You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
Pathogens
  • Review
  • Open Access

3 November 2025

Toxocara Seroprevalence in Europe and Considerations for Future Research

,
,
,
,
and
1
Grigore T. Popa University of Medicine and Pharmacy Iasi, 700115 Iași, Romania
2
“Cuza-Vodă” Clinical Hospital of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Strada Cuza Vodă 34, 700038 Iași, Romania
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
This article belongs to the Special Issue Parasitic Diseases in the Contemporary World

Abstract

Toxocarosis is one of the most widespread zoonotic parasitic diseases, caused by Toxocara canis and Toxocara cati. Studying the epidemiological situation is a real challenge for specialists in the field worldwide. The aim of this study was to highlight the epidemiological aspects of the prevalence rate in Europe, and we found that the distribution of Toxocara infection is uneven, depending on geographical, climatic and socio-economic factors. Currently, there is a continuous spread of this parasite in many regions, including economically developed countries, but the exact prevalence is not known because there are no regular reports and statistical evidence regarding toxocarosis. The presence of nonspecific symptoms and subclinical disease may delay diagnosis and treatment, with long-term implications for the patient, and because of this, we discussed the possible Toxocara detection methods, with several novel and interesting approaches. Toxocarosis is included among the neglected parasitic diseases, requiring seroprevalence studies to be carried out to develop programs to reduce the frequency of this parasitosis.

1. Introduction

Human toxocarosis (HT) is a parasitic infection mainly caused by larvae of Toxocara canis or Toxocara cati [1], which are intestinal ascarid nematodes of canids and felids, respectively [2]. The definitive hosts are mainly dogs and cats but also other canids in which the life cycle of the parasite is completed [3,4]. After ingestion of embryonated Toxocara eggs, containing infective third-stage larvae, via contaminated soil, water or food or uptake of larvae via raw or undercooked meat of paratenic hosts, e.g., chicken, the larvae penetrate the intestinal wall and are transported to different tissues via the blood stream [5]. It is a worldwide zoonosis affecting mainly children but also adults, and it is often asymptomatic and difficult to diagnose and treat, either because of therapeutic failure or because of the increased risk of reinfection [6].
During the course of this parasitosis, serious syndromes can occur, known as larva migrans visceralis, the most common form, larva migrans ocularis, neurotoxocarosis and subclinical toxocarosis [1,7,8,9].
In some cases, the symptoms may range from fever to granulomatous hepatitis, nephritis and arthritis, asthma and pulmonary fibrosis [10], depending on the parasite load and the age of the host. Diagnosis is generally based on the patient’s medical history, clinical examination and laboratory investigations that may reveal the presence of specific antibodies against T. canis [2,11,12] or detect parasite DNA in tissue samples [13,14].
T. canis is naturally hosted by dogs, which become infected by ingesting embryonated eggs containing third-stage larvae (L3) or paratenic hosts with infective larvae. Alternatively, offspring may be infected transplacentally during pregnancy or by trans-mammary infection via milk from dams. The increased risk of infection and its spread are a consequence of massive soil contamination with Toxocara eggs [15,16,17]. On the other hand, studies have reported that direct contact with the fur of cats infected with T. cati is another route of transmission, since potentially infective embryonated eggs have been identified in perianal areas, extremities and the lower part of the tail of cats [18,19]. Cats play a crucial role globally as the primary hosts for Toxocara, releasing eggs into the environment and thereby heightening public health concerns. Health authorities and cat caregivers must prioritise efforts toward preventing and managing this zoonotic disease in feline populations. This is especially crucial in regions with elevated risk factors and prevalence rates, necessitating heightened vigilance and proactive measures [20].
Human infection is achieved by ingestion of embryonated Toxocara eggs from soil contaminated with animal faeces. Humans are an accidental host of the parasite (intermediate host). The most vulnerable to this parasitosis are children who frequent playgrounds due to contact with soil and lack of hygiene. They can become infected by geophagy or by eating fruit and vegetables contaminated with embryonated eggs [11,21].
Immunological diagnosis allows the identification of IgG and IgE antibodies against Toxocara using the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) method, which requires confirmation by the Western blot assay, which has a higher specificity [22,23,24].
Toxocarosis is treated with anthelmintics. The criteria for evaluating the efficacy of treatment are the progressive decrease in eosinophilia, regression of clinical manifestations and reduction in specific antibody titres [25].
In terms of prophylaxis, there is a need for permanent collaboration between the Public Health Directorate, the Veterinary Health Directorate and local authorities to develop protocols that include health education programmes aimed at reducing the factors that favour the occurrence of this infection.
The aims of this study were (1) to analyse the trend of Toxocara infections in the last 10 years in Europe and (2) to assess the available molecular-based Toxocara detection methods.

2. Materials and Methods

Articles were selected from the following databases: PubMed, Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science. The search terms used were “Toxocara infection humans Europe OR Human Toxocarosis Europe” in the last 10 years. The following selection criteria were followed: scientific articles published in international medical journals, studies with a publication date between October 2025 and December 2015, studies that were conducted on human subjects, studies with no age limit for the target population and studies that reported the prevalence or incidence of Toxocara infections. The exclusion criteria used were articles that were duplicates, editorials or articles without information on the prevalence of toxocarosis in Europe and studies referring to animal infection without relation to human toxocarosis. We excluded papers that tested soil or animal samples for Toxocara spp. From the selected articles, we were able to extract data on study region, sample size, total number of individuals with toxocarosis and variables (risk factors, symptoms, morbidity, socio-demographic characteristics). The results are summarised in Table 1.
Table 1. Toxocara seroprevalence in Europe.

3. Results and Discussion

Our search retrieved 87 results, of which 30 were suitable for our analysis. There were case presentation studies, retrospective studies, comparative studies, cross-sectional analyses, systematic reviews and meta-analyses. In the 30 papers that we included, the main detection assay used was ELISA, followed by Western blot confirmation. Toxocara studies have been published in all the European countries, with seroprevalence variations from 0.93 to 36%. One study was based on the discharge ICD code diagnosis from a nationwide database. A few studies evaluated the level of knowledge about Toxocara infections using questionnaires for dog/cat owners. Other studies evaluated the risk of food-borne transmission of Toxocara spp. to humans. Some authors tried to associate Toxocarosis with other conditions, such as significant eosinophilia, double lung transplantation, idiopathic myelitis, long-term travellers, uveitis, clinically isolated syndrome (CIS) and multiple sclerosis (MS). A high seroprevalence was detected in children with early mental health difficulties, transplantation, a lower level of education, a younger age, a male gender, consumption of undercooked or raw poultry, contact with soil and increased risks of foodborne transmission of zoonotic toxocarosis. The comparative studies identified a decrease in overall Toxocara seroprevalence. These results indicate the need for integrated public health interventions targeting parasitic infections in susceptible populations.
The majority of patients included in these studies were children, with age being a risk factor in association with geophagia and frequenting playgrounds contaminated with dog and cat faeces. In the analysed studies, Toxocara infection was more frequently encountered in children from rural areas who came into contact with infected animals (dogs, cats) or with contaminated soil due to activities carried out outdoors without following adequate hygiene rules.
The frequent association of toxocarosis with pulmonary dysfunction and cognitive and ocular disorders calls for a multidisciplinary approach to reduce the number of cases in the general population.
It is necessary to prioritise prevention efforts through health education activities, providing information on zoonoses, their transmission and risk factors. Limiting soil contamination with dog and cat faeces, prophylactic anthelmintic treatment and hand washing can be important factors in minimising exposure to this parasite.
Toxocarosis is among the five neglected parasitic diseases without being recognised as a major public health concern requiring new methods of diagnosis and treatment [56,57,58].
The limitations of this study are due to the lack of data on toxocarosis for a large number of countries in the European area and the fact that the available studies had limited information on the gender and age of the patients, contact with pets as well as geographical and socio-economic data.

4. Toxocarosis Diagnosis Methods: Future Directions

Establishing an optimised diagnostic method for toxocarosis in humans is challenging due to the nonspecific clinical symptoms and the possibility that other parasitic and viral infections may interfere with the test result.
The present method of immunodiagnosis focuses on using ELISA with excretory–secretory antigens (ES Ag) obtained from T. canis larvae. This approach exhibits adequate sensitivity but may produce false positive results in the presence of infections caused by other helminths, including nematodes such as Ascaris spp., Enterobius spp., Trichuris spp. and Anisakis spp.; cestodes such as Taenia spp. and Echinococcus spp.; and trematodes such as Fasciola spp. and Schistosoma spp. [59]. In order to address this issue, a Western blot technique (WB) was developed over 30 years ago, which is currently employed in a standard two-tier technique used by specialised laboratories to confirm positive ELISA results [59].
Toxocara does not reach the adult stage in the human host; hence, its eggs cannot be found in faeces. Classical parasitological microscopic investigations are not effective in diagnosing human toxocarosis. Due to the distribution of and scarcity of tissue-dwelling larvae in the majority of toxocarosis patients, only rarely can a conclusive diagnosis be made by histological examination of biopsies taken from affected tissues, confirming the presence of Toxocara larvae [60]. Nevertheless, biopsies are generally not conducted solely for diagnostic purposes due to the low likelihood of obtaining tissue that contains a Toxocara larva and because of its invasive and time-consuming nature. Distinguishing the Toxocara larvae from larvae of other ascarids can be challenging due to their physical similarities, particularly when only fragments of the larvae or larval debris are present in the tissues [61]. Occasionally, ophthalmoscopy may reveal live larvae in certain patients with an eye infection, although this is not typical. Due to the constraints in viewing and distinguishing Toxocara, the diagnosis of toxocarosis is typically achieved by immunodiagnostic procedures [60].
If there are elevated levels of serum anti-Toxocara antibodies, combined with symptoms, an increased eosinophil count and no other plausible explanation, it is highly likely that the individual has toxocarosis. Nevertheless, if there is well-documented seroconversion, the diagnosis can be regarded as conclusive. Several serological assays have been created to identify Toxocara infections, with enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) being the favoured technique for detecting the disease and conducting epidemiological studies. Immunoblot is more sensitive in detecting the presence of toxocarosis antibodies in chronic pruriginous skin conditions [61].
Studies focusing on immunoassays that target IgE against Toxocara have received considerable interest, especially in patients with a notable level of specific IgE, which diminishes following anti-helminthic treatment. Scientists have investigated novel methods, assay configurations and improved antigens to enhance the diagnostic accuracy and precision of the assay. Currently, the indirect IgG-based ELISA is regarded as a reliable technique for the diagnosis of human toxocarosis. Dot-ELISA, a dot-based test, demonstrated superior stability, reduced cost and ease of execution without the need for specialist equipment. Western blotting is frequently employed for diagnostic purposes, particularly to validate ELISA findings and diagnose toxocarosis in individuals suffering from chronic urticaria [61].
Molecular approaches exhibit high analytical specificity and offer faster response times compared to alternative diagnostic methods. PCR-based tests utilising diverse genetic markers have been created, allowing for the identification and phylogenetic study of T. canis and T. cati. PCR-based testing has been used to detect T. canis larvae obtained from human biopsies in cases of ocular larva migrans and from cerebrospinal fluid [62]. These tests, such as quantitative real-time PCR (qPCR), have been employed to precisely identify and diagnose Toxocara samples obtained from animal faeces or soil. Optimised molecular techniques have the capacity to enhance the diagnosis of toxocarosis [62].

Possible Diagnostic Methods of Toxocara Infections

We aimed to analyse the worldwide proportion in which molecular biology was used for the diagnosis of toxocarosis in the last 5 years. We used as key words “Toxocara canis molecular detection assay”, and our search retrieved 27 results in PubMed, from which only 13 fulfilled our criteria. We excluded the ones that referred to other parasites. From the 13 studies, three used ELISA for antibody detection, so we analysed only 10 papers published in the last 5 years. We identified studies that used phages for gene sequences and binding characteristics, miRNA 21 and miRNA 103a technology, loop-mediated isothermal amplification assays and quantitative real-time polymerase chain reactions. The authors used laboratory animals for their experimental research and aimed to find a sensitive assay for the optimal detection of T. canis [63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71]. Our findings are described in Table 2.
Table 2. The serological and molecular methods used to detect Toxocara spp.
The current two-stepped immunodiagnosis technique requires a greater amount of time than a simple ELISA [72], which makes it significantly more expensive, even unaffordable for certain diagnostic facilities and low-resource areas. A more advanced ELISA with improved specificity is necessary, and as a response to this need, several research teams have obtained recombinant antigens from particular fractions within the ES Ag with a low molecular weight and employed them in ELISA assays [73]. Experimental research has reported that ELISA utilising recombinant antigens has been said to possess comparable sensitivity to ES Ag ELISA while also demonstrating high specificity [74]. Nevertheless, this research is still new, there is a lack of information on the regular utilisation of these ELISA tests, and there are currently no commercially accessible kits.
The present immunodiagnostic approach has an additional constraint, which is the lack of the ability to differentiate between a previous infection and a current, active Toxocara infection. Following this direction, a method was employed to evaluate the avidity of anti-ES Ag antibodies [75]. This approach has demonstrated its effectiveness, and there are commercially accessible kits, although still lacking uniformity [76]. Nevertheless, this method necessitates an additional stage in the immunodiagnostic process, which increases the turnaround time and costs, probably the reason why the evaluation of avidity has not been widely adopted. One potential future possibility is the identification of ES Ag in the blood of subjects who have a positive immunodiagnostic result. However, most cases of Toxocara infections are mild/covert, characterised by a low parasite load. Several results of experimental research using sandwich-capture ELISA with nanoantibodies are presented in Table 1 [64,66,68].
Regarding the molecular detection of helminthiases, the identification of soluble DNA has proven to be effective in diagnosing different types of filariases and schistosomiasis [77], infections in which the parasite is present in the bloodstream or lymphatic system. Currently, molecular detection is performed by specialist laboratories using various methodologies and specific primers. In the case of toxocarosis, molecular approaches are particularly useful for identifying the larvae in different organ biopsy samples [63]. Most often, ocular- and neurotoxocarosis occur when a single larva of the Toxocara spp. parasite is found in a confined area like the eye or central nervous system. To diagnose ocular toxocarosis, the ELISA method is used to identify antibodies against Toxocara in the aqueous humor [78]. Even though this method is satisfactory for about 50% of ocular toxocarosis cases, the problem becomes more complex when specific antibodies are present in the blood due to the coexistence of widespread toxocarosis. Consequently, specialist laboratories identify soluble Toxocara DNA in aqueous or vitreous fluids and, occasionally, in cerebrospinal fluid [78]. Data regarding these conditions in Europe has not been published due to the rarity of these cases.
Our review has some limitations regarding the “recruitment biases”, concerning the prevalence of toxocarosis detected in our analysed papers: Selection Bias and Detection Bias. Selection Bias includes volunteer bias (individuals who volunteer for testing or surveys may have different health behaviours or risk factors compared to the general population) and convenience sampling: using samples that are easy to collect, such as people in a particular location or at a specific event, might not represent the broader population. Detection Bias refers to Differential Testing (if certain groups are more likely to be tested (e.g., symptomatic individuals or those with known exposure)) and Access to Healthcare (people with better access to healthcare services are more likely to be tested and diagnosed). The analysed studies were scarce and very heterogenous in their methodology, inclusion and exclusion criteria and diagnostic assay used.
There is a need for the identification of novel biomarkers for the diagnosis of active human toxocarosis, for differential diagnosis and for detecting the parasite when it is present in very small amounts. Molecular assays are more sensitive than antibody detection, and these highly sensitive methods could be employed in the future for the diagnosis of this parasitic disease.

5. Conclusions

Although often asymptomatic, toxocarosis is an important health problem in Europe and globally due to visceral, neurological and ocular damage. The aim of this study was to systematise the available data on the prevalence of toxocarosis in Europe. It is very important to underline that there is a difference between Toxocara infections within a population on one hand and the prevalence of the disease toxocarosis on the other.
In this paper, we analysed the trend of Toxocara infections in the last 10 years in Europe, and we assessed the available molecular-based Toxocara detection methods. The comparative studies identified a decrease in overall Toxocara seroprevalence. A high seroprevalence was detected in children with early mental health difficulties, transplantation, a lower level of education, a younger age, a male gender, consumption of undercooked or raw poultry, contact with soil and increased risks of foodborne transmission of zoonotic toxocarosis.
As molecular methods for Toxocara detection, we mention phages for gene sequences and binding characteristics, miRNA 21 and miRNA 103a technology, loop-mediated isothermal amplification assays and quantitative real-time polymerase chain reactions.
Considering the progressive impact of this parasite on the population, it is necessary to improve public health policies by developing protocols including diagnostic and treatment techniques. To obtain information that allows inter-regional comparisons and reproducible results, standardised methods with high accuracy and performance are required, with the molecular detection assays being more sensitive than antibody detection.

Author Contributions

Conceptualisation, R.G.C. and C.V.R.; methodology, R.G.U. and L.S.I.; formal analysis, R.G.U.; investigation, M.R.R. and C.D.; data curation, L.S.I.; writing—original draft preparation, R.G.C. and C.V.R.; writing—review and editing, C.D. and M.R.R.; supervision R.G.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Hamilton, C.M.; Yoshida, A.; Pinelli, E.; Holland, C.V. Toxocariasis. In Helminth Infections and Their Impact on Global Public Health; Bruschi, F., Ed.; Springer: Vienna, Austria, 2014; pp. 425–460. ISBN 978-3-7091-1782-8. [Google Scholar]
  2. Magnaval, J.F.; Glickman, L.T.; Dorchies, P.; Morassin, B. Highlights of Human Toxocariasis. Korean J. Parasitol. 2001, 39, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Glickman, L.T.; Schantz, P.M. Epidemiology and Pathogenesis of Zoonotic Toxocariasis. Epidemiol. Rev. 1981, 3, 230–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Rostami, A.; Ma, G.; Wang, T.; Koehler, A.V.; Hofmann, A.; Chang, B.C.H.; Macpherson, C.N.; Gasser, R.B. Human Toxocariasis–A Look at a Neglected Disease through an Epidemiological ‘Prism’. Infect. Genet. Evol. 2019, 74, 104002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Strube, C.; Heuer, L.; Janecek, E. Toxocara spp. Infections in Paratenic Hosts. Vet. Parasitol. 2013, 193, 375–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Despommier, D. Toxocariasis: Clinical Aspects, Epidemiology, Medical Ecology, and Molecular Aspects. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2003, 16, 265–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Ma, G.; Holland, C.V.; Wang, T.; Hofmann, A.; Fan, C.-K.; Maizels, R.M.; Hotez, P.J.; Gasser, R.B. Human Toxocariasis. Lancet Infect. Dis. 2018, 18, e14–e24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Fialho, P.M.M.; Corrêa, C.R.S. A Systematic Review of Toxocariasis: A Neglected but High-Prevalence Disease in Brazil. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 2016, 94, 1193–1199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Raissi, V.; Masoumi, M.T.; Ibrahim, A.; Etemadi, S.; Getso, M.; Jalali, P.; Babaei Pouya, N.; Zareie, M.; Ehsani Amraei, F.; Raiesi, O. Spatial Analysis of Toxocara spp. Eggs in Soil as a Potential for Serious Human Infection. Comp. Immunol. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 2021, 75, 101619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Cooper, P.J. Toxocara Canis Infection: An Important and Neglected Environmental Risk Factor for Asthma? Clin. Exp. Allergy 2008, 38, 551–553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Moreira, G.M.S.G.; Telmo, P.d.L.; Mendonça, M.; Moreira, Â.N.; McBride, A.J.A.; Scaini, C.J.; Conceição, F.R. Human Toxocariasis: Current Advances in Diagnostics, Treatment, and Interventions. Trends Parasitol. 2014, 30, 456–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Chieffi, P.P.; Zevallos Lescano, S.A.; Rodrigues e Fonseca, G.; Santos, S.V. dos Human Toxocariasis: 2010 to 2020 Contributions from Brazilian Researchers. Res. Rep. Trop. Med. 2021, 12, 81–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Smith, H.; Noordin, R. Diagnostic Limitations and Future Trends in the Serodiagnosis of Human Toxocariasis. Toxocara Enigm. Parasite 2006, 89–112. [Google Scholar]
  14. Meyers, W.M.; Neafie, R.C.; Marty, A.M.; Wear, D.J. Toxocariasis. In Pathology of Infectious Diseases, Volume 1: Helminthiases; Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, American Registry of Pathology: Washington, DC, USA, 2000; pp. 411–421. ISBN 1-881041-65-4. [Google Scholar]
  15. Manini, M.P.; Marchioro, A.A.; Colli, C.M.; Nishi, L.; Falavigna-Guilherme, A.L. Association between Contamination of Public Squares and Seropositivity for Toxocara spp. in Children. Vet. Parasitol. 2012, 188, 48–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Souza, R.F.; Dattoli, V.C.C.; Mendonça, L.R.; de Jesus, J.R.; Baqueiro, T.; de Carvalho Santana, C.; Santos, N.M.; Barrouin-Melo, S.M.; Alcantara-Neves, N.M. Prevalence and Risk Factors of Human Infection by Toxocara Canis in Salvador, State of Bahia, Brazil. Rev. Da Soc. Bras. De Med. Trop. 2011, 44, 516–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Mendonça, L.R.; Figueiredo, C.A.; Esquivel, R.; Fiaccone, R.L.; Pontes-de-Carvalho, L.; Cooper, P.; Barreto, M.L.; Alcantara-Neves, N.M. Seroprevalence and Risk Factors for Toxocara Infection in Children from an Urban Large Setting in Northeast Brazil. Acta Trop. 2013, 128, 90–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Bakhshani, A.; Maleki, M.; Haghparast, A.; Parande Shirvan, S.; Borji, H. A Survey on Toxocara Cati Eggs on the Hair of Stray Cats: A Potential Risk Factor for Human Toxocariasis in Northeastern Iran. Comp. Immunol. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 2019, 64, 10–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Öge, H.; Öge, S.; Özbakış, G.; Gürcan, S. Comparison of Toxocara Eggs in Hair and Faecal Samples from Owned Dogs and Cats Collected in Ankara, Turkey. Vet. Parasitol. 2014, 206, 227–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Rostami, A.; Sepidarkish, M.; Ma, G.; Wang, T.; Ebrahimi, M.; Fakhri, Y.; Mirjalali, H.; Hofmann, A.; Macpherson, C.N.L.; Hotez, P.J.; et al. Global Prevalence of Toxocara Infection in Cats. In Advances in Parasitology; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2020; Volume 109, pp. 615–639. ISBN 978-0-12-820958-5. [Google Scholar]
  21. Chieffi, P.P.; dos Santos, S.V.; de Queiroz, M.L.; Lescano, S.A.Z. Human Toxocariasis: Contribution by Brazilian Researchers. Rev. Inst. Med. Trop. São Paulo 2009, 51, 301–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Fava, N.M.N.; Cury, M.C.; Santos, H.A.; Takeuchi-Storm, N.; Strube, C.; Zhu, X.-Q.; Taira, K.; Odoevskaya, I.; Panovag, O.; Mateus, T.L.; et al. Phylogenetic Relationships among Toxocara spp. and Toxascaris sp. from Different Regions of the World. Vet. Parasitol. 2020, 282, 109133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Zhan, B.; Ajmera, R.; Geiger, S.M.; Gonçalves, M.T.P.; Liu, Z.; Wei, J.; Wilkins, P.P.; Fujiwara, R.; Gazzinelli-Guimaraes, P.H.; Bottazzi, M.E. Identification of Immunodominant Antigens for the Laboratory Diagnosis of Toxocariasis. Trop. Med. Int. Health 2015, 20, 1787–1796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Rubinsky-Elefant, G.; Hoshino-Shimizu, S.; Jacob, C.M.A.; Sanchez, M.C.A.; Ferreira, A.W. Potential Immunological Markers for Diagnosis and Therapeutic Assessment of Toxocariasis. Rev. Inst. Med. Trop. São Paulo 2011, 53, 61–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Magnaval, J.-F.; Bouhsira, E.; Fillaux, J. Therapy and Prevention for Human Toxocariasis. Microorganisms 2022, 10, 241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Kanecki, K.; Lewtak, K.; Szot, P.; Goryński, P.; Kosińska, I.; Kanecka, A.; Nitsch-Osuch, A. Visceral Larva Migrans among Hospitalized Patients in Poland: Analysis of National Hospital Discharge Data from 2014 to 2023. Sci. Rep. 2025, 15, 34752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Fiľakovská Bobáková, D.; Kalinova, Z.; Hatalová, E.; Halanova, M. Toxocariasis, Risk and Protective Factors, and Mental Health Difficulties in Early Childhood: A Comparison of Marginalised Roma Communities and the Majority Population. Parasitol. Res. 2025, 124, 106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Ardelean, A.A.; Lighezan, R.; Ursoniu, S.; Sprintar, S.A.; Oatis, D.A.; Mihu, A.G.; Lupu, M.A.; Olariu, T.R. First Report on the Seroprevalence and Risk Factors Associated with Toxocara Infection in Blood Donors from Romania. Pathogens 2025, 14, 857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Healy, S.; Morgan, E.; Betson, M.; Prada, J.M. Modelling the Risk of Food-Borne Transmission of Toxocara spp. to Humans. Epidemiol. Infect. 2025, 153, e69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Reis, J.; Carmo, F.; Miranda, J.; Seixas, A.P.; Mota, M. Eosinophilia and IgE Elevation: An Uncommon Toxocara Infection. Cureus 2025, 17, e77965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Healy, S.R.; Morgan, E.R.; Prada, J.M.; Karadjian, G.; Chevillot, A.; Betson, M. First Use of Tissue Exudate Serology to Identify Toxocara spp. Infection in Food Animals. Int. J. Parasitol. 2024, 54, 303–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Bustamante, J.; Sainz, T.; Pérez, S.; Rodríguez-Molino, P.; Montero Vega, D.; Mellado, M.J.; García López-Hortelano, M. Toxocariasis in Migrant Children: A 6 Years’ Experience in a Reference Pediatric Unit in Spain. Travel Med. Infect. Dis. 2022, 47, 102288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Balacheff, Q.; Lovato, J.-B.; Coiffard, B.; L’Ollivier, C.; Cassir, N.; Reynaud-Gaubert, M. Splenic Abscess Caused by Toxocara spp. in a Lung Transplant Recipient, Marseille, France. Transpl. Infect. Dis. 2021, 23, e13651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Fecková, M.; Antolová, D.; Zaleśny, G.; Halánová, M.; Štrkolcová, G.; Goldová, M.; Weissová, T.; Lukáč, B.; Nováková, M. Seroepidemiology of Human Toxocariasis in Selected Population Groups in Slovakia: A Cross-Sectional Study. J. Infect. Public Health 2020, 13, 1107–1111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Kantarakia, C.; Tsoumani, M.E.; Galanos, A.; Mathioudakis, A.G.; Giannoulaki, E.; Beloukas, A.; Voyiatzaki, C. Comparison of the Level of Awareness about the Transmission of Echinococcosis and Toxocariasis between Pet Owners and Non-Pet Owners in Greece. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 5292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Macejova, Z.; Kristian, P.; Janicko, M.; Halanova, M.; Drazilova, S.; Antolova, D.; Marekova, M.; Pella, D.; Madarasova-Geckova, A.; Jarcuska, P.; et al. The Roma Population Living in Segregated Settlements in Eastern Slovakia Has a Higher Prevalence of Metabolic Syndrome, Kidney Disease, Viral Hepatitis B and E, and Some Parasitic Diseases Compared to the Majority Population. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 3112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Pennelegion, C.; Drake, J.; Wiseman, S.; Wright, I. Survey of UK Pet Owners Quantifying Internal Parasite Infection Risk and Deworming Recommendation Implications. Parasit. Vectors 2020, 13, 218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Skulinova, K.; Novak, J.; Kasny, M.; Kolarova, L. Seroprevalence of Larval Toxocarosis in the Czech Republic. Acta Parasitol. 2020, 65, 68–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Magnaval, J.-F.; Fillaux, J.; Cassaing, S.; Valentin, A.; Iriart, X.; Berry, A. Human Toxocariasis and Atopy. Parasite 2020, 27, 32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Strube, C.; Raulf, M.-K.; Springer, A.; Waindok, P.; Auer, H. Seroprevalence of Human Toxocarosis in Europe: A Review and Meta-Analysis. Adv. Parasitol. 2020, 109, 375–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Nicoletti, A.; García, H.H.; Cicero, C.E.; Portaro, G.; Giuliano, L.; Patti, F.; Sofia, V.; Noh, J.; Handali, S.; Zappia, M. Lack of Evidence for Toxocara Infection in Italian Myelitis Patients. Neurol. Sci. 2020, 41, 239–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Brydak-Godowska, J.; Moskal, K.; Borkowski, P.K.; Przybyś, M.; Turczyńska, M.; Kęcik, D. A Retrospective Observational Study of Uveitis in a Single Center in Poland with a Review of Findings in Europe. Med. Sci. Monit. 2018, 24, 8734–8749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Peju, M.; Deroux, A.; Pelloux, H.; Bouillet, L.; Epaulard, O. Hypereosinophilia: Biological Investigations and Etiologies in a French Metropolitan University Hospital, and Proposed Approach for Diagnostic Evaluation. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0204468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Overbosch, F.W.; van Gool, T.; Matser, A.; Sonder, G.J.B. Low Incidence of Helminth Infections (Schistosomiasis, Strongyloidiasis, Filariasis, Toxocariasis) among Dutch Long-Term Travelers: A Prospective Study, 2008-2011. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0197770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Kroten, A.; Toczylowski, K.; Oldak, E.; Sulik, A. Toxocarosis in Children: Poor Hygiene Habits and Contact with Dogs Is Related to Longer Treatment. Parasitol. Res. 2018, 117, 1513–1519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Boldiš, V.; Ondriska, F.; Lipková, S. Assessment of the Diagnostic Value of Specific Anti-Toxocara IgA in Slovakian Patients Suspected to Have Toxocarosis. Folia Microbiol. 2018, 63, 345–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Jõgi, N.O.; Svanes, C.; Siiak, S.P.; Logan, E.; Holloway, J.W.; Igland, J.; Johannessen, A.; Levin, M.; Real, F.G.; Schlunssen, V.; et al. Zoonotic Helminth Exposure and Risk of Allergic Diseases: A Study of Two Generations in Norway. Clin. Exp. Allergy 2018, 48, 66–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Posová, H.; Hrušková, Z.; Havrdová, E.; Kolářová, L. Toxocara spp. Seronegativity in Czech Patients with Early Form of Multiple Sclerosis–Clinically Isolated Syndrome. Epidemiol. Mikrobiol. Imunol. 2017, 66, 124–127. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  49. Martelli, G.; Di Girolamo, C.; Zammarchi, L.; Angheben, A.; Morandi, M.; Tais, S.; Degani, M.; El Hamad, I.; Caligaris, S.; Ciannameo, A.; et al. Seroprevalence of Five Neglected Parasitic Diseases among Immigrants Accessing Five Infectious and Tropical Diseases Units in Italy: A Cross-Sectional Study. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2017, 23, 335.e1–335.e5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Gabrielli, S.; Tasić-Otašević, S.; Ignjatović, A.; Fraulo, M.; Trenkić-Božinović, M.; Momčilović, S.; Cancrini, G. Seroprevalence and Risk Factors for Toxocara canis Infection in Serbia During 2015. Foodborne Pathog. Dis. 2017, 14, 43–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Halsby, K.; Senyonjo, L.; Gupta, S.; Ladbury, G.; Suvari, M.; Chiodini, P.; Morgan, D. Epidemiology of Toxocariasis in England and Wales. Zoonoses Public Health 2016, 63, 529–533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Lassen, B.; Janson, M.; Viltrop, A.; Neare, K.; Hütt, P.; Golovljova, I.; Tummeleht, L.; Jokelainen, P. Serological Evidence of Exposure to Globally Relevant Zoonotic Parasites in the Estonian Population. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0164142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Mughini-Gras, L.; Harms, M.; van Pelt, W.; Pinelli, E.; Kortbeek, T. Seroepidemiology of Human Toxocara and Ascaris Infections in the Netherlands. Parasitol. Res. 2016, 115, 3779–3794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Papavasilopoulos, V.; Bonatsos, G.; Elefsiniotis, I.; Birbas, C.; Panagopoulos, P.; Trakakis, E. Seroepidemiological Investigation of Toxocara canis in a Female Greek Pregnant Population in the Area of Athens. Clin. Exp. Obstet. Gynecol. 2016, 43, 384–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Boldiš, V.; Ondriska, F.; Špitalská, E.; Reiterová, K. Immunodiagnostic Approaches for the Detection of Human Toxocarosis. Exp. Parasitol. 2015, 159, 252–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Lee, R.M.; Moore, L.B.; Bottazzi, M.E.; Hotez, P.J. Toxocariasis in North America: A Systematic Review. PLoS Neglected Trop. Dis. 2014, 8, e3116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Parise, M.E.; Hotez, P.J.; Slutsker, L. Neglected Parasitic Infections in the United States: Needs and Opportunities. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 2014, 90, 783–785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Woodhall, D.M.; Eberhard, M.L.; Parise, M.E. Neglected Parasitic Infections in the United States: Toxocariasis. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 2014, 90, 810–813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Bellanger, A.-P.; Humbert, P.; Gavignet, B.; Deschaseaux, A.D.; Barisien, C.; Roussel, S.; Millon, L.; Aubin, F.; Piarroux, R. Comparative Assessment of Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay and Western Blot for the Diagnosis of Toxocariasis in Patients with Skin Disorders. Br. J. Dermatol. 2010, 162, 80–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Wilkins, P.P. Immunodiagnosis of Human Toxocariasis and Prospects for Improved Diagnostics. Curr. Trop. Med. Rep. 2014, 1, 44–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Noordin, R.; Yunus, M.H.; Tan Farrizam, S.N.; Arifin, N. Chapter Seven–Serodiagnostic Methods for Diagnosing Larval Toxocariasis. In Advances in Parasitology; Bowman, D.D., Ed.; Toxocara and Toxocariasis; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2020; Volume 109, pp. 131–152. [Google Scholar]
  62. Chen, J.; Liu, Q.; Liu, G.-H.; Zheng, W.-B.; Hong, S.-J.; Sugiyama, H.; Zhu, X.-Q.; Elsheikha, H.M. Toxocariasis: A Silent Threat with a Progressive Public Health Impact. Infect. Dis. Poverty 2018, 7, 59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Baharudeen, Z.; Noordin, R.; Soon, L.T.; Balachandra, D.; Anuar, N.S.; Mustafa, F.H.; Rahumatullah, A. Isolation and Production of Human Monoclonal Antibody Proteins against a Toxocara Canis Excretory-Secretory Recombinant Antigen. Pathogens 2022, 11, 1232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Trashin, S.; Morales-Yánez, F.; Thiruvottriyur Shanmugam, S.; Paredis, L.; Carrión, E.N.; Sariego, I.; Muyldermans, S.; Polman, K.; Gorun, S.M.; De Wael, K. Nanobody-Based Immunosensor Detection Enhanced by Photocatalytic-Electrochemical Redox Cycling. Anal. Chem. 2021, 93, 13606–13614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Morales-Yánez, F.; Trashin, S.; Sariego, I.; Roucher, C.; Paredis, L.; Chico, M.; De Wael, K.; Muyldermans, S.; Cooper, P.; Polman, K. Electrochemical Detection of Toxocara Canis Excretory-Secretory Antigens in Children from Rural Communities in Esmeraldas Province, Ecuador: Association between Active Infection and High Eosinophilia. Parasit. Vectors 2020, 13, 245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Morales-Yánez, F.; Trashin, S.; Hermy, M.; Sariego, I.; Polman, K.; Muyldermans, S.; De Wael, K. Fast One-Step Ultrasensitive Detection of Toxocara Canis Antigens by a Nanobody-Based Electrochemical Magnetosensor. Anal. Chem. 2019, 91, 11582–11588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Zibaei, M.; Rokni, M.B.; Sohrabi, N.; Sepahvand, A.; Raiesi, O.; Getso, M.I.; Alizadeh, G.; Ibrahim, A.; Yarahmadi, M.; Raissi, V. Changes in the Expression of miR-103a and miR-21: A Functional Diagnosis of Toxocariasis in Rats. J. Med. Microbiol. 2022, 71, 001532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Avila, H.G.; Risso, M.G.; Ruybal, P.; Repetto, S.A.; Butti, M.J.; Trangoni, M.D.; Grune Löffler, S.; Pérez, V.M.; Periago, M.V. Development of a Low-Cost Copro-LAMP Assay for Simultaneous Copro-Detection of Toxocara Canis and Toxocara Cati. Parasitology 2021, 148, 819–826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Azimian, H.; Shokrani, H.; Fallahi, S. Molecular Evaluation of Toxocara Species in Stray Cats Using Loop-Mediated Isothermal Amplification (Lamp) Technique as a Rapid, Sensitive and Simple Screening Assay. Vet. Med. Sci. 2021, 7, 647–653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. de Moura, M.Q.; Terto, W.D.d.S.; Avila, L.F.d.C.; Campos, V.F.; Domingues, W.B.; Pinheiro, N.B.; Capella, G.d.A.; Strothmann, A.L.; Scaini, C.J.; Berne, M.E.A. Quantification of Toxocara Canis DNA by qPCR in Mice Inoculated with Different Infective Doses. Parasitol. Int. 2020, 78, 102134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Özbakış, G.; Doğanay, A. Visceral Larva Migrans Detection Using PCR-RFLP in BALB/c Mice Infected with Toxocara Canis. J. Helminthol. 2019, 94, e70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Raulf, M.-K.; Jordan, D.; Auer, H.; Warnecke, J.M.; Lepenies, B.; Strube, C. A New ELISA and Western Blot Technique Based on Recombinant TES Antigen and/or Larval Antigen for the Detection of Toxocariasis in Humans. Parasitology 2021, 148, 333–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Morales-Yanez, F.J.; Sariego, I.; Vincke, C.; Hassanzadeh-Ghassabeh, G.; Polman, K.; Muyldermans, S. An Innovative Approach in the Detection of Toxocara canis Excretory/Secretory Antigens Using Specific Nanobodies. Int. J. Parasitol. 2019, 49, 635–645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Mesa-Arango, J.A.; Olave-Velandia, A.M.; García-Montoya, G.M.; Isaza-Agudelo, J.P.; Jiménez-Ruiz, A.; Alzate, J.F. Evaluation of New Toxocara Canis Chimeric Antigens as an Alternative to Conventional TES-Ag for Anti-Toxocara Antibodies Detection. Heliyon 2022, 8, e11144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Dziemian, E.; Żarnowska, H.; Kołodziej-Sobocińska, M.; Machnicka, B. Determination of the Relative Avidity of the Specific IgG Antibodies in Human Toxocariasis. Parasite Immunol. 2008, 30, 187–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Rudzińska, M.; Kowalewska, B.; Sikorska, K. Clinical Usefulness of Western Blotting and ELISA Avidity for the Diagnosis of Human Toxocariasis. Parasite Immunol. 2017, 39, e12400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Ricciardi, A.; Ndao, M. Diagnosis of Parasitic Infections: What’s Going On? SLAS Discov. 2015, 20, 6–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Huang, L.; Sun, L.; Liu, C.; Li, S.; Zhang, T.; Luo, X.; Ding, X. Diagnosis of Ocular Toxocariasis by Serum and Aqueous Humor IgG ELISA. Transl. Vis. Sci. Technol. 2021, 10, 33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.