In Europe, many flaviviruses are endemic (West Nile, Usutu, tick-borne encephalitis viruses) or occasionally imported (dengue, yellow fever viruses). Due to the temporal and geographical co-circulation of flaviviruses in Europe, flavivirus differentiation by diagnostic tests is crucial in the adaptation of surveillance and control efforts. Serological diagnosis of flavivirus infections is complicated by the antigenic similarities among the Flavivirus genus. Indeed, most flavivirus antibodies are directed against the highly immunogenic envelope protein, which contains both flavivirus cross-reactive and virus-specific epitopes. Serological assay results should thus be interpreted with care and confirmed by comparative neutralization tests using a panel of viruses known to circulate in Europe. However, antibody cross-reactivity could be advantageous in efforts to control emerging flaviviruses because it ensures partial cross-protection. In contrast, it might also facilitate subsequent diseases, through a phenomenon called antibody-dependent enhancement mainly described for dengue virus infections. Here, we review the serological methods commonly used in WNV diagnosis and surveillance in Europe. By examining past and current epidemiological situations in different European countries, we present the challenges involved in interpreting flavivirus serological tests and setting up appropriate surveillance programs; we also address the consequences of flavivirus circulation and vaccination for host immunity.

Usutu virus (USUV) is an emerging arbovirus that was first isolated in South Africa in 1959. This Flavivirus is maintained in the environment through a typical enzootic cycle involving mosquitoes and birds. USUV has spread to a large part of the European continent over the two decades mainly leading to substantial avian mortalities with a significant recrudescence of bird infections recorded throughout Europe within the few last years. USUV infection in humans is considered to be most often asymptomatic or to cause mild clinical signs. Nonetheless, a few cases of neurological complications such as encephalitis or meningoencephalitis have been reported. USUV and West Nile virus (WNV) share many features, like a close phylogenetic relatedness and a similar ecology, with co-circulation frequently observed in nature. However, USUV has been much less studied and in-depth comparisons of the biology of these viruses are yet rare. In this review, we discuss the main body of knowledge regarding USUV and compare it with the literature on WNV, addressing in particular virological and clinical aspects, and pointing data gaps.

This article uses the experience of five European countries to review the integrated approaches (human, animal and vector) for surveillance and monitoring of West Nile virus (WNV) at national and European levels. The epidemiological situation of West Nile fever in Europe is heterogeneous. No model of surveillance and monitoring fits all, hence this article merely encourages countries to implement the integrated approach that meets their needs. Integration of surveillance and monitoring activities conducted by the public health authorities, the animal health authorities and the authorities in charge of vector surveillance and control should improve efficiency and save resources by implementing targeted measures. The creation of a formal interagency working group is identified as a crucial step towards integration. Blood safety is a key incentive for public health authorities to allocate sufficient resources for WNV surveillance, while the facts that an effective vaccine is available for horses and that most infected animals remain asymptomatic make the disease a lesser priority for animal health authorities. The examples described here can support other European countries wishing to strengthen their WNV surveillance or preparedness, and also serve as a model for surveillance and monitoring of other (vector-borne) zoonotic infections.