Skip to main content
. 2021 Jun 28;9:672473. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2021.672473

Table 1.

Univariate analysis to identify factors associated with any ciprofloxacin resistance (CIP) and any tetracycline resistance (TET) among 214 Campylobacter jejuni isolates from Michigan, 2011 to 2014.

Any CIP resistance (n = 49) Any TET resistance (n = 120)
Characteristicsa No. (%) OR (95% CI)b p-valuec No. (%) OR (95% CI)b p-valuec
Age (years)
0–9 (n = 65) 14 (21.5) 0.7 (0.31, 1.65) 0.43 39 (60.0) 1.1 (0.53, 2.32) 0.77
10–18 (n = 18) 2 (11.1) 0.21 6 (33.3) 0.4 (0.12, 1.14) 0.08
19–40 (n = 54) 15 (27.8) 1.0 31 (57.4) 1.0
41–65 (n = 59) 16 (27.1) 1.0 (0.42, 2.21) 0.94 33 (55.9) 0.9 (0.45, 1.98) 0.87
≥65 (n = 17) 2 (11.8) - 0.21 10 (58.8) 1.1 (0.35, 3.20) 0.92
Sex
Male (n = 110) 23 (20.9) 1.0 58 (52.7) 1.0
Female (n = 96) 23 (24.0) 0.8 (0.44, 1.62) 0.60 54 (56.3) 1.2 (0.66, 2.00) 0.61
Self-reported raced
White/Caucasian (n = 137) 32 (23.4) 1.0 76 (36.5) 1.0
Non-white/other (n = 35) 9 (25.7) 1.1 (0.48, 2.67) 0.77 17 (48.6) 0.8 (0.36, 1.59) 0.46
Arab ethnicity
No (n = 106) 27 (25.5) 53 (50.0) 1.0
Yes (n = 25) 3 (12.0) 0.19 17 (68.0) 2.1 (0.84, 5.35) 0.10
Season
Winter, Spring (n = 56) 12 (21.4) 1.0 38 (67.9) 1.0
Summer, fall (n = 158) 37 (23.4) 1.1 (0.54, 2.34) 0.76 82 (51.9) 0.5 (0.27, 0.97) 0.04
Any travel in the past month
No (n = 88) 13 (14.8) 1.0 45 (51.1) 1.0
Yes (n = 61) 21 (34.4) 3.0 (1.37, 6.68) 0.005 37 (60.7) 1.5 (0.76, 2.86) 0.25
Type of travel in the past month
None (n = 88) 13 (14.8) 1.0 45 (51.1) 1.0
Domestic (n = 33) 4 (12.5) 1.0 18 (56.3) 1.1 (0.51, 2.56) 0.74
International (n = 27) 17 (63.0) 9.8 (3.69, 26.09) <0.0001 18 (69.2) 2.2 (0.85, 5.46) 0.10
Type of drinking water
Municipal, bottled (n = 119) 25 (21.1) 1.0 60 (50.4) 1.0
Any well water (n = 27) 5 (18.5) 0.9 (0.29, 2.48) 0.77 19 (70.4) 2.3 (0.95, 5.75) 0.06
Poultry consumption
No (n = 16) 4 (25.0) 10 (62.5) 1.0
Yes (n = 115) 24 (20.9) 0.75 61 (53.0) 0.7 (0.23, 1.99) 0.48
Any animal contact
No (n = 54) 12 (22.2) 1.0 30 (55.6) 1.0 -
Yes (n = 96) 20 (20.8) 0.9 (0.41, 2.07) 0.84 52 (54.2) 0.9 (0. 48, 1.85) 0.87
Contact with livestock
No (n = 137) 31 (22.6) 71 (51.8)
Yes (n = 13) 1 (7.7) 0.30 11 (84.6) 0.04
Cattle density in resident countye
Low <8,400 cattle (n = 23) 3 (13.0) 12 (52.2) 1.0
High ≥8,400 cattle (n = 82) 21 (25.6) 0.27 50 (61.0) 1.4 (0.56, 3.63) 0.45
Residence type
Rural (n = 73) 18 (24.7) 1.0 45 (61.6) 1.0
Urban (n = 119) 25 (21.0) 0.8 (0.41, 1.62) 0.56 62 (52.1) 0.7 (0.37, 1.22) 0.20
Hospitalized
No (n = 136) 27 (19.9) 1.0 80 (58.8) 1.0
Yes (n = 46) 14 (30.4) 1.8 (0.83, 3.76) 0.14 21 (45.7) 0.6 (0.30, 1.15) 0.12
a

Not all numbers add up to the total number of cases per category due to missing data for some variables or the exclusion of susceptible isolates.

b

The 95% confidence interval (CI) for the odds ratio (OR) is presented; ORs were calculated separately for CIP and TET relative to all other isolates.

c

The Fisher's Exact Test was used for variables with ≤ 5 in one cell; no ORs could be calculated.

d

Self-reported race categories in the online Michigan Disease Surveillance System questionnaire were: Caucasian, African American, Asian, American Indian/Alaska Native, Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, Unknown, or Other.

e

Cattle density was not known for multiple counties with high case counts.