Next Article in Journal
Rickettsia and Ehrlichia of Veterinary and Public Health Importance in Ticks Collected from Birds in the Great Plains of the United States
Previous Article in Journal
Laboratory Diagnosis of Animal Tuberculosis in Tracing Interspecies Transmission of Mycobacterium bovis
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Q Fever-Related Community Infections: United States Exposure to Coxiella burnetii

by
Charles F. Dillon
1,* and
Gwendolyn R. Dillon
2
1
Independent Researcher, Stamford, CT 06901, USA
2
Department of Chemistry, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Pathogens 2025, 14(5), 460; https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens14050460
Submission received: 1 March 2025 / Revised: 8 April 2025 / Accepted: 28 April 2025 / Published: 8 May 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Epidemiology of Infectious Diseases)

Abstract

:
Coxiella burnetii is a significant infectious pathogen that causes Q fever. Q fever is thought to be uncommon in the US and most human cases are believed to occur in agricultural livestock workers. However, the extent of US community exposure to C. burnetii is not known with certainty. Using nationally representative 2003–2004 US National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey serologic, demographic, and occupational history data, the magnitude of US adult general population exposure to C. burnetii, excluding agricultural-sector workers, was estimated. Exposure was defined as positive serum IgG antibodies in an immunofluorescence assay (e.g., current or past infection). A total of 3.0% (95% CI: 2.0–4.4) of the US population met the criteria for C. burnetii exposure, representing some 6.2 million persons. Overall, 86.9% (95% CI: 75.5–98.4) of the seropositive persons had no lifetime history of work in the agricultural sector (5.5 million persons). This was consistently true across all US demographic groups: aged 20–59 years, 87.3%; aged 60+ years, 85.7%; men, 86.1%; women, 87.6%; non-Hispanic Whites, 82%; non-Hispanic Blacks, 95.8%; Mexican Americans, 89.4%; immigrants from Mexico, 83.5%; and other immigrants, 96.8%. As a proportion of C. burnetii infections result in acute Q fever and chronic Q fever conveys significant mortality, the community-level risks to the general public may be significant. It is recommended that a 6-year sample of the most recent NHANES stored sera be analyzed to determine the current community C. burnetii exposure rates. Also, analyzing an additional 2005–2008 stored sera sample would provide an opportunity to assess the time trends and long-term health impacts.

1. Introduction

Coxiella burnetii is an important pathogen; it is the causal agent of Q fever, one of the select US national notifiable infectious diseases, and a significant, but treatable, health hazard [1,2,3]. It is a potent Gram-negative intracellular pathogen with a low infectious dose [4,5]. Acute Q fever is typically an acute respiratory illness or hepatitis. The infection can also be followed by chronic illness, which carries a significant mortality risk [1,6]. Viable C. burnetii bacteria are capable of persisting in the environment for months to years, significantly increasing the population exposure risks [7]. A primary route of transmission to humans is the airborne inhalation of bacteria from infected animal birth products or contaminated dust and soils.
A major reservoir for C. burnetii is farm animals, specifically domesticated ruminants, including cattle, sheep, and goats [8,9]. However, since livestock workers are a small minority of the general population, Q fever is usually considered uncommon in the US, i.e., a rare illness mainly affecting this one specific occupational group. The fact that relatively few Q fever cases are officially reported each year to the US National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System (NNDSS) may have served to strengthen this perception (194 cases in 2022) [2]. However, Q fever in the US is considered a largely unreported disease [1,8,10].
How accurate is the impression that US C. burnetii infections and clinical disease are mainly restricted to the agricultural industry? A review of Q fever case reports submitted to the NNDSS from 2000 to 2010 showed that 79% of the officially notified Q fever cases were in persons who had no history of work in traditional high-risk occupations, and 60% reported no contact with livestock [1]. These estimates could be a signal of significant C. burnetii exposures occurring in the US general population; however, the reports were based on a voluntary reporting system (passive surveillance) that was not nationally representative.
There are nationally representative data for the US prevalence of positive C. burnetii antibodies. A US National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) surplus sera study using 2003–2004 specimens showed that some 3.1% of the US adult population were C. burnetii-seropositive, representing an estimated 6.1 million persons [11]. These numbers are remarkable, indicating that exposure to and infection with C. burnetii is, in fact, common in the US. It also suggests that the prevalence of US Q fever cases could be much greater than that indicated by officially notified case reports. Further, NHANES routinely obtains nationally representative work history data [12]. This captures the greater part of a participant’s lifetime employment. However, the 2-year survey dataset was the minimum sample size for any NHANES analysis. Given an overall 3% C. burnetii-seropositive rate, stable statistical estimates of occupational exposure analyses for many specific occupations, including agricultural workers, were not possible.
It was not appreciated, however, that the statistical complement of the C. burnetii infection rate in agricultural workers, the seroprevalence in persons with no prior history of work in the agricultural sector, can be reliably estimated from the NHANES data with precision. This seroprevalence estimate is presented here for the US and its major demographic subgroups. This metric is important, as it can potentially provide an initial perspective on the scope of US population-level exposures to the general public outside of the agricultural sector.

2. Materials and Methods

NHANES is a series of cross-sectional, active surveillance surveys that monitor the health and nutritional status of the ambulatory, noninstitutionalized US civilian population. Each 2-year survey cycle is nationally representative. Data are collected by in-person household interviews, with examinations and laboratory studies performed in mobile examination centers [13]. NHANES is a demographically based survey that uses a complex, multistage survey design to estimate national-level prevalences [14]. Oversampling is used to capture adequate data for key demographic subgroups. The NHANES 2003–2004 survey had a 70% adult health examination response rate [15].

2.1. NHANES Occupational Data

The NHANES fielded one of the standardized US National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) occupational history surveillance instruments [12]. Data were collected by trained professional interviewers with in-field data quality control. The data collection also included demographic data (age, sex, ethnicity, and nativity). Data for the participant’s current and longest-held jobs were collected, and if applicable, data were also collected for an individual’s job during which their asthma began, if not their current or longest-held position. This captures the greater part of an individual’s work history but is not a complete listing of all the jobs they have ever held. The NHANES dataset did not have a specific variable for work with livestock. The NHANES industry and occupation text data were coded by NCHS Division of Vital Statistics staff using the US Census Bureau’s 2000 version of its Occupation and Industry Coding System [16,17]. For public release, the detailed US Census data codes were abstracted into 45 industry and 41 occupation groups (Appendix A of [16]). A participant was classified as having worked in the agricultural sector if there was an industry or occupation code to indicate it. Industry codes included agricultural production, support services, and forestry; occupation codes included farm operators, managers, supervisors, farm and nursery workers, and related agricultural occupations (Appendix A of [16]).
A statistical analysis for most individual occupational titles was not possible due to small sample sizes, even when the data were regrouped into 17 occupational categories (Supplemental Table S1). We therefore condensed the data into four major socioeconomic groups using an occupational group classification system previously used by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [18] (p. 231). These were professional, technical, and office workers (occupation group codes 1–16); service workers (codes 17–24); agriculture and related work (codes 25–27); and factory, repair, construction, transport, and freight/materials work [16] (codes 28–40). We also added categories for those who reported a history of work in more than one of the occupational groups and for those who had never worked. To assess whether our occupational data had a sufficient sample size for the analyses, the total study person-years of work history were computed. For quality assurance purposes, age-specific NHANES 2003-2004 civilian labor force participation rates were compared to known US Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) values [19] (Supplemental Tables S2 and S3).

2.2. C. burnetii Serology Data

The 2022 update of the NHANES 2003–2004 C. burnetii stored surplus sera data was used for the analysis [20]. Results from this revised dataset closely replicated the earlier published US C. burnetii population seroprevalences [11]. NHANES sera were screened for C. burnetii IgG antibodies (N = 4236) using an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), (PanBio Inc., Columbia, MD, USA). Positive or equivocal ELISA results were then tested for IgG Phase 1 and 2 antibodies by an immunofluorescence assay (IFA) using the Philip et al. method adapted to C. burnetii [21,22] (purified Phase 1/Phase 2, strain: Nine Mile; Rocky Mountain Laboratories, Hamilton, MT, USA). Exposure in this study was defined as a positive Phase 1 or 2 serum IgG antibody titer of ≥1:16 (e.g., current or past infection).

2.3. Statistical Methods

The data assembly and statistical analysis utilized SASTM (release 9.4, SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC, USA) and SUDAANTM (release 11.0.1, Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA). The survey design variables (strata and primary sampling units) and health examination sample weights were used to account for the differential probabilities of participant selection, to adjust for survey nonresponse and noncoverage, and to provide nationally representative estimates. Standard errors were estimated using Taylor-series linearization. Prevalence estimates were age-adjusted using direct standardization. t-tests were used to compare the estimates, with p ≤ 0.05 considered significant. The NCHS criteria and software were employed to assess the statistical reliability of the estimated prevalences and proportions based on the effective sample size, relative confidence interval widths, and degrees of freedom [23,24,25]. Where the statistical reliability criteria were not met, select prevalence estimates without confidence intervals are presented for perspective.

3. Results

3.1. Overall US C. burnetii Seroprevalence

Overall, 175 of 4236 survey participants were C. burnetii-seropositive, representing an estimated 3.0% US prevalence (95% CI: 2.0–4.4) (Table 1). This corresponds to 6.2 million adults in the general population (95% CI: 4.1–9.0 million). The infection risk was significantly increased at older ages: 4.2% in those aged 60+ years vs. 2.7% in younger adults (t = 2.52, p = 0.02). Men showed a higher prevalence of infection than women, at 3.8% vs. 2.3% (t = 2.23, p = 0.04). The numbers of individuals affected in both sexes were substantial, at 3.8 million infections among men (95% CI: 2.5–5.5) and 2.5 million among women (95% CI: 1.4–4.1). Mexican Americans had a significantly increased risk of infection, at 7.5% compared to 2.8% in non-Hispanic Whites (t = 5.71, p < 0.01). The seroprevalence was 1.4% in the non-Hispanic Black population (95% CI: 0.6–2.8). A total of 2.4% (95% CI: 1.4–3.6) of US-born participants had positive antibodies, whereas foreign-born participants had higher infection rates: 8.6% (95% CI: 6.2–11.5) of those born in Mexico and 6.9% (95% CI: 3.6–11.7) of those born in other countries.

3.2. Occupational Sample Data Descriptives

The NHANES 2003–2004 dataset had a total of 59,214 person-years of work for the occupational history analysis, with 1 person-year defined as one year that an individual worked (Table 2). There was a total of 25,410 person-years of work among those currently working, 732 person-years among the unemployed, and 32,072 person-years worked for those who were not currently working. The latter included those retired (24,022 person-years), the disabled, homemakers, those suffering from a personal illness, and others (Supplemental Table S4).
The overall NHANES 2003–2004 US civilian labor force participation rate in the study sample was 66.5% (95% CI: 64.3–68.7) (Table 3). This was consistent with the Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates for 2003 (66.2%) and 2004 (66.0%). The NHANES age-specific labor force participation rates for the current study sample age range (adults 20+ years) were also consistent with the BLS estimates. As BLS reports do not routinely provide standard error estimates, the NHANES and BLS age-specific estimates were not further compared.

3.3. C. burnetii Seroprevalence in Those with No History of Agricultural Work

Table 1 and Figure 1 also show the population prevalences and percentages of C. burnetii-seropositive participants who had no previous history of agricultural work. The US adult population C. burnetii seroprevalence in the group with no history of agricultural work was 2.7% (95% CI: 1.8–3.8). This was 86.9% (95% CI: 75.5–98.4) of all of the study’s C. burnetii seropositives, equivalent to 5.5 million persons (95% CI: 3.7–7.8). The results for the detailed demographic subgroups were similar. A total of 87.3% of seropositive US adults aged 20–59 years and 85.7% of adults aged 60+ years reported no history of work in agriculture. Also, seropositive men and women had similar rates for a lack of history of agricultural work: 86.1% for men (95% CI: 72.4–99.9) and 87.6% for women (95% CI: 70.0–100). As a group, 89.4% (95% CI: 79.6–99.2) of seropositive Mexican Americans reported no history of prior agricultural work. Further, 83.5% (95% CI: 68.6–98.4) of seropositive persons born in Mexico reported no history of agricultural work.

3.4. Length of Residence Data for US Immigrants

Higher rates of positive C. burnetii serology results in US foreign-born residents could potentially reflect infections acquired prior to US immigration. Mexican Americans were a large demographic subgroup and constituted the majority of US immigrants in 2003–2004. Because of low subsample sizes, most of the residence length data for foreign-born Mexican Americans could not be statistically analyzed. However, for perspective, of the 854 Mexican American participants in the sample, an estimated 41% were native-born US citizens and 59% were born in Mexico. An estimated 25% of those born in Mexico were naturalized US citizens; virtually all (96%) of these had resided in the US for 10 or more years and 63% for ≥20 years. Among all Mexican-born non-US citizens, an estimated 46% had lived in the US for 10 years or more and 19% for ≥20 years. Among seropositive Mexican-born non-citizens, an estimated 59% had US residency for ≥10 years and 9% for ≥20 years.

3.5. Occupational Data Analysis

A direct analysis of seropositive risks in the 41 NHANES occupational group job titles was not feasible due to sample size limitations. This problem persisted when the data were further condensed into 17 occupational groups. For perspective, Supplementary Table S1 shows the crude data distribution for the 17 job categories, ordered by the percentage of C. burnetii-seropositive results. Table 4 shows that, when more general-level socioeconomic groups were compared, manufacturing, repair, construction, transportation, and freight/materials workers had the highest seroprevalence, at 3.9% (2.4–5.8), and professional, technical, and office workers had the lowest, at 2.0% (1.1–3.3). This was a statistically significant difference (t = 3.17, p < 0.01).

4. Discussion

As initially recognized in the 1950s, C. burnetii infections are endemic in almost all countries, causing disease in both humans and animals [1,26,27,28,29,30,31]. The United States is no exception. A US clinical laboratory serology study, US Q fever notifiable disease reports, and the nationally representative US National Inpatient Sample survey have documented C. burnetii infections, Q fever cases, and hospitalizations occurring throughout the US [1,32,33,34,35]. The NHANES survey seroprevalence data add a further important population-based perspective on US Q fever-related exposures.
The NHANES C. burnetii seroprevalence results are older data; however, the dataset is unique with its large-scale, nationally representative, population-based, in-person, active surveillance sampling. Additionally, NHANES 2003–2004 had a high survey response rate. The overall and age-specific NHANES 2003–2004 estimates for the current labor force participation rates in the age range of 20+ years were consistent with official US Bureau of Labor Statistics values, an added indication that the NHANES 2003–2004 occupation data are nationally representative (e.g., sampling frame external validation). The 2-year NHANES work history sample size (the total person-years worked) was more than sufficient to estimate prevalences and the percentages of seropositive adults with no history of work in the agricultural sector.
Rather than being rare, C. burnetii infections were shown to be common in the US: 3% of the adult population, or some 6.2 million persons, had positive serology results. Overall, 87% of those who were C. burnetii-seropositive reported no prior history of work in the agricultural sector, equivalent to some 5.5 million persons in the US. This finding was consistent across all the major US demographic subgroups, including US citizens and immigrants. Also, the general-level occupational group analysis here showed that manufacturing, repair, construction, transportation, and freight/materials workers in the community may have increased C. burnetii exposures. This is consistent with prior disease outbreaks and case reports (Table 5).
Collectively, the above findings are remarkable, as farm worker exposure to livestock is usually considered to be the cause of most US C. burnetii infections. Nevertheless, the results here suggest that general population exposures to C. burnetii may be common and may exceed those of livestock workers. Additional focused studies are needed to more rigorously define the population-level burden of these community-level exposures. Table 5 summarizes the known and probable C. burnetii reservoirs, transmission settings, and pathways relevant to community and non-farm-related occupational exposures [36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101,102,103,104,105,106,107,108,109,110,111,112,113,114,115,116,117,118,119,120,121,122,123,124]. The table emphasizes North American studies, so it is not globally comprehensive.
The results here have some precedents in the literature. In a recent update to the US national NNDSS Q fever case notifications for 2008 to 2017, 60% of the officially reported cases were in persons who had no exposure to animals prior to the onset of their illness, and only 40% were employed in high-risk occupations [10]. Also, in the recent large-scale regional Q fever epidemic in the Netherlands, only 3.2% of the officially notified Q fever cases were in persons who had worked in the agriculture sector, and only 0.5% worked in the meat-processing industry [125,126]. A recent comprehensive global review of Q fever outbreaks showed that half occurred in communities and not in traditional at-risk occupational settings [26]. Of the community outbreaks, only half were associated with living in proximity to livestock holdings. Indirect transmission via environmental contamination and airborne spread were the most common infection routes, particularly for large-scale urban outbreaks.
Also significantly, a US national-scale environmental survey demonstrated widespread C. burnetii contamination in US dust and soils [7]. Positive samples were found in livestock operations as expected, but also in non-agricultural locations such as post offices, retail stores, schools, a bank, a government building, and a community center. Given C. burnetii’s environmental viability and low infectious dose, the aerosolization of pathogenic bacteria from such contaminated dust and soils could pose a significant health hazard to the general public.

Limitations

This study provided a US C. burnetii exposure assessment, but should not be interpreted as an assessment of the US prevalence of actual clinical disease, e.g., of acute or chronic Q fever. Seroprevalence exposure assessments are typically employed to model disease risks, to identify high-risk settings, and to characterize vulnerable population subgroups. An example is to provide guidance for planning preventive vaccination programs.
Currently, preventive animal vaccines are available in some European countries (Coxevac), while a human Q fever vaccine (Q-VAX) is only available in Australia [31,127,128]. No Q fever vaccines are available in the United States. The human vaccine is contraindicated in those who experienced a prior C. burnetii infection, so pre-vaccination skin testing and serology screening is required. Vaccines are under development to address this limitation as well as to improve immunologic targeting [128].
The current dataset and analysis relied solely on C. burnetii ELISA and IFA assays to detect infections. Some positive assay results may have been due to Phase 1 or 2 cross-reactivity with IgG antibodies that recognize other Gram-negative bacteria. Molecular and genotyping techniques to assess this are in current use [129,130]. These techniques are important for both clinical and environmental Q fever studies [30,45,46,121,130].
We could not determine whether the foreign-born survey participants had been exposed to C. burnetii in the US or their home country. However, as seropositivity generally wanes with time, especially over decades, the length of immigrant residence in the US provides some initial perspective on whether the infection may have occurred pre-immigration or in the US. In the study time frame, Mexican Americans made up the majority of US immigrants. However, a substantial proportion of foreign-born Mexican American immigrants had lived in the US for one or more decades, so a large fraction of these may have been exposed to C. burnetii in the US. Also, like native-born US citizens, most Mexican American immigrants reported no prior history of work in the agriculture sector, at 83.3% vs. 83.5%, respectively.
This cross-sectional study employed the NHANES occupational history questionnaire, a robust general-purpose public health surveillance epidemiology instrument. However, it lacks the additional detail typically seen in Q fever outbreak investigations. A future, specifically designed NHANES study could be fielded to specifically address this limitation. In this regard, there were two biases in the current study that functioned in opposite directions. First, while the agricultural sector work variable used here was based on the participant’s current as well as longest-held job data and captured a significant proportion of an individual’s work history, it did not provide a complete employment history, so some prior work in agriculture may not have been accounted for. On the other hand, the NHANES survey agricultural work variable used here is a general-level one that includes both the crop production and the livestock sectors. As the levels of US employment solely in the crop-production sector are substantial, a significant fraction of those reporting a history of agricultural work in this study had no work contact with livestock [131].
Another potential study limitation is that this study was based on older 2003–2004 data. In the absence of more recent data, it is not possible to know what the current US C. burnetii seroprevalence is, or what the current extent of community exposures are. However, the US Q fever prevalence rates may not have substantially changed since 2003–2004. Q fever first became a US notifiable disease in 1999. During the implementation phase, 19 cases were reported in the year 2000 and 71 cases were reported each in 2003 and 2004. By 2007, the number of officially reported cases had reached 173, with only small yearly increases through 2022 (194 cases) [33]. Since the US adult population also increased over the same time-period, some increase in the number of reported cases would be expected based on population growth.
The NHANES 2003–2004 3% overall US C. burnetii seroprevalence estimate is broadly consistent with prior seroprevalence reports from other countries that employed IgG IFA assays. A Chilean national health population survey reported a 2016–2017 seroprevalence of 3.0% (95% CI: 2.2–4.0) for persons aged 15 years and above [132]. Separately, a large 2006–2007 population-based seroprevalence study fielded in support of the Dutch National Immunization Programme reported a 2.4% C. burnetii seroprevalence for persons of all ages [133]. This study was conducted immediately prior to the large-scale 2007–2010 Netherlands Q fever outbreak. Post-outbreak in 2012–2013, 110 of 2490 Dutch blood donors were positive, a seroprevalence rate of 4.4% (3.7–5.3) [134]. An Australian 2012–2013 regional blood donor study reported an overall, age-standardized C. burnetii seroprevalence rate of 5.6% (95% CI: 4.5–6.8) [135]. This rate did not significantly differ between metropolitan and non-metropolitan regions. Finally, a Northern Ireland study used stored sera from two cross-sectional health surveys (1987–1988). The C. burnetii general population seroprevalence was 12.8% by ELISA assay among those aged 2 to 64 years [136]. The seropositivity rate was 48.8% among farmers. Farm workers comprised approximately 20% of all the Q fever infections. This study implies that 80% of all infections occurred outside of agricultural work.
A primary limitation of this study is the reliance on a retrospective analysis of a limited set of stored sera data. However, this study did not reflect on NHANES’s capabilities. Stored sera studies are highly useful, as seen here. Nevertheless, NHANES’s primary purpose is to field designed for purpose, in-person, active surveillance public health studies, such as its US national surveillance programs for infectious diseases and environmental exposures monitoring. In any given year, the NHANES samples 15 selected US Census tracts. The 2-year sample used here is the minimum required for an NHANES analysis. Given the overall 3% C. burnetii US seroprevalence, there was reduced study power and ability to provide key subgroup estimates, such as the infection risk for those working in most occupations, including agriculture. A 6-year sample of NHANES stored sera (90 US Census tracts) would be required to address this limitation, and, for example, assess the detailed exposure risks in the 17 occupational groups listed in Supplementary Table S1 [137].
NHANES currently maintains stored sera samples for the 2005 to 2023 period, as well as its associated NHANES health examination and laboratory datasets [138]. These stored sera present a unique opportunity to better understand both the current US C. burnetii community exposure rates and their associated long-term health impacts on the general population. Finally, it would not be surprising if other Q fever researchers already possess significant datasets that, when analyzed, could yield important perspectives on the extent of, and global variations, in C. burnetii community exposures. These are the key data required to implement programs to reduce the overall number of exposures and the Q fever disease burden.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/pathogens14050460/s1, Table S1: Coxiella burnetii seropositivity by history of work in 17 occupational groups; Table S2: US Bureau of Labor Statistics 2003 labor force participation rates; Table S3: US Bureau of Labor Statistics 2004 labor force participation rates; Table S4: Non-Employed Persons- Total Person-Years Worked.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, C.F.D.; methodology, C.F.D.; software, C.F.D. and G.R.D.; formal analysis, C.F.D. and G.R.D.; writing—original draft, C.F.D. and G.R.D.; writing—review and editing. C.F.D. and G.R.D.; visualization, C.F.D.; project supervision, C.F.D. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the US National Center for Health Statistics Ethics Review Board, Protocol Code #98-12 https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes/about/erb.html (accessed on 27 April 2025).

Informed Consent Statement

The NHANES obtained written informed consent from all the subjects involved in the study. This included permission to publish deidentified results in scientific journals and reports. https://wwwn.cdc.gov/Nchs/Nhanes/ContinuousNhanes/Documents.aspx?BeginYear=2003 (accessed on 27 April 2025).

Data Availability Statement

This research was based on publicly available NHANES data. https://wwwn.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes/continuousnhanes/default.aspx?BeginYear=2003 (accessed on 27 April 2025).

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge the helpful assistance of the US Bureau of Labor Statistics Division of Information Services for providing the BLS 2003 and 2004 age- and sex-specific current US labor force participation data used in this research. We also thank Michael Dillon for his work in paper conceptual development, data analysis strategies, and manuscript development.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
NHANESUS National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey
NCHSUS National Center for Health Statistics
BLSUS Bureau of Labor Statistics
NNDSSUS National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System
ELISAEnzyme-linked immunosorbent assay
IFAImmunofluorescence assay

References

  1. Anderson, A.; Bijlmer, H.; Fournier, P.-E.; Graves, S.; Hartzell, J.; Kersh, G.J.; Limonard, G.; Marrie, T.J.; Massung, R.F.; McQuiston, J.H.; et al. Diagnosis and management of Q fever—United States, 2013: Recommendations from CDC and the Q fever working group. MMWR Recomm. Rep. RR-03 2013, 62, 1–30. [Google Scholar]
  2. CDC Wonder. Notifiable Infectious Diseases and Conditions, United States: Annual Tables. 2022. Available online: https://wonder.cdc.gov/nndss-annual-summary.html (accessed on 27 April 2025).
  3. Parker, N.R.; Barralet, J.H.; Bell, A.M. Q fever. Lancet 2006, 367, 679–688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Brooke, R.J.; Kretzschmar, M.E.; Mutters, N.T.; Teunis, S.P. Human dose response relation for airborne exposure to Coxiella burnetii. BMC Infect. Dis. 2013, 13, 488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Heppell, C.W.; Egan, J.R.; Hall, I. A human time dose response model for Q fever. Epidemics 2017, 21, 30–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Eldin, C.; Mélenotte, C.; Mediannikov, O.; Ghigo, E.; Million, M.; Edouard, S.; Mege, J.L.; Maurin, M.; Raoult, D. From Q fever to Coxiella burnetii infection: A paradigm change. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2017, 30, 115–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Kersh, G.J.; Wolfe, T.M.; Fitzpatrick, K.A.; Candee, A.J.; Oliver, L.D.; Patterson, N.E.; Self, J.S.; Priestley, R.A.; Loftis, A.D.; Massung, R.F. Presence of Coxiella burnetii DNA in the environment of the United States, 2006 to 2008. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2010, 76, 4469–4475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. McQuiston, J.H.; Childs, J.E. Q fever in humans and animals in the United States. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2002, 2, 179–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. National Association of State Public Health Veterinarians, National Assembly of State Animal Health Officials. Prevention and Control of Coxiella burnetii Infection Among Humans and Animals: Guidance for a Coordinated Public health and Animal Health Response. Available online: http://nasphv.org/Documents/Q_Fever_2013.pdf (accessed on 2 February 2025).
  10. Cherry, C.C.; Heitman, K.N.; Bestul, N.C.; Kersh, G.J. Acute and chronic Q fever national surveillance—United States, 2008-2017. Zoonoses Public Health 2022, 69, 73–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Anderson, A.D.; Kruszon-Moran, D.; Loftis, A.D.; McQuillan, G.; Nicholson, W.L.; Priestley, R.A.; Candee, A.J.; Patterson, N.E.; Massung, R.F. Seroprevalence of Q fever in the United States, 2003–2004. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 2009, 81, 691–694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. US National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Questionnaire: SP (2003-04) Occupation. OCQ-C. Available online: https://wwwn.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhanes/public/2003/questionnaires/sp_ocq_c.pdf (accessed on 2 February 2025).
  13. Zipf, G.; Chiappa, M.; Porter, K.S.; Ostchega, Y.; Lewis, B.G.; Dostal, J. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey: Plan and operations, 1999–2010. Vital Health Stat 1 2013, 56, 1–28. [Google Scholar]
  14. Curtin, L.R.; Mohadjer, L.K.; Dohrmann, S.M.; Montaquila, J.M.; Kruszan-Moran, D.; Mirel, L.B.; Carroll, M.D.; Hirsch, R.; Schober, S.; Johnson, C.L. The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey: Sample design, 1999–2006. Vital Health Stat 2 2012, 155, 1–39. [Google Scholar]
  15. US National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Unweighted Response Rates for NHANES 2003–2004 by Age and Gender. Available online: https://wwwn.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ResponseRates/RRT0102MF.pdf (accessed on 2 February 2025).
  16. US National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. 2003–2004 Data Documentation, Codebook, and Frequencies Occupation (OCQ_C). Available online: https://wwwn.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes/continuousnhanes/default.aspx?BeginYear=2003 (accessed on 30 March 2025).
  17. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Collecting and Using Industry and Occupation Data. Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/occupation-industry-data/about-data/coding/classification-systems.html?CDC_AAref_Val=https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/coding/more.html (accessed on 2 February 2025).
  18. Krieger, N.; Bareau, E.M.; Soobader, M.J. Class matters: U.S. versus U.K. measures of occupational disparities in access to health services and health status in the 2000 U.S. National Health Interview Survey. Int. J. Health Serv. 2005, 35, 213–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey. Concepts and Definitions. Available online: https://www.bls.gov/cps/definitions.htm (accessed on 27 April 2025).
  20. US National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. 2003–2004 Data Documentation, Codebook, and Frequencies. Coxiella burnetii (Q Fever) Antibodies—Serum (Surplus) (SSQFEV_C), Update 2022. Available online: https://wwwn.cdc.gov/Nchs/Data/Nhanes/Public/2003/DataFiles/SSQFEV_C.htm (accessed on 27 April 2025).
  21. Péter, O.; Dupuis, G.; Burgdorfer, W.; Peacock, M. Evaluation of the complement fixation and indirect immunofluorescence tests in the early diagnosis of primary Q fever. Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. 1985, 4, 394–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Philip, R.N.; Casper, E.A.; Ormsbee, R.A.; Burgdorfer, W. Microimmunofluorescence test for the serological study of rocky mountain spotted fever and typhus. J. Clin. Microbiol. 1976, 3, 51–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Parker, J.D.; Talih, M.; Irimata, K.E.; Zhang, G.; Branum, A.M.; Davis, D.; Das, B.; Hamilton, B.E.; Kochanek, K. National Center for Health Statistics data presentation standards for rates and counts. Vital Health Stat. 2 2023, 200. Available online: https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/124368 (accessed on 27 April 2025).
  24. Parker, J.D.; Talih, M.; Malec, D.J.; Beresovsky, V.; Carroll, M.; Gonzalez, J.F.; Hamilton, B.E.; Ingram, D.D.; Kochanek, K.; McCarty, F. National Center for Health Statistics data presentation standards for proportions. Vital Health Stat. 2 2017, 175, 1–22. Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_02/sr02_175.pdf (accessed on 27 April 2025).
  25. US National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. NHANES Tutorials, Reliability of Estimates. Available online: https://wwwn.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes/tutorials/ReliabilityOfEstimates.aspx (accessed on 27 April 2025).
  26. Tan, T.; Heller, J.; Firestone, S.; Stevenston, M.; Wiethoelter, A. A systematic review of global Q fever outbreaks. One Health 2023, 18, 100667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Ahaduzzaman, M.; Reza, M.M. Global and regional seroprevalence of coxiellosis in small ruminants: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Vet. Med. Sci. 2024, 10, e1441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Berge, T.O.; Lennette, E.H. World distribution of Q fever: Human, animal and arthropod infection. Am. J. Hyg. 1953, 57, 125–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Gisbert, P.; Garcia-Ispierto, I.; Quintela, L.A.; Guatteo, R. Coxiella burnetii and reproductive disorders in cattle: A Systematic Review. Animals 2024, 14, 1313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Olivas, S.; Hornstra, H.; Priestley, R.A.; Kaufman, E.; Hepp, C.; Sonderegger, D.L.; Handady, K.; Massung, R.F.; Keim, P.; Kersh, G.J.; et al. Massive dispersal of Coxiella burnetii among cattle across the United States. Microb. Genom. 2016, 2, e000068. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Toledo-Perona, R.; Contreras, A.; Gomis, J.; Quereda, J.J.; García-Galán, A.; Sánchez, A.; Gómez-Martín, Á. Controlling Coxiella burnetii in naturally infected sheep, goats and cows, and public health implications: A scoping review. Front. Vet. Sci. 2024, 11, 1321553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Agency for Healthcare Quality and Research. Overview of the National (Nationwide) Inpatient Sample (NIS). Available online: https://hcup-us.ahrq.gov/nisoverview.jsp (accessed on 2 February 2025).
  33. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Q Fever Epidemiology and Statistics. Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/q-fever/data-research/index.html (accessed on 27 April 2025).
  34. Miller, H.K.; Binder, A.M.; Peterson, A.; Theel, E.S.; Volpe, J.M.; Couturier, M.R.; Cherry, C.C.; Kersh, G.J. Trends in Q fever serologic testing by immunofluorescence from four large reference laboratories in the United States, 2012–2016. Sci Rep. 2018, 8, 16670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Mohamad Alahmad, M.A.; Hammoud, K.A. Inpatient Q fever frequency is on the rise. Can. J. Infect. Dis. Med. Microbiol. 2023, 31, 4243312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Ebani, V.V. Coxiella burnetii Infection in Cats. Pathogens 2023, 12, 1415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Pinsky, R.L.; Fishbein, D.B.; Greene, C.R.; Gensheimer, K.F. An outbreak of cat-associated Q fever in the United States. J. Infect. Dis. 1991, 164, 202–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Langley, J.M.; Marrie, T.J.; Covert, A.; Waag, D.M.; Williams, J.C. Poker Players’ Pneumonia: An urban outbreak of Q fever following exposure to a parturient cat. N. Engl. J. Med. 1988, 319, 354–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Marrie, T.J.; Langille, D.; Papukna, V.; Yates, L. Truckin’ pneumonia—An outbreak of Q fever in a truck repair plant probably due to aerosols from clothing contaminated by contact with newborn kittens. Epidemiol. Infect. 1989, 102, 119–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Buhariwalla, F.; Cann, B.; Marriem, T.J. A dog-related outbreak of Q fever. Clin. Infect. Dis. 1996, 23, 753–755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. McMillan, I.A.; Norris, M.H.; Golon, S.J.; Franckowiak, G.A.; Grinolds, J.M.; Goldstein, S.M.; Phelps, D.M.; Bodenchuk, M.J.; Leland, B.R.; Bowen, R.A.; et al. Serosurveillance of Coxiella burnetii in feral swine populations of Hawai’i and Texas identifies overlap with human Q fever incidence. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2024, 62, e0078024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Reusken, C.; van der Plaats, R.; Opsteegh, M.; de Bruin, A.; Swart, A. Coxiella burnetii (Q fever) in Rattus norvegicus and Rattus rattus at livestock farms and urban locations in the Netherlands; could Rattus spp. represent reservoirs for (re)introduction? Prev. Vet. Med. 2011, 101, 124–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Meredith, A.; Cleaveland, S.C.; Denwood, M.J.; Brown, J.K.; Shaw, D.J. Coxiella burnetii (Q-Fever) Seroprevalence in Prey and Predators in the United Kingdom: Evaluation of Infection in Wild Rodents, Foxes and Domestic Cats Using a Modified ELISA. Transbound. Emerg. Dis. 2015, 62, 639–649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Kersh, G.J.; Fitzpatrick, K.A.; Self, J.S.; Priestley, R.A.; Kelly, A.J.; Lash, R.R.; Marsden-Haug, N.; Nett, R.J.; Bjork, A.; Massung, R.F.; et al. Presence and persistence of Coxiella burnetii in the environments of goat farms associated with a Q fever outbreak. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2013, 79, 697–1703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. de Bruin, A.; van der Plaats, R.Q.; de Heer, L.; Paauwe, R.; Schimmer, B.; Vellema, P.; van Rotterdam, B.J.; van Duynhoven, Y.T. Detection of Coxiella burnetii DNA on Small-Ruminant Farms during a Q fever Outbreak in the Netherlands. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2012, 78, 1652–1657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. de Bruin, A.; Janse, I.; Koning, M.; de Heer, L.; van der Plaats, R.Q.; van Leuken, J.P.; van Rotterdam, B.J. Detection of Coxiella burnetii DNA in the environment during and after a large Q fever epidemic in the Netherlands. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2013, 114, 1395–1404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Yessinou, R.E.; Katja, M.S.; Heinrich, N.; Farougou, S. Prevalence of Coxiella-infections in ticks—Review and meta-analysis. Ticks Tick. Borne Dis. 2022, 13, 101926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Duron, O.; Sidi-Boumedine, K.; Rousset, E.; Moutaillerm, S.; Jourdain, E. The Importance of Ticks in Q fever Transmission: What Has (and Has Not) Been Demonstrated? Trends Parasitol. 2015, 31, 536–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Graves, S.R.; Gerrard, J.; Coghill, S. Q fever following a tick bite. Aust. J. Gen. Pract. 2020, 49, 823–825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Beaman, M.H.; Hung, J. Pericarditis associated with tick-borne Q fever. Aust. N. Z. J. Med. 1989, 19, 254–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Nett, R.J.; Book, E.; Anderson, A.D. Q fever with unusual exposure history: A classic presentation of a commonly misdiagnosed disease. Case Rep. Infect. Dis. 2012, 2012, 916142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Kim, S.G.; Kim, E.H.; Lafferty, C.J.; Dubovi, E. Coxiella burnetii in bulk tank milk samples, United States. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2005, 11, 619–621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Signs, K.A.; Stobierski, M.G.; Gandhi, T.N. Q fever cluster among raw milk drinkers in Michigan, 2011. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2012, 55, 1387–1389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Beck, M.D.; Bell, J.A.; Shaw, E.W.; Heubner, R.J. Q fever studies in Southern California; an epidemiological study of 300 cases. Public Health Rep. 1949, 14, 41–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Gale, P.; Kelly, L.; Mearns, R.; Duggan, J.; Snary, E.L. Q fever through consumption of unpasteurised milk and milk products—A risk profile and exposure assessment. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2015, 118, 1083–1095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Deutsch, D.L.; Peterson, E.T. Q fever: Transmission from one human being to others. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 1950, 143, 348–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Amit, S.; Shinar, S.; Halutz, O.; Atiya-Nasagi, Y.; Giladi, M. Suspected person-to-person transmission of Q fever among hospitalized pregnant women. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2014, 58, e146–e147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Raoult, D.; Stein, A. Q fever during pregnancy—A risk for women, fetuses, and obstetricians. N. Engl. J. Med. 1994, 330, 371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Harman, J.B. Q fever in Great Britain; clinical account of eight cases. Lancet 1949, 254, 1028–1030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Osorio, S.; Sarriá, C.; González-Ruano, P.; Casal, E.C.; García, A. Nosocomial transmission of Q fever. J. Hosp. Infect. 2003, 54, 162–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Milazzo, A.; Hall, R.; Storm, P.A.; Harris, R.J.; Winslow, W.; Marmion, B.P. Sexually transmitted Q fever. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2001, 33, 399–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Kruszewska, D.; Lembowicz, K.; Tylewska-Wierzbanowska, S. Possible sexual transmission of Q fever among humans. Clin. Infect. Dis. 1996, 22, 1087–1088. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Miceli, M.H.; Veryser, A.K.; Anderson, A.D.; Hofinger, D.; Lee, S.A.; Tancik, C. A case of person-to-person transmission of Q fever from an active duty serviceman to his spouse. Vector-Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2010, 10, 539–541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Million, M.; Roblot, F.; Carles, D.; D’Amato, F.; Protopopescu, C.; Carrieri, M.P.; Raoult, D. Reevaluation of the risk of fetal death and malformation after Q fever. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2014, 59, 256–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Levin, G.; Herzberg, S.; Attari, R.; Abu Khatab, A.; Gil, M.; Rottenstreich, A. Q fever first presenting as a septic shock resulting in intrauterine fetal death. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 2018, 229, 204–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Ellis, M.E.; Smith, C.C.; Moffat, M.A. Chronic or fatal Q-fever infection: A review of 16 patients seen in North-East Scotland (1967-80). Q. J. Med. 1983, 52, 54–66. [Google Scholar]
  67. Johnson, J.E.; Kadull, P.J. Laboratory-acquired Q fever. A report of fifty cases. Am. J. Med. 1966, 41, 391–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Fonseca, F.; Pinto, M.R.; De Azevedo, J.F.; Lacerda, M.T. Q Fever in Portugal. History, Clinical Observations, Diagnosis. Clin. Contemp. 1949, 3, 1159–1171. Available online: https://www.cabdirect.org/cabdirect/abstract/19502902290 (accessed on 2 February 2025).
  69. Anonymous. Commentary: Experimental Q Fever in Man. Br. Med. J. 1950, 1, 1000. [Google Scholar]
  70. Robyn, M.P.; Newman, A.P.; Amato, M.; Walawander, M.; Kothe, C.; Nerone, J.D.; Pomerantz, C.; Behravesh, C.B.; Biggs, H.M.; Dahlgren, F.S.; et al. Q fever outbreak among travelers to Germany associated with live cell therapy—United States and Canada, 2014: A co-publication. Can. Commun. Dis. Rep. 2015, 41, 223–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. van Kraaij, M.G.; Slot, E.; Hogema, B.M.; Zaaijer, H.L. Lookback procedures after postdonation notifications during a Q fever outbreak in the Netherlands. Transfusion 2013, 53, 716–721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Kersh, G.J.; Priestley, R.; Massung, R.F. Stability of Coxiella burnetii in stored human blood. Transfusion 2013, 53, 1493–1496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Goldberg, J.S.; Perkins, H.A.; Zapitz, V.M.; Hurst, B.B.; Suther, D.; Jensen, F.; Lenette, E.H.; Damus, K.; Roberto, R.R. Q fever—California. Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep. 1977, 26, 86–91. [Google Scholar]
  74. Hogema, B.M.; Slot, E.; Molier, M.; Schneeberger, P.M.; Hermans, M.H.; van Hannen, E.J.; van der Hoek, W.; Cuijpers, H.T.; Zaaijer, H.L. Coxiella burnetii infection among blood donors during the 2009 Q-fever outbreak in The Netherlands. Transfusion 2012, 52, 144–1450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Oei, W.; Kretzschmar, M.E.; Zaaijer, H.L.; Coutinho, R.; van der Poel, C.L.; Janssen, M.P. Estimating the transfusion transmission risk of Q fever. Transfusion 2014, 54, 1705–1711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Kanfer, E.; Farrag, N.; Price, C.; MacDonald, D.; Coleman, J.; Barrett, A.J. Q fever following bone marrow transplantation. Bone Marrow Transpl. 1988, 3, 165–166. [Google Scholar]
  77. Gürtler, L.; Bauerfeind, U.; Blümel, J.; Burger, R.; Drosten, C.; Gröner, A.; Heiden, M.; Hildebrandt, M.; Jansen, B.; Offergeld, R.; et al. Coxiella burnetii—Pathogenic Agent of Q (Query) Fever. 2014. Transfus. Med. Hemother. 2014, 41, 60–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Derrick, E.H. Q Fever a new fever entity: Clinical features. diagnosis, and laboratory investigation. Med. J. Aust. 1937, 2, 281–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Bell, J.A.; Beck, M.D.; Huebner, R.J. Epidemiologic Studies of Q fever in Southern California. JAMA 1950, 142, 868–872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Topping, N.H.; Shepard, C.C.; Irons, J.V. Q fever in the United States: Epidemiologic Studies of an Outbreak Among Stock Handlers and Slaughterhouse Workers. JAMA 1947, 133, 813–815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Uren, A.M.; Harris, J.; Slinko, V.; Vosti, F.; Young, M. Q fever infection is a preventable risk associated with pet food manufacturing. Ann. Work Expo. Health 2024, 68, 104–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). Occupational Hazard Assessment: Criteria for Controlling Occupational Hazards Animal Rendering Processes. Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/81-133/default.html (accessed on 2 February 2025).
  83. Wade, A.J.; Cheng, A.C.; Athan, E.; Molloy, J.; Harris, O.C.; Stenos, J.; Hughes, A.J. Q fever outbreak at a cosmetics supply factory. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2006, 42, e50–e52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Wattiau, P.; Boldisova, E.; Toman, R.; Van Esbroeck, M.; Quoilin, S.; Hammadi, S.; Tissot-Dupont, H.; Raoult, D.; Henkinbrandt, J.M. Q fever in Woolsorters, Belgium. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2011, 17, 2368–2369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Sigel, M.M.; Scott, T.F.; Henle, W.; Janton, O.H. Q fever in a wool and hair processing plant. Am. J. Public Health Nations Health 1950, 40, 524–532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Clark, W.H.; Lennette, E.H.; Romer, M.S. Q fever in California. IX. An outbreak aboard a ship transporting goats. Am. J. Hyg. 1951, 54, 35–43. [Google Scholar]
  87. Alonso, E.; Eizaguirre, D.; Lopez-Etxaniz, I.; Olaizola, J.I.; Ocabo, B.; Barandika, J.F.; Jado, I.; Álvarez-Alonso, R.; Hurtado, A.; García-Pérez, A.; et al. A Q fever outbreak associated to courier transport of pets. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0225605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Bayer, R.A. Q fever as an occupational illness at the National Institutes of Health. Public Health Rep. 1982, 97, 58–60. [Google Scholar]
  89. Hall, C.J.; Richmond, S.J.; Caul, E.O.; Pearce, N.H.; Silver, I.A. Laboratory outbreak of Q fever acquired from sheep. Lancet 1982, 1, 1004–1006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Meiklejohn, G.; Reimer, L.G.; Graves, P.S.; Helmick, C. Cryptic Epidemic of Q fever in a Medical School. Infect Dis. 1981, 144, 107–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Galganski, L.A.; Keller, B.A.; Long, C.; Yamashiro, K.J.; Hegazi, M.S.; Pivetti, C.D.; Talken, L.A.; Raff, G.W.; Farmer, D.L.; Chomel, B.B.; et al. Minimizing the risk of occupational Q fever exposure: A protocol for ensuring Coxiella burnetii-negative pregnant ewes are used for medical research. Lab. Anim. 2021, 55, 170–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Simor, A.E.; Brunton, J.L.; Salit, I.E.; Vellend, H.; Ford-Jones, L.; Spence, L.P. Q fever: Hazard from sheep used in research. Can. Med. Assoc. J. 1984, 130, 1013–1036. [Google Scholar]
  93. Curet, L.B.; Paust, J.C. Transmission of Q fever from experimental sheep to laboratory personnel. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 1972, 114, 566–568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Centers for Disease Control. Q Fever at a University Research Center-California. Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep. 1979, 28, 333. [Google Scholar]
  95. Mann, J.S.; Douglas, J.G.; Inglis, J.M.; Leitch, A.G. Q fever: Person to person transmission within a family. Thorax 1986, 41, 974–975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  96. Schimmer, B.; Lenferink, A.; Schneeberger, P.; Aangenend, H.; Vellema, P.; Hautvast, J.; van Duynhoven, Y. Seroprevalence and risk factors for Coxiella burnetii (Q fever) seropositivity in dairy goat farmers’ households in The Netherlands, 2009–2010. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e42364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Proboste, T.; Clark, N.J.; Tozer, S.; Wood, C.; Lambert, S.B.; Soares Magalhães, R.J. Profiling risk factors for household and community spatiotemporal clusters of Q fever notifications in Queensland between 2002 and 2017. Pathogens 2022, 11, 830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Whitney, E.A.; Massung, R.F.; Candee, A.J.; Ailes, E.C.; Myers, L.M.; Patterson, N.E.; Berkelman, R.L. Seroepidemiologic and occupational risk survey for Coxiella burnetii antibodies among US veterinarians. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2009, 48, 550–557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  99. Vest, K.G.; Clark, L.L. Serosurvey and observational study of US Army Veterinary Corps officers for Q fever antibodies from 1989 to 2008. Zoonoses Public Health 2014, 61, 271–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Clark, W.H.; Bogucki, A.S.; Lenette, E.H. Q fever in California. VI. Description of an epidemic occurring at Davis, California, in 1948. Am. J. Hyg. 1951, 54, 15–24. [Google Scholar]
  101. Oliphant, J.W.; Gordon, D.A.; Meis, A.; Parker, R.R. Q fever in laundry workers, presumably transmitted from contaminated clothing. Am. J. Hyg. 1949, 49, 76–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Shapiro, A.J.; Bosward, K.L.; Heller, J.; Norris, J.M. Seroprevalence of Coxiella burnetii in domesticated and feral cats in eastern Australia. Vet. Microbiol. 2015, 177, 154–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Shapiro, A.J.; Norris, J.M.; Bosward, K.L.; Heller, J. Q fever (Coxiella burnetii) Knowledge and Attitudes of Australian Cat Breeders and Their Husbandry Practices. Zoonoses Public Health 2017, 64, 252–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  104. Alonso, E.; Lopez-Etxaniz, I.; Hurtado, A.; Liendo, P.; Urbaneja, F.; Aspiritxaga, I.; Olaizola, J.I.; Piñero, A.; Arrazola, I.; Barandika, J.F. Q fever Outbreak among Workers at a Waste-Sorting Plant. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0138817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Bjork, A.; Marsden-Haug, N.; Nett, R.J.; Kersh, G.J.; Nicholson, W.; Gibson, D.; Szymanski, T.; Emery, M.; Kohrs, P.; Woodhall, D. First reported multistate human Q fever outbreak in the United States, 2011. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2014, 14, 111–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Whelan, J.; Schimmer, B.; de Bruin, A.; van Beest Holle, M.R.; van der Hoek, W.; ter Schegget, R. Visits on ‘lamb-viewing days’ at a sheep farm open to the public was a risk factor for Q fever in 2009. Epidemiol. Infect. 2012, 140, 858–864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Valkenburgh, S.M.; de Bruin, A.; Züchner, L. Q-koorts op kinderboerderijen [Q fever on petting zoos]. Tijdschr. Diergeneeskd. 2011, 136, 158–161. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  108. Porten, K.; Rissland, J.; Tigges, A.; Broll, S.; Hopp, W.; Lunemann, M.; van Treeck, U.; Kimmig, P.; Brockmann, S.O.; Wagner-Wiening, C.; et al. A super-spreading ewe infects hundreds with Q fever at a farmers’ market in Germany. BMC Infect. Dis. 2006, 6, 147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Tan, T.S.; Hernandez-Jover, M.; Hayes, L.M.; Wiethoelter, A.K.; Firestone, S.M.; Stevenson, M.A.; Heller, J. Identifying scenarios and risk factors for Q fever outbreaks using qualitative analysis of expert opinion. Zoonoses Public Health 2022, 69, 344–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Hurtado, A.; Zendoia, I.I.; Alonso, E.; Beraza, X.; Bidaurrazaga, J.; Ocabo, B.; Arrazola, I.; Cevidanes, A.; Barandika, J.F.; García-Pérez, A.L. A Q fever outbreak among visitors to a natural cave, Bizkaia, Spain, December 2020 to October 2021. Euro Surveill. 2023, 28, 2200824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  111. Schets, F.M.; de Heer, L.; de Roda Husman, A.M. Coxiella burnetii in sewage water at sewage water treatment plants in a Q fever epidemic area. Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health 2013, 216, 98–702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Hermans, T.; Jeurissen, L.; Hackert, V.; Hoebe, C. Land-applied goat manure as a source of human Q-fever in the Netherlands, 2006–2010. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e96607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. van den Brom, R.; Roest, H.J.; de Bruin, A.; Dercksen, D.; Santman-Berends, I.; van der Hoek, W.; Dinkla, A.; Vellema, J.; Vellema, P. A probably minor role for land-applied goat manure in the transmission of Coxiella burnetii to humans in the 2007–2010 Dutch Q fever outbreak. PLoS ONE 2015, 27, e0121355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  114. Price, C.; Smith, S.; Stewart, J.; Palesy, T.; Corbitt, M.; Galappaththy, C.; Hanson, J. Increased recognition of Q fever aortitis as a chronic manifestation of Q fever in tropical North Queensland, Australia. Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 2023, 42, 1537–1541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  115. Salmon, M.M.; Howells, B.; Glencross, E.J.; Evans, A.D.; Palmer, S.R. Q fever in an urban area. Lancet 1982, 1, 1002–1004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Dillon, C.F.; Dillon, M.B. Multi-Scale Airborne Infectious Disease Transmission. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2021, 87, e02314-20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  117. Dillon, M.B.; Dillon, C.F. Regional Relative Risk, a Physics-Based Metric for Characterizing Airborne Infectious Disease Transmission. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2021, 87, e0126221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Gilsdorf, A.; Kroh, C.; Grimm, S.; Jensen, E.; Wagner-Wiening, C.; Alpers, K. Large Q fever outbreak due to sheep farming near residential areas, Germany, 2005. Epidemiol. Infect. 2008, 136, 1084–1087. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Hawker, J.I.; Ayres, J.G.; Blair, I.; Evans, M.R.; Smith, D.L.; Smith, E.G.; Burge, P.S.; Carpenter, M.J.; Caul, E.O.; Coupland, B.; et al. A large outbreak of Q fever in the West Midlands: Windborne spread into a metropolitan area? Commun. Dis. Public Health 1988, 1, 180–187. [Google Scholar]
  120. Tissot-Dupont, H.; Torres, S.; Nezri, M.; Raoult, D. Hyperendemic focus of Q fever related to sheep and wind. Am. J. Epidemiol. 1999, 50, 67–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Hackert, V.H.; van der Hoek, W.; Dukers-Muijrers, N.; de Bruin, A.; Al Dahouk, S.; Neubauer, H.; Bruggeman, C.A.; Hoebe, C.J. Q fever: Single-Point Source Outbreak with High Attack Rates and Massive Numbers of Undetected Infections Across an Entire Region. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2012, 55, 1591–1599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Hackert, V.H.; Hoebe, C.J.P.A.; Dukers-Muijrers, N.; Krafftm, T.; Kauhl, B.; Henning, K.; Karges, W.; Sprague, L.; Neubauer, H.; Al Dahouk, S.; et al. Q fever: Evidence of a Massive Yet Undetected Cross-Border Outbreak, with Ongoing Risk of Extra Mortality, in a Dutch-German Border Region. Transbound. Emerg. Dis. 2020, 67, 1660–1670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Clark, W.H.; Romer, M.S.; Holmes, M.A.; Welsh, H.H.; Lennette, E.H.; Abinanti, F.R. Q fever in California VIII. An epidemic of Q fever in a small rural community in northern California. Am. J. Hyg. 1951, 54, 25–34. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  124. Archer, B.N.; Hallahan, C.; Stanley, P.; Seward, K.; Lesjak, M.; Hope, K.; Brown, A. Atypical outbreak of Q fever affecting low-risk residents of a remote rural town in New South Wales. Commun. Dis. Intell. Q. Rep. 2017, 41, E125–E133. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  125. van der Hoek, W.; Morroy, G.; Renders, N.H.; Wever, P.C.; Hermans, M.H.; Leenders, A.C.; Schneeberger, P.M. Epidemic Q fever in humans in the Netherlands. Adv. Exp. Med. Biol. 2012, 984, 329–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Dijkstra, F.; van der Hoek, W.; Wijers, N.; Schimmer, B.; Rietveld, A.; Wijkmans, C.J.; Vellema, P.; Schneeberger, P.M. The 2007–2010 Q fever epidemic in the Netherlands: Characteristics of notified acute Q fever patients and the association with dairy goat farming. FEMS Immunol. Med. Microbiol. 2012, 64, 3–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. O’Neill, T.J.; Sargeant, J.M.; Poljak, Z. The effectiveness of Coxiella burnetii vaccines in occupationally exposed populations: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Zoonoses Public Health 2014, 61, 81–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Sam, G.; Stenos, J.; Graves, S.R.; Rehm, B.H.A. Q fever immunology: The quest for a safe and effective vaccine. NPJ Vaccines 2023, 8, 133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Khademi, P.; Tukmechi, A.; Sgroi, G.; Ownagh, A.; Enferadi, A.; Khalili, M.; Mardani, K. Molecular and genotyping techniques in diagnosis of Coxiella burnetii: An overview. Infect. Genet. Evol. 2024, 123, 105655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  130. Zhan, S.; Jin, H.; Ji, H.; Hou, X.; Li, J.; Zhang, Y.; Zheng, J.; Cui, L. Clinical diagnosis of Q fever by targeted next-generation sequencing for identification of Coxiella burnetii. BMC Infect. Dis. 2025, 25, 190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. US Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service. Farm Labor (See U.S. Employment in Agriculture and Support Industries, 2001–2023). Available online: https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/farm-economy/farm-labor#size (accessed on 2 February 2025).
  132. Tapia, T.; Olivares, M.F.; Stenos, J.; Iglesias, R.; Díaz, N.; Vergara, N.; Sotomayor, V.; Gallegos, D.; Soares Magalhães, R.J.; Acevedo, J.; et al. National Seroprevalence of Coxiella burnetii in Chile, 2016–2017. Pathogens 2021, 10, 531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Schimmer, B.; Notermans, D.W.; Harms, M.G.; Reimerink, J.H.; Bakker, J.; Schneeberger, P.; Mollema, L.; Teunis, P.; van Pelt, W.; van Duynhoven, Y. Low seroprevalence of Q fever in The Netherlands prior to a series of large outbreaks. Epidemiol. Infect. 2012, 140, 27–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Slot, E.; Hogema, B.H.; Molier, M.; Zaaijer, H.L. Screening of blood donors for chronic Coxiella burnetii infection after large Q fever outbreaks. Transfusion 2014, 54, 2867–2870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  135. Gidding, H.F.; Peng, C.Q.; Graves, S.; Massey, P.D.; Nguyen, C.; Stenos, J.; Quinn, H.E.; McIntyre, P.B.; Durrheim, D.N.; Wood, N. Q fever seroprevalence in Australia suggests one in twenty people have been exposed. Epidemiol. Infect. 2020, 148, e18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  136. McCaughey, C.; McKenna, J.; McKenna, C.; Coyle, P.V.; O’Neill, H.J.; Wyatt, D.E.; Smyth, B.; Murray, L.J. Human seroprevalence to Coxiella burnetii (Q fever) in Northern Ireland. Zoonoses Public Health 2008, 55, 189–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Johnson, C.L.; Paulose-Ram, R.; Ogden, C.L.; Carroll, M.D.; Kruszon-Moran, D.; Dohrmann, S.M.; Curtin, L.R. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey: Analytic Guidelines, 1999–2010. Vital Health Stat 2 2013, 161, 1–24. [Google Scholar]
  138. US National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. NHANES Biospecimen Program. Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes/biospecimen/index.html (accessed on 20 April 2025).
Figure 1. Percent of Coxiella burnetii seropositives in US adults with no history of agricultural work.
Figure 1. Percent of Coxiella burnetii seropositives in US adults with no history of agricultural work.
Pathogens 14 00460 g001
Table 1. Coxiella burnetii seroprevalence in US adults with no history of agricultural work.
Table 1. Coxiella burnetii seroprevalence in US adults with no history of agricultural work.
NnOverall US CB
Seropositives
% (95% CI)
CB Seropositives with No Agricultural Work % (95% CI)Total Percent with No Agricultural Work
% (95% CI)
Total Sample42361753.03 (2.00–4.38)2.67 (1.79–3.81)86.90 (75.45–98.36)
Age 20–59 years2661772.67 (1.65–4.07)2.39 (1.48–3.62)87.26 (74.82–99.69)
Age ≥ 60 years1575984.24 (2.78–6.15)3.63 (2.35–5.33)85.71 (75.18–96.24)
Men20561083.81 (2.49–5.57)3.33 (2.17–4.86)86.13 (72.38–99.88)
Women2180672.33 (1.28–3.87)2.09 (1.13–3.53)87.64 (70.00–100)
Non-Hispanic White2298752.79 (1.61–4.47)2.40 (1.43–3.77)81.99 (63.40–100)
Non-Hispanic Black811121.38 (0.58–2.75)1.30 (0.53–2.64)95.80 (87.60–100)
Mexican American854777.51 (5.83–9.48)6.61 (5.04–8.49)89.37 (79.57–99.16)
Country of Birth
  United States33641092.35 (1.44–3.61)2.01 (1.32–2.91)83.26 (67.18–99.33)
  Mexico473418.57 (6.21–11.47)6.90 (4.21–10.57)83.50 (68.58–98.43)
  All Other Countries398256.88 (3.63–11.65)6.65 (3.47–11.36)96.84 (92.74–100)
Abbreviations: N = total sample size; n = number of seropositives; 95% CI = 95% confidence interval; CB = Coxiella burnetii; Seropositive = a CB Phase 1 or 2 IgG ≥ 1:16 by immunofluorescence assay; Prevalence = % of total US population; US adult population N = 205,284,673. Only major US ethnic groups shown.
Table 2. NHANES 2003–2004 overall and age specific person-years of work counts.
Table 2. NHANES 2003–2004 overall and age specific person-years of work counts.
Total PYRCurrently EmployedUnemployedNot Working
Total All Ages:59,21425,41073233,072
   20–24 years96671741208
   25–34 years37502930156664
   35–44 years637250431571172
   45–54 years909269241522016
   55–64 years10,6015304715226
   65+ years28,433449215523,786
The NHANES 2003–2004 Coxiella burnetii serology subsample is US adults aged 20+ years. Abbreviations: PYR = person-years; 1 person-year = one year an individual has worked.
Table 3. US labor force participation rates: BLS compared to NHANES 2003–2004.
Table 3. US labor force participation rates: BLS compared to NHANES 2003–2004.
Age-Specific RatesBLS 2003
Estimates
%
BLS 2004
Estimates
%
2003–2004
Sample
N
NHANES 2003–2004
Estimates
% (95% CI)
Overall 16+ years66.266.0566166.5 (64.3–68.7)
   16–19 years44.543.991953.8 (45.3–62.0)
   20–24 years75.475.045872.4 (64.7–78.9)
   25–34 years82.982.784578.3 (76.1–80.3)
   35–44 years83.983.675680.6 (77.1–83.7)
   45–54 years82.181.870275.9 (71.2–80.2)
   55–64 years62.462.360956.4 (50.9–61.9)
   65+ years14.014.4137216.6 (13.9–19.8)
Abbreviations: BLS = US Bureau of Labor Statistics; 95% CI = 95% confidence interval; Labor Force Participation Rate is the sum of those currently working or actively working for work divided by the total US civilian, non-institutional population. Standard errors are not published in BLS reports.
Table 4. Coxiella burnetii seroprevalence in major US occupational groups.
Table 4. Coxiella burnetii seroprevalence in major US occupational groups.
NnSeroprevalence
% (95% CI)
Total Sample42361753.03 (2.00–4.38)
Professional, Technical, Office Work1561432.01 (1.11–3.34)
Service Work647253.49 (1.88–5.87)
Agriculture and Related Occupations1362110.98 *
Factory, Repair, Construction, Transport, Freight/Materials1100593.87 (2.43–5.81)
Worked in Multiple Occupational Groups614203.36 *
Never Worked17872.04 *
Estimates based on current and longest-held jobs. Abbreviations: N = sample size; n = number of seropositives; 95% CI = 95% confidence interval. Positive Coxiella burnetii titer is a Phase 1 or 2 IgG ≥ 1:16 by immunofluorescence. * Variance estimate potentially unreliable, 95% confidence interval not presented.
Table 5. Coxiella burnetii reservoirs and transmission pathways.
Table 5. Coxiella burnetii reservoirs and transmission pathways.
ReservoirsExamplesReferences
Commercial LivestockCattle, sheep, goats[8,9]
Domestic and Wild AnimalsCats, dogs, wildlife animals[1,8,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43]
Environmental ReservoirC. burnetii contaminated soils[7,44,45,46]
Woodland TicksDermacentor andersoni, Amblyomma triguttatum[28,47,48,49,50,51]
Transmission Pathways
OralUnpasteurized dairy products[52,53,54,55]
Person to Person:
 Hospital (Nosocomial)To staff, in maternity wards, at deliveries, autopsies[1,56,57,58,59,60]
 SexualSexual intercourse[61,62,63]
 VerticalMother to fetus: prematurity, fetal loss, birth defects[1,58,64,65,66]
Percutaneous and IntradermalLaboratory sample needlestick injuries, tick bites[51,67,68,69,70]
Blood-BorneBlood transfusion, bone marrow transplant[71,72,73,74,75,76,77]
Near and Mid-Range (<1 km)Contaminated body fluids, dust and soil aerosols
Airborne/Fomite Transmission
 Livestock ProductionLivestock farming and support services[9]
 Animal Food ProcessingSlaughterhouses, packing and pet food plants, dairies[78,79,80,81]
 Animal Body ProcessingAnimal rendering and body part plants, cosmetics[82,83]
 Animal Skin and HairAnimal hide and wool processing, sheep shearing[84,85]
 Animal TransportLivestock and pet animal transport, stockyards[80,86,87]
 LaboratoriesHospital, medical, and animal research laboratories[88,89,90,91,92,93,94]
Community Transmission
 To Farm HouseholdsContaminated farm, stable dust to clothing, shoes[95,96]
 To Community HouseholdsContaminated dust to clothing, shoes; animal births[36,37,38,97]
 High-Risk OccupationsVeterinary, laundry workers, pet breeders, waste sorters[98,99,100,101,102,103,104]
 RecreationalFarm visits, petting zoos, farmer’s markets, hobby farms[105,106,107,108,109,110]
 Sewage and ManureSewage plants, land manure application[111,112]
 Contaminated dust and soilsExcavation work; farm dust; hay and manure aerosols[3,113,114,115]
Long-Range Airborne (≥1 km)Airborne community and regional exposure, disease[116,117,118,119,120,121,122]
Unknown TransmissionUnexplained community outbreaks[123,124]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Dillon, C.F.; Dillon, G.R. Q Fever-Related Community Infections: United States Exposure to Coxiella burnetii. Pathogens 2025, 14, 460. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens14050460

AMA Style

Dillon CF, Dillon GR. Q Fever-Related Community Infections: United States Exposure to Coxiella burnetii. Pathogens. 2025; 14(5):460. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens14050460

Chicago/Turabian Style

Dillon, Charles F., and Gwendolyn R. Dillon. 2025. "Q Fever-Related Community Infections: United States Exposure to Coxiella burnetii" Pathogens 14, no. 5: 460. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens14050460

APA Style

Dillon, C. F., & Dillon, G. R. (2025). Q Fever-Related Community Infections: United States Exposure to Coxiella burnetii. Pathogens, 14(5), 460. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens14050460

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop