Public Health

Evidence brief: Sero-epidemiology of Crimean-Congo haemorrhagic fever in mixed crop-livestock farming households in Burkina Faso: a one health study

A sourced PLOS One study, published 2026-05-04. Read the researchers’ findings, methods and context, with links to connected African health evidence.

A healthcare consultation in an illustrative clinical setting
Illustrative stock photograph from Unsplash. It does not depict the reported event, study participants or a confirmed Kenyan facility. Source: https://images.unsplash.com/photo-1576091160550-2173dba999ef

Published in PLOS One on 2026-05-04, this study is presented as an attributed evidence briefing. The excerpts below are the original researchers’ words, reproduced under their Creative Commons Attribution licence. Health Signal has selected the abstract and, where needed, opening background paragraphs; the complete methods, results, limitations and references remain in the linked paper.

Original authors: Abdoul Kader Ilboudo, Michel Dione, Ard M Nijhof, Martin H Groschup, Assana Cissé, Koala Lassane, Madi Savadogo, Laibané Dieudonné Dahourou, Kristina Roesel, Roch K Dabiré, Zekiba Tarnagda, Bernard Bett

Source: PLOS One • DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0347146

Read the complete primary study ↗ · Creative Commons Attribution licence

From the researchers

Abstract

Crimean-Congo haemorrhagic fever (CCHF) is a severe, widespread, tick-borne viral zoonotic infection. It is caused by an orthonairovirus that is transmitted by ticks. Sero-epidemiological studies in humans and livestock are valuable indicators of viral circulation and infection risk. This study aimed to investigate the seroprevalence and factors associated with CCHF virus exposure in humans and livestock in mixed crop-livestock farming households in rural Burkina Faso.

A cross-sectional animal-human linked study was conducted in 149 rural households across 16 randomly selected villages in two administrative regions of Burkina Faso. Human socio-demographic, livestock biodata, and serum samples were collected from household members and their livestock (cattle, sheep, and goats). Additional ecological and climatic data were extracted from online databases and merged with the field data. Serological testing was performed on human and animal samples using the ID Screen® CCHF Double Antigen Multi-species ELISA (IDvet, Grabels, France). Descriptive statistics and multivariable multilevel analyses were used to assess factors associated with exposure of cattle and small ruminants to CCHF virus, while the Fisher’s exact test was applied to assess the risk factors for human exposure.

The study included 717 livestock farmers and 2,295 animals, comprising 666 cattle, 659 sheep and 970 goats. The overall CCHF virus (CCHFV) seroprevalence was 3.1% (95% CI: 1.9–4.6) in humans and 54% (95% CI: 50.2–57.7) in cattle. In small ruminants, the overall seroprevalence was 5.2% (95% CI: 4.2–6.4), with 9.1% (95% CI: 7.1–11.5) in sheep, and 2.5% (95% CI: 1.7–3.8) in goats. Farmers with inadequate livestock management-related biosecurity behaviour exhibited higher seroprevalence rates and an increased risk of CCHFV seropositivity. In cattle, seropositivity was positively associated with older age, female sex, longer grazing distances, and tick infestation. Seropositivity in small ruminants was associated with older age, being of the sheep species, and longer grazing distances. Ecological factors, including a higher aridity index in both cattle and small ruminants, and steeper slopes in cattle, were significant in univariate and multivariable analysis, respectively. The seroprevalence in both cattle and small ruminants showed significant clustering within households, with intra-cluster correlation (ICC) rates of 39% and 62%, respectively.

This study highlighted that CCHFV is circulating among humans and their livestock in rural Burkina Faso. Individual and household-related risk factors, including socio-demographic, livestock management practices, and ecological characteristics, were identified. These findings provide valuable insights for designing tailored public health interventions towards strengthening CCHF surveillance and prevention among rural households.

Background

Crimean-Congo haemorrhagic fever (CCHF) is a severe and often deadly viral infection. It is one of the most widespread viral zoonoses, and endemic in various countries across Eastern Europe, Africa, Asia, and the Middle East [1]. CCHF is a tick-borne infection that occurs in a broad range of vertebrates, in which it is typically asymptomatic [2]. Apart from tick bites, the virus is transmitted to humans through exposure to bodily fluids of viremic animals or patients [3]. CCHF orthonairovirus (Orthonairovirus haemorrhagiae) is a biosafety level 4 viral pathogen, a negative-sense RNA virus belonging to the genus Orthonairovirus, family Nairoviridae (class Bunyaviricetes order Hareavirales) [4]. It is characterised by a high genetic diversity, and distinct strains are distributed across endemic regions. All CCHFV genotypes share potential for human pathogenicity, however laboratory evidence shows strain-specific virulence [2,5]. The main vectors responsible for the transmission of CCHFV are ticks of the genus Hyalomma. The virus has also been detected in several other tick species, including ticks of the genus Rhipicephalus, Haemaphysalis, Dermacentor, Ixodes, Amblyomma and Ornithodoros [3,6], but the role of these tick species in the CCHF epidemiology and spread dynamics remains to be clarified.

Reading this evidence

Use the full paper to check the study design, participant selection, comparator and outcome definitions before drawing a practical conclusion. An association does not by itself show cause and effect. A reported performance measure needs its denominator and uncertainty. A finding from a particular facility, sample or time period should retain that scope when it is discussed elsewhere.

This briefing makes the source accessible within the wider public health desk. It does not assess an individual patient or certify a product. When considering relevance to another health system, examine the original authors’ account of context and limitations, then seek local implementation evidence. The related reporting below provides other studies to read alongside this one; it is a topic connection, rather than a claim that their results are directly comparable.

© 2026 Abdoul Kader Ilboudo, Michel Dione, Ard M Nijhof, Martin H Groschup, Assana Cissé, Koala Lassane, Madi Savadogo, Laibané Dieudonné Dahourou, Kristina Roesel, Roch K Dabiré, Zekiba Tarnagda, Bernard Bett. Excerpts reproduced under CC BY. Selection, formatting and contextual notes by Health Signal. The researchers are the authors of the source study, not members of Health Signal’s staff.

Explore connected evidence

Health Signal Editorial Desk

Health Signal’s publication desk curates source-based health analysis and attributed research briefings. Study authors and originating institutions are credited within each article. Preparation used AI assistance; source and licence checks do not constitute independent replication or clinical endorsement.

More from this writer ↗