Evidence Hub

Transmission of autochthonous Aedes-borne arboviruses and related public health challenges in Europe 2007–2023: a systematic review and secondary analysis

Paolo Cattaneo, Elena Salvador, M. Manica, L. Barzon, C. Castilletti, F. Di Gennaro, Ralph Huits, S. Merler et al.

The Lancet Regional Health - Europe, 2025

41 participants · 45 citations

Abstract

Summary Background Local transmission of dengue, chikungunya, and Zika infection is an emerging public health threat in Europe. Monitoring the epidemiological trends can help define the intervention strategy. The aim of this work was to analyse epidemiological characteristics of autochthonous transmission of Aedes-borne arboviruses in Europe. Methods A systematic review of the literature published from January 1, 2007, to January 31, 2024, reporting autochthonous cases of dengue, chikungunya, and Zika detected in Europe was performed. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the ECDC reports. Descriptive statistics and a secondary analysis were used to summarize the epidemiological characteristics of local transmission events (LTEs), explore potential temporal trends and identify relevant associations between epidemiological variables. Time intervals between key events were analysed to identify potential delays in LTE identification and intervention. Findings A total of 59 studies were included, describing 56 LTEs. The frequency of LTEs increased over time, with an average of 1.25 (95% CI: 1.17–1.35) times increment every year. While the highest number of dengue LTEs was reported in France (N = 37), Italy faced the largest number of cases detected in an LTE (N = 41). Considering all the arboviral LTEs, the median time between the symptom onset of the primary case and the diagnosis of the index case (“outbreak detection”) was 35.5 days (range 23.0–76.0). Only for chikungunya, higher…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 41 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free