Risk of pneumonia among residents living near goat and poultry farms during 2014-2016

Risk of pneumonia in the vicinity of goat farms: a comparative assessment of temporal variation based on longitudinal health data

BACKGROUND

Although the association between living in the vicinity of a goat farm and the occurrence of pneumonia is well-documented, it is unclear whether the higher risk of pneumonia in livestock dense areas is season-specific or not. This study explored the temporal variation of the association between exposure to goat farms and the occurrence of pneumonia.

METHODS

A large population-based study was conducted in the Netherlands, based on electronic health records from 49 general practices, collected for a period of six consecutive years (2014-2019). Monthly incidence rates of pneumonia in a livestock dense area were compared with those of a control group (areas with low livestock density) both per individual year and cumulatively for the entire six-year period. Using individual estimates of livestock exposure, it was also examined whether incidence of pneumonia differed per month if someone lived within a certain radius from a goat farm, compared to residents who lived further away.

RESULTS

Pneumonia was consistently more common in the livestock dense area throughout the year, compared to the control area. Analyses on the association between the individual livestock exposure estimates and monthly pneumonia incidence for the whole six-year period, yielded a generally higher risk for pneumonia among people living within 500 m from a goat farm, compared to those living further away. Significant associations were observed for March (IRR 1.68, 95% CI 1.02-2.78), August (IRR 2.67, 95% CI 1.45-4.90) and September (IRR 2.52, 95% CI 1.47-4.32).

CONCLUSIONS

The increased occurrence of pneumonia in the vicinity of goat farms is not season-specific. Instead, pneumonia is more common in livestock dense areas throughout the year, including summer months.

Increased risk of pneumonia amongst residents living near goat farms in different livestock-dense regions in the Netherlands

BACKGROUND

Previous studies, performed between 2009-2019, in the Netherlands observed an until now still unexplained increased risk for pneumonia among residents living close to goat farms. Since data were collected in the provinces Noord-Brabant and Limburg (NB-L), an area with relatively high air pollution levels and proximity to large industrial areas in Europe, the question remains whether the results are generalizable to other regions. In this study, a different region, covering the provinces Utrecht, Gelderland, and Overijssel (UGO) with a similar density of goat farms, was included to assess whether the association between goat farm proximity and pneumonia is consistently observed across the Netherlands.

METHODS

Data for this study were derived from the Electronic Health Records (EHR) of 21 rural general practices (GPs) in UGO, for 2014-2017. Multi-level analyses were used to compare annual pneumonia prevalence between UGO and data derived from rural reference practices ('control area'). Random-effects meta-analysis (per GP practice) and kernel analyses were performed to study associations of pneumonia with the distance between goat farms and patients' home addresses.

RESULTS

GP diagnoses of pneumonia occurred 40% more often in UGO compared to the control area. Meta-analysis showed an association at a distance of less than 500m (~70% more pneumonia compared to >500m) and 1000m (~20% more pneumonia compared to >1000m). The kernel-analysis for three of the four individual years showed an increased risk up to a distance of one or two kilometers (2-36% more pneumonia; 10-50 avoidable cases per 100,000 inhabitants per year).

CONCLUSIONS

The positive association between living in the proximity of goat farms and pneumonia in UGO is similar to the previously found association in NB-L. Therefore, we concluded that the observed associations are relevant for regions with goat farms in the entire country.

Proximity to livestock farms and COVID-19 in the Netherlands, 2020-2021

Objectives

In the Netherlands, during the first phase of the COVID-19 epidemic, the hotspot of COVID-19 overlapped with the country's main livestock area, while in subsequent phases this distinct spatial pattern disappeared. Previous studies show that living near livestock farms influence human respiratory health and immunological responses. This study aimed to explore whether proximity to livestock was associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Methods

The study population was the population of the Netherlands excluding the very strongly urbanised areas and border areas, on January 1, 2019 (12, 628, 244 individuals). The cases are the individuals reported with a laboratory-confirmed positive SARS-CoV-2 test with onset before January 1, 2022 (2, 223, 692 individuals). For each individual, we calculated distance to nearest livestock farm (cattle, goat, sheep, pig, poultry, horse, rabbit, mink). The associations between residential (6-digit postal-code) distance to the nearest livestock farm and individuals' SARS-CoV-2 status was studied with multilevel logistic regression models. Models were adjusted for individuals' age categories, the social status of the postal code area, particulate matter (PM₁₀)- and nitrogen dioxide (NO₂)-concentrations. We analysed data for the entire period and population as well as separately for eight time periods (Jan–Mar, Apr–Jun, Jul–Sep and Oct–Dec in 2020 and 2021), four geographic areas of the Netherlands (north, east, west and south), and for five age categories (0–14, 15–24, 25–44, 45–64 and > 65 years).

Results

Over the period 2020–2021, individuals' SARS-CoV-2 status was associated with living closer to livestock farms. This association increased from an Odds Ratio (OR) of 1.01 (95% Confidence Interval [CI] 1.01–1.02) for patients living at a distance of 751–1000 m to a farm to an OR of 1.04 (95% CI 1.04–1.04), 1.07 (95% CI 1.06–1.07) and 1.11 (95% CI 1.10–1.12) for patients living in the more proximate 501–750 m, 251–500m and 0–250 m zones around farms, all relative to patients living further than 1000 m around farms. This association was observed in three out of four quarters of the year in both 2020 and 2021, and in all studied geographic areas and age groups.

Conclusions

In this exploratory study with individual SARS-CoV-2 notification data and high-resolution spatial data associations were found between living near livestock farms and individuals' SARS-CoV-2 status in the Netherlands. Verification of the results in other countries is warranted, as well as investigations into possible underlying exposures and mechanisms.

Residential proximity to livestock animals and mortality from respiratory diseases in The Netherlands: A prospective census-based cohort study

BACKGROUND

There is increasing evidence of associations between residential proximity to livestock farms and respiratory morbidity, but less is known about potential effects on respiratory mortality among residents.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to assess potential associations between respiratory mortality and residential proximity to (intensive) livestock farming.

METHODS

In DUELS, a national census-based cohort, we selected all inhabitants from rural and semi-urban areas of the Netherlands, aged ≥30 years and living at the same address for five years up to baseline (2004). We followed these ∼4 million individuals for respiratory mortality (respiratory system diseases, chronic lower respiratory diseases, pneumonia) from 2005 to 2012. We computed the average number of cattle, pigs, chicken, and mink present in 500 m, 1000 m, 1500 m and 2000 m of each individual's residence in the period 1999-2003. Analyses were conducted using Cox proportional hazards regression, adjusting for potential confounders at individual and neighbourhood level.

RESULTS

We found evidence that living up to 2000 m of pig farms was associated with respiratory mortality, namely from chronic lower respiratory diseases, with Hazard Ratios ranging from 1.06 (1.02, 1.10) in people living close to low numbers (<median number of animals) of pigs in 1000 m and 1.18 (1.13, 1.24) in those living near high numbers (≥median) of pigs in 2000 m. We also found indications of higher pneumonia mortality in people living near mink farms.

CONCLUSION

Our results are in line with previous findings of adverse respiratory effects in people living near livestock farms. Little is known about the physical, chemical, and biological exposures leading to respiratory morbidity and mortality warranting further explorations of air contaminants in the vicinity of livestock farms.

The air we breathe: understanding the impact of the environment on pneumonia

An increased risk of community-acquired pneumonia has been shown in residents of rural livestock farming areas in the Netherlands and United States, probably due to air pollution exposure or zoonotic infections. Spatial epidemiological analyses have particularly implicated poultry and goat farms in the increased risk-an observation that warrants further research. Studying the viral or bacterial etiology of community-acquired pneumonia using traditional microbiological methods or metagenomic sequencing could help to fathom to what extent environmental factors and causative pathogens contribute to spatial differences in the incidence of severe acute respiratory infections.

No Influence of Previous Coxiella burnetii Infection on ICU Admission and Mortality in Emergency Department Patients Infected with SARS-CoV-2

Background: the geographical similarities of the Dutch 2007–2010 Q fever outbreak and the start of the 2020 coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) outbreak in the Netherlands raised questions and provided a unique opportunity to study an association between Coxiella burnetii infection and the outcome following SARS-CoV-2 infection. Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study in two Dutch hospitals. We assessed evidence of previous C. burnetii infection in COVID-19 patients diagnosed at the ED during the first COVID-19 wave and compared a combined outcome of in-hospital mortality and intensive care unit (ICU) admission using adjusted odds ratios (OR). Results: In total, 629 patients were included with a mean age of 68.0 years. Evidence of previous C. burnetii infection was found in 117 patients (18.6%). The combined primary outcome occurred in 40.2% and 40.4% of patients with and without evidence of previous C. burnetii infection respectively (adjusted OR of 0.926 (95% CI 0.605–1.416)). The adjusted OR of the secondary outcomes in-hospital mortality, ICU-admission and regular ward admission did not show an association either. Conclusion: no influence of previous C. burnetii infection on the risk of ICU admission and/or mortality for patients with COVID-19 presenting at the ED was observed.

Identified micro-organisms in hospitalized community-acquired pneumonia patients living near goat and poultry farms

BACKGROUND

In the Netherlands, an increased risk of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) has been reported for adults living near goat and poultry farms. Previous results of respiratory microbiome studies in hospitalized CAP patients near poultry farms suggested a higher relative abundance of Streptococcus pneumoniae. This retrospective study, using routine laboratory data from hospitalized CAP patients, aims to explore possible aetiologic micro-organisms of CAP in relation to livestock exposure.

METHODS

Patient characteristics and PCR and urinary antigen test results were retrieved retrospectively from electronic medical records of CAP patients admitted to the Jeroen Bosch Hospital or Gelre Hospital in the Netherlands during 2016-2017. Distances between the patients' home address and the nearest poultry and goat farm were calculated. Differences in laboratory test results between CAP patients with and without goat or poultry farms within 2 km of their home address were analyzed using Fisher's exact test.

RESULTS

In total, 2230 CAP episodes with diagnostic results were included. In only 25% of the CAP episodes, a micro-organism was detected. A positive urinary antigen test for S. pneumoniae was found more often in patients living within two kilometers of goat (15.2% vs. 11.3%) and poultry farms (14.4% vs. 11.3%), however these differences were not statistically significant (p = 0.1047 and p = 0.1376).

CONCLUSION

Our retrospective analysis did not show statistically significant differences in the identified micro-organisms in hospitalized CAP patients related to livestock farming. The study was hampered by limited statistical power and limited laboratory results. Therefore, the potential increased CAP risk around goat and poultry farms will be further explored in a prospective study among CAP patients in primary care.

Use of Antibiotics among Residents Living Close to Poultry or Goat Farms: A Nationwide Analysis in The Netherlands

Prior regional studies found a high risk of pneumonia for people living close to poultry and goat farms. This epidemiological study in the Netherlands used nationwide antibiotic prescription data as a proxy for pneumonia incidence to investigate whether residents of areas with poultry and goat farms use relatively more antibiotics compared to areas without such farms. We used prescription data on antibiotics most commonly prescribed to treat pneumonia in adults and livestock farming data, both with nationwide coverage. Antibiotic use was expressed as defined daily doses per (4-digit Postal Code (PC4) area)-(age group)-(gender)-(month) combination for the year 2015. We assessed the associations between antibiotic use and farm exposure using negative binomial regression. The amoxicillin, doxycycline, and co-amoxiclav use was significantly higher (5-10% difference in use) in PC4 areas with poultry farms present compared to areas without, even after adjusting for age, gender, smoking, socio-economic status, and goat farm presence. The adjusted models showed no associations between antibiotic use and goat farm presence. The variables included in this study could only partly explain the observed regional differences in antibiotic use. This was an ecological study that precludes inference about causal relations. Further research using individual-level data is recommended.

Effects of Dutch livestock production on human health and the environment

Observed multiple adverse effects of livestock production have led to increasing calls for more sustainable livestock production. Quantitative analysis of adverse effects, which can guide public debate and policy development in this area, is limited and generally scattered across environmental, human health, and other science domains. The aim of this study was to bring together and, where possible, quantify and aggregate the effects of national-scale livestock production on 17 impact categories, ranging from impacts of particulate matter, emerging infectious diseases and odor annoyance to airborne nitrogen deposition on terrestrial nature areas and greenhouse gas emissions. Effects were estimated and scaled to total Dutch livestock production, with system boundaries including feed production, manure management and transport, but excluding slaughtering, retail and consumption. Effects were expressed using eight indicators that directly express Impact in the sense of the Drivers-Pressures-State-Impact-Response framework, while the remaining 14 express Pressures or States. Results show that livestock production may contribute both positively and negatively to human health with a human disease burden (expressed in disability-adjusted life years) of up to 4% for three different health effects: those related to particulate matter, zoonoses, and occupational accidents. The contribution to environmental impact ranges from 2% for consumptive water use in the Netherlands to 95% for phosphorus transfer to soils, and extends beyond Dutch borders. While some aggregation across impact categories was possible, notably for burden of disease estimates, further aggregation of disparate indicators would require normative value judgement. Despite difficulty of aggregation, the assessment shows that impacts receive a different contribution of different animal sectors. While some of our results are country-specific, the overall approach is generic and can be adapted and tuned according to specific contexts and information needs in other regions, to allow informed decision making across a broad range of impact categories.

Prevalence of non-specific health symptoms in livestock dense areas: Looking beyond respiratory conditions

The aim of this study was to gain more insight in the association between prevalence of diverse acute non-specific symptoms (NSS) and livestock density as a possible risk factor among residents of livestock-dense and non-dense regions, taking into account socio-demographic factors and psychological morbidity. Prevalence of NSS and psychological morbidity were assessed for the year 2017, based on electronic health records from 39 general practices in the Netherlands. The study group consisted of people who lived in rural areas with high numbers of livestock (n = 74093), while the control group included people in rural areas with low numbers of livestock (n = 50139). For a large portion of the study group, exposure estimates (to livestock) were calculated. Multiple logistic multilevel regression analyses were performed. Two methods were used: 1) area comparisons between study and control areas in relation to health problems, and 2) estimates of livestock exposure (to goats, poultry, pigs, and cattle) within the study area. It was found that prevalence of diarrhea, headache, sleep disturbance, respiratory symptoms, and skin problems were higher in the study group. The data suggest that there may be a protective effect of livestock exposure: in general, there was a lower risk of NSS closer to livestock (within the exposure analyses). The study suggests that the previously identified higher risk of respiratory health problems in livestock dense areas might also apply to the prevalence of various other NSS. Longitudinal research taking into account different or more individual and contextual characteristics could possibly elucidate why prevalence of NSS in closer proximity to livestock is lower compared to people who live further away, whilst a more overarching analysis indicated that living in livestock dense areas was associated with more NSS.