Rift Valley fever (RVF) is a neglected, emerging, mosquito-borne disease with severe negative impact on human and animal health and economy. RVF is caused by RVF virus (RVFV) affecting humans and a wide range of animals. The virus is transmitted through bites from mosquitoes and exposure to viremic blood, body fluids, or tissues of infected animals. During 2007 a large RVF outbreak occurred in Sudan with a total of 747 confirmed human cases including 230 deaths (case fatality 30.8%); although it has been estimated 75,000 were infected. It was most severe in White Nile, El Gezira, and Sennar states near to the White Nile and the Blue Nile Rivers. Notably, RVF was not demonstrated in livestock until after the human cases appeared and unfortunately, there are no records or reports of the number of affected animals or deaths. Ideally, animals should serve as sentinels to prevent loss of human life, but the situation here was reversed. Animal contact seemed to be the most dominant risk factor followed by animal products and mosquito bites. The Sudan outbreak followed an unusually heavy rainfall in the country with severe flooding and previous studies on RVF in Sudan suggest that RVFV is endemic in parts of Sudan. An RVF outbreak results in human disease, but also large economic loss with an impact beyond the immediate influence on the directly affected agricultural producers. The outbreak emphasizes the need for collaboration between veterinary and health authorities, entomologists, environmental specialists, and biologists, as the best strategy towards the prevention and control of RVF.

IntroductionRift Valley fever (RVF) is an emerging viral zoonosis that impacts human and animal health. It is transmitted from animals to humans directly through exposure to blood, body fluids, or tissues of infected animals or via mosquito bites. The disease is endemic to Africa but has recently spread to Saudi Arabia and Yemen. Our aim was to compare two major outbreaks of RVF in Saudi Arabia (2000) and Sudan (2007) from a One Health perspective.MethodsUsing the terms ‘Saudi Arabia’, ‘Sudan’, and ‘RVF’, articles were identified by searching PubMed, Google Scholar, and web pages of international organizations as well as local sources in Saudi Arabia and Sudan.ResultsThe outbreak in Saudi Arabia caused 883 human cases, with a case fatality rate of 14% and more than 40,000 dead sheep and goats. In Sudan, 698 human cases of RVF were recognized (case fatality, 31.5%), but no records of affected animals were available. The ecology and environment of the affected areas were similar with irrigation canals and excessive rains providing an attractive habitat for mosquito vectors to multiply. The outbreaks resulted in livestock trade bans leading to a vast economic impact on the animal market in the two countries. The surveillance system in Sudan showed a lack of data management and communication between the regional and federal health authorities, while in Saudi Arabia which is the stronger economy, better capacity and contingency plans resulted in efficient countermeasures. Studies of the epidemiology and vectors were also performed in Saudi Arabia, while in Sudan these issues were only partly studied.ConclusionWe conclude that a One Health approach is the best option to mitigate outbreaks of RVF. Collaboration between veterinary, health, and environmental authorities both on national and regional levels is needed.

Rift Valley fever (RVF) is a viral mosquito-borne disease with the potential for global expansion, causes hemorrhagic fever, and has a high case fatality rate in young animals and in humans.Using a cross-sectional community-based study design, we investigated the knowledge, attitudes and practices of people living in small village in Sudan with respect to RVF outbreaks. A special One Health questionnaire was developed to compile data from 235 heads of household concerning their knowledge, attitudes, and practices with regard to controlling RVF. Although the 2007 RVF outbreak in Sudan had negatively affected the participants’ food availability and livestock income, the participants did not fully understand how to identify RVF symptoms and risk factors for both humans and livestock. For example, the participants mistakenly believed that avoiding livestock that had suffered spontaneous abortions was the least important risk factor for RVF. Although the majority noticed an increase in mosquito population during the 2007 RVF outbreak, few used impregnated bed nets as preventive measures. The community was reluctant to notify the authorities about RVF suspicion in livestock, a sentinel for human RVF infection. Almost all the respondents stressed that they would not receive any compensation for their dead livestock if they notified the authorities. In addition, the participants believed that controlling RVF outbreaks was mainly the responsibility of human health authorities rather than veterinary authorities. The majority of the participants were aware that RVF could spread from one region to another within the country. Participants received most their information about RVF from social networks and the mass media, rather than the health system or veterinarians. Because the perceived role of the community in controlling RVF was fragmented, the probability of RVF spread increased.