SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

Keywords:

  • Europe;
  • public health;
  • Rift Valley fever;
  • risk;
  • surveillance;
  • trade

Abstract

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Transparency Declaration
  4. References

Rift Valley fever (RVF), a vector-borne zoonotic disease caused by a phlebovirus (family Bunyaviridae), is considered to be one of the most important viral zoonoses in Africa. It is also a potential bioterrorism agent. Transmitted by mosquitoes or by direct contact with viraemic products, RVF affects both livestock and humans, causing abortion storms in pregnant ruminants and sudden death in newborns. The disease provokes flu syndrome in most human cases, but also severe encephalitic or haemorrhagic forms and death. There is neither a treatment nor a vaccine for humans. The disease, historically confined to the African continent, recently spread to the Arabian Peninsula and Indian Ocean. Animal movements, legal or illegal, strongly contribute to viral spread, threatening the Mediterranean basin and Europe, where competent vectors are present. Given the unpredictability of virus introduction and uncertainties about RVF epidemiology, there is an urgent need to fill the scientific gaps by developing large regional research programmes, to build predictive models, and to implement early warning systems and surveillance designs adapted to northern African and European countries.

Rift Valley fever (RVF) is a vector-borne zoonotic disease caused by a phlebovirus (family Bunyaviridae). RVF virus (RVFV) is an enveloped RNA virus characterized by a genome composed of three segments, designated L, M, and S, of negative or ambisense polarity [1]. Like many bunyaviruses, RVFV produces a non-structural protein encoded by the S segment, the NSs protein, which acts as a virulence factor [2]. It is transmitted from ruminants to ruminants by mosquito bites, mainly from the genera Aedes and Culex, but also from the genera Anopheles and Mansonia, as recently suggested in Madagascar and Kenya [3, 4]. Direct transmission between ruminants through contact with viraemic fluids, i.e. blood or fetal liquid, is also strongly suspected. Humans are mostly contaminated after contact with aborted fetal material, i.e. placental membranes from infected ruminants, which contain large numbers of virus particles and blood. Furthermore, RVFV was observed or experimentally demonstrated to persist for long periods in different biotic or abiotic settings: a laboratory assistant was infected in a laboratory 4 months after the virus was handled in this laboratory; the virus may be isolated from carcase tissues such as spleen or liver between 36 and 72 h after death; and infected sheep plasma retained RVFV infectivity after 8 years of storage and shipment under a variety of refrigeration conditions [5-8]. Consequently, veterinarians and laboratory, agricultural and slaughterhouse workers may be at risk. If it exists, the viral load in raw milk is assumed to be low. The presence of virus in nasal and lachrymal secretions and the urine and faeces of infected animals has not been demonstrated [1, 9]. To date, no human-to-human transmission of RVF has been documented.

The health and economic consequences of RVF outbreaks are severe. Besides losses resulting from animal trade control, RVFV infection causes abortion storms in pregnant ruminants and acute deaths in newborns. However, the severity of clinical signs depends on the species: sheep are more susceptible than goats, which are themselves more susceptible than cattle and camels. In adults, one may observe non-specific signs such as vomiting, diarrhoea, respiratory disease, fever, lethargy, and anorexia [10]. Although, in the majority of human cases, RVFV causes a mild illness with fever, headache, myalgia, and liver abnormalities, a minority of human cases of infection may lead to either retinitis with permanent vision loss, encephalitis, or haemorrhagic forms that may lead to death [11]. During the 2000 Saudi Arabia outbreak, the major clinical characteristics reported among 165 consecutive patients included a high frequency (75%) of hepatocellular failure, acute renal failure for 42% of patients, and haemorrhagic manifestations for approximately 19% of patients. A total of 56 patients died (33.9%) [12]. There is no aetiological treatment, for either animals or humans. Several vaccines are under development, but, to date, there are no licensed and commercially available vaccines to protect humans [13]. Regarding ruminants, the ‘Smithburn’ vaccine, a live attenuated vaccine, has been used for years in Africa. It cheaply and efficiently protects sheep and cattle with a single inoculation, but it may cause abortion or teratogenic effects in fetuses, and may present a risk of reversion to virulence: its use is thus reduced to endemic areas. A new, promising live attenuated vaccine candidate—clone 13—was obtained from a strain isolated from a mild human case in the Central African Republic [14, 15]. This vaccine was recently registered and marketed in South Africa [16]. Owing to its severity, RVFV is considered to be a major zoonotic threat to the USA, and is number 3 on the list of the 17 most dangerous animal threats, behind highly pathogenic avian influenza and food and mouth disease [17].

Early detection and implementation of appropriate measures, which are essential to minimize the consequences of outbreaks, require a deep understanding of transmission, spread and persistence mechanisms. However, the epidemiology of RVF is complex. The disease is enzootic in many African countries and Madagascar, with outbreaks occurring every 5–15 years. However, the factors triggering outbreaks and the way in which the virus persists during inter-epizootic periods remain mostly unknown. RVF has been reported in four epidemiological systems:

  1. ‘Dambo’ areas, in East Africa. Dambos are shallow depressions that can be 1 km in length and several hundreds of metres in width, and are often located in valleys near rivers. In these areas, a correlation between heavy rainfall events and RVF outbreak occurrence has been clearly demonstrated. Viral transmission from one Aedes mcintoshi mosquito generation to another by ‘vertical transmission’, and the survival of infected eggs in dry mud for several years, could explain the maintenance of the virus in the field during inter-epizootic periods [18, 19].
  2. Semi-arid areas of western Africa—Senegal and Mauritania—characterized by temporary areas of water. In these areas, a recent modelling study showed that outbreaks could not be directly related to heavy rainfall events, but mostly to abundant regular rainfall occurring throughout the rainy season, which is favourable for successive high density of the main vectors, i.e. Aedes vexans and Culex poicilipes [20]. The persistence of the virus may result from either the above-mentioned vertical transmission in A. vexans mosquitoes or from the regular introduction of the virus by nomadic herds [21].
  3. Irrigated areas such as the Nile Delta or Senegal river basin, where permanent water may favour Culex population persistence, and thus RVFV transmission throughout the year [22-24].
  4. Temperate and mountainous areas, as recently demonstrated in Madagascar, where transmission and spread result from local vector-borne transmission associated with specific cattle trade habits [25, 26].

A role of wild ruminants, which is strongly suspected in southern Africa, needs further investigation [27].

RVFV was historically confined to the African continent until 2000, when it was reported for the first time in the Arabian Peninsula [28]; the geographical distribution of the virus has recently increased. Global changes, including climatic changes, may be involved. However, the natural history of RVF shows that animal movements, legal or illegal, have strongly contributed to the spread of the virus [29-31]. Infected mosquitoes, travelling in aircraft or cargoe, could also be incriminated [32]. Unprecedented increases in the international trade and worldwide movements of humans, animals and animal products are thus likely to alter the epidemiological patterns of RVF. In fact, there is a large livestock trade between the sub-Saharan countries where the virus is circulating and northern African countries. The 2010 and 2012 Mauritanian outbreaks [33, 34], associated with the recent detection of serologically positive camels in Morocco coming from the southern part of the Saharan desert in a north-western direction [35], demonstrated RVFV in northern Africa. Because of the illegal importation of ruminants and the short geographical distance between southern European coasts and northern Africa, the exposure of the Mediterranean basin and Europe to RVFV has increased. According to the European Food Safety Authority, the virus could be introduced by either legally or illegally imported infected animals, infected vectors, legally or illegally imported contaminated animal products, fomites, or vaccines; the first of these is the most plausible [36]. Even if this probability is considered to be very low, because trading in livestock from northern Africa and the Middle East to Europe is forbidden, this introduction into an area of a dense and naïve ruminant population may be devastating [37]. Conversely, and because the virus can circulate with few or even no clinical signs, it could remain undetected and settle in endemic foci in areas where eco-climatic conditions are favourable. In fact, 50 mosquito species may transmit the virus, and some of them are present in Europe [36, 37]. Among them, Culex pipiens, whose European distribution is wide, is competent to transmit RVFV [38]. The distribution of Aedes albopictus, which is another potential vector of RVFV, has dramatically enlarged since its first introduction [39, 40]. Established homogeneous populations have been identified in Albania, Croatia, France, Greece, Monaco, Montenegro, Italy, San Marino, Slovenia, and Spain [41]. The changing European climate could facilitate this spread to new areas [42], enlarging the distribution of areas suitable for RVFV transmission.

RVF should be suspected when a sudden abortion storm or sudden deaths of ruminants are associated or not with febrile syndrome in humans. Depending on the epidemiological status of the area, and the delay post-infection, diagnosis may be performed either by detection of live virus, viral antigen or viral nucleic acids within 1–10 days after the onset of the disease, or by detection of acute-phase (IgM) or chronic (IgG) antibodies, starting from 4 days post-infection [1]. Among recently validated tests, a sandwich ELISA for antigen detection (sAg-ELISA) was recently reported [43], having, respectively, 67.7% and 70% sensitivity for humans and sheep, and 97.9% and 100% specificity, and real-time reverse transcriptase isothermal amplification assays (RT-LAMP) have been developed and tested, allowing the detection of a wide spectrum of isolates and in clinical specimens in 30 min [44]. Inhibition ELISA tests for detecting IgG in all species, capture ELISA for IgM for bovines, caprines and ovines and sandwich ELISA for IgG for the same species are commercially available. Finally, the virus neutralization test, which is considered to be the reference standard, is highly accurate, with no or few cross-reactions with other phleboviruses [45, 46]. However, this methodology requires live virus, and thus can be used only in biosafety level 3 laboratories [1].

Several control options are available, such as vaccines in animals, larvicides in vector breeding sites and/or insecticide spraying, animal trade control, and the provision of information to exposed human populations. However, the disease is usually well established in animal populations by the time when the first human cases are observed [13]: in endemic areas, animal vaccination is probably the best way to protect human health.

Regarding surveillance and virus-free areas, the use of a dense sentinel herd network for surveillance would be cost-prohibitive unless strictly focused on ecologically defined risky areas. Syndromic surveillance relies on the early detection of abnormal clusters of illness indicators rather than clinical signs, and thus reduces the time-lag between the onset of the outbreak and the diagnosis [47, 48]. This methodology may be a useful alternative in the case of RVF, which may provoke non-specific signs, in either animals or humans: RVF human cases were detected in 2009 in Mayotte thanks to the surveillance for dengue-like syndromes [49].

In the Horn of Africa, RVF outbreaks can successfully be predicted with lead times of 2–4 months, thanks to remotely sensed data-driven models [50]. This early warning system is based on accurate knowledge of the disease epidemiology. As far as Europe is concerned, there is an urgent need to fill scientific gaps, i.e. to experimentally evaluate European potential vector competence and European ruminant breed susceptibility, and to assess the existence of ruminant to ruminant direct transmission. For implementation of a risk-based surveillance network, European areas that are potentially suitable for virus transmission need to be identified [51]: given the current lack of knowledge, the multi-criteria decision analysis method could be a valuable tool allowing the integration of expert knowledge, the available literature and data with trade—legal or illegal—information [52]. Furthermore, the epidemiological situation in northern African countries, and the risk of introduction via either animal movements or infected vector ‘travel’, should be assessed, as well as the performance of both existing northern African and European surveillance systems. In fact, a‘one-health’ regional approach and a joint effort by human and animal health authorities is needed to control RVF in endemic countries and protect virus-free areas from introduction of the virus.

Transparency Declaration

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Transparency Declaration
  4. References

The author declares having no conflict of interest related to the present article.

References

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Transparency Declaration
  4. References
  • 1
    Pépin M, Bouloy M, Bird BH, Kemp A, Paweska JT. Rift Valley fever (Bunyaviridae: Phlebovirus): an update on pathogenesis, molecular epidemiology, vectors, diagnostics and prevention. Vet Res 2010; 41: 61.
  • 2
    Billecocq A, Spiegel M, Vialat P, et al. NSs protein of Rift Valley fever virus blocks interferon production by inhibiting host gene transcription. J Virol 2004; 78: 97989806.
  • 3
    Ratovonjato J, Olive M, Tantely L et al. Detection, isolation, and genetic characterization of Rift Valley fever virus from Anopheles (Anopheles) coustani, Anopheles (Anopheles) squamosus, and Culex (Culex) antennatus of the Haute Matsiatra Region, Madagascar. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis 2010; 11: 753759.
  • 4
    Sang RC, Ahmed O, Faye O et al. Entomologic investigations of a chikungunya virus epidemic in the Union of the Comoros. Am J Trop Med Hyg 2008; 78: 7782.
  • 5
    Andrewes C, Horstman D. The susceptibility of viruses to ethyl ether. J Gen Microbiol 1949; 3: 290297.
  • 6
    Craig D, Thomas W, DeSanctis A. Stability of Rift Valley fever virus at 4 °C. Appl Microbiol 1967; 15: 446447.
  • 7
    Francis T, McGill T. Rift Valley fever. A report of 3 cases of laboratory infection and the experimental transmission of the disease to ferrets. J Exp Med 1935; 62: 433438.
  • 8
    Easterday B. Rift valley fever. Adv Vet Sci 1965; 10: 65127.
  • 9
    Easterday BC, Murphy LC, Benett DG. Experimental Rift Valley fever in lambs and sheep. Am J Vet Res 1962; 23: 12311240.
  • 10
    Gerdes G. Rift Valley fever. Rev Sci Tech Off Int Epiz 2004; 23: 613623.
  • 11
    LaBeaud A, Muiruri S, Sutherland LJ et al. Postepidemic analysis of Rift Valley fever virus transmission in northeastern Kenya: a village cohort study. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 2011; 5: e1265.
  • 12
    Al-Hazmi M, Ayoola EA, Abdurahman M et al. Epidemic Rift Valley fever in Saudi Arabia: a clinical study of severe illness in humans. Clin Infect Dis 2003; 36: 245252.
  • 13
    Breiman R, Minjauw B, Sharif S, Ithondeka P, Njenga MK. Rift Valley fever: scientific pathways toward public health prevention and response. Am J Trop Med Hyg 2010; 83(suppl 2): 14.
  • 14
    Dungu B, Louw I, Lubisi A, Hunter P, von Teichman B, Bouloy M. Evaluation of the efficacy and safety of the Rift Valley Fever Clone 13 vaccine in sheep. Vaccine 2010; 28: 45814587.
  • 15
    Muller R, Saluzzo JF, Lopez N et al. Characterization of clone 13, a naturally attenuated avirulent isolate of Rift Valley fever virus, which is altered in the small segment. Am J Trop Med Hyg 1995; 53: 405411.
  • 16
    Kortekaas J, Zingeser J, De Leeuw P, Rocque DL, Unger H, Moormann R. Rift Valley fever vaccine development, progress and constraints. Emerg Infect Dis 2011; 17.
  • 17
    Mandell R, Flick R. Rift Valley fever virus: a real bioterror threat. J Bioterror Biodef 2011; 2: 108.
  • 18
    Linthicum KJ, Davies FG, Kairo A, Bailey CL. Rift Valley fever virus (family Bunyaviridae, genus Phlebovirus). Isolations from Diptera collected during an inter-epizootic period in Kenya. J Hyg 1985; 95: 197209.
  • 19
    Linthicum K, Anyamba A, Tucker C, Kelley P, Myers M, Peters C. Climate and satellite indicators to forecast Rift Valley fever epidemics in Kenya. Science 1999; 285: 397400.
  • 20
    Soti V, Tran A, Degenne P et al. Combining hydrology and mosquito population models to identify the drivers of Rift Valley fever emergence in semi-arid regions of West Africa. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 2012; 6: e1795.
  • 21
    Chevalier V, Lancelot R, Thiongane Y, Sall B, Diaite A, Mondet B. Rift Valley fever in small ruminants, Senegal, 2003. Emerg Infect Dis 2005; 11: 16931700.
  • 22
    Meegan J. The Rift Valley fever epizootic in Egypt 1977–78. 1. Description of the epizootic and virological studies. Trans Roy Soc Trop Med Hyg 1979; 73: 618623.
  • 23
    El-Akkad AM. Rift Valley fever outbreak in Egypt. October–December 1977. J Egypt Public Health Assoc 1978; 53: 123128.
  • 24
    Digoutte JP, Peters CJ. General aspects of the 1987 Rift Valley fever epidemic in Mauritania. Res Virol 1989; 140: 2730.
  • 25
    Chevalier V, Rakotondrafara T, Jourdan M et al. An unexpected recurrent transmission of Rift Valley fever virus in cattle in a temperate and mountainous area of Madagascar. PLoS Neg Trop Dis 2011; 5: 19.
  • 26
    Nicolas G, Durand B, Duboz R, Rakotondravao R, Chevalier V. Description and analyses of trading network of cattle on Madagascar highlands and potential role in the diffusion of Rift Valley fever virus. Acta Trop 2012; 126: 1927. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.actatropica.2012.12.013.
  • 27
    Olive M, Goodman S, Reynes J. The role of wild mammals in the maintenance of Rift Valley fever virus. J Wildl Dis 2012; 48: 241266.
  • 28
    Ahmad K. More deaths from Rift Valley fever in Saudi Arabia and Yemen. Lancet 2000; 356: 1422.
  • 29
    Abd El-Rahim IHA, El-Hakim UA, Hussein M. An epizootic of Rift Valley fever in Egypt in 1997. Rev Sci Tech Off Int Epi 1999; 18: 741748.
  • 30
    Shoemaker T, Boulianne C, Vincent MJ et al. Genetic analysis of viruses associated with emergence of Rift Valley fever in Saudi Arabia and Yemen, 2000–2001. Emerg Infect Dis 2002; 8: 14151420.
  • 31
    Carroll S, Reynes J, Khristova M, Andriamandimby S. Genetic evidence for Rift valley fever outbreaks in Madagascar resulting from virus introductions from the East African mainland rather than enzootic maintenance. J Virol 2011; 95: 61626167.
  • 32
    Russell R. Survival of insects in the wheel bays of a Boeing 747B aircraft on flights between tropical and temperate airports. Bull World Health Organ 1987; 65: 659662.
  • 33
    El Mamy A, Baba M, Barry Y et al. Unexpected Rift Valley fever outbreak, northern Mauritania. Emerg Infect Dis 2011; 17: 18941896.
  • 34
    World Health Organization. Rift Valley fever in Mauritania, D.O.N. WHO Global Alert and Response (GAR), Editor 2012, WHO. Available at: http://www.who.int/csr/don/2012_11_01/en/index.html
  • 35
    El-Harrak M, Martin-Folgar R, Llorente F et al. Rift Valley and West Nile virus antibodies in camels, North Africa. Emerg Infect Dis 2011; 17: 23722374.
  • 36
    European Food Safety Authority. The risk of Rift Valley fever incursion and its persistence within the Community, in EFSA journal 2005. Parma: EFSA, 2005; 1128.
  • 37
    Chevalier V, Pépin M, Plée L, Lancelot R. Rift Valley fever—a threat for Europe? Euro Surveill 2010; 15: 111.
  • 38
    Moutailler S, Krida G, Schaffner F, Vazeille M, Failloux AB. Potential vectors of Rift Valley fever virus in the Mediterranean region. Vect Born Zoo Dis 2008; 8: 749753.
  • 39
    Moutailler S, Bouloy M. Short report: effcient oral infection of Culex pipien quinquefasciatus by RVF virus using a cotton stick support. Am J Trop Med Hyg 2007; 76: 827829.
  • 40
    Turell MJ, Bailey CL, Beaman JR. Vector competence of a Houston, Texas strain of Aedes albopictus for Rift Valley fever virus. J Am Mosq Control Assoc 1988; 4: 9496.
  • 41
    European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. Areas of possible establishment of Aedes albopictus (the tiger mosquito) in Europe for 2010 and 2030. In: Impacts of Europe's changing climate—2008 indicator-based assessment. Stockolm: ECDC, 2008.
  • 42
    Roiz D, Neteler M, Castellani C, Arnoldi D, Rizzoli A. Climatic factors driving invasion of the tiger mosquito (Aedes albopictus) into new areas of Trentino, northern Italy. PLoS ONE 2011; 6: 18.
  • 43
    Jansen van Vuren P, Potgieter A, Paweska J, van Dijk A. Preparation and evaluation of a recombinant Rift Valley fever virus N protein for the detection of IgG and IgM antibodies in humans and animals by indirect ELISA. J Virol Methods 2007; 140: 106114.
  • 44
    Le Roux C, Kubo T, Grobbelaar A et al. Development and evaluation of a real-time reverse transcription-loop-mediated isothermal amplification assay for rapid detection of Rift Valley fever virus in clinical specimens. J Clin Microbiol 2009; 47: 647651.
  • 45
    Swanepoel R, Struthers JK, Erasmus MJ et al. Comparison of techniques for demonstrating antibodies to Rift Valley fever virus. J Hyg (Lond) 1986; 97: 317329.
  • 46
    Tesh RB, Peters CJ, Meegan JM. Studies on the antigenic relationship among phleboviruses. Am J Trop Med Hyg 1982; 31: 149155.
  • 47
    Chu A, Savage R, Willison D et al. . The use of syndromic surveillance for decision-making during the H1N1 pandemic: a qualitative study. BMC Public Health 2012; 12: 929.
  • 48
    Leblond A, Hendrikx P, Sabatier P. West Nile virus outbreak detection using syndromic monitoring in horses. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis 2007; 7: 404410.
  • 49
    InVS. Bulletin de veille sanitaire N°02/Novembre 2009. InVS: La Réunion, France, 2009.
  • 50
    Anyamba A, Linthicum K, Small J et al. Prediction, assessment of the Rift Valley fever activity in East and Southern Africa 2006–2008 and possible vector control strategies. Am J Trop Med Hyg 2010; 83(suppl 2): 4351.
  • 51
    Stärk KD, Regula G, Hernandez J et al. Concepts for risk-based surveillance in the field of veterinary medicine and veterinary public health: review of current approaches. BMC Health Serv Res 2006; 28: 620.
  • 52
    Boroushaki S, Malczewski J. Using the fuzzy majority approach for GIS-based multicriteria group decision-making. Comput Geosci 2010; 36: 302312.