Seroepidemiology of Crimean-Congo Haemorrhagic Fever among cattle in Cameroon: Implications from a One Health perspective.
Journal
PLoS neglected tropical diseases
ISSN: 1935-2735
Titre abrégé: PLoS Negl Trop Dis
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101291488
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 2022
03 2022
Historique:
received:
06
05
2021
accepted:
01
02
2022
entrez:
21
3
2022
pubmed:
22
3
2022
medline:
23
4
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Crimean-Congo Haemorrhagic Fever (CCHF) is a tick-borne viral zoonotic disease distributed across several continents and recognized as an ongoing health threat. In humans, the infection can progress to a severe disease with high fatality, raising public health concerns due to the limited prophylactic and therapeutic options available. Animal species, clinically unaffected by the virus, serve as viral reservoirs and amplifier hosts, and can be a valuable tool for surveillance. Little is known about the occurrence and prevalence of Crimean-Congo Haemorrhagic Fever Virus (CCHFV) in Cameroon. Knowledge on CCHFV exposure and the factors associated with its presence in sentinel species are a valuable resource to better understand transmission dynamics and assess local risks for zoonotic disease emergence. We conducted a CCHFV serological survey and risk factor analysis for animal level seropositivity in pastoral and dairy cattle in the North West Region (NWR) and the Vina Division (VD) of the Adamawa Region in Cameroon. Seroprevalence estimates were adjusted for sampling design-effects and test performance. In addition, explanatory multivariable logistic regression mixed-effects models were fit to estimate the effect of animal characteristics, husbandry practices, risk contacts and ecological features on the serological status of pastoral cattle. The overall seroprevalence was 56.0% (95% CI 53.5-58.6) and 6.7% (95% CI 2.6-16.1) among pastoral and dairy cattle, respectively. Animals going on transhumance had twice the odds of being seropositive (OR 2.0, 95% CI 1.1-3.8), indicating that animal movements could be implicated in disease expansion. From an ecological perspective, absolute humidity (OR 0.6, 95% CI 0.4-0.9) and shrub density (OR 2.1, 95% CI 1.4-3.2) were associated with seropositivity, which suggests an underlying viral dynamic connecting vertebrate host and ticks in a complex transmission network. This study demonstrated high seroprevalence levels of CCHFV antibodies in cattle in Cameroon indicating a potential risk to human populations. However, current understanding of the underlying dynamics of CCHFV locally and the real risk for human populations is incomplete. Further studies designed using a One Health approach are required to improve local knowledge of the disease, host interactions and environmental risk factors. This information is crucial to better project the risks for human populations located in CCHFV-suitable ecological niches.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Crimean-Congo Haemorrhagic Fever (CCHF) is a tick-borne viral zoonotic disease distributed across several continents and recognized as an ongoing health threat. In humans, the infection can progress to a severe disease with high fatality, raising public health concerns due to the limited prophylactic and therapeutic options available. Animal species, clinically unaffected by the virus, serve as viral reservoirs and amplifier hosts, and can be a valuable tool for surveillance. Little is known about the occurrence and prevalence of Crimean-Congo Haemorrhagic Fever Virus (CCHFV) in Cameroon. Knowledge on CCHFV exposure and the factors associated with its presence in sentinel species are a valuable resource to better understand transmission dynamics and assess local risks for zoonotic disease emergence.
METHODS AND FINDINGS
We conducted a CCHFV serological survey and risk factor analysis for animal level seropositivity in pastoral and dairy cattle in the North West Region (NWR) and the Vina Division (VD) of the Adamawa Region in Cameroon. Seroprevalence estimates were adjusted for sampling design-effects and test performance. In addition, explanatory multivariable logistic regression mixed-effects models were fit to estimate the effect of animal characteristics, husbandry practices, risk contacts and ecological features on the serological status of pastoral cattle. The overall seroprevalence was 56.0% (95% CI 53.5-58.6) and 6.7% (95% CI 2.6-16.1) among pastoral and dairy cattle, respectively. Animals going on transhumance had twice the odds of being seropositive (OR 2.0, 95% CI 1.1-3.8), indicating that animal movements could be implicated in disease expansion. From an ecological perspective, absolute humidity (OR 0.6, 95% CI 0.4-0.9) and shrub density (OR 2.1, 95% CI 1.4-3.2) were associated with seropositivity, which suggests an underlying viral dynamic connecting vertebrate host and ticks in a complex transmission network.
CONCLUSIONS
This study demonstrated high seroprevalence levels of CCHFV antibodies in cattle in Cameroon indicating a potential risk to human populations. However, current understanding of the underlying dynamics of CCHFV locally and the real risk for human populations is incomplete. Further studies designed using a One Health approach are required to improve local knowledge of the disease, host interactions and environmental risk factors. This information is crucial to better project the risks for human populations located in CCHFV-suitable ecological niches.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35312678
doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0010217
pii: PNTD-D-21-00646
pmc: PMC8936485
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0010217Subventions
Organisme : Wellcome Trust
ID : WT094945
Pays : United Kingdom
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
Ticks Tick Borne Dis. 2020 Sep;11(5):101475
pubmed: 32723661
Lancet Infect Dis. 2006 Apr;6(4):203-14
pubmed: 16554245
Int J Infect Dis. 2013 Jul;17(7):e524-8
pubmed: 23474177
Epidemiol Infect. 1996 Jun;116(3):353-61
pubmed: 8666081
PLoS Comput Biol. 2017 Apr 3;13(4):e1005470
pubmed: 28369082
Parasitology. 2012 Sep;139(10):1273-81
pubmed: 22717041
Sci Rep. 2020 Apr 7;10(1):6000
pubmed: 32265527
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1987 Jan;36(1):120-32
pubmed: 3101525
Ticks Tick Borne Dis. 2015 Mar;6(2):117-22
pubmed: 25575435
Acta Trop. 2020 Mar;203:105319
pubmed: 31874130
Zoonoses Public Health. 2021 Nov;68(7):781-793
pubmed: 34129288
Antiviral Res. 2018 Nov;159:63-67
pubmed: 30261226
Parasit Vectors. 2013 Jun 07;6:171
pubmed: 23758913
Future Virol. 2015;10(3):203-206
pubmed: 26379760
Int J Infect Dis. 2008 Jul;12(4):374-9
pubmed: 18063402
Rev Elev Med Vet Pays Trop. 1992;45(3-4):310-3
pubmed: 1339999
Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2007 Winter;7(4):667-78
pubmed: 18047397
Zoonoses Public Health. 2011 Feb;58(1):54-9
pubmed: 19912604
Ticks Tick Borne Dis. 2015 Jun;6(4):439-44
pubmed: 25898993
Parasit Vectors. 2019 Oct 17;12(1):489
pubmed: 31623642
S Afr Med J. 1985 Oct 26;68(9):635-7
pubmed: 3933131
PLoS One. 2015 May 08;10(5):e0125760
pubmed: 25955315
Sci Data. 2015 Apr 14;2:150016
pubmed: 25977820
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2021 Apr 22;15(4):e0009299
pubmed: 33886556
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2011 Oct;5(10):e1350
pubmed: 22022629
Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2020 Oct;20(10):797-799
pubmed: 32429789
Prev Vet Med. 2018 Jan 1;149:47-52
pubmed: 29290300
Parasit Vectors. 2017 Apr 19;10(1):190
pubmed: 28420420
Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2012 Sep;12(9):743-52
pubmed: 22448676
Res Virol. 1989 Jul-Aug;140(4):319-31
pubmed: 2505350
Epidemiol Infect. 2010 Nov;138(11):1674-8
pubmed: 20196903
Sci Data. 2020 Apr 3;7(1):109
pubmed: 32246091
Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2017 Aug;17(8):582-587
pubmed: 28605299
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2016 Jan 07;10(1):e0004210
pubmed: 26741652
Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2015 Aug;109(8):503-13
pubmed: 26142451
J Epidemiol Community Health. 2000 May;54(5):367-74
pubmed: 10814658
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2021 Apr 12;15(4):e0009228
pubmed: 33844691
Trop Anim Health Prod. 2003 Dec;35(6):491-507
pubmed: 14690088
Antiviral Res. 2016 Nov;135:31-47
pubmed: 27713073
J Med Entomol. 1979 May 22;15(4):307-417
pubmed: 113533
Exp Appl Acarol. 2016 Mar;68(3):337-46
pubmed: 26704262
PLoS One. 2016 Jan 08;11(1):e0146538
pubmed: 26745871
Int J Infect Dis. 2018 Mar;68:88-93
pubmed: 29382607
Biores Open Access. 2020 May 12;9(1):137-150
pubmed: 32461819
Acta Clin Croat. 2018 Sep;57(3):443-448
pubmed: 31168176
Ticks Tick Borne Dis. 2017 Oct;8(6):858-861
pubmed: 28712556
Vet Ital. 2008 Jul-Sep;44(3):513-7
pubmed: 20405447
Exp Appl Acarol. 2013 Jul;60(3):411-20
pubmed: 23344639
Prev Vet Med. 2005 Feb;67(2-3):157-70
pubmed: 15737429
PLoS One. 2017 Sep 8;12(9):e0182315
pubmed: 28886039
BMC Public Health. 2012 Dec 27;12:1116
pubmed: 23270399
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1995 Sep;53(3):217-21
pubmed: 7573699
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2018 Feb 8;12(2):e0006248
pubmed: 29420542
J Appl Microbiol. 2010 Jun;108(6):1859-70
pubmed: 20015209
Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2014 Sep;14(9):633-9
pubmed: 25198525
BMC Vet Res. 2018 Jul 3;14(1):214
pubmed: 29970084
J R Soc Interface. 2017 Sep;14(134):
pubmed: 28904005
Antiviral Res. 2018 Feb;150:137-147
pubmed: 29199036
Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 1990 Jul-Aug;84(4):573-6
pubmed: 2128671
Interdiscip Perspect Infect Dis. 2009;2009:593232
pubmed: 19277106
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2016 Dec 7;10(12):e0005126
pubmed: 27926935
Biom J. 2018 May;60(3):431-449
pubmed: 29292533
Res Virol. 1998 Nov-Dec;149(6):445-55
pubmed: 9923021
Virol J. 2018 Apr 6;15(1):63
pubmed: 29625611
J Virol Methods. 2021 Apr;290:114075
pubmed: 33515661
Antiviral Res. 2018 Mar;151:24-26
pubmed: 29330092
Antiviral Res. 2017 Aug;144:93-119
pubmed: 28579441
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1992 Sep;47(3):337-45
pubmed: 1524147
Virol J. 2013 Jun 05;10:178
pubmed: 23738961
Curr Opin Virol. 2019 Feb;34:70-78
pubmed: 30660091