Table 4.
Estimated prevalence of pathogens detected in Ixodes ricinus in France, Denmark, and the Netherlands.
| Estimated prevalence % (95% CI) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| France | Denmark | The Netherlands | ||||
| Murbach F1 | Wasselonne F2 | Vestskoven D1 | Grib Skov D2 | Duin en Kruidberg N1 | Austerlitz N2 | |
| Borrelia spp. | 4.47 (2.97–6.41) | 4.73 (3.15–6.77) | >14.27b | 7.33 (4.92–10.52) | 6.40 (4.31–9.12) | 10.42 (6.73–15.85) |
| B. burgdorferi sensu stricto | <0.25a | 0.09 (0.00–0.48) | 4.22 (2.79–6.08) | 3.77 (2.46–5.47) | 1.40 (0.76–2.36) | 0.54 (0.20–1.18) |
| B. garinii | 0.45 (0.14–1.05) | 0.74 (0.32–1.46) | 2.05 (1.22–3.21) | 5.64 (3.79–8.04) | 2.19 (1.32–3.39) | 1.78 (1.02–2.85) |
| B. afzelii | 1.29 (0.68–2.20) | 1.78 (1.02–2.85) | 14.27 (8.35–26.0) | 4.47 (2.97–6.41) | 2.19 (1.32–3.39) | 5.64 (3.79–8.04) |
| B. valaisiana | 0.09 (0.00–0.48) | 0.09 (0.00–0.48) | 1.29 (0.68–2.20) | 1.06 (0.52–1.90) | 0.54 (0.20–1.18) | 0.09 (0.00–0.48) |
| B. spielmanii | 0.09 (0.00–0.48) | 0.09 (0.00–0.48) | 0.95 (0.45–1.75) | 1.78 (1.02–2.85) | 0.26 (0.05–0.77) | 0.09 (0.00–0.48) |
| B. miyamotoi | 2.49 (1.54–3.79) | 0.95 (0.45–1.75) | 1.29 (0.68–2.20) | 0.17 (0.02–0.63) | 2.19 (1.32–3.39) | 3.36 (2.17–4.93) |
| Anaplasma phagocytophilum | 0.74 (0.32–1.46) | 1.17 (0.60–2.05) | 0.36 (0.10–0.91) | 11.86 (7.42–18.97) | 0.95 (0.45–1.75) | 2.05 (1.22–3.21) |
| Candidatus N. mikurensis | 1.29 (0.68–2.20) | 0.17 (0.02–0.63) | 0.95 (0.45–1.75) | 0.17 (0.02–0.63) | 3.56 (2.31–5.19) | 7.90 (5.28–11.41) |
| Spotted fever group | 14.27 (8.35–26.0) | 14.27 (8.35–26.0) | 10.42 (6.73–15.85) | >14.27b | 11.86 (7.42–18.97) | 4.47 (2.97–6.41) |
| Rickettsia helvetica | 14.27 (8.35–26.0) | 14.27 (8.35–26.0) | 10.42 (6.73–15.85) | 14.27 (8.35–26.0) | 11.86 (7.42–18.97) | 4.47 (2.97–6.41) |
| Bartonella henselae | <0.25a | 0.09 (0.00–0.48) | <0.25a | <0.25a | <0.25a | <0.25a |
| Babesia divergens | <0.25a | <0.25a | 0.09 (0.00–0.48) | 0.09 (0.00–0.48) | <0.25a | 0.17 (0.02–0.63) |
| Babesia venatorum (sp. EU1) | 0.17 (0.02–0.63) | 0.26 (0.05–0.77) | 1.40 (0.76–2.36) | 0.45 (0.14–1.05) | <0.25a | 0.85 (0.38–1.60) |
a
All pools negative;
b
all pools positive.
Point estimates were based on the maximum likelihood method developed by Kline et al. (16). If all pools were positive, prevalence was recorded as >14.3%, as the highest prevalence that can be distinguished from 100% when testing 47 pools of 25 ticks. If all pools were negative, prevalence was recorded as <0.25%, since the 95% probability of sampling n negative ticks from a population with prevalence p is given as (1−p)n.