have been in contact with human, bird, or animal feces or contaminated raw foods. Flies have been shown to carry Campylobacter and can infect both humans and animals (6–8). Intervention studies have demonstrated diarrheal disease reduction linked to control of flies (9–11), and deaths from diarrheal diseases have been linked to measurements of fly abundance (12). The local pattern of human Campylobacter infection appears random, while having a defined geographic and temporal distribution. This distribution is predicted to be linked to the growth kinetics of 1 or more fly species and their access to environmental sources of Campylobacter in feces or food. The seasonal increase in fly populations results from rainy weather and an increase in temperature that causes the development from egg to fly to occur in days rather than months. Individual flies can lay hundreds of eggs, which can result in a large increase in fly numbers in a short period. Fly numbers fluctuate through the summer and decline in October, but the decline is less dramatic and defined than the spring increase.

Disease transmission is hypothesized to occur through small quantities of contaminated material carried on the feet, proboscis, legs, and body hairs or from material regurgitated or defecated by flies. The variety, numbers, virulence and viability of organisms in the contaminated material will differ, and some contamination will include Campylobacter while others will not. Contamination will be distributed over a variety of food types. Contamination of food by flies could occur at any stage of the food supply chain, but Campylobacter counts within the contaminated material on foods will decrease over time; consequently, most infection will result from contamination close to consumption (e.g., in the domestic or catering environment). Because whether a fly has visited contaminated feces is unknown and how a person becomes infected is uncertain, epidemiologic investigation is difficult.

A number of synanthropic fly species could be involved, including houseflies (e.g., Musca spp., Fannia spp.), blowflies (e.g., Calliphora spp., Lucilia spp.), and other dung-related flies (e.g., Sarcophaga spp., Drosophila spp.) (13). These flies have individual behavioral patterns, ecology, physiology, and temporal and geographic distributions that will influence the likelihood of their being in kitchens, on human or animal feces, and on food. Although Musca domestica is the species most likely to be involved because it is commonly found in houses and food-processing establishments, larger flies (e.g., Calliphora spp.) may be able to transmit larger numbers of Campylobacter.

Flies contaminated through fecal contact will carry heterogeneous mixtures of organisms, including any pathogens that are present within the feces, and may be able to cause a variety of human infections, including infection by different Campylobacter species and types. This fact partially explains the lack of a clear epidemiologic picture arising from Campylobacter typing work. Gastrointestinal disease caused by flies is more likely to involve pathogens with a low infectious dose (e.g., Shigella, Campylobacter, Cryptosporidium, Giardia, Cyclospora, Escherichia coli O157), and some of these could have a seasonal component related to flies. Where high fly populations and poor hygiene conditions prevail, as in disasters or famines, or where pathogens can grow within fly-contaminated food, the potential exists for transmitting pathogens with a high infectious dose (e.g., Vibrio cholerae, Salmonella spp.). The access that flies have to human and animal feces will influence the degree to which they are contaminated with different enteric pathogens.

Contamination of a range of foods by flies will result in a pattern of infection that will not be amenable to identifying specific vehicles through standard case-control, case-case, or cohort studies, unless specific objective or subjective assessments of fly numbers can be obtained. Fly monitoring will need to be undertaken. An alternative approach could use estimates of fly population numbers based on climatic conditions to compare with data on human Campylobacter infections. This approach has the advantage of being able to use historical climatic and disease surveillance data. The broad relationship between Campylobacter cases and ambient temperature has not been explained in terms of disease causation. The time taken for the larvae of M. domestica to develop (13) was applied to temperature data for England and Wales and has been used to show a strong relationship between Campylobacter cases per week and M. domestica larval development time for 1989 to 1999 (Figure 3). Periods when Campylobacter cases exceed a 7-day average of 170 cases per day occurred when M. domestica larval development time was <3 weeks.

The hypothesis predicts that the Campylobacter infection rates will be higher in persons living close to animal production and lower in urban settings because fly numbers will be lower. Some evidence from the United Kingdom (1,14) and Norway (15) supports this hypothesis. Seasonal changes in Campylobacter incidence that are seen around the world may result from changes in fly populations and flies' access to human and animal feces. Much emphasis on foodborne disease reduction has rightly been on kitchen hygiene, since the low infectious dose of Campylobacter makes cross-transmission from raw meats to ready-to-eat foods a substantial risk in domestic and catering environments. Fly transmission may be the most important source of infection in kitchen transmission routes, and establishments that sell ready-to-eat foods may be sources of Campylobacter, if effective fly control is not in operation. Flies may also be important in transmitting Campylobacter in poultry flocks (16) and between other agricultural animals.

While flies are regarded as important mechanical vectors of diarrheal disease in developing countries, control has largely concentrated on improving drinking water and sewage disposal. In the industrialized world, flies are thought to play a minor role in the transmission of human diarrheal diseases. Immediately intervening in the transmission of Campylobacter gastroenteritis should be possible through increased public awareness and more effective fly control.

Acknowledgments

This hypothesis arose after a lecture by Professor Sandy Cairncross at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, in the spring of 2002. I thank Fay Burgess, Radha Patel, Chris Lane, Douglas Harding, and Erol Yousef for help in preparing the data; Jim McLauchlin, Barry Evans, Chris Little, and John Edmonds for critically commenting on versions of the paper; and André Charlett for statistical support.

Dr. Nichols is an epidemiologist in the Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre, which is part of the Health Protection Agency in London. His research interests include waterborne diseases, foodborne diseases, cryptosporidiosis, and enteric infections.

References

  1. Tam CC. Campylobacter reporting at its peak year of 1998: don't count your chickens yet. Commun Dis Public Health. 2001;4:194–9.
  2. Frost JA, Gillespie IA, O'Brien SJ. Public health implications of campylobacter outbreaks in England and Wales, 1995–9: epidemiological and microbiological investigations. Epidemiol Infect. 2002;128:111–8.
  3. Adak GK, Cowden JM, Nicholas S, Evans HS. The Public Health Laboratory Service national case-control study of primary indigenous sporadic cases of campylobacter infection. Epidemiol Infect. 1995;115:15–22.
  4. Gillespie IA, O'Brien SJ, Frost JA, Adak GK, Horby P, Swan AV, et al. A case-case comparison of Campylobacter coli and Campylobacter jejuni infection: a tool for generating hypotheses. Emerg Infect Dis. 2002;8:937–42.
  5. Louis VR, Gillespie IA, O'Brien SJ, Russek-Cohen E, Pearson AD, Colwell RR. Temperature driven Campylobacter seasonality in England and Wales. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2005;71:85–92.
  6. Khalil K, Lindblom GB, Mazhar K, Kaijser B. Flies and water as reservoirs for bacterial enteropathogens in urban and rural areas in and around Lahore, Pakistan. Epidemiol Infect. 1994;113:435–44.
  7. Rosef O, Kapperud G. House flies (Musca domestica) as possible vectors of Campylobacter fetus subsp. jejuni. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1983;45:381–3.
  8. Shane SM, Montrose MS, Harrington KS. Transmission of Campylobacter jejuni by the housefly (Musca domestica). Avian Dis. 1985;29:384–91.
  9. Chavasse DC, Shier RP, Murphy OA, Huttly SR, Cousens SN, Akhtar T. Impact of fly control on childhood diarrhoea in Pakistan: community-randomised trial. Lancet. 1999;353:22–5.
  10. Cohen D, Green M, Block C, Slepon R, Ambar R, Wasserman SS, et al. Reduction of transmission of shigellosis by control of houseflies (Musca domestica). Lancet. 1991;337:993–7.
  11. Emerson PM, Lindsay SW, Walraven GE, Faal H, Bogh C, Lowe K, et al. Effect of fly control on trachoma and diarrhoea. Lancet. 1999;353:1401–3.
  12. Niven J. Summer diarrhoea and enteric fever. Proc R Soc Med. 1910;III(Epidem. Sect.):131–216.
  13. Kettle DS. Medical and veterinary entomology. 2nd ed. Wallingford (UK): CABI Publishing; 2000.
  14. Skirrow MB. A demographic survey of campylobacter, salmonella, and shigella infections in England. A Public Health Laboratory Service survey. Epidemiol Infect. 1987;99:647–57.
  15. Kapperud G, Aasen S. Descriptive epidemiology of infections due to thermotolerant Campylobacter spp. in Norway, 1979–1988. APMIS. 1992;100:883–90.
  16. Hald B, Skovgard H, Bang DD, Pedersen K, Dybdahl J, Jespersen JB, et al. Flies and Campylobacter infection of broiler flocks. Emerg Infect Dis. 2004;10:1490–2.

 

Table. Risk factors that might affect Campylobacter seasonality*


Risk factor

Outbreaks

Evidence of seasonality

Credibility as the main seasonal driver


Barbecuing

Yes

Medium

Low

Birds

Yes

Strong

Low

Bottled water

No

None

Low

Chicken

Yes

Medium

Medium

Cross-contamination

Yes

None

None

Domestic catering

No

None

None

Farm visit

Yes

None

None

Farm animals

Yes

Weak

Low

Flies

No

Strong

High

Food handlers

Yes

None

None

Food packaging

No

None

None

Immunologic response

No

Weak

None

Mains supply drinking water

Yes

None

None

Nosocomial

Yes

None

None

Pets

No

Weak

Low

Pools, lakes, streams

No

None

None

Private drinking water supplies

Yes

Weak

None

Protozoa

No

None

Low

Salads and fruit

Yes

Weak

Low

Stir-fried food

Yes

None

None

The countryside

No

Weak

Medium

Transmission in families

Yes

None

None

Travel abroad

No

None

None

Unpasteurized milk

Yes

Weak

None

Weather/climate

No

Medium

Medium


*Evidence base provided in Appendix.

 

Suggested citation for this article:
Nichols GL. Fly transmission of Campylobacter. Emerg Infect Dis [serial on the Internet]. 2005 Mar [date cited]. Available from http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/vol11no03/04-0460.htm

   
     
   
Comments to the Authors

Please use the form below to submit correspondence to the authors or contact them at the following address:

Gordon L. Nichols, Environmental and Enteric Diseases Department, Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre, Health Protection Agency Centre for Infections, 61 Colindale Ave, London NW9 5EQ, United Kingdom; fax: 44(0)20-8905-9907; email: gordon.nichols@hpa.org.uk

Please note: To prevent email errors, please use no web addresses, email addresses, HTML code, or the characters <, >, and @ in the body of your message.

Return email address optional:


 


Comments to the EID Editors
Please contact the EID Editors at eideditor@cdc.gov

Email this article

Please note: To prevent email errors, please use no web addresses, email addresses, HTML code, or the characters <, >, and @ in the body of your message.

Your email:

Your friend's email:

Message (optional):

 

 

 

EID Home | Top of Page | Ahead-of-Print | Past Issues | Suggested Citation | EID Search | Contact Us | Accessibility | Privacy Policy Notice | CDC Home | CDC Search | Health Topics A-Z

This page posted February 2, 2005
This page last reviewed September 4, 2008

Emerging Infectious Diseases Journal
National Center for Infectious Diseases
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention