Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Multiple outbreaks of Rift Valley Fever (RVF) with devastating effects have occurred in East Africa. These outbreaks cause disease in both livestock and humans and affect poor households most severely. Communities living in areas practicing nomadic livestock movement may be at higher risk of infection. This study sought to i) determine the human exposure to Rift Valley fever virus (RVFV) in populations living within nomadic animal movement routes in Kenya; and ii) identify risk factors for RVFV infection in these communities. METHODS: A cross-sectional descriptive study design was used. Samples were collected from the year 2014 to 2015 in a community-based sampling exercise involving healthy individuals aged ≥18 years from Isiolo, Tana River, and Garissa counties. In total, 1210 samples were screened by ELISA for the presence of immunoglobulin IgM and IgG antibodies against RVFV. Positive results were confirmed by plaque reduction neutralization test. RESULTS: Overall, IgM and IgG prevalence for all sites combined was 1.4% (95% CI 0.8-2.3%) and 36.4% (95% CI 33.8-39.2%), respectively. Isiolo County recorded a non-significant higher IgG prevalence of 38.8% than Garissa 35.9% and Tana River 32.2% (Chi square = 2.5, df = 2, p = 0.287). Males were significantly at higher risk of infection by RVFV than females (OR = 1.67, 95% CI 1.17-2.39, p<0.005). Age was significantly associated with RVFV infection (Wald Chi = 94.2, df = 5, p<0.0001). Individuals who had regular contact with cattle (OR = 1.38, 95%CI 1.01-1.89) and donkeys (OR = 1.38, 95%CI 1.14-1.67), or contact with animals through birthing (OR = 1.69, 95%CI 1.14-2.51) were significantly at a greater risk of RVFV infection than those who did not. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that although the Isiolo County has been classified as being at medium risk for RVF, virus infection appeared to be as prevalent in humans as in Tana River and Garissa, which have been classified as being at high risk. Populations in these counties live within nomadic livestock movement routes and therefore at risk of being exposed to the RVFV. Interventions to control RVFV infections therefore, should target communities living along livestock movement pathways.