On 6 June 2017, the World Health Organization (WHO) published updates to its ‘Essential Medicines List’ (EML). Read more here.

Eurosurveillance is on the updated list of the Directory of Open Access Journals and in the SHERPA/RoMEO database. Read more here.

Follow Eurosurveillance on Twitter: @Eurosurveillanc

In this issue

Home Eurosurveillance Edition  2016: Volume 21/ Issue 39 Article 6
Back to Table of Contents
Previous Download (pdf)

Eurosurveillance, Volume 21, Issue 39, 29 September 2016
Hira, de Graaf, Rockx, and on behalf of the authors of the original article: Author’s reply: The first tick-borne encephalitis case in the Netherlands: reflections and a note of caution

+ Author affiliations

Citation style for this article: Hira V, de Graaf JA, Rockx B, on behalf of the authors of the original article. Author’s reply: The first tick-borne encephalitis case in the Netherlands: reflections and a note of caution. Euro Surveill. 2016;21(39):pii=30356. DOI:

Received:20 September 2016; Accepted:23 September 2016

To the editor: We thank Clement et al. for their interest in our report on the first tick-borne encephalitis virus (TBEV) infection in the Netherlands (which was acquired in May, but diagnosed in July). They express their concerns about the correctness of the diagnosis and correctly point out several oddities and diagnostic challenges in the case. However, despite these uncertainties, we have no doubt that our patient was infected with TBEV because of several reasons.

Firstly, we did not rely solely on serological techniques, as the patient had provided us with the tick that had bitten him; the species was phenotypically not determinable because it had dried. The tick was TBEV-positive in qRT-PCR, not for the novel Dutch TBEV (a separate manuscript with sequence data of this virus is currently under review), but for a TBEV strain very closely related to the Neudörfl strain, implying the presence of several distinct strains of TBEV in the Netherlands. In our opinion, knowing that the patient had been bitten by a tick proven to be TBEV-infected, drastically increases the chance that compatible symptoms and positive anti-TBEV serology was attributable to a true TBEV infection.

Secondly, according to the paper by Holzmann and the recent European Union case definition for TBE, our patient met the criteria for a proven/confirmed TBEV infection. These criteria are, among others: symptoms of inflammation of the central nervous system and presence of specific IgM and IgG antibodies in blood and/or cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), in the absence of vaccination in the previous months [1,2]. In our case, the specificity of serum antibodies was confirmed with neutralisation tests (NT). Although, based on one study in animals [3], the specificity of NT is disputed, we believe the antibodies in our case were specific because NT titres were high. As the samples (indeed taken on days 24 and 36) were not diluted beyond 1/640 (the goal of the NT was to confirm the specificity of our ELISA results), we do not know the exact titres and thus their dynamics. In the cited animal study, cross-reactivity with louping ill virus was observed and all West Nile virus-infected horses were negative in TBEV NT [3]. As louping ill virus is not known to circulate in the Netherlands, we do not believe this has affected our results. Positive anti-TBEV antibodies may indeed have been due to a yellow fever vaccination 11 years earlier, but this is only true for IgG. IgM is only detectable for several months after vaccination [1]. Furthermore, the substantial decrease in anti-TBEV IgM concentration between days 24 and 36 cannot be explained by this vaccination, but is not unusual in a recent TBEV infection [1].

Thirdly, we should indeed have determined a CSF/serum IgG ratio. We recently determined this ratio and found it to be negative. Intrathecally produced anti-TBEV antibodies are, however, not mandatory for a definite diagnosis. Although the presence of intrathecally produced antibodies is indeed supportive of the diagnosis, they are not found in all cases. Kaise and Holzmann, for example, found that 16% of TBEV-infected patients did not have intrathecally produced anti-TBEV antibodies at hospital admission [4]. More recently, Henningsson et al. described a similar case, also without anti-TBEV antibodies in CSF [5].

In conclusion, we agree that our case had several unusual aspects, such as the predominant mononuclear cell reaction in CSF and the lack of intrathecally produced anti-TBEV antibodies. We believe, however, that our patient had a proven TBEV infection, based on the presence of compatible clinical symptoms, the presence of TBEV-specific antibodies in two different assays and the high levels of TBEV in the tick that had bitten the patient.

Conflict of interest

None declared.

Authors’ contributions

VH drafted the manuscript, BR and JAG critically revised the manuscript.


  1. Holzmann H. Diagnosis of tick-borne encephalitis.Vaccine. 2003;21(Suppl 1):S36-40. DOI: 10.1016/S0264-410X(02)00819-8 PMID: 12628812

  2. European Commission. Commission Implementing Decision of 8 August 2012 amending Decision 2002/253/EC laying down case definitions for reporting communicable diseases to the Community network under Decision No 2119/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (2012/506/EU). Official Journal of the European Union. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union; 27.9.2012:L262. Available from:

  3. Klaus C, Ziegler U, Kalthoff D, Hoffmann B, Beer M. Tick-borne encephalitis virus (TBEV) - findings on cross reactivity and longevity of TBEV antibodies in animal sera.BMC Vet Res. 2014;10(1):78. DOI: 10.1186/1746-6148-10-78 PMID: 24690234

  4. Kaiser R, Holzmann H. Laboratory findings in tick-borne encephalitis--correlation with clinical outcome.Infection. 2000;28(2):78-84. DOI: 10.1007/s150100050051 PMID: 10782392

  5. Henningsson AJ, Lindqvist R, Norberg P, Lindblom P, Roth A, Forsberg P,  et al.  Human tick-borne encephalitis and characterization of virus from biting tick. Emerg Infect Dis. 2016;22(8):1485-7. DOI: 10.3201/eid2208.151962 PMID: 27434395

Back to Table of Contents
Previous Download (pdf)

The publisher’s policy on data collection and use of cookies.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed by authors contributing to Eurosurveillance do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) or the editorial team or the institutions with which the authors are affiliated. Neither ECDC nor any person acting on behalf of ECDC is responsible for the use that might be made of the information in this journal. The information provided on the Eurosurveillance site is designed to support, not replace, the relationship that exists between a patient/site visitor and his/her physician. Our website does not host any form of commercial advertisement. Except where otherwise stated, all manuscripts published after 1 January 2016 will be published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) licence. You are free to share and adapt the material, but you must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the licence, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.

Eurosurveillance [ISSN] - ©2007-2016. All rights reserved

This website is certified by Health On the Net Foundation. Click to verify. This site complies with the HONcode standard for trustworthy health information:
verify here.