| Literature DB >> 35630388 |
Anna Bajer1, Ana Beck2, Relja Beck3, Jerzy M Behnke4, Dorota Dwużnik-Szarek1, Ramon M Eichenberger5, Róbert Farkas6, Hans-Peter Fuehrer7, Mike Heddergott8, Pikka Jokelainen9, Michael Leschnik10, Valentina Oborina11, Algimantas Paulauskas12, Jana Radzijevskaja12, Renate Ranka13, Manuela Schnyder5, Andrea Springer14, Christina Strube14, Katarzyna Tolkacz1,15, Julia Walochnik16.
Abstract
There is now considerable evidence that in Europe, babesiosis is an emerging infectious disease, with some of the causative species spreading as a consequence of the increasing range of their tick vector hosts. In this review, we summarize both the historic records and recent findings on the occurrence and incidence of babesiosis in 20 European countries located in southeastern Europe (Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, and Serbia), central Europe (Austria, the Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, Luxembourg, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Switzerland), and northern and northeastern Europe (Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Iceland, Denmark, Finland, Sweden, and Norway), identified in humans and selected species of domesticated animals (cats, dogs, horses, and cattle). Recorded cases of human babesiosis are still rare, but their number is expected to rise in the coming years. This is because of the widespread and longer seasonal activity of Ixodes ricinus as a result of climate change and because of the more extensive use of better molecular diagnostic methods. Bovine babesiosis has a re-emerging potential because of the likely loss of herd immunity, while canine babesiosis is rapidly expanding in central and northeastern Europe, its occurrence correlating with the rapid, successful expansion of the ornate dog tick (Dermacentor reticulatus) populations in Europe. Taken together, our analysis of the available reports shows clear evidence of an increasing annual incidence of babesiosis across Europe in both humans and animals that is changing in line with similar increases in the incidence of other tick-borne diseases. This situation is of major concern, and we recommend more extensive and frequent, standardized monitoring using a "One Health" approach.Entities:
Keywords: Babesia; One Health; emerging; tick; vector
Year: 2022 PMID: 35630388 PMCID: PMC9146636 DOI: 10.3390/microorganisms10050945
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Microorganisms ISSN: 2076-2607
Summary of studies reporting the (sero-)prevalence of Babesia spp. in Germany.
| Reference | Host Species/Group (No. of Individuals Examined) | Prevalence/Seroprevalence | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Krampitz et al. 1986 [ | Humans, healthy forestry workers (798) | n.a. | 0.25% | |
| n.a. | 0.5% | |||
| Hunfeld et al. 1998 [ | Humans, Lyme borreliosis patients (76) | n.a. | 11.8% | |
| Humans, seropositive but asymptomatic Lyme patients (44) | n.a. | 9.1% | ||
| Humans, syphilis patients (50) | n.a. | 4.0% | ||
| Humans, healthy blood donors (100) | n.a. | 8.0% | ||
| Hunfeld et al. 2002 [ | Humans exposed to ticks (225) | n.a. | ||
| Humans with various infectious diseases (122) | n.a. | |||
| Humans, healthy blood donors (120) | n.a. | |||
| Scheller 2004 [ | Humans, forestry workers with fever (490) | n.a. | 13.9% | |
| Weiland et al. 1980 [ | Cattle (1220) | n.a. | 21.0% | |
| Ullmann et al. 1984 [ | Cattle (1616) | n.a. | 13.1% | |
| Ganse-Dumrath 1986 [ | Cattle from farms with history of babesiosis (251) | 43.0% | ||
| Niepold 1990 [ | Cattle, | n.a. | 0.0% | |
| Cattle, farms with suspected babesiosis (354) | n.a. | 0.0% | ||
| Cattle, farms with history of babesiosis (200) | n.a. | 4.0% | ||
| Huwer et al. 1994 [ | Cattle, farms with babesiosis history (187) | 47.1% | ||
| Lengauer et al. 2006 [ | Cattle (287) | n.a. | 0.3% | |
| Springer et al. 2020 [ | Cattle, one farm with history of babesiosis (95) | 37.9% | ||
| Pikalo et al. 2016 [ | Horses (314) | n.a. | ||
| Boch 1985 [ | Horses (321) | n.a. | ||
| Dogs with suspected babesiosis (116) | n.a. | 39.7% | ||
| Hirsch and Pantchev 2008 [ | Dogs, imported or traveling (5142) | n.a. | 2.1–2.7% | |
| Menn et al. 2010 [ | Dogs, imported or traveling (4681) | n.a. | 24,3% | |
| Hamel et al. 2011 [ | Dogs, traveling (648) | n.a. | 4.9% | |
| Dogs, traveling (508) | n.a. | 3.7% | ||
| Röhrig et al. 2011 [ | Dogs, imported (2819) | n.a. | 8.9% | |
| Dogs, imported (2288) | n.a. | 0.5% | ||
| Pantchev [ | Dogs, imported or traveling (4579) | n.a. | 7,0% | |
| Dogs with suspected babesiosis (937) | n.a. | 12.7% | ||
| Liesner et al. 2016 [ | Dogs (1023) | n.a. | 0.1% | |
| Vrhovec et al. 2017 [ | Dogs (9966) | n.a. | 1.7% | |
| Dogs (15,555) | n.a. | 3.3% | ||
| Dogs (2653) | n.a. | 11.5% | ||
| Schäfer et al. 2019 [ | Dogs, imported (98) | n.a. | 3.1% | |
| Dogs, imported (214) | n.a. | 10.3% | ||
| Schäfer et al. 2019 [ | Dogs, traveling (127) | n.a. | 2,4% | |
| Dogs, traveling (160) | n.a. | 0.5% | ||
| Schäfer et al. 2021 [ | Dogs (20,914) | n.a. | 3.2% | |
| Dogs, never been abroad (692) | n.a. | 7.8% |
n.a.—not applicable. * Note that the B. canis complex was previously classified as a complex of B. canis, B. vogeli and B. rossi as subspecies.
Figure 1Occurrence of the ornate dog tick, Dermacentor reticulatus, in the reviewed countries according to https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/images/Dermacentor_reticulatus_2021_09.png (accessed on 20 March 2022).