MARATTO

article · International Journal of Infectious Diseases

Seroprevalence and associated risk factors of selected zoonotic viral hemorrhagic fevers in Tanzania

In plain language

An epidemiological investigation evaluated exposure to five zoonotic viral haemorrhagic fevers and identified associated risk factors across eight districts within five ecological zones of Tanzania. Testing blood samples from 500 outpatients and community members revealed that 12.8 per cent of individuals possessed antibodies against Crimean-Congo haemorrhagic fever, Ebola virus disease, Marburg virus disease, Rift Valley fever, or yellow fever. Specifically, seroprevalence was 4.8 per cent for Rift Valley fever, 3.4 per cent for Ebola virus disease, 2.0 per cent for Crimean-Congo haemorrhagic fever, 1.4 per cent for yellow fever, and 1.2 per cent for Marburg virus disease. Significant risk factors included keeping goats and contacting wild animals for Rift Valley fever, and contacting bats for Marburg virus disease. Because most exposures occurred without apparent clinical signs, these findings emphasise the necessity of strengthening national disease surveillance and febrile illness management.

Key takeaways

  • Overall antibody prevalence for at least one of the five targeted viral haemorrhagic fevers was 12.8 per cent across the surveyed population.
  • Rift Valley fever had the highest seroprevalence at 4.8 per cent, followed by Ebola at 3.4 per cent, Crimean-Congo haemorrhagic fever at 2.0 per cent, yellow fever at 1.4 per cent, and Marburg virus at 1.2 per cent.
  • Keeping goats and having contact with wildlife were significantly linked to Rift Valley fever exposure, whilst contact with bats was associated with Marburg virus disease exposure.
  • Most infections occurred without obvious clinical disease manifestations, indicating hidden transmission of multiple haemorrhagic fevers in Tanzania.

Why it matters

Viral haemorrhagic fevers represent severe, high-consequence public health threats. By showing that several of these pathogens circulate subclinically within communities and linking them to specific animal interactions, this research provides vital baseline evidence. These insights enable public health authorities to target interventions, design better outbreak prevention strategies, and upgrade clinical surveillance systems to identify and manage hidden febrile infections early.

Commercialisation angle

The abstract does not indicate an application pathway.

AI-generated from the published abstract. Always read the original work before citing.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine the seroprevalence of selected zoonotic viral hemorrhagic fevers (VHFs) and their associated risk factors in Tanzania. METHODS: Blood samples were collected from consenting outpatients and community members in eight districts selected from five ecological zones of Tanzania. Serum was harvested and tested for the presence of immunoglobulin G (IgG) and M (IgM) antibodies against Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever (CCHF), Ebola virus disease (EVD), Marburg virus disease (MVD), Rift Valley fever (RVF), and yellow fever (YF). RESULTS: The presence of IgM and IgG antibodies against CCHF, EVD, MVD, RVF, and YF was detected in 64 of 500 samples (12.8%). The prevalences of IgM and IgG antibodies to CCHF, EVD, MVD, RFV, and YF were 2.0%, 3.4%, 1.2%, 4.8%, and 1.4%, respectively. Contact with wild animals (OR = 1.2, CI = 1.3-1.6) and keeping goats (OR = 1.3, CI = 1.5-1.9) were significantly associated with RVF, while contact with bats (OR = 1.2, CI = 1.1-1.5) was associated with MVD. CONCLUSION: The findings of this study provide evidence of exposure to CCHF, EVD, MVD, RVF, and YF in Tanzania. Since most of these VHFs occurred without apparent clinical forms of the disease, these findings call for the need to strengthen the surveillance system and management of febrile illnesses in Tanzania.

Research topics

  • Viral Infections and Vectors
  • Viral Infections and Outbreaks Research
  • Vector-Borne Animal Diseases

Sustainable Development Goals

Read the original research

This page summarises published work. The authoritative version sits with the publisher.

DOI: 10.1016/j.ijid.2021.07.006

Is something wrong with this record? Report it or request removal.

Discussion

Discuss this research

Have you built on this work, tried to replicate it, or seen it applied in practice? Share what you know. Verified researchers and MARATTO™ domain experts can open a discussion, and any member can reply. Contributions are reviewed before they appear.

No discussion yet. Open the first thread.