[Downloaded free from http://www.jvbd.org on Thursday, October 29, 2020, IP: 177.254.211.171]
J Vector Borne Dis 55, September 2018, pp. 222–229
Babesiosis prevalence in malaria-endemic regions of Colombia
Juliana González1, Ignacio Echaide2, Adriana Pabón1, Juan Gabriel Piñeros J1, Silvia Blair1 &
Alberto Tobón-Castaño1.
1
Malaria Group, Faculty of Medicine, University of Antioquia, Medellín, Colombia; 2Immunology and Parasitology Laboratory, Institute of
Agricultural Technology (INTA), Rafaela, Argentina
ABSTRACT
Background & objectives: The presence of Babesia spp in humans, bovine cattle and ticks (the transmitting vector)
has not been well characterized in Colombia. Babesia infection in humans can be overlooked due to similarity of the
disease symptoms with malaria specially in the regions where malaria is endemic. The aim of the present work was
to study the frequency of Babesia infection in humans, bovines and ticks in a malaria endemic region of Colombia,
and explore the possible relationship of infection with host and the environmental factors.
Methods: A cross-sectional study was carried out between August 2014 and March 2015 to determine the frequency
of B. bovis and B. bigemina infection in a sample of 300 humans involved in cattle raising, in 202 bovines; and in
515 ticks obtained from these subjects, using molecular (PCR), microscopic and serological methods. In addition,
the demographic, ecological and zootechnical factors associated with the presence of Babesia, were explored.
Results: In the bovine population, the prevalence of infection was 14.4% (29/202); the highest risk of infection
was found in cattle under nine months of age (OR = 23.9, CI 8.10–94.30, p = 0.0). In humans, a prevalence of 2%
(6/300) was found; four of these six cases were positive for B. bovis. Self-report of fever in the last seven days in
the positive cases was found to be associated with Babesia infection (Incidence rate ratio = 9.08; CI 1.34–61.10,
p = 0.02). The frequency of B. bigemina infection in the collected ticks was 18.5% (30/162).
Interpretation & conclusion: The study established the presence of Babesia spp in humans, bovines and ticks. The
most prevalent species responsible for babesiosis in humans and bovines was B. bovis, while B. bigemina was the
species most frequently found in the tick population. The results contribute to the knowledge of the epidemiology
of babesiosis in the country and can provide guidelines for the epidemiological surveillance of this non-malarial
febrile illness in humans as well as cattle.
Key words Babesia bigemina; B. bovis; babesiosis; bovine; Colombia; human; tick
INTRODUCTION
Babesiosis is a parasitic disease caused by a group
of Babesia species that parasitize various hosts such as
bovine cattle, buffaloes and other animal species; and are
considered zoonotic1–2. The infected tick bite is the main
route of transmission of the Babesia3. Epidemiological
studies in humans and cattle have used different diagnostic methods, including PCR and microscopy for identification of parasites, and indirect immunofluorescence
assay (IFA) and ELISA for seroprevalence4–5.
In tropical countries bovine babesiosis is highly prevalent and has a high economic impact; the main causative
agents reported include Babesia bovis and B. bigemina.
In Latin America, several studies have reported about the
presence of bovine Babesia: (i) in Northern Brazil the
prevalence of infection detected by PCR was 33.2% for B.
bovis and 52% for B. bigemina; (ii) in Southern Brazil, the
seroprevalence for B. bovis was 96.1% by PCR, whereas
it was 68.8 and 52.5% by IFA for B. bovis and B. bigemina
respectively6–7; (iii) in Mexico, an ELISA seroprevalence
of 36% for B. bovis and 45% for B. bigemina was estimated8; and (iv) in Colombia, in the region of Valley of the
Magdalena River, the frequency of infection was 22.4%
by microscopy, while by PCR it was 63.3% (59.9% by B.
bigemina and 3.4% by mixed infection). Seroprevalence
by IFA was 65.6% (57, 1% by B. bovis and 25.9% by B.
bigemina)9–10.
Human babesiosis is an emerging tick-borne infectious disease having worldwide distribution. In most
cases, it is associated with the population that works on
cattle ranches or in moist wooded areas, where the vector is generally observed. The cases are commonly reported in Europe and North America, where the main
causal organisms are B. microti, B. bovis, B. divergens
and B. bigemina11–12. This disease causes an acute febrile
syndrome like malaria and can be misdiagnosed due to
morphological similarities of Babesia with Plasmodium
parasite13. In Colombia two studies have described babesiosis in humans. The study carried out in the Magda-
[Downloaded free from http://www.jvbd.org on Thursday, October 29, 2020, IP: 177.254.211.171]
González et al: Babesiosis in Colombia
lena Medio region reported 0.5% samples positive by
microscopy and 3.6% seropositive by IFA for B. bovis
or B. bigemina14; while the another study from the Department of Cordoba reported 30.6% positivity by IFA for
B. microti15.
The prevalence of bovine babesiosis in other regions
of Colombia is not known, because this disease does not
require mandatory notification to the health authorities9–10.
Also the prevalence of infection is unknown in people living in malaria-endemic areas (where livestock farming is
an important economic activity), due to its clinical and
parasitological similarity with malaria that may confuse
the diagnosis and ignore its existence. Undiagnosed cases
or misdiagnosis might lead to serious consequences for
the patient. This prevents the epidemiological surveillance of babesiosis and generate gaps in the epidemiological characterization of this infection. The objective of
this study was to characterize and establish the magnitude
of the Babesia infection in bovine cattle and humans, and
to identify the presence of B. bovis and B. bigemina species in ticks, in two towns where farmers practice bovine
ranching and which are endemic for malaria in the UrabáColombia region.
223
Colombia
MATERIAL & METHODS
Design and study site
A cross-sectional descriptive study was carried out
between February 2014 and March 2015 in two Urabá
towns: Turbo (8° 05' 42" N; 76° 44' 23" W) and Necoclí
(8° 25' 39" N; 76° 46' 58" W) (Fig. 1). In both towns, cattle
ranching represents the second most important economy
activity16; Turbo predominates in dual-purpose of rearing
livestock, i.e. for milk and meat production (92%), while
in Necoclí it is aimed at meat production (63%). It has
been estimated that these municipalities have an average
risk of malaria transmission with annual parasite rates of
2.7 and 2.8 per 1000 inhabitants for Turbo and Necoclí,
respectively; without any report of human or bovine babesiosis17.
Sample size
Sample size (n) for bovine and human populations
was estimated according to Lwanga et al18 and using the
Epidat program (version 4.1), on the basis of the following data/criteria. For bovines: Total population = 280,767
(records of the Department of Agriculture of the Department of Antioquia in 2014 for both towns16), prevalence of
babesiosis = 13.65% (the median of frequencies reported
in Colombia9, 19; and sampling error = 5%. For humans :
People related to livestock activity16 = 2559; prevalence
Fig. 1: Location of sampling sites in the Urabá region (green area),
Antioquia, Colombia— 1 Necocli; 2 Turbo.
of babesiosis in exposed humans13 = 30.6%; and sampling error = 5%. The sample size calculated was 202 for
bovines and 319 for humans.
Sampling strategy and selection of the units for analysis
The selection of the study units (bovines and humans)
were made from each productive unit (PU) in total 18 localities from both towns. The PUs were chosen for their
homogenous production characteristics (cattle farms) and
health status (vaccination against brucellosis and aphtose
fever), and for their proximity to the municipal head; in total 379 farms fulfilled these characteristics, 164 in Turbo
and 215 in Necoclí. The PUs that had implemented vaccination against Babesia and applied tick control insecticides in the last eight days of the visit, were excluded.
The selection was made by proportional fixation sampling
proposed by Silva et al20 in 1993. Finally, 30 PUs located
in 15 locations, eight in Turbo and seven in Necoclí, met
the selection criteria (Fig. 1).
[Downloaded free from http://www.jvbd.org on Thursday, October 29, 2020, IP: 177.254.211.171]
224
J Vector Borne Dis 55, September 2018
Selection of bovine and human subjects
The bovine sample was divided according to their
proportion reported in each town: 60% (n = 121) for Turbo
and 40% (n = 81) Necoclí. Each sub-sample was distributed among the PUs from each town, and in each PU, the
bovines were selected through a list of random numbers.
The selected human subjects were town residents or
working in a PU; when necessary, adjacent residents were
included to complete the sampling of a PU. The selection
of human subjects was based on the following inclusion
criteria: Age over 18 yr, willingness to participate and sign
the informed consent.
Data collection
Data recorded on a standardized form included information on:
Production units: The productive and sanitary characteristics investigated were production orientation, type
of pasture, use of tick control insecticides, deworming and
quarantines.
Cattle: Each animal was investigated for sex, race,
age and presence of ticks; the clinical status (signs of infection) was evaluated by a veterinarian. The association
between the presence of Babesia and factors of the herd,
such as zootechnical orientation (dual purpose, meat,
milk), pastures and availability of professional veterinarians were also explored.
Humans: Sociodemographic characteristics (sex,
age, ethnic group), labour activities (cattle farming,
housewife, student), housing conditions (wall, floor, ceiling material), presence of disease symptoms in the last
seven days (headache, fever, arthralgia) and presence of
clinical signs at the time of the survey (pallor, jaundice,
fever and haemorrhages).
Ticks: The number of ticks was determined and registered for each bovine using the technique described by
Álvarez et al21 in 2003. From each bovine, 1 to 5 ticks
were captured and stored for seven days, guaranteeing the
development of the vector parasitic cycle.
Sampling and laboratory analysis
DNA extraction and PCR: For the diagnosis of babesiosis in both, humans and cattle, 5 ml of venous blood was
taken; 400 ml were distributed in two tubes with heparin
and then stored at –20°C until analyzed for molecular diagnosis. DNA was extracted using the DNeasy Tissue and
Blood kit, following the manufacturer's instructions22. The
primers reported by Figueroa et al23 were used to amplify
the 18S gene by nested PCR, modified by Terkawi et al24;
the PCR products were examined on a 2% TAE agarose gel
by electrophoresis at 100 volts for 40 min. The final prod-
ucts were 291 bp for B. bovis and 178 bp for B. bigemina23.
Quality control of the results was done with DNA samples
sequenced by the Institute of Agricultural Technology of
Argentina, INTA, Rafaela.
Microscopic diagnosis: The presence of active infection and morphological identification of the species was performed by peripheral blood smears stained
with Giemsa25 and read under a light microscope with
a 100 × objective. A sample was considered negative
when no parasites were identified in 300 fields. For
quality control, two blind readings were performed
on all the positive samples and on 10% of the negative
samples.
Serological diagnosis: Bovine and human sera were
centrifuged at 2500 rpm. The presence of antibodies
was determined by ELISA using a suspension of purified merozoites obtained in vitro from B. bovis or B.
bigemina; a bovine IgG1 heavy chain anti-chain monoclonal antibody conjugate (M 23ADRI-Canada) and
human IgA multispecies (Pierce Biotechnology, Rockford, IL, USA) samples were also used. The 10% of the
samples were analyzed by immunofluorescence (IFA),
a technique in which the parasites (B. bovis and B. bigemina) were first cultured in leukocyte free red blood
cells with equine serum, until 5–6% parasitaemia. After
thin blood smears preparation, 1/100 B. bovis and 1/120
B. bigemina sera dilutions were made. Fluorescent reactions were observed with a Leitz microscope equipped
for epi-illumination using a 50 W mercury vapour lamp.
The ELISA and IFA were performed as described by
de Echaide et al26.
Statistical analysis
The analysis was carried out with the statistical program SPSS ver. 23 (IBM Corporation) licensed for the
University of Antioquia. Descriptive analysis of quantitative variables was carried out using measures of central
tendency (median or average) and dispersion [interquartile range–(IQR) or standard deviation (SD)]. Qualitative variables were analyzed by proportions; a bivariate
analysis was performed for the bovine and human populations using as a dependent variable the PCR diagnosis of
Babesia spp. Categorical variables were analyzed using
the Chi-square test and the Fisher's exact test. Infection
analysis in cattle was performed by logistic regression
using the step-by-step method and infection in humans
by Poisson regression. Applying the Hosmer Lemeshow
(H–L) criterion (p ≤0.25) the variables entered into the
models, and according epidemiological importance and
biological plausibility. p-value <0.05 was considered as
statistically significant.
[Downloaded free from http://www.jvbd.org on Thursday, October 29, 2020, IP: 177.254.211.171]
González et al: Babesiosis in Colombia
Ethical statement
The international ethical standards for biomedical
research with human subjects established by the WHO
and the ethical norms of the ministry of social protection
of Colombia for human research (Resolution 8430 of
1993) and animal research (Law 84 of 1989) were followed. The collection of specimens were carried out in
compliance with the regulations established by the Colombian government (National Environmental Licensing
Authority Resolution ANLA 0524 of 2014). The procedures were approved by both the Bioethics Committee and the Ethical Committee for Animal Research of
the University Research Headquarters of the University
of Antioquia (Acts 13-32-436 of 2012 and 15-32-436
of 2015).
RESULTS
Babesia infection was diagnosed in bovine cattle,
humans and ticks in five locations, namely El Tres, Alto
Mulatos, Turbo, Mulatos, Las Changas, and Totumo) out
of the 18 localities visited.
Cattle characteristics and infection status
Among the 202 bovines studied, majority (74.8%)
were reared for dual purpose (meat and milk production),
which were grazing on native pastures (63.9%) such as
Brachiaria decumbens. The general characteristics of cattle are described in (Table 1). The majority were females
(77.2%) corresponding to cross Cebu (Bos indicus);
the median age was 48 months (IQR 9–84) with a high
proportion of bovines over 48 months (44%). The bovines were mostly asymptomatic (83%) at the time of the
study; 34 had a rectal temperature > 38.5°C without other
clinical signs (Table 1). The prevalence of Babesia established by PCR in cattle was 14.4% (29/202); 19 infections
were by B. bovis (65.5%), six by B. bigemina (20.7%)
and four infections were due to both the species (13.8%).
The prevalence of infection by microscopy was 4.5%
(9/202); 77% for B. bovis (n = 7) and 33% for B. bigemina
(n = 2) (Fig. 2). Antibodies against the Babesia species
were found in 55.4% (112/202) population (by ELISA);
71.4% (80/112) for B. bovis and 73.2% (82/112) for
B. bigemina.
The age of the bovines was categorized according to
the median and the age at greater risk for the presence
of Babesia (<9 months); the frequency of babesiosis by
molecular diagnosis was as follows: 41.5% between 0–9
months, 6.7% between 10–48 months; and 3.4% for animals older than 48 months. The frequencies of serum antibodies for Babesia in these groups were 77.4, 55 and
42.7%, respectively.
225
Table 1. Characteristics of the bovine and human population
Characteristics
Bovine variables
Town
Categories
Turbo
Necoclí
Zootechnical orientation
Dual purpose
Meat
Milk
Pasture type
Native
Other
Availability of veterinarians Yes
No
Sex
Male
Female
Race
Holstein × Cebu
Simmental
Gyr
Holstein
Fever
Yes
No
Age
<9 months
10–48 months
>48 months
Human variables
Town
Turbo
Necoclí
Sex
Male
Female
Ethnic group
Mestizo
African descendant
Indigenous
Domestic animals in the
Yes
No
house
Primary activity
Cattle farming
Housewife
Student
Tick bites
Yes
No
Fever
Si
No
Shaking chills
Yes
No
Headache
Yes
No
Figures in parentheses indicate percentages.
Number
76
126
151
40
11
129
73
177
25
46
156
103
12
8
3
35
167
53
60
89
(37.6)
(62.4)
(74.8)
(19.8)
(5.4)
(63.9)
(36.1)
(87.6)
(12.4)
(22.8)
(77.2)
(51)
(5.9)
(4)
(1.5)
(17.3)
(82.7)
(26.2)
(29.7)
(44.1)
150
150
259
41
287
9
4
261
39
247
34
19
236
64
270
30
276
24
173
127
(50)
(50)
(86.3)
(13.7)
(95.7)
(3)
(1.3)
(87)
(13)
(82.3)
(11.3)
(6.3)
(68.3)
(31.7)
(90)
(10)
(92.0)
(8)
(57.7)
(42.3)
Fig. 2: Babesia bigemina in a Giemsa stained blood smear from a
bovine (Urabá, Colombia). Pear-shaped B. bigemina inside a
red blood cell (arrow).
[Downloaded free from http://www.jvbd.org on Thursday, October 29, 2020, IP: 177.254.211.171]
226
J Vector Borne Dis 55, September 2018
Human subject characteristics and infection status
The study was carried out in 300 residents. The median age was 35 yr (Range, 25–48); 95.7% were recognized
as a mestizo population (people of mixed European and
Amerindian ancestry). The houses were characterized by
having wooden walls (53.7%), earthen floors (39%) and
zinc roofs (62%). Of all the subjects studied 87% had domestic animals in the house. The most common clinical
symptoms during the seven days prior to the study were
headache (42.3%) and fever (30%); though joint pain and
sore throat were also reported. Sociodemographic and
clinical data are summarized in Table 1.
The frequency of babesiosis in humans diagnosed by
PCR was 2% (6/300); 66.6% (n = 4) for B. bovis and 33.3%
(n = 2) for B. bigemina. By microscopy, Babesia spp was
diagnosed in three cases (1%), two infections were due
to B. bovis and one was due to B. bigemina. The agreement between both tests was 50%, with a Kappa index =
0.6. Seroprevalence in humans was 0.33% (1/300) with
antibody titres in one subject for both species. Two positive subjects for Babesia presented fever and headache,
one presented only headache and the other three were asymptomatic. The frequency of these symptoms does not
differ with the subjects without infection (p >0.05, chisquare test).
Vector characteristics and infection status
Seventy percent (141 out of 202) of the bovines stud-
ied were parasitized by ticks, from which 515 specimens
were collected and then divided into 162 sets. These sets
were classified according to species, stage and sex. The
frequency of Babesia infection in the tick subsets was
18.5% (30/162); 73.3% due to B. bigemina infection
(22/30), 16.7% due to B. bovis infection (5/30) and 10%
due to infection by both species (3/30).
Association between bovine and human babesiosis
The logistic regression analysis for the bovine population, with a goodness of fit of 0.921, showed that bovines < 9 months of age presented the highest probability
of infection by Babesia (Table 2). Poisson regression for
humans indicates that babesiosis was associated with subjective fever in the last seven days [incidence rate ratio
(IRR) = 9.08; CI = 1.34–61.10] with a goodness of fit for
the model of 0.780 (Table 3).
DISCUSSION
Since the first case of babesiosis reported in humans
in 1957 in Yugoslavia27, diverse studies have measured
the frequency of Babesia in humans and cattle. To the
best of our knowledge there are no studies investigating
the presence of this infectious agent in the population of
humans, bovines and vectors simultaneously. This study
evaluated the prevalence of Babesia in these three populations, in a zone endemic for malaria, and favourable for
Table 2. Bivariate and multivariate analysis of Babesia infection and livestock variables
Variables
Age (Months)
<9
10–48
>48
Sex (Female)
Town
Adm. tick insecticide (spray)
Pasture rotation (days)
Presence of ticks
Babesia Positive
Babesia Negative
Without ticks
Crude OR
95% CI
OR
20.3
2.1
5.7
0.4
72.5
0.5
0.3
2.1
2.6
1
0.1
0.8
0.8
0.9
0.6
5.1
9.1
1
0.7
0.5
0.2
0.2
2.5
1.3
p-value
Adjusted* OR
95% CI OR
0.001
0.36
Ref
0.001
0.11
0.13
0.14
24
1.8
6.1
0.4
94.3
8.5
0.9
3.3
0.3
0.8
0.3
0.8
0.1
0.3
2.5
13.2
1.2
2.4
0.61
0.16
Ref
0.5
0.5
0.1
0.2
2.5
1.5
*p-value
0.001
0.48
Ref
0.845
0.1
0.08
0.72
0.41
0.21
Ref
*Adjusted for all other livestock variables; OR: Odds ratio; CI: Confidence interval.
Table 3. Bivariate and multivariate analysis of Babesia infection in humans and some individual variables
Variables
Fever informed by the participant
Months dedicated to cattle ranching
Bovine with ticks (PCR positive for Babesia spp)
Working in cattle ranches
Bovines PCR positive for Babesia
Crude
IRR
4.5
1
1.6
0.4
0.7
95%
CI
0.8
0.9
0.8
0.1
0.2
IRR
p-value
24.7
1
3.2
2.3
2.1
0.08
0.3
0.23
0.32
0.54
Adjusted
IRR*
9
0.1
2.2
0.8
0.4
*Adjusted for all other variables; IRR: Relative risk index (Hosmer Lemeshow criteria, p <0.25); CI: Confidence interval.
95%
CI
1.3
0.9
0.8
0.1
0.2
IRR
p-value
61.1
1
5.9
7
1.9
0.024
0.97
0.123
0.79
0.54
[Downloaded free from http://www.jvbd.org on Thursday, October 29, 2020, IP: 177.254.211.171]
González et al: Babesiosis in Colombia
the presence of Babesia due to its eco-epidemiological
conditions28.
In the bovine population, this study found a higher
frequency of infection for B. bovis (79.3%) compared to
B. bigemina (34.5%), proportions that included coinfections. Although, both are transmitted by the same vectors,
this could be explained by the fact that B. bovis infection can persist in hosts for 24 months or more compared
to B. bigemina infection, which persists for 12 months29.
Although, the frequency of bovine cases in this study is
lower than that reported in other studies in Colombia, the
species wise proportion coincides with that reported by
Ríos et al10, 34, who identified a higher frequency of B.
bovis (57.1%) than of B. bigemina (25.9%). The seroprevalence was higher than the presence of active infection,
this can be supported by the fact that a large proportion of
the bovines (73%) were from meat breeds that are more
resistant to Babesia infection indicating high proportion
of asymptomatic bovines. This resistance of cattle to clinical signs is an important factor in the maintenance of enzootic stability because it aids sporadic babesiosis outbreaks
when new animals enter these areas.
In cattle, a statistically significant association was
found between the prevalence of Babesia infection by
the PCR technique and the presence of antibodies by the
ELISA diagnosis, with a higher risk in animals younger
than nine months of age compared to adults. This is in
agreement with earlier studies that reported greater susceptibility to infection at this age6–7.
In the human subjects, infection prevalence of the disease was 2% by PCR and 1% by microscopy. Among the
six positive subjects, three were positive by both methods
and presented fever on the day of diagnosis, suggesting
that they were in the acute phase of the disease and thus
were potential transmitters of the infection32. By the serological technique (IFA), IgG antibodies were observed
in one only person out of 300, which may be due to poor
prior contact with the parasite or to the variability of these
antibodies over time as evidenced by Gumber et al 29 who
reported that in apes infected with B. microti, this immunoglobulin is detected in chronic phase of infection (56
days after contact with the parasite). Although, the frequency of Babesia infection in humans by microscopy
and PCR was low for the both species studied, it predominated for B. bovis, similar to the findings reported by Ríos
et al14, who found a seroprevalence of 2.1% for B. bovis
and 1.5% for B. bigemina in a cattle zone endemic for
malaria in Colombia.
The exploration of sociodemographic and epidemiological variables in relation to the diagnosis of infection
in humans showed no associations. Specifically, the sex
227
and age variables were not related to an increased risk of
infection. This is similar to what Hong et al30 reported in
their study, suggesting a similar exposure in women and
men, though, an analysis was not performed according to
their occupation.
The frequency of infestation in tick groups was 18.5%.
However, the history of tick bites in people during the last
year was not associated with a risk of infection. This situation can be explained by a low frequency of tick infection,
or this might be due to memory bias29.
When analyzing clinical variables in people, fever was
observed to be the most persistent and common symptom
associated with Babesia infection similar to other infections31–33, and was present in up to 91% of the patients.
Microscopic diagnosis is suitable as a diagnostic alternative, in cases of symptomatic animals and
in acute stages of the disease, and is the most common
procedure used by veterinarians to screen for possible
clinical cases. However, its diagnostic capacity is much
lower than the molecular diagnosis in asymptomatic
animals28. In this study the identification of seropositive
animals by microscopy was 4% as opposed to 14.4%
by PCR.
No association was found between Babesia infection
in humans and bovines with the presence of the parasite
in ticks. This may be due to the low prevalence of babesiosis in humans and the low parasitaemia in bovines, a
condition that decreases the transmission capacity of the
parasite34. The lower frequency of B. bovis in ticks corresponds to the fact that this species does not have vertical transmission, while B. bigemina has food, transovarial
and vertical transmission35. This is in concordance with a
study9 carried out in Puerto Berrío-Antioquia, Colombia
that showed a greater presence of B. bigemina (79.2%)
compared to B. bovis (9.4%).
CONCLUSION
The study established the presence of Babesia parasite in bovine cattle, humans and its vectors inhabiting a
region endemic for malaria in Colombia. The prevalence
was low (2%) for B. bovis and B. bigemina infection in humans; however, the frequency in bovines and ticks were
14.4 and 18.5%, respectively. Since, it is not mandatory to
notify Babesiosis in cattle in Colombia, the epidemiology
of this disease is not well known, and therefore, it is not
suspected as a cause of disease in the human population.
The presence of Babesiosis in humans, represents an important problem for diagnosis. The results contribute to
the knowledge of the epidemiology of babesiosis in the
country and can provide guidelines for the epidemiologi-
[Downloaded free from http://www.jvbd.org on Thursday, October 29, 2020, IP: 177.254.211.171]
228
J Vector Borne Dis 55, September 2018
cal surveillance of non-malarial febrile illness in people
and febrile pathologies in cattle.
Conflict of interest
The authors of the article have no conflict of interests
to declare.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work was funded by the University of Antioquia
(Vice-Chancellor for Research), Colombia. The authorsthank the members of the Malaria Group, who collaborated on the project, namely Cecilia Giraldo-C and Luz
Aida Gómez-R for the microscopic diagnosis; Juan Camilo Pérez for the molecular diagnosis, Andrés HolguínRocha for the taxonomic classification of the ticks; and
Tatiana Lopera and Cesar Segura for their participation in
the technical and academic meetings. Thanks are due to
the Demography and Health Group of the National Faculty of Public Health (University of Antioquia), Colombia
especially Professor Hugo Grisales for his contribution to
the sampling design.
REFERENCES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Adl SM, Simpson AG, Farmer MA, Andersen RA, Anderson
OR, Barta JR, et al. The new higher level classification of eukaryotes with emphasis on the taxonomy of protists. J Eukaryot
Microbiol 2005; 52(5): 399–451.
Gomez JE. Protozoologia médica: Protozoos parásitos en el
contexto latinoamericano. ed. Bogota: Manual, Moderno 2010;
p. 265.
Homer MJ, Aguilar-Delfin I, Telford SR, Krause PJ, Persing
DH. Babesiosis. Clin Microbiol Rev 2000; 13(3): 451–69.
Mosqueda, Olvera-Ramirez J, Aguilar-Tipacamu A. Current
advances in detection and treatment of babesiosis. Curr Med
Chem 2012; 19(10): 1504–18.
Babesiosis bovina. USA: The Center for Food Security and
Public Health. Available from: http://www.cfsph.iastate.edu/
DiseaseInfo/disease.php?name=bovine-babesiosis&lang=es
(Accessed on July 30, 2017).
Souza F, Braga J, Pires L, Carvalho C, Costa E, Ribeiro M, et
al. Babesiosis and anaplasmosis in dairy cattle in northeastern
Brazil. Pesq Vet Bras 2013; 33(9): 1057–61.
Brito LG, Rocha RB, Barbieri FDS, Ribeiro ES, Vendrami FB,
Souza GCR, et al. Babesia bovis infection in cattle in the southwestern Brazilian Amazon. Ticks-Tick Borne Dis 2013; 4(1–2):
78–82.
Lozano ME. Situacion sanitaria de la babesiosis y anaplasmosis
en la ganadería lechera en tres sistemas de producción (Maestria). Queretaro: Universidad Autonoma de Queretaro, Facultad
de Ciencias Naturales 2014; p. 64.
Rios S. Evaluación de indicadores de babesiosis bovina en garrapatas Rhipicephalus Boophilus microplus y bovinos de 3a9
meses de la zona del Magdalena Medio Colombiano. Columbia
Universidad de Antioquia 2010.
10. Rios L, Zapata R, Reyes J, Mejía J. Enzootic stability of bovine
babesiosis at Puerto Berrio region, Colombia. Revista Científica
2010; 20(5): 485–92.
11. Walsh MG. The relevance of forest fragmentation on the incidence of human babesiosis: Investigating the landscape epidemiology of an emerging tick-borne disease. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis 2013; 13(4): 250–5.
12. Lempereur L, Shiels B, Heyman P, Moreau E, Saegerman C,
Losson B, et al. A retrospective serological survey on human
babesiosis in Belgium. Clin Microbiol Infect 2015; 21(1): 96
e1–7.
13. Montenegro-James S. Prevalence and control of babesiosis in
the Americas. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz 1992; 87(Suppl 3): 27–
36.
14. Ríos L, Alvarez G, Blair S. Serological and parasitological
study and report of the first case of human babesiosis in Colombia Estudo serológico e parasitológico e relato do primeiro
caso de babesiose humana na Colômbia. Rev Soc Bras Med Trop
2003; 36(4): 493–8.
15. Buelvas F, Alvis N, Buelvas I, Miranda J. Alta Prevalencia de
Anticuerpos contra Bartonella y Babesia microti en Poblaciones
Rurales y Urbanas en dos Provincias de Córdoba, Colombia.
Rev Salud Publica 2008; 10(1): 168–77.
16. Población de Bovinos-Antioquia. Medellín: Secretaría de Agricultura de Antioquía, Gobernación de Antioquía 2014.
17. Eventos de salud pública. Mexico: Secretaría de salud 2016.
Available from: https://www.dssa.gov.co/index.php/estadisticas/eventos-en-salud-publica (Accessed on July 30, 2017).
18. Lwanga SK, Lameshow S: Determinación del tamaño muestral en los estudios sanitarios: Manual práctico 2001. Geneva:
World Health Organization; p. 80.
19. Herrera M, Soto Á, Urrego V, Rivera G, Zapata M, Ríos L. Frecuencia de hemoparásitos en bovinos del Bajo Cauca y alto San
Jorge, 2000–2005. Rev MVZ Córdoba 2008; 13(3): 1486–94.
20. Silva L. Muestreo para la investigación en ciencias de la salud.
I edn. Diaz de Santos, editor. Madrid, Spain: Diaz de Santos
1993; p. 176.
21. Álvarez V, Bonilla R, Chacón I. Frecuencia relativa de Boophilus microplus (Acari Ixodidae) en Bovinos (Bos taurus y B. indicus) en ocho zona ecológicas de Costa Rica. Rev Biol Trop
2003; 51(2): 427–34.
22. DNeasy blood and tissue kit. The Netherlands: Quiagen
2013. [Internet]. available from : https://www.qiagen.com/es/
shop/sample-technologies/dna/dna-preparation/dneasy-bloodand-tissue-kit/ (Accessed on July 30, 2017).
23. Figueroa JV, Chieves LP, Johnson GS, Buening GM. Multiplex
polymerase chain reaction based assay for the detection of Babesia bigemina, Babesia bovis and Anaplasma marginale DNA
in bovine blood. Vet Parasitol 1993; 50(1–2): 69–81.
24. Terkawi MA, Alhasan H, Huyen NX, Sabagh A, Awier K, Cao
S, et al. Molecular and serological prevalence of Babesia bovis
and Babesia bigemina in cattle from central region of Syria. Vet
Parasitol 2012; 187(1–2): 307–11.
25. Materlab Reactivos y materiales de laboratorio. Madrid. España 2013. Available from: http://www.materlab.com/documentacion/hematologia/colorantes/catalogo_general_tinciones.pdf.
(Accessed on July 30, 2017).
26. de Echaide S, Echaide IE, Gaido AB, Mangold AJ, Lugaresi CI,
Vanzini VR, et al. Evaluation of an enzyme linked immunosorbent assay-kit for the detection of Babesia bovis-antibodies in
cattle in Argentina. Prev Vet Med 1995; 24(4): 277–83.
27. Martinot M, Zadeh MM, Hansmann Y, Grawey I, Christmann
[Downloaded free from http://www.jvbd.org on Thursday, October 29, 2020, IP: 177.254.211.171]
González et al: Babesiosis in Colombia
D, Aguillon S, et al. Babesiosis in immunocompetent patients.
Emerg Infect Dis 2011; 17(1): 114–6.
28. Montoya D. Zonas de vida y la valoracion del riesgo para la
transmision de la babesiosis bovina en Colombia. [Trabajo de
grado optar titulo Microbiologìa]. Escuela de Microbiologìa
Medellìn: Universidad de Antioquia 2008.
29. Gumber S, Nascimento FS, Rogers KA, Bishop HS, Rivera HN,
Xayavong MV, et al. Experimental transfusion-induced Babesia microti infection: Dynamics of parasitaemia and immune
responses in a rhesus macaque model. Transfusion 2016; 56(6
Pt 2): 1508–19.
30. Hong S, Anu D, Jeong Y, Abmed D, Cho S, Lee W, et al. Molecular detection and seroprevalence of Babesia microti among
stock farmers in Khutul City, Selenge Province, Mongolia. Ko-
rean J Parasitol 2014; 52(4): 443–7.
31. Babesiosis. Maryland, USA: US Army Public Heal Command
2010; Available from: https://phc.amedd.army.mil/PHC Resource Library/Babesiosis_FS_18-007-1115.pdf (Accessed on
July 30, 2017).
32. Vannier E, Gewurz BE, Krause PJ. Human babesiosis. Infect
Dis Clin North Am 2008; 22(3): 469–88.
33. Mylonakis E. When to suspect and how to monitor babesiosis?
Am Fam Physician 2001; 63(10): 1969–74.
34. Callow, l. The infection of Boophilus microplus with Babesia
bigemina. Parasitology 1968; 58(3): 663–70.
35. Melendez R. Revision integral de los factores epidemiológicos
que inciden en la relación Boophilus microplus-Bovino-Babesia
spp. Rev Cient 1998; 3(1): 25–34.
Correspondence to: Dr Alberto Tobón-C. Cra. 53 No. 61–30, Lab. 610 Medellín, Colombia.
E-mail: alberto.tobon1@udea.edu.co
Received: 1 August 2017
229
Accepted in revised form: 18 June 2018