| Literature DB >> 31441762 |
Emil Tkadlec, Tomáš Václavík, Pavel Široký.
Abstract
Using long-term data on incidences of Lyme disease and tickborne encephalitis, we showed that the dynamics of both diseases in central Europe are predictable from rodent host densities and climate indices. Our approach offers a simple and effective tool to predict a tickborne disease risk 1 year in advance.Entities:
Keywords: Austria; Czech Republic; Germany; Hungary; Ixodes ricinus; Lyme disease; Microtus arvalis; Poland; Slovakia; Slovenia; climate variability; common vole; tickborne diseases; tickborne encephalitis; vector-borne infections
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31441762 PMCID: PMC6711232 DOI: 10.3201/eid2509.190684
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Emerg Infect Dis ISSN: 1080-6040 Impact factor: 6.883
Figure 1Countries in central Europe where Lyme disease and tickborne encephalitis incidence was analyzed relative to the common vole abundances from the Czech Republic and climate indices, 2000–2017, and where we found evidence for these external predictors. LD, Lyme disease; TBE, tickborne encephalitis.
Figure 2Dynamics of Lyme disease and tick-borne encephalitis incidences in countries of central Europe during 2000–2017 plotted together with the dynamics of common vole abundance (autumn counts of burrow entrances per hectare) in the Czech Republic. Lyme disease incidence in the Czech Republic (A), Hungary (B), and Poland (C); tick-borne encephalitis incidence in the Czech Republic (D), Germany (E), Austria (F), Slovenia (G), Hungary (H), Slovakia (I), and Poland (J). Incidence was plotted together with the dynamics of common vole numbers. Incidences and vole time series were Box–Cox transformed. All variables were detrended by smoothing splines. A data point is missing in the time series of incidence in Hungary. LD, Lyme disease; TBE, tick-borne encephalitis.
Differences in AIC from the best model for Lyme disease incidences as modeled by AR linear models of order 0–2 with vole and abundance annual NAO index as external predictors, 3 countries in central Europe, 2000–2017*
| Country and model structure | Order of AR model | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 1 | 2 | |
| Czech Republic | |||
| Pure AR model | 4.1 | 3.2 | 5.0 |
| Voles | 2.9 | 2.6 | 4.9 |
| NAO annual index | 2.8 | 3.2 | 3.7 |
| Voles | 0.0 | 1.3 | 2.2 |
| Hungary | |||
| Pure AR model | 0.0 | 3.2 | 4.6 |
| Voles | 0.0 | 2.1 | 5.6 |
| NAO annual index | 3.3 | 7.2 | 6.5 |
| Voles | 4.1 | 7.0 | 12.0 |
| Poland | |||
| Pure AR model | 0.4 | 0.0 | 1.6 |
| Voles | 3.1 | 3.5 | 4.8 |
| NAO annual index | 0.3 | 0.1 | 2.3 |
| Voles | 3.9 | 4.5 | 6.5 |
AIC, Akaike information criterion; AR, autoregressive; NAO, North Atlantic oscillation.
Differences in AIC from the best model for tick-borne encephalitis as modeled by AR linear models of order 0–2 with vole and abundance annual NAO index as external predictors, 7 countries in central Europe, 2000–2017*
| Country and model structure | Order of AR model | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 1 | 2 | |
| Czech Republic | |||
| Pure AR model | 4.5 | 7.4 | 10.6 |
| Voles | 2.8 | 6.0 | 10.1 |
| NAO annual index | 3.4 | 6.8 | 8.1 |
| Voles | 0.0 | 3.5 | 7.5 |
*AIC, Akaike information criterion; AR, autoregressive; NAO, North Atlantic oscillation.