Francisella tularensis Exposure Among National Park Service Employees During an Epizootic: Devils Tower National Monument, Wyoming, 2015

Seroepidemiology of Human Tularemia-Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Seroprevalence Studies

Background

Seroepidemiologic studies of human tularemia have been conducted throughout the northern hemisphere. The purposes of this study were (1) to provide an overview of Francisella tularensis seroprevalence data, and (2) to generate an estimate of the proportion of study participants whose infection remained subclinical.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review of F tularensis seroprevalence studies according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. We searched PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science covering the period from 1951 to 2023.

Results

The weighted pooled seroprevalence among 44 486 participants recruited in 52 studies was 3.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.7-5.1). Reported seroprevalences ranged between 0.2% and 31.3%. Occupational activities associated with an increased likelihood of exposure (risk ratio, 3.51 [95% CI, 3.2-3.86]) and studies from North America versus Europe and Asia (4.53 [4.15-4.94]) were associated with significantly increased seropositive rates. Twenty-eight data sets (47%) reported clinical information on a total of 965 seropositive participants. The weighted pooled estimate for subclinical seropositivity was 84.4% (95% CI, 72.9%-991.7%). Studies from F tularensis type A areas (risk ratio, 0.37 [95% CI, .27-.51) and studies from sites where pulmonary tularemia prevailed (0.38 [.28-.51]) reported lower subclinical seropositivity rates than studies from type B areas and from areas of predominance of (ulcero)glandular or oropharyngeal tularemia, respectively.

Conclusions

Throughout the northern hemisphere, only a small proportion of study participants showed serologic evidence of exposure to F tularensis. Eight of 10 seropositive participants had no historical evidence of past clinical tularemia.

Patterns and Ecological Mechanisms of Tick-Borne Disease Exposure Risk in Acadia National Park, Mount Desert Island, Maine, United States

National parks are unique and significant vector-borne pathogen transmission settings, engaging over 300 million people in outdoor recreation per year. In this study, we integrated vector surveys and ecological habitat feature data in spatial models to characterize tick-borne disease exposure risk in Acadia National Park (ANP), Maine. To determine the broad-scale patterns of blacklegged tick Ixodes scapularis Say (Acari: Ixodidae) densities in ANP, we conducted host-seeking tick collections at 114 sites across the park over two years. Using these tick survey data and geospatial landscape feature data (i.e., land cover, elevation, forest patch size, and aspect) we developed a random forest model of nymphal tick density. We found that host-seeking tick density varies significantly across the park and is particularly high in areas characterized by deciduous forest cover and relatively low elevation. To explore potential fine-scale ecological drivers of tick density spatial patterns, we quantified microclimate conditions, host activity, and vegetation characteristics at a subset of 19 sites. We identified significant differences in microclimate conditions but not host activity or vegetation metrics across broad-scale landscape feature classes. Mean temperature and mean humidity were correlated to nymphal densities and therefore may provide a mechanistic link between landscape features and blacklegged tick densities. Finally, we detected multiple tick-borne pathogens in both ticks and small mammals sampled in ANP, including Borrelia burgdorferi, Babesia microti, and Anaplasma phagocytophilum. Our findings demonstrate the value of using ecological metrics to estimate vector-borne disease exposure risk and provide insight into habitat characteristics that may drive tick-borne disease exposure risk.

Francisella tularensis, Tularemia and Serological Diagnosis

Tularemia is a zoonotic disease caused by the bacterium Francisella tularensis. The predominant sources, routes of infection, and clinical manifestations of human infections greatly vary according to the geographic area considered. Moreover, clinical suspicion of tularemia is often tricky because of the lack of specificity of the clinical manifestations. Because F. tularensis isolation is tedious and detection of its DNA usually requires removal of infected tissues, serological techniques are most often used for diagnostic confirmation. However, these techniques are varied and poorly standardized. The microagglutination test (MAT), the indirect immunofluorescence assay (IFA), and ELISA tests are currently the most frequently used techniques. These home-made and commercial tests are mainly used for tularemia diagnosis but also seroprevalence studies. ELISA tests detect specific antibodies within two weeks of disease evaluation, compared to 2-3 weeks for MAT and IFA. However, more false-positive results are usually reported with ELISA. The long-term persistence of anti-F. tularensis antibodies in patients with past tularemia infection hampers the diagnostic specificity of all these tests. Also, cross-reacting antibodies have been described (especially with Brucella and Yersinia species), although usually at a low level. The immunoblotting technique can highlight these serological cross-reactions. Tularemia remains an underdiagnosed disease in most endemic areas, and the clinical presentations of this disease are evolving. It is necessary to improve further speed and accuracy of tularemia diagnosis, as well as the standardization of diagnostic procedures.