Rural Residents in China Are at Increased Risk of Exposure to Tick-Borne Pathogens Anaplasma phagocytophilum and Ehrlichia chaffeensis

Table 5

Comparison of distribution of E. chaffeensis and A. phagocytophilum among areas in the study.

Area	Sites	E. chaffeensis		A. phagocytophilum		OR (95% CI)	𝑃 value
		Number positives/total number.	Seropositivity rate% (95% CI)	Number positives/total number	Seropositivity rate % (95% CI)
Rural	Anhui	33/596	5.5 (3.8–7.3)	201/596	33.7 (39.5–40.2)	0.12 (0.08–0.2)	<0.0001
	Hainan	379/850	44.6 (41.3–47.9)	337/852	39.2 (35.9–42.5)	1.2 (1.0–1.5)	0.02
	Henan	47/737	6.4 (4.6–8.2)	66/737	9.0 (6.9–11.1)	0.69 (0.5–1.0)	0.06
	Jiangsu	41/2474	1.5 (1.0–2.0)	274/2473	10.0 (8.9–11.1)	0.14 (0.1–0.19)	<0.0001
	Zhejiang	7/579	1.2 (0.3–2.1)	3/579	0.5 (0.1–1.1)	2.3 (0.6–9.1)	0.2
	Yunnan	1/326	0.3 (0.29–0.9)	1/327	0.3 (0.29–0.9)	1.0 (0.1–16.1)	1.0
	Xinjiang	19/44	43.2 (28.6–57.8)	6/44	13.6 (3.5–23.7)	4.8 (1.7–13.7)	0.002
	Tianjin	83/882	9.4 (7.5–11.3)	367/879	41.8 (38.5–45.1)	0.14 (0.1–0.2)	<0.0001
	Beijing	109/561	19.4 (9.9–28.9)	79/561	14.1 (11.2–17.0)	1.5 (1.1–2.0)	0.02
	Total	719/7322	9.8 (9.1–10.5)	747/3490	15.4 (14.6–16.2)	0.4 (0.4–0.5)	<0.0001
Urban	Jilin	16/235	6.3 (3.3–9.3)	4/253	1.6 (0.1–3.1)	4.2 (1.4–12.8)	0.006
	Heilongjiang	4/566	0.7 (0–1.4)	8/566	1.4 (0.4–2.4)	0.5 (0.1–1.7)	0.3
	Total	20/819	2.4 (1.4–3.4)	12/819	1.5 (0.7–2.3)	1.7 (0.8–3.5)	0.2