4.6 Article

The spatial pattern of human exposure to Crimean-Congo haemorrhagic fever virus is not consistent with red deer-based risk predictions

Journal

TRANSBOUNDARY AND EMERGING DISEASES
Volume 69, Issue 5, Pages E3208-E3214

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/tbed.14484

Keywords

blood donors; CCHFV; enzootic area; risk gradients; serosurvey

Funding

  1. Universidad de Castilla-LaMancha
  2. European Social Fund
  3. Junta de Comunidades de Castilla-LaMancha
  4. Spanish Ministry for the Science and Innovation (MCI)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study aimed to assess the spatial risk of exposure to CCHFV infection in healthy blood donors. The findings suggest that the predicted risk based on animal-tick-virus models does not necessarily match human-infected tick interactions, and future studies should consider potential drivers of tick-human encounter rates to improve risk prediction accuracy.
The objective of this study was to evaluate the spatial risk of exposure to Crimean-Congo haemorrhagic fever virus (CCHFV) infection of healthy blood donors in an enzootic region with a predicted risk gradient based on a virus-animal interaction risk model. We designed a cross-sectional study to test if the exposure pattern of the human population to CCHFV spatially matches the predicted risk. We randomly selected 1384 donors from different risk gradients and analyzed their sera searching for CCHFV antibodies. None of the selected blood donors showed exposure to CCHFV. This study shows that exposure risk spatial patterns, as predicted from animal-tick-virus models, does not necessarily match the pattern of human-infected tick interactions leading to CCHFV infection and CCHF cases, at least in a region of predicted moderate infection risk. The findings suggest that future studies should bear the potential drivers of tick-human encounter rates into account to more accurately predict risks.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available