| Literature DB >> 30666954 |
Jolianne M Rijks, Margriet G E Montizaan, Nine Bakker, Ankje de Vries, Steven Van Gucht, Corien Swaan, Jan van den Broek, Andrea Gröne, Hein Sprong.
Abstract
To increase knowledge of tick-borne encephalitis virus (TBEV) circulation in the Netherlands, we conducted serosurveillance in roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) during 2017 and compared results with those obtained during 2010. Results corroborate a more widespread occurrence of the virus in 2017. Additional precautionary public health measures have been taken.Entities:
Keywords: Capreolus capreolus; TBEV; antibodies; encephalitis/meningitis; epidemiologic monitoring; geographic mapping; public health; roe deer; sentinel species; surveillance; the Netherlands; tick-borne encephalitis; tick-borne encephalitis virus; vector-borne infections; viruses; zoonoses
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30666954 PMCID: PMC6346459 DOI: 10.3201/eid2502.181386
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Emerg Infect Dis ISSN: 1080-6040 Impact factor: 6.883
Figure 1Geographic distribution of tick-borne encephalitis virus (TBEV) based on serosurveillance of roe deer, the Netherlands, during A) 2010 and B) 2017. Data for 2010 were reproduced from Jahfari et al. (). Red indicates roe deer serum samples that showed positive results in the TBEV neutralization test, and blue indicates roe deer serum samples that showed negative results in this test or an ELISA. Numbers indicate confirmed or potential foci, and red stars indicate location of 2016 TBEV-RNA positive ticks in Sallandse Heuvelrug National Park. Circles indicate sites of random sampling, and diamonds indicate sites of purposive sampling. Arrow in the right map indicates location of Utrechtse Heuvelrug National Park. Maps were constructed by using Arc-GIS software (ESRI, https://www.esri.com).
Detection of TBEV in roe deer, the Netherlands, 2017*
| Province | No. (%) deer counted† | No. TBEV SNT–positive samples/no. tested | Identification no. of foci | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Random sampling | Purposive sampling | |||
| Drenthe | 10,728 (16) | 0/99 | NA | NA |
| Flevoland | 2,358 (4) | 0/37 | NA | NA |
| Friesland | 6,217 (10) | 0/62 | 0/1 | NA |
| Gelderland | 10,687 (16) | 2/97 | 0/12 | 10 |
| Groningen | 4,649 (7) | 0/32 | NA | NA |
| Limburg | 4,674 (7) | 3/46 | 0/1 | 7, 8, and 9 |
| North Brabant | 9,618 (15) | 3/101 | 0/5 | 4, 5, and 6‡ |
| North Holland§ | 935 (1) | 0/0 | NA | NI |
| Overijssel | 9,933 (16) | 9/87 | 5/18 | 1,¶ 2, and 3 |
| South Holland | 1,103 (2) | 0/7 | 0/10 | NA |
| Utrecht | 2,485 (4) | 0/16 | 0/1 | NA |
| Zealand§ | 1,293 (2) | 0/8 | NA | NA |
| Total | 64,680 (100) | 17/592 | 5/48 | NA |
*NA, not applicable; SNT, serum neutralization test; TBEV, tick-borne encephalitis virus. †Provided by the game management units. ‡A fourth potential focus (no. 11) was identified by using serum samples obtained from roe deer during 2010 but not reconfirmed in 2017. §No hunting, only victims of traffic accidents. ¶Sallandse Heuvelrug National Park (the confirmed site, also identified by using serum samples obtained from roe deer during 2010).
Figure 2Probability distribution of number of potential foci containing tick-borne encephalitis virus expected to be detected during 2017 if only 297 of 590 roe deer samples had been submitted for testing, the Netherlands. Black column indicates the probability corresponding to the number of foci detected during the retrospective study of 297 samples obtained during 2010.