Lyme disease (LD) can have significant consequences for the health of workers. The frequency of infection can be estimated by using prevalence and incidence data on antibodies against Borrelia Burgdoferi (BB). A systematic search of studies published in English between 2002 and 2021 and a meta-analysis were conducted in PubMed/Medline, Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases. Out of a total of 1125 studies retrieved, 35 articles were included in the systematic review. Overall, in these studies, outdoor workers showed a 20.5% BB seroprevalence rate. Meta-analysis, performed on 15 studies (3932 subjects), revealed a significantly increased risk in outdoor activities (OR 1.93 95%CI 1.15–3.23), with medium-level heterogeneity (I2 = 69.2%), and non-significant publication bias. The estimated OR in forestry and agricultural workers was 2.36 (CI95% 1.28; 4.34) in comparison with the controls, while a non-significant increase in risk (OR = 1.05, CI95% 0.28; 3.88) was found in the remaining categories of workers (veterinarians, animal breeders, soldiers). The estimated pooled risk was significantly higher in the studies published until 2010 (OR 3.03 95% CI 1.39–6.61), while in more recent studies the odds became non-significant (OR 1.08 95% CI 0.63–1.85). The promotion of awareness campaigns targeting outdoor workers in endemic areas, and the implementation of local programs aimed at controlling range expansion of vectors, are key strategies for protecting workers.

Magnavita, N., Capitanelli, I., Ilesanmi, O., Chirico, F., Occupational Lyme Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis, <<DIAGNOSTICS>>, 2022; 12 (2): 296-N/A. [doi:10.3390/diagnostics12020296] [http://hdl.handle.net/10807/200148]

Occupational Lyme Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Magnavita, Nicola;Capitanelli, Ilaria;Chirico, Francesco
2022

Abstract

Lyme disease (LD) can have significant consequences for the health of workers. The frequency of infection can be estimated by using prevalence and incidence data on antibodies against Borrelia Burgdoferi (BB). A systematic search of studies published in English between 2002 and 2021 and a meta-analysis were conducted in PubMed/Medline, Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases. Out of a total of 1125 studies retrieved, 35 articles were included in the systematic review. Overall, in these studies, outdoor workers showed a 20.5% BB seroprevalence rate. Meta-analysis, performed on 15 studies (3932 subjects), revealed a significantly increased risk in outdoor activities (OR 1.93 95%CI 1.15–3.23), with medium-level heterogeneity (I2 = 69.2%), and non-significant publication bias. The estimated OR in forestry and agricultural workers was 2.36 (CI95% 1.28; 4.34) in comparison with the controls, while a non-significant increase in risk (OR = 1.05, CI95% 0.28; 3.88) was found in the remaining categories of workers (veterinarians, animal breeders, soldiers). The estimated pooled risk was significantly higher in the studies published until 2010 (OR 3.03 95% CI 1.39–6.61), while in more recent studies the odds became non-significant (OR 1.08 95% CI 0.63–1.85). The promotion of awareness campaigns targeting outdoor workers in endemic areas, and the implementation of local programs aimed at controlling range expansion of vectors, are key strategies for protecting workers.
2022
Inglese
Magnavita, N., Capitanelli, I., Ilesanmi, O., Chirico, F., Occupational Lyme Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis, <<DIAGNOSTICS>>, 2022; 12 (2): 296-N/A. [doi:10.3390/diagnostics12020296] [http://hdl.handle.net/10807/200148]
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
diagnostics-Lyme.pdf

accesso aperto

Tipologia file ?: Versione Editoriale (PDF)
Licenza: Creative commons
Dimensione 1.63 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
1.63 MB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/10807/200148
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 5
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 4
social impact