Next Article in Journal
Engaging Public Health Critical Race Praxis in Local Social Determinants of Health Research: The Youth Health Equity and Action Research Training Program in Portland, OR—yHEARTPDX
Next Article in Special Issue
Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices in Relation to Mosquito-Borne Diseases in Bangladesh
Previous Article in Journal
Identification of Priority Implementation Areas and Configuration Types for Green Infrastructure Based on Ecosystem Service Demands in Metropolitan City
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Effects of Meteorological Factors on Dengue Cases in Malaysia
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 19
Issue 13
10.3390/ijerph19138182
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Seroprevalence Rates against West Nile, Usutu, and Tick-Borne Encephalitis Viruses in Blood-Donors from North-Western Romania

by
Mircea Coroian
1,2,
Andrei Daniel Mihalca
1,
Gerhard Dobler
3,4,
Kathrin Euringer
3,4,
Philipp Girl
3,4,
Silvia-Diana Borșan
1,
Zsuzsa Kalmár
2,5,*,
Violeta Tincuța Briciu
2,6,
Mirela Flonta
6,
Adriana Topan
2,
Amanda Lelia Rădulescu
2,
Andrei Ungur
7 and
Mihaela Sorina Lupșe
2,6
1
Department of Parasitology and Parasitic Diseases, University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine of Cluj-Napoca, 400372 Cluj-Napoca, Romania
2
Department of Infectious Diseases, University of Medicine and Pharmacy “Iuliu Hațieganu” Cluj-Napoca, 400012 Cluj-Napoca, Romania
3
Bundeswehr Institute of Microbiology, 85748 Munich, Germany
4
German Centre for Infection Research (DZIF), 85748 Munich, Germany
5
Department of Microbiology, Immunology and Epidemiology, University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine of Cluj-Napoca, 400372 Cluj-Napoca, Romania
6
Hospital for Infectious Diseases, 400348 Cluj-Napoca, Romania
7
Department of Pathology, University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine of Cluj-Napoca, 400372 Cluj-Napoca, Romania
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19(13), 8182; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19138182
Submission received: 10 May 2022 / Revised: 30 June 2022 / Accepted: 1 July 2022 / Published: 4 July 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Vector-Borne Diseases and Public Health)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Introduction: West Nile virus (WNV), Usutu virus (USUV), and the tick-borne encephalitis virus (TBEV) are all arboviruses belonging to Flaviviridae family. All are characterized by vectorial transmission and sometimes associated with neuroinvasive infections. The circulation of these viruses is considered endemic in parts of Europe, with human cases reported in many countries. Among hosts, the viruses are vectored by hematophagous arthropods, such as mosquitoes (WNV, USUV) and ticks (TBEV). Considering the currently outdated knowledge regarding the epidemiology of these viruses in Romania, the aim of our study was to assess the seroprevalence rates of WNV, USUV, and TBEV among healthy blood donors in north-western Romania. Methods: Human blood samples from healthy donors were collected between November 2019 and February 2020 in six counties from the north-western region of Romania. The samples were serologically tested by ELISA and serum neutralization test. Results: Overall, we obtained a seroprevalence of 3.17% for WNV, 0.08% for TBEV, and 0% for USUV. Conclusion: Despite the low seroprevalence of WNV, USUV, and TBEV in our study, we highlight the need for continuous nationwide vector and disease surveillance and implementation of control measures. Further research is required for an optimal overview of the epidemiological status of the Romanian population regarding these flaviviruses together with countrywide awareness campaigns.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

West Nile virus (WNV), Usutu virus (USUV), and the tick-borne encephalitis virus (TBEV) are all arboviruses belonging to Flaviviridae family, characterized by vectorial transmission and sometimes associated with neuroinvasive infections. The circulation of these viruses is considered endemic in some parts of Europe, with cases reported in many countries. Hematophagous arthropods such as mosquitoes (WNV, USUV) and ticks (TBEV) transmit the virus among hosts [1].
Romania has a long history regarding the circulation of the WNV, the disease being first reported in 1955 [2]. In addition, during 1996, Romania also recorded the most important human outbreak reported in Europe at the time, in the south-eastern region of the country. Of the 393 human cases recorded, 352 were severe forms of meningoencephalitis [3]. A continued transmission was observed during the next years but with a lower number of clinical infections [4]. Another notable outbreak occurred during 2010, with 52 confirmed cases and a 10% mortality rate. Although most infections were located in the southern part of the country, new cases have also been reported inside the arch of the Carpathian Mountains [5]. Moreover, during 2016, another disease outbreak was recorded in Romania, this time registering 93 neurological human cases [6,7]. To date, the most severe outbreak registered in Europe in recent years took place in 2018, when Romania registered 277 clinical cases and 43 deaths out of a total of 2083 human clinical infections at the European level [8]. A decrease in infections was observed in the following years [9,10,11]. Since 1997, a passive surveillance system has been implemented in Romania. Every year, from June to November, blood serum and cerebrospinal fluid from suspect cases of human WNV-associated central nervous system infections in patients over the age of 15 years old are screened using IgM WNV enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). A 28-day quarantine period is mandatory for all blood donors from localities where human cases have been detected [12]. Nevertheless, a significant number of human viral encephalitis cases remain unconfirmed for WNV and are recorded as “viral encephalitis with unknown etiology”, as the current legislation does not require further confirmatory tests for other insect-borne arboviruses. As a consequence, the blood donors are not screened for other viruses although some, i.e., Toscana [13] and Usutu [14], were recently reported in Romania.
USUV, a member of the Japanese encephalitis serocomplex, is phylogenetically close to WNV [15]. USUV has spread to a large part of the European continent over the two decades, mainly leading to substantial avian mortalities with a significant recrudescence of bird infections recorded throughout Europe within the last few years [16]. In Europe, USUV was first reported in Austria and was associated with high mortality among blackbirds (Turdus merula) [17]. This event was followed by a retrospective study in Italy on bird tissue samples stored from 1996, which subsequently tested positive for USUV by molecular techniques [18]. Later, the virus was identified in mosquitoes and different vertebrate hosts in several European countries [19,20]. USUV infection in humans is considered to be most often asymptomatic or to cause mild clinical signs [16]. The first human neuroinvasive infection in Europe was registered in 2009 in Italy in a patient with meningoencephalitis symptoms [21] followed by other reports [22,23,24]. Seroconversion in healthy blood donors was also registered [25,26,27,28]. In Romania, the first serological evidence of the presence of USUV was documented in a domestic dog [14], but its presence in humans has not yet been demonstrated.
TBEV is endemic in many European countries including Romania, being the most important neuroinvasive arbovirus vectored by ticks [29,30,31]. Information on the tick-borne encephalitis (TBE) epidemiology in Romania is scarce and partly outdated. The most important outbreak in humans was recorded in 1999, when 38 infections were recorded, raw goat dairy products being incriminated as the source of infection [32]. Seroprevalence rates varied between 0.0% and 41.5% in humans and between 0.0% and 27.7% in livestock [33,34,35]. Since 2008, TBE has been passively monitored in 11 north-western and central counties considered at risk out of the 41 counties of Romania [36]. TBE is also notifiable at the EU level since 2012 [37].
Considering the outdated current knowledge on the epidemiology of these viruses in Romania, this study aimed to assess the seroprevalence of WNV, USUV, and TBEV among healthy blood donors in north-western Romania.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Sample Collection

Human blood samples from healthy donors were collected between November 2019 and February 2020 and between August and September 2020 by the Regional Blood Transfusion Centers in six counties from the north-western region of Romania (Alba (AB), Cluj (CJ), Sălaj (SJ), Bistrița-Năsăud (BN), Maramureș (MM), and Satu-Mare (SM)), as previously described [38]. Two hundred samples were analyzed per county, resulting in a total of 1200 samples being assessed in the current study. Each donor answered a questionnaire survey concerning age, gender, occupation, and living environment. The respondents were divided into 3 groups according to their age as follows: young adults (18 ≤ ages ≤ 35), middle-aged (36 ≤ ages ≤ 55), and old adults (ages ≥ 56). Additionally, in relation to job profile, the participants were grouped by higher and secondary education level, respectively, with predominantly indoor/outdoor activity.
After collection, each sample was centrifuged at 8000 rpm for 10 min and stored at −80 °C until further analysis.

2.2. Ethical Statement

The study was approved by the National Institute of Hematology and Blood Transfusion of Romania (Registration Number: 2589/c/24 October 2019). All patients offered their informed consent prior to sample collection.

2.3. Serological Analysis

2.3.1. ELISA

All serum samples were screened in the Laboratory of the Clinical Hospital for Infectious Diseases from Cluj-Napoca using a commercial enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) for WNV (Euroimmun IgG West Nile—Medizinische Labordiagnostika AG, Lübeck, Germany) and TBEV (SERION ELISA classic FSME/TBE Virus IgG—Serion Diagnostics, Wurzburg, Germany) IgG antibodies. Both tests were performed according to the manufacturer’s instructions.

2.3.2. Serum-Neutralization Tests

All neutralization tests were performed as micro serum neutralization (micro-SNT) tests according to standard procedures [39] using the validated protocol of the accredited diagnostic laboratory at the Bundeswehr Institute of Microbiology, Munich. The described tests for the particular flaviviruses were conducted in parallel, modified only in using the respective mentioned flavivirus strains and the respective cell lines. Therefore, the titers against all three tested flaviviruses were comparable with each other.

WNV

WNV (strain EgAn101; kindly provided by Robert Shope Yale Arbovirus Research Unit) was cultured in Vero cells, and virus stocks (titrated to 40–60 TCID/50 µL) were prepared and stored at −80 °C until further use. The SNTs were screened in the Bundeswehr Institute of Microbiology, Munich, Germany, and performed in 96-well cell culture plates (Greiner bio-one, Frickenhausen, Germany). Patient sera were inactivated at 56 °C for 30 min and then diluted two-fold in duplicate beginning with 1:20 to 1:2560 in Minimal Essential Medium (MEM, plus MEM Non-Essential Amino Acids Solution plus Antibiotic-Antimycotic Solution; all Invitrogen, ThermoFisher Scientific, Darmstadt, Germany). A cell control and a virus re-titration were used as controls on each 96-well plate. The respective virus (40–60 TCID50) was added to each well, and the serum–virus solution was incubated for one hour at 37 °C (5% CO2). Afterward, Vero B4 cells (1 × 104 cells/50 µL) were added to each well and incubated for 5–7 days at 37 °C. The supernatants were then discarded, and the 96-well plates were fixed in 13% formalin/PBS and stained with crystal violet (0.1%) and titers visually determined.
The antibody titer corresponding to the highest serum dilution showing complete inhibition of cytopathic effect (CPE) in both wells were reported. Due to a shortage of serum available, the 1:20 starter dilution was chosen. If only one of the wells of the 1:20 solution showed neutralizing capacity, the titer for the serum concerned was stated as 1:10. Thus, the samples were classified as either “NT-negative” (titer < 1:10) or “NT-positive” (titer ≥ 1:10), with the highest readable titer being ≥1:2560.

TBEV

The TBEV-SNT was performed in the Bundeswehr Institute of Microbiology, Munich, Germany, as previously described [40]. The virus strain used was TBEV strain Neudörfl with 100 TCID50 per test, and A549 cells were used for the test.

USUV

To exclude the cross-reactions, the samples were also tested for USUV by SNT. The USUV-SNT was performed in the Bundeswehr Institute of Microbiology, Munich, Germany, according to the micro-SNT described. The virus strain used was kindly provided by Martin Pfeffer with 100 TCID50 per test, and Vero B4 cells were used. The fourfold or higher difference in NT antibody titers of a particular serum between flaviviruses and, here, USUV and WNV is generally accepted as specific for the respective flavivirus [41].

2.4. Statistical Analysis

The statistical analysis was performed using Epi InfoTM 2000 software (https://www.cdc.gov/epiinfo, accessed on 17 February 2021). We used the infection prevalence and the 95% confidence interval in statistical calculations (p-values < 0.05 were considered significant). Continuous normally distributed variables are reported as median and interquartile range, and categorical variables are presented as frequencies and percentages.

3. Results

3.1. Study Group

The study group consisted of 1200 samples collected from healthy blood donors in six counties from the north-western region of Romania (200 samples from each county), as previously described [38]. Briefly, the age of the study participants varied between 18 and 65 years, with a median age of 41 years (interquartile range 53–29). Group characteristics concerning the gender, age category, education level, activities, and living environment are described in Table 1.

3.2. ELISA

Of the 1200 samples screened for WNV by ELISA, 3.3% (39/1200; 95% CI 2.4–4.4) showed positive results, while 0.3% (3/1200; 95% CI 0.1–0.7) had equivocal antibody index values, whereas 2.3% (28/1200; 95% CI 1.6–3.4) of the samples had positive IgG ELISA index, and 1.3% (16/1200; 95% CI 0.8–2.2) had equivocal IgG ELISA index for TBEV. Twenty-six samples (2.2%) had positive results for both WNV and TBEV (Table 2).

3.3. SNT

Serum samples from the donors with positive or equivocal IgG ELISA index values for WNV (3.5%; 42/1200; 95% CI 2.6–4.7) and for TBEV (3.7%; 44/1200; 95% CI 0.0–0.5) were further analyzed by SNT.
Overall, 3.2% (38/1200; 95% CI 2.3–4.3) of the samples had positive SNT results for WNV and 0.1% (1/1200; 95% CI 0.1–0.5) for TBEV. Thirty-four (2.8%; 95% CI 2.0–3.9) ELISA-positive and two ELISA-equivocal (0.2%; 95% CI 0.1–0.5) serum samples were confirmed.
Among the 28 (2.3%; 95% CI 1.6–3.4) ELISA-positive samples for TBEV, 1 (0.1%; 95% CI 0.1–0.5) were positive by SNT, and none of the serum samples with equivocal ELISA result (1.3%, 16/1200; 95% CI 0.8–2.2), had positive SNT results (Figure 1).
All the samples tested for USUV-SNT returned negative results. Therefore, it was proven that USUV was not responsible for the positive results, and there was no cross-reactivity in the tested sera due to this virus.

3.4. WNV

Higher seroprevalence was found in males (4.0%) than in females (1.5%) and in the donors with secondary education (4.3%) relative to those with higher education (1.9%). These differences were statistically significant (Table 3). While 4.1% of the donors from rural environments had positive SNT results, the seroprevalence of blood donors from urban environments was 2.7%. According to their occupational fields, 4.9% of the donors with outdoor activities and 2.9% with indoor activities had positive SNT results (Table 3).
For each age category, the seroprevalence was higher in men than in women, and the highest SNT rates were obtained in the old adults (6.0%) followed by middle-aged (3.3%) and young adults (2.8%), with statistically significant results for the middle-aged category (Table 4).
Nevertheless, statistically significant results were registered between the counties (χ2 = 51.6891, df = 10; p = 0.001), and the seroprevalence varied between 0.5% (Cluj-Napoca) and 10.5% (Satu-Mare) in the investigated counties (Table 5). We registered statistically significant results within the counties for young adults (χ2 = 21.5796, df = 5; p = 0.0006) and, respectively, for the middle-aged (χ2 = 19.4194, df = 5; p = 0.0016) group.

3.5. TBEV

The only TBEV positive sample by SNT was collected from the middle-aged category: a 44-year-old male from Satu-Mare county (Table 5) who also tested positive for WNV by SNT. He was living in a rural environment with predominant indoor activity and secondary education level (Table 3).

4. Discussion

The WNV, TBEV, and USUV are arthropod-transmitted flaviviruses widespread throughout Europe. A common trait of these viruses is their cross-reactivity encountered in serological tests, which can sometimes pose diagnostic challenges. Moreover, the national regulations for the surveillance of these viruses are highly heterogenic throughout Europe [42,43].
WNV is the most prevalent mosquito-borne virus reported in Romania, with human infections recorded yearly [44]. It is noteworthy that the herein study was performed in an area of Romania (north-west) considered at low risk for WNV [45]. Nevertheless, the seroprevalence obtained in this study is similar to the values recorded in Bucharest during the 1996 outbreak [46]. This could suggest the continuous circulation of the virus in the population and a high number of asymptomatic cases. Moreover, a recent study conducted in Romania including 176 samples collected from inhabitants in Iași county (north-east) revealed a WNV seroprevalence of 3.4% [14]. The seroprevalence rates in our study are higher than those reported in blood donors in Italy (0.68%, 0.61%, 0.78%) and Hungary (2.19%) [47,48,49,50]. The high seroprevalence rate registered in Satu-Mare and the low seroprevalence from the other counties closely follow the risk model previously published by our team, who identified the human population, precipitation, and altitude as the most important factors in predicting the West Nile virus infections in humans [45].
As we only considered positive the results confirmed by SNT, the discussion section is focused on these results. Contrary to prior studies, the gender of the participants was identified as a risk factor in the current research [14,47,51], and higher seropositivity among males can be associated with more time spent outdoors and higher exposure to mosquito bites. Moreover, our analysis did not identify this occupational hazard as a risk factor in acquiring the virus, as previously reported in Romania [52]. Previous studies suggested that the higher positivity rate in the rural environments could be influenced by weaker measures of surveillance and control in these sites and also by the amount of time spent outdoors performing agricultural activities [53]. However, we found no statistically significant differences between urban and rural cohorts. Other studies suggested higher seroprevalence rates of WNV in the elderly related to increased outdoor time and less frequent use of repellents [51,53]. Nevertheless, we did not observe this correlation in the present study. Additionally, we observed that the lower education level of the studied population was linked to a higher WNV exposure, as suggested by Hadjichristodoulou et al. (2015) [51], possibly due to inadequate knowledge of mosquito control and less use of insect repellents.
USUV is generally less commonly diagnosed compared to WNV, and several studies highlighted their co-circulation in vectors and hosts [54,55]. Hence, the negative results for USUV could potentially be correlated with the low prevalence of WNV and might suggest the absence of virus circulation in the north-west region of Romania. Interestingly, a recent study reported antibodies against USUV in a dog from Iași [14], a risk area for WNV infection in Romania [45]. Serological surveys conducted on blood donors in several countries in Europe revealed prevalence rates between 0% to 6.57% in humans [26,48,49,56].
The present study depicts a rather low seroprevalence rate regarding the TBEV in the assessed samples compared to countries where it is considered endemic [57,58,59], yet it is comparable with results obtained by Christova et al. (2017) in Bulgaria (0.6%) [60]. Low seroprevalence rates were also reported in studies conducted on healthy blood donors in Norway (0.65, 0.4%) [61,62].
Because no neutralization methods were used in prior studies conducted in Romania [33,34], the indicated higher seroprevalence rates should be cautiously interpreted.
Nonetheless, it is important to mention that our sampling protocol had its limitations. The sampling protocol did not include questions on history of mosquito/tick bites, previous symptoms of central nervous system infections (CNS)/documented CNS infections of viral etiology, occupational risk, or vaccination history for flaviviruses. The diagnosis and immunity testing of flaviviruses should always include an evaluation of immune responses against different flaviviruses such as TBEV, WNV, yellow fever virus, Japanese encephalitis virus, and dengue viruses. Regarding TBEV vaccination, it is important to outline that FSME-IMMUN® (Pfizer), the only vaccine available in Romania, received authorization for use in our country in 2019, and no official recommendations for use in general population/specific groups or funding by the National Health system for use are available. As the primary vaccination includes three doses in a minimum 6-month interval, and the study group investigated in November 2019–September 2020, we do not expect to have an important number of TBE-vaccinated patients in our group. Cross-reactivity might be associated with the yellow fever vaccine, but neutralizing antibodies are thought to be the most specific antibodies produced by the host and with the lowest cross-reactivity to other flaviviruses [63]. On the other hand, yellow fever vaccination is an extremely rarely administered vaccine in Romania and performed only in travel-medicine clinics. Nevertheless, only the history of the patient together with the serological results against the most common flaviviruses and flavivirus vaccinations will give a realistic picture of the immune status and of a potential infection.
To our best knowledge, this is the first comprehensive study that aimed to analyze the seroprevalence of WNV among blood donors in Romania and the first large-scale study that evaluates the presence of the Usutu virus in the human population in Romania. Moreover, there are no recent studies on the presence of TBEV in Romania. Thus, the research herein aimed to update the existing data and bring additional information regarding this aspect.

5. Conclusions

Despite the low seroprevalence of WNV, USUV, and TBEV in our study, we highlight the need for continuous nationwide vector and disease surveillance and implementation of control measures. Further research is required for an optimal overview of the epidemiological status of the Romanian population regarding these flaviviruses together with countrywide awareness campaigns.

Author Contributions

M.C. and M.S.L. wrote the manuscript; M.C., S.-D.B., Z.K., K.E., P.G., and A.U. performed the serological analysis; V.T.B., A.L.R., A.T., M.F., and G.D. interpreted the serological data; Z.K. performed the statistical analysis; A.D.M. and M.S.L. amended the manuscript; M.S.L. designed and conducted the study. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was performed under the framework of the VectExcel project “Multidisciplinary One Health excellence research platform for neglected and emerging vector-borne diseases”, Project Number 57 PCCDI/2018, Grant agency the Executive Unit for Funding Higher Education and University Scientific Research (UEFISCSU), Romania.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was approved by the National Institute of Hematology and Blood Transfusion, Romania (Registration Number: 2589/c/24 October 2019).

Informed Consent Statement

Each patient was informed of the aims and the protocol of the study. All patients offered their informed consent prior to sample collection.

Data Availability Statement

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article. Other datasets used and/or analyzed can be made available by the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

The paper was published under the frame of European Social Found, Human Capital Operational Programme 2014–2020, project no. POCU/380/6/13/125171. We are grateful to healthcare personnel of the National Institute of Hematology and Blood Transfusion and the regional blood transfusion centers for their contribution to the blood collection process.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interest.

References

  1. Barzon, L. Ongoing and emerging arbovirus threats in Europe. J. Clin. Virol. 2018, 107, 38–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. West Nile Virus Infection Outbreak in Humans in Romania; European Center for Disease Prevention and Control: Stockholm, Sweden, 2010; Available online: https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/media/en/publications/Publications/1104_MIR_West_Nile_outbreak_Romania.pdf (accessed on 25 May 2021).
  3. Tsai, T.; Popovici, F.; Cernescu, C.; Campbell, G.; Nedelcu, N. West Nile encephalitis epidemic in southeastern Romania. Lancet 1998, 352, 767–771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Cernescu, C.; Nedelcu, N.; Tardei, G.; Ruta, S.; Tsai, T.F. Continued transmission of West Nile Virus to humans in southeastern Romania, 1997–1998. J. Infect. Dis. 2000, 181, 710–712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Sîrbu, A.; Ceianu, C.S.; Panculescu-Gatej, R.I.; Vazquez, A.; Tenorio, A.; Rebreanu, R.; Niedrig, M.; Nicolescu, G.; Pistol, A. Outbreak of West Nile virus infection in humans, Romania, July to October 2010. Eurosurveillance 2011, 16, 19762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Dinu, S.; Cotar, A.I.; Pănculescu-Gătej, I.R.; Fălcuţă, E.; Prioteasa, F.L.; Sîrbu, A.; Oprişan, G.; Bădescu, D.; Reiter, P.; Ceianu, C.S. West Nile virus circulation in south-eastern Romania, 2011 to 2013. Eurosurveillance 2015, 20, 21130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Cotar, A.I.; Fălcuță, E.; Dinu, S.; Necula, A.; Bîrluțiu, V.; Ceianu, C.S.; Prioteasa, F.L. West Nile virus lineage 2 in Romania, 2015–2016: Co-circulation and strain replacement. Parasites Vectors 2018, 11, 562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Transmission of West Nile Virus, June to December 2018–Table of Cases, 2018 Transmission Season; European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control: Stockholm, Sweden, 2018; Available online: https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications-data/transmission-west-nile-virus-june-december-2018-table-cases-2018-transmission (accessed on 20 May 2021).
  9. West Nile Virus Infection. Annual Epidemiological Report for 2019; European Center for Disease Prevention and Control: Stockholm, Sweden, 2021; Available online: https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/AER-WNV-infection-2019.pdf (accessed on 20 May 2021).
  10. Epidemiological Update: West Nile Virus Transmission Season in Europe; European Center for Disease Prevention and Control: Stockholm, Sweden, 2021; Available online: https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/news-events/epidemiological-update-west-nile-virus-transmission-season-europe-2020 (accessed on 20 May 2021).
  11. Weekly Updates: 2021 West Nile virus Transmission Season; European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control: Stockholm, Sweden, 2021; Available online: https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/west-nile-fever/surveillance-and-disease-data/disease-data-ecdc (accessed on 20 May 2021).
  12. WNV Infection Surveillance and Control System June–November 2020; National Center for Surveillance and Control of Transmissible Diseases Romania: Bucharest, Romania, 2020; (In Romanian). Available online: https://www.cnscbt.ro/index.php/metodologii/west-nile/1760-metodologie-supraveghere-neuroinfectie-wn-sezon-2020/file (accessed on 20 May 2021).
  13. Popescu, C.P.; Cotar, A.I.; Dinu, S.; Zaharia, M.; Tardei, G.; Ceausu, E.; Badescu, D.; Ruta, S.; Ceianu, C.S.; Florescu, S.A. Emergence of Toscana virus, Romania, 2017–2018. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2021, 27, 1482–1485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Crivei, L.A. Arboviroze cu Caracter Zoonotic Transmise de Ţânţari în România. Ph.D. Thesis, Iași University of Life Sciences, Iași, Romania, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  15. Gould, E.; Solomon, T. Pathogenic flaviviruses. Lancet 2008, 371, 500–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Clé, M.; Beck, C.; Salinas, S.; Lecollinet, S.; Gutierrez, S.; Van de Perre, P.; Baldet, T.; Foulongne, V.; Simonin, Y. Usutu virus: A new threat? Epidemiol. Infect. 2019, 147, e232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Weissenböck, H.; Kolodziejek, J.; Url, A.; Lussy, H.; Rebel-Bauder, B.; Nowotny, N. Emergence of Usutu virus, an African mosquito-borne flavivirus of the Japanese encephalitis virus group, central Europe. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2002, 8, 652–656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Weissenböck, H.; Bakonyi, T.; Rossi, G.; Mani, P.; Nowotny, N. Usutu virus, Italy, 1996. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2013, 19, 274–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Ashraf, U.; Ye, J.; Ruan, X.; Wan, S.; Zhu, B.; Cao, S. Usutu virus: An emerging flavivirus in Europe. Viruses 2015, 7, 219–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  20. Vilibic-Cavlek, T.; Petrovic, T.; Savic, V.; Barbic, L.; Tabain, I.; Stevanovic, V.; Barbic, L.; Tabain, I.; Stevanovic, V.; Klobucar, A.; et al. Epidemiology of Usutu virus: The European scenario. Pathogens 2020, 9, 699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Pecorari, M.; Longo, G.; Gennari, W.; Grottola, A.; Sabbatini, A.; Tagliazucchi, S.; Savini, G.; Monaco, F.; Simone, M.L.; Lelli, R.; et al. First human case of Usutu virus neuroinvasive infection, Italy, August–September 2009. Eurosurveillance 2009, 14, 19446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Santini, M.; Vilibic-Cavlek, T.; Barsic, B.; Barbic, L.; Savic, V.; Stevanovic, V.; Listes, E.; Gennaro, A.D.; Savini, G. First cases of human Usutu virus neuroinvasive infection in Croatia, August–September 2013: Clinical and laboratory features. J. Neurovirol. 2015, 21, 92–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Simonin, Y.; Sillam, O.; Carles, M.J.; Gutierrez, S.; Gil, P.; Constant, O.; Martin, M.F.; Girard, G.; Van de Perre, P.; Salinas, S.; et al. Human Usutu virus infection with atypical neurologic presentation, Montpellier, France, 2016. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2018, 24, 875–878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Pacenti, M.; Sinigaglia, A.; Martello, T.; De Rui, M.E.; Franchin, E.; Pagni, S.; Peta, E.; Riccetti, S.; Milani, A.; Montarsi, F.; et al. Clinical and virological findings in patients with Usutu virus infection, northern Italy, 2018. Eurosurveillance 2019, 24, 1900180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Gaibani, P.; Pierro, A.; Alicino, R.; Rossini, G.; Cavrini, F.; Landini, M.P.; Sambri, V. Detection of Usutu-virus-specific IgG in blood donors from northern Italy. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2012, 12, 431–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Allering, L.; Jöst, H.; Emmerich, P.; Günther, S.; Lattwein, E.; Schmidt, M.; Seifried, E.; Sambri, V.; Hourfar, K.; Schmidt-Chanasit, J. Detection of Usutu virus infection in a healthy blood donor from south-west Germany, 2012. Eurosurveillance 2012, 17, 20341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Bakonyi, T.; Jungbauer, C.; Aberle, S.W.; Kolodziejek, J.; Dimmel, K.; Stiasny, K.; Allerberger, F.; Nowotny, N. Usutu virus infections among blood donors, Austria, July and August 2017–raising awareness for diagnostic challenges. Eurosurveillance 2017, 22, 17–00644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Zaaijer, H.L.; Slot, E.; Molier, M. Reusken CBEM, Koppelman MHGM. Usutu virus infection in Dutch blood donors. Transfusion 2019, 59, 2931–2937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Stefanoff, P.; Pfeffer, M.; Hellenbrand, W.; Rogalska, J.; Rühe, F.; Makówka, A.; Michalik, J.; Wodecka, B.; Rymaszewska, A.; Kiewra, D.; et al. Virus detection in questing ticks is not a sensitive indicator for risk assessment of tick-borne encephalitis in humans. Zoonoses Public Health 2013, 60, 215–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Tick-Borne Encephalitis-Annual Epidemiological Report for 2017; European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control: Stockholm, Sweden, 2019; Available online: https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications-data/tick-borne-encephalitis-annual-epidemiological-report-2017 (accessed on 14 June 2021).
  31. Chitimia-Dobler, L.; Hristea, A.; Erber, W.; Vuković-Janković, T. TBE in Romania, 3rd ed.; Dobler, G., Erber, W., Bröker, M., Schmitt, H.J., Eds.; Chapter 12b; The TBE Book; Global Health Press: Singapore, 2020; p. 290. [Google Scholar]
  32. Ionescu, L.; Alexse, A.; Ceianu, C.; Necsulescu, M.; Popescu, D.; Bicheru, S.; Dumitrescu, G.; Cumpănăsoiu, C.E.; Cumpănăsoiu, C.; Pasat, L.; et al. Investigation methods used for identifying the presence of tick-borne encephalitis virus (TBEV) in vector arthropods. Sci. Pap. Vet. Med. 2009, 42, 288–293. [Google Scholar]
  33. Ionescu, L.; Necsulescu, M.; Alexse, A.; Ceianu, C.; Popescu, D.; Bicheru, S.; Ordeanu, V.; Nicolescu, G.; Vladimirescu, A.L.; Postoarca, A. Infection with tick-borne encephalitis virus in Romania. Rev. Rom. Med. Vet. 2008, 3, 69–79. [Google Scholar]
  34. Molnár, G.B.; Persecă, T.; Feder, A.; Păcuraru, D.; Marialaki, E.; Cojan, A. Epidemiological assessment of morbidity and natural foci of TBE-CEE virus infection in Transylvania. Rev. Med. Chir. Soc. Med. Nat. Iasi 2008, 112, 471–477. [Google Scholar]
  35. Salat, J.; Mihalca, A.D.; Mihaiu, M.; Modrý, D.; Ruzek, D. Tick-borne encephalitis in sheep, Romania. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2017, 23, 2065–2067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Surveillance System of TBEV Infection; National Center for Surveillance and Control of Transmissible Diseases Romania: Bucharest, Romania, 2016; (In Romanian). Available online: https://www.cnscbt.ro/index.php/metodologii/tbe/477-tbe-metodologie/file (accessed on 20 December 2021).
  37. Steffen, R. Epidemiology of tick-borne encephalitis (TBE) in international travellers to Western/Central Europe and conclusions on vaccination recommendations. J. Travel Med. 2016, 23, 4. [Google Scholar]
  38. Kalmár, Z.; Briciu, V.; Coroian, M.; Flonta, M.; Rădulescu, A.-L.; Topan, A.; Mihalca, A.D.; Lupșe, M. Seroprevalence of antibodies against Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato in healthy blood donors in Romania: An update. Parasites Vectors 2021, 14, 596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Van Maanen, C.; Terpstra, C. Comparison of a liquid-phase blocking sandwich ELISA and a serum neutralization test to evaluate immunity in potency tests of foot-and-mouth disease vaccines. J. Immunol. Methods 1989, 124, 111–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Haut, M.; Girl, P.; Oswald, B.; Romig, T.; Obiegala, A.; Dobler, G.; Pfeffer, M. The Red Fox (Vulpes vulpes) as sentinel for tick-borne encephalitis virus in endemic and non-endemic areas. Microorganisms 2020, 8, 1817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Calisher, C.H.; Karabatsos, N.; Dalrymple, J.M.; Shope, R.E.; Porterfield, J.S.; Westaway, E.G.; Brandt, W.E. Antigenic relationship between flaviviruses as detemrined by cross-neutralization tests with polyclonal antisera. J. Gen. Virol. 1989, 70, 37–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Lustig, Y.; Sofer, D.; Bucris, E.D.; Mendelson, E. Surveillance and diagnosis of West Nile Virus in the face of flavivirus cross-reactivity. Front Microbiol. 2018, 9, 2421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Vector Control Practices and Strategies against West Nile virus; European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control: Stockholm, Sweden, 2020; Available online: https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/Vector-control-practices-and-strategies-against-West-Nile-virus.pdf (accessed on 22 December 2021).
  44. Historical Data by Year-West Nile virus Seasonal Surveillance; European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control: Stockholm, Sweden, 2019; Available online: https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/west-nile-fever/surveillance-and-disease-data/historical (accessed on 22 December 2021).
  45. Coroian, M.; Petrić, M.; Pistol, A.; Sirbu, A.; Domșa, C.; Mihalca, A.D. Human West Nile Meningo-Encephalitis in a Highly Endemic Country: A Complex Epidemiological Analysis on Biotic and Abiotic Risk Factors. IJERPH 2020, 17, 8250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Campbell, G.L.; Ceianu, C.S.; Savage, H.M. Epidemic West Nile encephalitis in Romania: Waiting for history to repeat itself. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2001, 951, 94–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Pezzotti, P.; Piovesan, C.; Barzon, L.; Cusinato, R.; Cattai, M.; Pacenti, M.; Piazza, A.; Franchin, E.; Pagni, S.; Bressan, S.; et al. Prevalence of IgM and IgG antibodies to West Nile virus among blood donors in an affected area of north-eastern Italy, summer 2009. Eurosurveillance 2011, 16, 19814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Pierro, A.; Gaibani, P.; Manisera, C.; Dirani, G.; Rossini, G.; Cavrini, F.; Ghinelli, F.; Ghinelli, P.; Finarelli, A.C.; Mattivi, A. Seroprevalence of West Nile virus-specific antibodies in a cohort of blood donors in Northeastern Italy. Vector-Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2011, 11, 1605–1607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Pierro, A.; Gaibani, P.; Spadafora, C.; Ruggeri, D.; Randi, V.; Parenti, S.; Finarelli, A.C.; Rossini, G.; Landini, M.P.; Sambri, V. Detection of specific antibodies against West Nile and Usutu viruses in healthy blood donors in northern Italy, 2010–2011. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2013, 19, 451–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Nagy, A.; Szöllősi, T.; Takács, M.; Magyar, N.; Barabás, É. West Nile virus seroprevalence among blood donors in Hungary. Vector-Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2019, 19, 844–850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Hadjichristodoulou, C.; Pournaras, S.; Mavrouli, M.; Marka, A.; Tserkezou, P.; Baka, A.; Billinis, C.; Katsioulis, A.; Psaroulaki, A.; Papa, A. West Nile Virus seroprevalence in the Greek population in 2013: A nationwide cross-sectional survey. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0143803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Han, L.L.; Popovici, F.; Alexander, J.P., Jr.; Laurentia, V.; Tengelsen, L.A.; Cernescu, C.; Gary, E.H., Jr.; Ion-Nedelcu, N.; Campbell, G.L.; Tsai, T.F. Risk factors for West Nile virus infection and meningoencephalitis, Romania, 1996. J. Infect. Dis. 1999, 179, 230–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Ladbury, G.A.F.; Gavana, M.; Danis, K.; Papa, A.; Papamichail, D.; Mourelatos, S.; Gewehr, S.; Theocharopoulos, G.; Bonovas, S.; Benos, A.; et al. Population seroprevalence study after a West Nile virus lineage 2 epidemic, Greece, 2010. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e80432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  54. Nikolay, B. A review of West Nile and Usutu virus co-circulation in Europe: How much do transmission cycles overlap? Trans. R. Soc. Trop. Med. Hyg. 2015, 109, 609–618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  55. Vilibic-Cavlek, T.; Savic, V.; Petrovic, T.; Toplak, I.; Barbic, L.; Petric, D.; Tabain, I.; Hrnjakovic-Cvjetkovic, I.; Bogdanic, M.; Klobucar, A.; et al. Emerging trends in the epidemiology of West Nile and Usutu virus infections in Southern Europe. Front. Veter. Sci. 2019, 6, 437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  56. Grottola, A.; Marcacci, M.; Tagliazucchi, S.; Gennari, W.; Di Gennaro, A.; Orsini, M.; Monaco, F.; Marchegiano, P.; Marini, V.; Meacci, M.; et al. Usutu virus infections in humans: A retrospective analysis in the municipality of Modena, Italy. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2017, 23, 33–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Pugliese, A.; Beltramo, T.; Torre, D. Seroprevalence study of tick-borne encephalitis, Borrelia burgdorferi, Dengue and Toscana virus in Turin province. Cell. Biochem. Funct. 2007, 25, 185–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Tokarevich, N.; Tronin, A.; Gnativ, B.; Revich, B.; Blinova, O.; Evengard, B. Impact of air temperature variation on the ixodid ticks habitat and tick-borne encephalitis incidence in the Russian Arctic: The case of the Komi Republic. Int. J. Circumpolar. Health 2017, 76, 1298882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Kotrbova, K.; Lunackova, J. Seroprevalence of tick-borne encephalitis and Lyme borreliosis in a defined Czech population. Int. J. Infect. Dis. 2019, 79, 135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Christova, I.; Panayotova, E.; Tchakarova, S.; Taseva, E.; Trifonova, I.; Gladnishka, T. A nationwide seroprevalence screening for West Nile virus and tick-borne encephalitis virus in the population of Bulgaria. J. Med. Virol. 2017, 89, 1875–1878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Larsen, A.L.; Kanestrøm, A.; Bjørland, M.; Andreassen, Å.; Soleng, A.; Vene, S.; Dudman, S.G. Detection of specific IgG antibodies in blood donors and tick-borne encephalitis virus in ticks within a non-endemic area in southeast Norway. Scand. J. Infect. Dis. 2014, 46, 181–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Marvik, Å.; Tveten, Y.; Pedersen, A.-B.; Stiasny, K.; Andreassen, Å.K.; Grude, N. Low prevalence of tick-borne encephalitis virus antibodies in Norwegian blood donors. Infect. Dis. 2021, 53, 44–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Litzba, N.; Zelena, H.; Kreil, T.R.; Niklasson, B.; Kühlmann-Rabens, I.; Remoli, M.E.; Niedrig, M. Evaluation of different serological diagnostic methods for tick-borne encephalitis virus: Enzyme-linked immunosorbent, immunofluorescence, and neutralization assay. Vector-Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2014, 14, 149–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Ijerph 19 08182 g001 550
Figure 1. SNT results for confirmation of ELISA-positive or ELISA-equivocal IgG results.
Figure 1. SNT results for confirmation of ELISA-positive or ELISA-equivocal IgG results.
Ijerph 19 08182 g001
Table
Table 1. Group characteristics concerning variables.
Table 1. Group characteristics concerning variables.
Variable% (n; 95% CI)
GenderMales66.2 (794; 63.4–68.8)
Females33.8 (406; 31.2–36.6)
Age categoryYoung adults47.4 (569; 44.6–50.3)
Middle-aged48.4 (581; 45.6–51.2)
Old adults4.2 (50; 3.2–5.5)
Education levelHigher45.1 (541; 42.3–47.9)
Secondary54.9 (659; 52.1–57.7)
ActivitiesOutdoor11.9 (143; 10.2–13.9)
Indoor88.1 (1057; 86.1–89.8)
EnvironmentUrban67.4 (809; 64.7–70.0)
Rural32.6 (391; 30.0–35.3)
n, total number of samples; %, prevalence; 95% CI, confidence interval.
Table
Table 2. IgG ELISA results for WNV and TBEV.
Table 2. IgG ELISA results for WNV and TBEV.
ELISATBE
WNVPositiveEquivocalNegative
% (n; 95% CI)
Positive2.2 (26; 1.5–3.2)0.4 (5; 0.2–1.0)0.7 (8; 0.3–1.3)
Equivocal0.00.1 (1; 0.1–0.5)0.2 (2; 0.1–0.6)
Negative0.2 (2; 0.1–0.6)0.8 (10; 0.5–1.5)95.5 (1146; 94.2–96.5)
n, total number of samples; %, seroprevalence; 95% CI, confidence interval.
Table
Table 3. WNV and TBEV seroprevalence by SNT according to gender, environment, education level, activities, and age group category.
Table 3. WNV and TBEV seroprevalence by SNT according to gender, environment, education level, activities, and age group category.
VariablesWNVTBEV
% (+/n; 95% CI)p% (+/n; 95% CI)p
Gender
Females1.5 (6/406; 0.7–3.2)0.02670 (0/406)0.4743
Males4.0 (32/794; 2.9–5.6)0.1 (1/794; 0.1–0.7)
Environment
Urban2.7 (22/809; 1.8–4.1)0.27270 (0/809)0.7100
Rural4.1 (16/391; 2.5–6.5)0.3 (1/391; 0.1–1.4)
Education
Higher1.9 (10/541; 1.1–3.4)0.02800 (0/541)0.3647
Secondary4.3 (28/659; 3.0–6.1)0.2 (1/659; 0.1–0.9)
Activities
Outdoor4.9 (7/143; 2.0–9.8)0.31570 (0/143)0.7128
Indoor2.9 (31/1057; 212–4.1)0.1 (1/1057; 1.5–3.4)
Age group
Young adults2.8 (16/569; 1.7–4.5)0.45780 (0/569)0.5868
Middle-aged3.3 (19/581; 2.1–5.1)0.2 (1/581; 1.3–3.8)
Old adults6.0 (3/50; 1.3–16.6)0 (0/50)
Total3.2 (38/1200; 2.3–4.3)0.1 (1/1200; 0.0–0.5)
%, seroprevalence; +/n, number of positive or equivocal samples/total number of samples; CI, confidence interval, statistically significant p values are bolded.
Table
Table 4. WNV and TBEV seroprevalence by SNT according to age group and gender.
Table 4. WNV and TBEV seroprevalence by SNT according to age group and gender.
Age GroupGenderWNVTBEV
% (+/n; 95% CI)p% (+/n; 95% CI)p
Young adultsMales2.9 (11/384; 1.6–5.1)1.0000.0 (0/384)1.000
Females2.7 (5/185; 0.9–6. 2)0.0 (0/185)
Total2.8 (16/569; 1.7–4.5)0.0 (0/569)
Middle-agedMales4.8 (18/373; 3.1–7.5)0.00980.3 (1/373; 0.1–1.5)1.000
Females0.5 (1/208; 0.1–2.7)0.0 (0/208)
Total3.3 (19/581; 2.1–5.1)0.2 (1/581; 0.1–1.0)
Old adultsMales8.1 (3/37; 1.7–21.9)0.70380.0 (0/37)1.000
Females0 (0/13)0.0 (0/13)
Total6.0 (3/50; 1.3–16.6)0.0 (0/50)
Total3.2 (38/1200; 2.3–4.3)0.45780.1 (1/1200; 0.1–0.5)0.5868
%, seroprevalence; +/n, number of positive or equivocal samples/total number of samples; CI, confidence interval: statistically significant p values are bolded.
Table
Table 5. WNV and TBEV IgG seroprevalence by SNT in each county for each age category.
Table 5. WNV and TBEV IgG seroprevalence by SNT in each county for each age category.
CountyAge GroupWNVTBEV
% (+/n; 95% CI)p% (+/n; 95% CI)p
AlbaYoung4.5 (4/89; 1.2–11.1)0.72940.0 (0/89)1.0000
Middle2.9 (3/104; 0.6–8.2)0.0 (0/104)
Old0.0 (0/7)0.0 (0/7)
Total3.5 (7/200; 1.4–7.1)0.0 (0/200)
Bistrița-NăsăudYoung1.2 (1/87; 0.1–6.2)0.96270.0 (0/87)1.0000
Middle0.9 (1/108; 0.1–5.1)0.0 (1/108)
Old0.0 (0/5)0.0 (0/5)
Total1.0 (2/200; 0.1–3.6)0.0 (0/200)
ClujYoung0.7 (1/139; 0.1–3.9)0.80210.0 (0/139)1.0000
Middle0.0 (0/57)0.0 (0/57)
Old0.0 (0/4)0.0 (0/4)
Total0.5 (1/200; 0.1–2.8)0.0 (0/200)
MaramureșYoung2.0 (2/100; 0.2–7.0)0.80220.0 (0/100)1.000
Middle3.2 (3/94; 0.7–9.0)0.0 (0/94)
Old0.0 (0/6)0.0 (0/6)
Total2.5 (5/200; 0.8–5.7)0.0 (0/200)
Satu-MareYoung11.3 (7/62; 4.7–21. 9)0.77430.0 (0/62)0.7001
Middle9.4 (11/117; 4.8–16.2)0.9 (1/117; 0.1–4.7)
Old14.3 (3/21; 3.1–36.3)0.0 (0/21)
Total10.5 (21/200; 6.6–15.6)0.5 (1/200; 0.1–2.8)
SălajYoung1.1 (1/92; 0.1–5.9)0.96180.0 (0/92)1.0000
Middle1.0 (1/101; 0.1–5.4)0.0 (0/101)
Old0.0 (0/7)0.0 (0/7)
Total1. 0 (2/200; 0.1–3.6)0.0 (0/200)
Total3.2 (38/1200; 2.3–4.3) 0.1 (1/1200; 0.1–0.5)
%, seroprevalence; +/n, number of positive or equivocal samples/total number of samples; CI, confidence interval.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Coroian, M.; Mihalca, A.D.; Dobler, G.; Euringer, K.; Girl, P.; Borșan, S.-D.; Kalmár, Z.; Tincuța Briciu, V.; Flonta, M.; Topan, A.; et al. Seroprevalence Rates against West Nile, Usutu, and Tick-Borne Encephalitis Viruses in Blood-Donors from North-Western Romania. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 8182. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19138182

AMA Style

Coroian M, Mihalca AD, Dobler G, Euringer K, Girl P, Borșan S-D, Kalmár Z, Tincuța Briciu V, Flonta M, Topan A, et al. Seroprevalence Rates against West Nile, Usutu, and Tick-Borne Encephalitis Viruses in Blood-Donors from North-Western Romania. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(13):8182. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19138182

Chicago/Turabian Style

Coroian, Mircea, Andrei Daniel Mihalca, Gerhard Dobler, Kathrin Euringer, Philipp Girl, Silvia-Diana Borșan, Zsuzsa Kalmár, Violeta Tincuța Briciu, Mirela Flonta, Adriana Topan, and et al. 2022. "Seroprevalence Rates against West Nile, Usutu, and Tick-Borne Encephalitis Viruses in Blood-Donors from North-Western Romania" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 13: 8182. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19138182

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop