Ticks and tick-borne diseases: A call for comprehensive tick surveillance in India under One Health approach

Rinesh Kumar; H.V. Manjunathachar; Binod Kumar; Srikanta Ghosh

doi:10.25259/IJMR_2011_2025

View/Download PDF

Buy Reprints

PDF

Translate this page into:

Review Article

163 (

); 520-533

doi:

10.25259/IJMR_2011_2025

Ticks and tick-borne diseases: A call for comprehensive tick surveillance in India under One Health approach

Rinesh Kumar^1,#, H.V. Manjunathachar^2,#, Binod Kumar³, Srikanta Ghosh^4,

1Department of Veterinary Parasitology, College of Veterinary Sciences and Animal Husbandry, Nanaji Deshmukh Veterinary Science University, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh, India

2ICMR National Institute of Traditional Medicine, Belagavi, Karnataka, India

3Department of Veterinary Parasitology, College of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Kishanganj, Bihar, India

4Department of Parasitology, Indian Veterinary Research Institute- Eastern Regional Station, Kolkata, West Bengal, India

^#Equal contribution

For correspondence: Dr Srikanta Ghosh, Department of Parasitology, Indian Veterinary Research Institute-Eastern Regional Station, Kolkata 700 037, West Bengal, India e-mail: sghoshtick@gmail.com

Received: 2025-07-30, Accepted: 2026-01-01, Published: 2026-04-27

Licence

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-Share Alike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, transform, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as the author is credited and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.

How to cite this article: Kumar R, Manjunathachar HV, Kumar B & Ghosh S. Ticks and tick-borne diseases: A call for comprehensive tick surveillance in India under one health approach.Indian J Med Res. 2026;163:520-33. doi: 10.25259/IJMR_2011_2025

Abstract

Due to ecological diversity and distribution of 106 tick species across fifteen agro-climatic zones, uniform tick control approach in India is neither feasible nor effective. Globally, the economic burden of tick‐borne diseases is estimated at US $14–19 billion annually, while in India the combined losses due to ticks and tick-borne diseases (TTBDs) is approximately 46199.31 million INR (US $595.07 million) per annum. Therefore, there is an urgent need for region-specific data on tick species prevalence and diversity, tick-borne pathogens and patterns of acaricide resistance through a long-term coordinated, sustained TTBDs surveillance programme. The current challenges, ranging from insufficient data and delayed diagnosis to fragmented responses, underscore the critical need for a national, integrated and science-driven TTBDs surveillance network. This system would bridge the information gaps, support early warning systems and build national capacity for managing existing and emerging tick-borne threats. This would also help in the development of locally tailored tick management and disease prevention strategies. This review aims to present an updated overview of the current status of monitoring and surveillance of TTBDs in India. It discusses key challenges in the country and proposes establishing a national TTBD surveillance system by rationalising limited research funds available for vector control programme.

Keywords

Acaricides

India

One health

Surveillance system

Tick and tick-borne diseases

Zoonoses

Show Related Articles from PubMed

Ticks are obligate hematophagous ectoparasites, act as both vectors and reservoirs of a broad range of pathogens, which are capable of causing significant morbidity and mortality in humans, livestock and wildlife.^1,2 The incidence of tick-borne diseases (TBDs) is increasing globally and in India re-emerging human infections with altered epidemiology such as Kyasanur forest disease (KFD), Crimean-Congo haemorrhagic fever (CCHF), Indian tick typhus (ITT), Lyme disease, tick-borne relapsing fever, and Q fever.^2-4 In animals, tick-borne pathogens causing borreliosis, theileriosis, babesiosis, rickettsiosis, ehrlichiosis, and anaplasmosis are economically important.^2,5,6

Re-emergence of diseases like human babesiosis, Ganjam virus and Bhanja virus infections, indicates that many undiscovered and potential outbreaks causing pathogens are circulating within tick populations.⁶ The National Centre for Disease Control (NCDC), New Delhi, has documented a rising trend of TBDs outbreak across India and globally.⁷ The KFD outbreaks reported earlier in Karnataka have spread across multiple Indian states, while Crimean-Congo Haemorrhagic fever has caused outbreaks in Gujarat, Rajasthan, and Uttar Pradesh with mortality in humans with animal seroprevalence reported in Madhya Pradesh.^2,8,9 A high seroprevalence of B. burgdorferi (19.9% in Nagarahole and Bandipur, Karnataka; 13% in northeastern India and 18% in Arunachal Pradesh) highlighted the urgent need for surveillance, monitoring, and management of the tick-borne pathogens.^10,11

The geographic expansion of TTBDs is influenced by factors such as climate change, increased transboundary movement of livestock, human encroachment into wildlife habitats and human-wildlife-livestock interactions.¹² These One Health paradigm elements increase disease transmission and augment the epidemic potential.^4,13 Additionally, the import of exotic and crossbred cattle, acaricide resistance, and lack of vaccines contribute to increased TTBD incidence.^14,15 Although ticks are the second most important vector, research on TTBDs remains limited compared to mosquito-borne diseases.^3,5,16 Therefore, a nationwide, systematic surveillance network for early detection, risk assessment, and timely interventions is urgently needed, where efficient resource allocation and locally targeted actions are critical.^17-19

India’s diverse agro-climatic zones make a uniform national tick management strategy impractical. The current heterogenous surveillance and reporting system limit the data availability and its usefulness for the public and healthcare providers. Instead, region-specific data on tick species and associated pathogens and acaricide resistance is needed. Evidence from other countries shows that sustained, systematic tick surveillance programmes including vector identification, host ecology, pathogen screening, and environmental monitoring can significantly reduce disease incidence through early outbreak detection and timely implementation of mitigation strategies.²⁰

Establishing a dedicated national surveillance mechanism for TTBDs in India in line with One Health principles is imperative.²¹ Despite the evidence-based benefits of effective tick surveillance, India currently lacks a well-planned, coordinated, and interdisciplinary surveillance programme. This article summarises and discusses how a robust, evidence-based surveillance system can be established, leveraging technological advances and data analysis to enhance early detection, timely implementation of control measures to mitigate impact vis-à-vis to achieve the objective of One Health programme.

Economic losses attributed to TTBDs in India

The economic losses due to TTBDs were estimated approximately US $498.7 million/annum.²² A recent comprehensive analysis estimated annual economic loss is US $787.63 million.²³ Economic impact data on tick-borne human cases are unavailable for India; while a US study estimates annual Lyme disease diagnosis costs between USD 345 million and 968 million.^24,25 There is a need to estimate the economic impact of tick-borne human diseases in India to know the exact gravity of the TBDs followed by policy decision and research fund allocation.

Current status of monitoring and surveillance of TTBDs in India

Globally, one of the key aspects of the surveillance programmes is the detection and identification of both endemic and novel tick species, monitoring their geographic distribution, screening for associated pathogens, determining their acaricide resistance status and developing suitable control strategies. Establishing baseline and regularly updating distribution maps through surveillance is also crucial for tracking tick populations and disease risks over diverse agro-climatic zones in countries like India.²⁶

Despite significant adverse impact of TTBDs on the national exchequer, India does not have a national TTBDs monitoring system. Major tick-borne viral zoonotic diseases such as KFD and CCHF are notifiable in India and are associated with high mortality rates.^5,27 However, they tend to receive attention only during outbreak events and a systematic and comprehensive surveillance mechanism for a broader spectrum of tick-associated pathogens is currently lacking. Most surveillance efforts are confined to specific geographic areas and are conducted over short duration, limiting their broader applicability. Scientific evidence suggests that long-term active and passive tick surveillance can help to explore the ecology of both common and rare tick species.^28,29

Several national institutes conduct research on various vector-borne diseases under different ministries ( Fig.1). Under the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MoHFW), the National Centre for Disease Control (NCDC) and its Integrated Disease Surveillance Programme (IDSP) supervises disease surveillance, outbreak response and epidemiological research of human TTBDs, including zoonoses such as Kyasanur Forest disease (KFD) and Crimean-Congo haemorrhagic fever (CCHF), while National Center for Vector Borne Diseases Control (NVBDCP) focuses on mosquito- and sandfly-borne diseases. Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) institutes (National Institute of Virology (NIV), National Institute of Malaria Research (NIMR) and Vector Control Research Centre (VCRC)) lead research on arboviral infections transmitted by mosquitoes, with NIV serving as a WHO collaborating centre and contributing to tick-borne viral disease research. The National Reference Centre for Rickettsial Diseases (NRCRD) at Christian Medical College (CMC), Vellore provides specialised reference services and capacity building for tick-borne rickettsial diseases.

Human and animal health surveillance System in India. MoHFW, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare; NCDC, National Centre for Disease Control; DGHS, Directorate General of Health Services; ICMR, Indian Council of Medical Research; IDSP, Integrated Disease Surveillance Programme; NVBDCP, National Centre for Vector Borne Diseases Control Programme; NRCRD, National Reference Centre for Rickettsial Diseases; NIV, National Institute of Virology; VCRC, Vector control Research Centre; NIMR, National Institute of Malaria Research; MoFAHD, Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairying; DAHD, Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying; NADRS, National Animal Disease Reporting System; ICAR, Indian Council of Agricultural Research; IVRI, Indian Veterinary Research Institute; NIVEDI, National Institute of Veterinary Epidemiology and Disease Informatics; NIHSAD, National Institute of High Security Animal Diseases.

Besides the institutions involved in human tick-borne diseases (TBDs), agencies such as the Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying (DAHD) and the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) implemented animal health improvement programmes. The National Animal Disease Reporting System (NADRS) tracks nationwide notifiable animal diseases through reporting remains inconsistent across states. The ICAR implemented tick and tick-borne diseases (TTBDs) monitoring programmes through the institutes such as National Institute of Veterinary Epidemiology and Disease Informatics (NIVEDI), National Institute of High Security Animal Diseases (NIHSAD) and Indian Veterinary Research Institute (IVRI). However, none of the institutes have established a functional national level network for animal TTBDs monitoring and surveillance system. Despite lacking a national TTBDs monitoring network, the collective efforts of National Centre for Disease Control (NCDC), Integrated Disease Surveillance Programme (IDSP), NVBDCP, NIHSAD, IVRI, NIVEDI and several central and state veterinary and medical universities are contributing data on tick ecology, disease epidemiology, and acaricide resistance patterns under the One Health approach ( Fig. 2). However, critical need remains for a structured, long-term, and nationwide surveillance programme to effectively monitor and manage TTBDs.

Key organizations involved in tick and tick-borne disease surveillance in India.

Challenges pertaining to TTBDs in India

The diagnosis and management of TTBDs face a set of complex and evolving challenges, including variations in diagnostic capabilities, treatment protocols, surveillance mechanisms, and management strategies across states, regions, and sectors. Six key challenges for effective TTBDs management are discussed below.

1. Climate and environment

Tick life cycle is modulated by interactions between climate, hosts and landscape characteristics.^13,30 India’s diverse agro-climatic zones support diverse tick species and the pathogens they carry.^16,31 However, regional variations demonstrate diversity. A prevalence study in Punjab has shown that Rhipicephalus microplus (R. microplus) prefers a hot and humid environment, whereas arid and semi-arid conditions are better suited for Hyalomma anatolicum (Hy. anatolicum).³¹ Ironically, Hy. Anatolicum is now reported at higher altitudes of Uttarakhand, indicating a possible ecological range shift due to climate warming trends.³² Tick species prevalence varies widely as Rhipicephalus sp. dominates in West Bengal,³³ Haemaphysalis intermedia (Ha. Intermedia) in Tamil Nadu³⁴ and Ha. bispinosa in Andhra Pradesh.³⁵ A survey in Kerala survey found Ha. spinigera most abundant (56.6%), followed by (35.9%).³⁶

Recent studies have indicated that climate change is significantly altering tick distribution patterns. A United States study indicated that, 2°C increase in temperature could result in a more than 20% rise in Lyme disease cases, with earlier onset and prolonged transmission seasons.³⁷ Ecological models show temperature and rainfall strongly influence R. microplus suitability across India.³⁸ Overall, climate-driven tick redistribution poses growing risks for animal and public health due to emergence and re-emerging pathogens.³⁹

2. Diagnostic complexity of TBDs

Detection of TBDs is difficult because the wide variety of bacterial, viral, and protozoal pathogens require distinct diagnostics and conventional microscopy remains unreliable for pre-symptomatic or carrier animals.^2,3,40

Serological methods are widely used but suffer from issues like cross-reactivity and low sensitivity, which compromise the diagnostic accuracy.^3,41 Molecular assays like polymerase chain reaction (PCR), multiplex PCR and real-Time PCR improve detection of multiple tick-borne pathogens but are often expensive.^42,43 A recent study revealed that rapid antigen tests are approximately four times cheaper compared to PCR based detection of pathogens.⁴⁴ Low awareness among clinicians, nonspecific symptoms that resemble other febrile illnesses like Lyme disease, KFD and CCHF, limited training and insufficient funding frequently result in missed or delayed diagnosis.^9,45,46 A recent method by Kumar et al⁴⁰ proposed a rapid and cost-effective PCR protocol (∼95% cheaper and faster than commercial kits), though it still needs large-scale validation. Advanced diagnostics using proteomics, transcriptomics, and bioinformatics show promise for future improved detection.^40,47

3. Lack of transdisciplinary one-health system approaches

Despite the recognised interconnectedness among animal, human, and environmental/wildlife domains, central to the One Health approaches, India faces challenges in implementing effective transdisciplinary strategies to address TTBDs.^48,49 Current fragmented administrative structures, limited pooled funding, and disciplinary silos and training gaps hinder the opportunities to develop cross-disciplinary understanding or One Health thinking.^50-52 A recent study across the Americas, Europe, Africa, Asia, and Oceania showed wide variation in societal perceptions of TTBDs, emphasising the need for global One Health approaches.¹⁷ To address the gap, the National One Health Programme for Prevention and Control of Zoonoses (NOHP–PCZ) was launched in 2017 to promote cross-sectoral coordination, and the ICMR recently established the National Institute of One Health (NIOH), Nagpur, to strengthen research, surveillance and policy for zoonotic and emerging infections. Key One Health initiatives relevant to TTBDs in India are summarised in Table I.

Table I. Key One Health research projects on tick-borne diseases in India

Project name	Focus disease(s)	Objectives	Lead/Key institutions involved	Remarks
Monkey Fever Risk	Kyasanur Forest Disease (KFD)	Develop an interdisciplinary One Health risk framework; generate spatial risk maps and decision-support tools to reduce human exposure.	UKCEH; Karnataka Dept. of Health; ATREE; ICMR–NIE; ICMR–NITM; NCDC; ICAR–NIVEDI	Model One Health collaboration; highlights the feasibility of integrated approaches but lacks long-term policy uptake
IndiaZoo Risk+	KFD, Scrub Typhus, Leptospirosis	Understand disease dynamics in forest-dwelling populations; design culturally appropriate interventions.	UKCEH; NIVEDI; VGKK; ATREE; Anthra	Demonstrates success in community-led surveillance and multisectoral engagement, but outcomes are project-limited and not integrated into national surveillance.
ICMR–NIV Zoonotic Surveillance Studies	KFD, CCHF	Surveillance of animal reservoirs and tick vectors; diagnostics development; geographic risk mapping.	ICMR–NIV	Provides early warning and valuable virological insights, but animal-human data streams remain fragmented. Coordination with veterinary field systems is limited.
DST–SERB Wildlife–Zoonoses Interface Study	KFD, Rickettsial diseases	Investigate linkages between wildlife, vectors, and human populations in endemic zones; pilot predictive modelling.	Implemented via academic institutions like NCBS, ATREE and local state partners	Supports evidence-based modelling, but limited mechanisms for translating into district-level surveillance or response protocols.
NIVEDI–ICAR TTBD Short-Term Monitoring	Multiple tick-borne diseases in animals	Surveillance and risk mapping of tick prevalence and pathogen load in livestock; acaricide resistance studies.	In coordination with state veterinary departments	Crucial for understanding animal tick burden and diseases; however, project-based nature means inconsistent monitoring and weak One Health integration.
NIV–Zoonotic Spillover Risk Assessment (ZSR Project)	KFD, CCHF, emerging tick-borne viruses	Ecological sampling of high-risk zones; assess virus spillover risk from animals to humans.	ICMR–NIV, with collaboration from MoEFandCC and wildlife institutes	Important risk detection initiative but lacks consistent linkages with field-level response mechanisms or local health systems.
Global Virome Project – India Node	Emerging zoonotic viruses including tick-borne	Pathogen discovery and viral ecology in animal reservoirs and vectors in India’s biodiversity hotspots.	NIV, NIVEDI, and global collaborators	Supports upstream discovery, but implementation of response frameworks from this data remains a challenge due to lack of institutional convergence.
ICMR–VCRC Metagenomic Surveillance	Tick-borne pathogens (bacteria and viruses)	Molecular detection and profiling of pathogens in ticks and mites in Western Ghats.	ICMR–VCRC; VCEC	Generates new insights into pathogen diversity, but intersectoral data use and policy linkage are currently lacking. No routine TTBD data sharing mechanism.

UKCEH, UK Centre for Ecology and Hydrology; ICMR, Indian Council of Medical Research; NIE, National Institute of Epidemiology; NITM, National Institute of Traditional Medicine; NCDC, National Centre for Disease Control; NIVEDI, National Institute of Veterinary Epidemiology and Disease Informatics; VCRC, Vector Control Research Centre; VCEC, Vector Control Entomology Centre; DST–SERB, Department of Science and Technology – Science and Engineering Research Board; MoEF and CC, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change; ICAR, Indian Council of Agricultural Research; VGKK, Vivekananda Girijana Kalyana Kendra; ATREE, Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment

4. Limited awareness about TTBDs

The management of TBDs faces significant challenges due to inadequate animal health services and a lack of awareness about ticks among the rural communities.⁹ Many farmers remain unaware that ticks can transmit deadly pathogens to animals and humans. They often do not know the tick life cycle within cattle sheds, turning the livestock shelter into a tick breeding ground. Many are unclear about the status of acaricide resistance in local tick populations. This information gap hinders effective tick management. Qualitative study in Wayanad district, Kerala (endemic region for KFD), revealed that while more than 70% of local people frequently visits forests and 65.7% experienced tick bites, only 47.7% were aware of TBDs.⁵³ Similarly, a knowledge, attitude and practice (KAP) survey in Dhar district, Madhya Pradesh, reported only 25% of livestock owners had basic knowledge of TTBDs.⁵⁴

5. Emergence of acaricide resistance in ticks

Acaricide resistant ticks have emerged globally, negatively affecting livelihoods of small-scale producers.^55,56 The R. microplus and Hy. anatolicum are the most common tick species in India and therefore, the majority of studies on acaricide resistance development (ARD) have been conducted on these two tick species.^15,57 A systematic review and meta-analysis encompassing global data from 1992 to 2020 revealed that ARD was higher in R. microplus (66.2%) than in other tick species and it varies with geography, detection methods and acaricide compounds. However, Indian tick populations exhibit a high prevalence of resistance to most of the commonly available acaricides, with pooled estimates ranging from 68-78% with homogeneity in the ARD.⁵⁷ The consistency in data across studies indicates that the establishment of multi-acaricide-resistant tick populations in different parts of the country is a growing problem requiring attention.^15,57 It is exacerbated by inconsistent and unscientific acaricide application resulting in selection pressure for resistance to ticks against the particular acaricides, besides problems like residues in animal products and environmental pollution.^15,58

6. Non-availability of an effective and commercial anti-tick and pathogen vaccine

Vaccine development offers major advantages over chemical acaricides for controlling TTBDs.¹⁸ Despite nearly five decades of research, only five vaccines, TickGARD^TM/Gavac^TM and their advanced versions TickGARD^Plus and Gavac^plus and BovimuneIxovac®, have been commercialised and adopted in a limited number of countries.^59-61

Their efficacy in India is suboptimal or limited due to genetic variability,^62,63 as Indian Bm86 isolates share only 93.2% identity with TickGARD and 92.7% with Gavac™, causing reduced protection (44.5% against R. microplus and 25% against Hy. anatolicum Indian strains).⁶⁴ Multiple tick species infest Indian livestock, so ideal vaccines must be cross-protective.^7,65 Several vaccine candidates (subolesin, tropomyosin, calreticulin, tropomyosin and ferritin) were evaluated in pre-clinical trials but remain confined to the laboratory studies due to the necessity of refinement and validation using different adjuvants and delivery systems.^65-69 Further, research on epitope-based vaccines recorded 93–97% efficacy against Hy.anatolicum larvae and 86–89% efficacy against adults.⁷⁰ Progress of vaccines in India is hindered by limited funding, fragmented research and lack of public-private partnerships.⁵ Meanwhile, no licensed vaccine exists for CCHF, underscoring a broader gap in TBDs preparedness in India.⁸ Whereas, United States developed and licensed inactivated vaccine against tick-borne encephalitis (TBE) virus, widely used across Europe and Asia.⁷¹ An inactivated KFD vaccine was used in endemic areas of Karnataka, however, due to limited protection, it was withdrawn in 2023.⁷² Among other leading vaccine indicatives, 6-valent OspA-based Lyme disease vaccine (VLA15) for prevention of Lyme disease is currently in the phase-3 clinical trials ( https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05477524). Pre-clinical vaccine candidates targeting severe fever with thrombocytopenia syndrome virus (SFTSV), and Powassan virus have also demonstrated promising protective efficacy in animal models.^73,74

Setting up a national surveillance system for TTBDs

Although India has implemented a number of surveillance programmes, none of these have a specific focus or agenda related to the monitoring, surveillance and management of TTBDs. Public health programmes by NVBDCP, IDSP, and NCDC focus primarily on mosquito-borne diseases, with less emphasis on TBDs and lacking standardised tick mapping across states. Urgent implementation of a national-level structured TTBDs surveillance system aligning with existing programmes is needed with the following objectives:

Objective 1. Creation of a national TTBDs surveillance task force

It should involve key researchers, policy makers, and farmers, working under the MoHFW to address the zoonotic impacts of TTBDs. The task force will arrange funding, oversee coordination and allocate resources according to planned activities among stakeholders ( Table II).

Table II. Collaborative roles of key stakeholders in the national One Health surveillance framework

Key stakeholder	Primary responsibility in the new system
Government (policy makers/ministries)	Mandating and Sustainable Funding of the national ‘One Health’ network; integrating surveillance data into national human and animal health and environmental policy. Promote intersectoral coordination
Research institutions and academia	Developing and validating new diagnostics tools and predictive risk models; leading innovation and advanced epidemiological analysis
Public health and veterinary services (field level)	Build Local capacity- Launch a nationwide training initiative to standardize field diagnostics, data collection, and awareness campaigns among frontline personnel to ensure the quality and utility of surveillance data and ensure targeted, localized interventions (e.g., tick control programmes)
Private sector (e.g., pharma and tech companies)	Developing and maintaining the digital infrastructure and tools; contributing to technology transfer, support diagnostics, vaccine and R and D
Funding bodies (Government and private organisations)	Utilize the predictive models and refined risk maps generated by the network to strategically allocate resources, shifting investment toward preventative, targeted interventions in areas of highest risk.
International partners (WHO, FAO, WAHO)	Technical and funding support

Objective 2. Development and collaboration between consortium of stakeholders

Effective TTBD management in India requires establishing a consortium of multidisciplinary stakeholders under the guidance of a national task force. Given the limited infrastructure of many institutions, coordinated collaboration is essential to develop a structured, monitorable action plan with equitable funding distribution. Promoting public-private partnerships (PPPs) will facilitate co-funding for specific research within the strategic objectives’ framework of the consortium. A comprehensive database tracking tick populations and disease incidence should be generated to identify hotspots and predict outbreaks. A unified digital platform linking veterinary and human health sectors will facilitate real-time outbreak prediction and enhance wildlife interface monitoring to assess and mitigate spill over risks. The task force will allocate resources based on prioritised activities, while industry partners contribute by translating research findings into practical health technologies.

Objective -3. Identification and strengthening of laboratories

Accurate identification of ticks plays an important role in pathogen specific diagnosis, epidemiological risk assessment, early outbreak response and ensuring timely intervention.³ Therefore, regional reference tick laboratories should be established, and national laboratories are to be upgraded to integrate TTBDs surveillance. Moreover, vector-borne diseases (VBDs) infrastructure and virus research and diagnostic laboratories (VRDLs) networks would strengthen surveillance. Animal health platforms such as National Animal Disease Control Programme (NADCP), All India Coordinated Research Project on Animal Disease Monitoring and Surveillance (AICRP-ADMAS) and Regional Disease Diagnostic Laboratories (RDDLs) can be leveraged for TTBD and acaricide resistance monitoring, with joint ICAR-ICMR guidelines for zoonotic TTBD prioritisation and data sharing. The DHR-ICMR can develop networking with AICRP-ADMAS and sharing data with VRDL network for human spillover risk assessment. Inclusion of human TTBDs as notifiable diseases under IDSP–IHIP, supported by the National One Health Mission, would enable integrated, efficient and nationwide TTBD surveillance.

Objective-4. Establishment of a national acaricide resistance-monitoring system and policy

Globally, ticks have developed resistance to several chemical acaricides, therefore, there is an urgent need to generate comprehensive data about the status and pattern of acaricide resistance across different agro-climatic zones of the country along with tick surveillance.^15,75,76 Resistance can emerge within five to ten years of acaricide introduction. Standardised state and zone-specific protocols, tools and SOPs for resistance monitoring against commonly used acaricides are essential.^76-79

Strengthening regulatory frameworks and policies through evidence-based surveillance will ensure acaricide quality, stewardship, and rational use. A national consortium involving manufacturers, regulators, and experts should be created to harmonise labelling, marketing, and usage of acaricidal products. Under a One Health framework, the animal health sector should lead field-level tick surveillance, acaricide resistance testing, and reporting through regional laboratories. It should also coordinate with manufacturers to ensure quality assurance, regulated use and stewardship of acaricides, while promoting community engagement through extension networks and krishi vigyan kendras (KVKs) for farmer training and rational acaricide use. In parallel, the human health sector-including the MoHFW, NCDC, and NCVBDC should focus on policy formulation, cross-sector data integration, and risk communication, ensuring that resistance trends in livestock and wildlife are effectively linked to potential human spillover risks. The Government of India should set up a National Acaricide Resistance Monitoring Laboratory to compile data and develop region-specific tick control guidelines for effective implementation.

Objective-5. International collaboration and knowledge sharing

Collaborations need to be developed with WHO, CDC (USA) and FAO supported targeted surveillance networks and research to strengthen TTBD control and foster global innovation. Partnering with international research institutions specializing in TBDs will improve the scientific output and help technology commercialisation. Utilising knowledge-sharing platforms like Global Vector Hub and VectorNet can provide access to global data on TTBDs⁸⁰ ( Table II).

Objective-6. Data communication strategies and data sharing practices

Strengthening extension services with effective data communication strategies and data sharing practices can create a significant grassroots-level impact on the management of TTBDs. Modernisation of the current surveillance and reporting systems by transitioning to near real-time digital data collection platforms such as mobile applications supported by centralised dashboards for data aggregation and analysis, with specific modules for TTBDs surveillance is needed ( Table II).

Extension workers can use local/regional data to advise farmers on pasture management, tick control, and rational acaricide use. Evidence-based training for farmers, veterinarians, and animal health workers will enhance acaricide stewardship and ITM practices.

The existing surveillance systems for TTBDs in various countries

Several countries have implemented successful national surveillance systems for vector-borne diseases, offering valuable lessons and evidence for India. The Netherlands utilises a coordinated One Health approach with strong community involvement, which has helped reduce tick bites and led to the discovery of new pathogens.⁸¹ The New York State rapidly expanded active surveillance to understand and manage the threat of the invasive H. longicornis ticks.²⁸ Finland successfully mapped shifting tick distributions and pathogens through large-scale citizen science efforts.⁸² In Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan, collaborative bio-surveillance initiatives analysed over 40,000 tick specimens, uncovering a broader distribution of tick-borne encephalitis virus than previously recognised, which has helped in risk assessments and targeted vaccination campaigns.⁸³

Few global examples highlighting effective active monitoring of tick-borne disease surveillance are depicted in Table III^84-87.

Table III. Global practices in tick and tick-borne diseases surveillance and achievements across regions

Country/Region	Approach	Technologies	Achievements
United States⁸⁴	Passive reporting via CDC–NNDSS Active surveillance through TickNET Public surveys on tick control practices.	GIS-based case mappingmolecular diagnostics via the Tick-Borne Disease Laboratory Network; integrated data platforms for national trend analysis.	Enabling early detection of expansions (Lyme disease in southern states); informed targeted interventions such as acaricide use in high-risk areas
Canada⁸⁵	Provincial reporting to the Public Health Agency Sentinel sites selection using spatial analysis	eTick platform for image-based tick identification; One Health integrated surveillance reports	10,150 Lyme cases tracked (2009-2019), with 71.3% confirmed; enhanced risk mapping in emerging areas, reducing underreporting by 20-30% through public engagement
Europe⁸⁶	EU-wide ECDC system for TBE and Lyme One Health-based surveillance integrating ecological data Cross-country data sharing via regional networks.	Open-access databases for outbreak tracking Environmental indicator analysis	Monitoring in 37 countries, with 26 reporting TBE cases (2020–2023), identified prevention gaps, leading to vaccination campaigns that averted ∼5,000 cases annually in endemic zones.
China⁸⁷	County-level field surveillance of ticks, hosts, and humans. Genomic/serological studies in forest zones National risk mapping of emerging agents.	High-resolution mapping Integrated surveillance	Identified 28 emerging TTBDs over the past decade, including 18 undetected cases in 2024 and county-scale data informed control in Inner Mongolia, preventing spillover in 2% of screened populations.

United States

The CDC oversees TBDs surveillance through programmes such as Tick-NET and the National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System (NNDSS),⁸⁴ which collect data on tick distribution, disease incidence, and emerging threats periodically. Individual states also operate their own surveillance programmes. In 2018, the CDC issued guidance and funding to states and established a tick surveillance data collection module within Arbo-NET surveillance.⁸⁸ The department of defence also runs a surveillance system to protect military personnel from vector-borne diseases and adapts preventive measures based on geographic risk.⁸⁹

Canada

The Health Department coordinates TBDs surveillance through the public health agency of Canada (PHAC) and the Canadian Lyme disease surveillance system, monitoring data and incidence, nationwide.⁹⁰

European Union

The European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) collaborates with EU member states through the VectorNet network, collecting data on vectors andpathogens that impact animal and human health across Europe.⁸⁰

Australia

Department of Health oversees surveillance for Lyme disease and other tick-borne diseases through the National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System (NNDSS). Additionally, individual state and territory may have their own surveillance programmes.⁹¹

Norway

The Norwegian Institute of Public Health (NIPH) conducts surveillance for TBDs, through the Norwegian Surveillance System for Communicable Diseases (MSIS), monitoring disease incidence, geographic distribution, and trends.⁹²

China

China has a robust TBDs surveillance system facilitating early detection of pathogenic and novel tick-borne viruses such as Xue-Cheng, Wetland, Jingmen tick, Dabieshan tick and Sichuan tick viruses causing febrile illness in humans and animals. The system uses a ‘Reverse Microbial Etiology Strategy’ to evaluate the pathogenic potential of newly identified tick-borne viruses even before outbreaks occur. This proactive approach supports rapid differential diagnosis and timely adoption of preventive measures.⁹³

How India can be benefitted from establishing TTBDs surveillance system

India’s economic growth is linked to agriculture and livestock, with 65-70% of the population resides in rural areas in close contact with domestic animals. This socio-ecological setting implies an estimated 50–60% of the rural population is at risk of tick bites and TBDs, increasing the pathogen emergence and public health crises.^19,94,95

A national TTBD surveillance system would facilitate systematic data collection to enable accurate assessment of the prevalence, incidence and geographical distribution of TTBDs in humans and animals. Long-term surveillance would identify seasonal patterns, geographical shifts and key risk factors supporting early warning and outbreak predictions. Such evidence would inform targeted, evidence-based policymaking, and optimise resource allocation and strengthen preparedness in high-risk regions. Surveillance data on acaricide resistance will enable the departments to purchase efficacious acaricides, guide animal owners about their proper use, and guide the development of alternatives such as phyto-acaricides and other eco-friendly control strategies to tackle acaricidal menace.⁹⁶ Region-specific data would improve diagnostic accuracy for healthcare providers, improve patient outcomes, thereby reducing the disease burden. By identifying hotspots, government agencies could allocate healthcare resources more efficiently, launch awareness campaigns in high-risk areas and implement Integrated Pest Management (IPM) strategies based on regional requirements.

Recognising the need of One health integrated approach, following the 2019 KFD outbreaks, community-based information campaigns in the Wayanad and Malappuram districts of Kerala adopted tailored approaches such as ASHA-led outreach, school-programmes and forest entry advisories and locally tailored tick-avoidance communications. These coordinated efforts of health, veterinary and forest departments improved preventive behaviours and early reporting of febrile illness highlights the integrated, community-focused interventions.^53,97 Scaling such region-specific, tailored One Health approaches would strengthen the control and prevention of TTBDs nationwide.

Conclusions

A strong surveillance system for TTBDs must adopt a One Health approach. A science-based, national surveillance network would address current gaps, enable early warnings and strengthen capacity to manage known TBDs and emerging threats ( Fig. 3). By systematically collecting and analysing data, we can better understand the transmission dynamics across regions and address environmental factors influencing them. This helps to assess risks, prioritise resource allocation, improve clinical care and inform policymaking while predicting outbreaks. By targeting interventions to the most affected areas, we can protect vulnerable populations efficiently. However, to achieve this, a long-term coordinated effort bringing together government agencies, researchers, and private partners is required. Such collaboration will foster innovation, build strong local capacity and ultimately reduce the burden of TBDs on public health and livestock and promote national economy.

Summary of key recommendations for tick and tick-born disease surveillance in Indian context.

Acknowledgement

Authors acknowledge Indian Council of Agricultural Research for awarding Emeritus Scientist Scheme to Dr. S. Ghosh of Indian Veterinary Research Institute. Authors also thank their respective institutions (Nanaji Deshmukh Veterinary Science University, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh and ICMR-National Institute of Traditional Medicine (NITM), Belagavi, Karnataka) for providing the necessary facilities and administrative support.

Author contributions

RK: Conceptualised the review, defined the intellectual content, literature search data analysis, manuscript writing; SG: Conceptualised the review, analysed the data, manuscript writing; HVM: Performed the literature search, data acquisition, data analysis, manuscript writing; BK: Involved in literature search, data analysis, manuscript writing. All authors have read and approve the final version of the manuscript.

Financial support and sponsorship

None.

Conflicts of Interest

None.

Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)-Assisted Technology for manuscript preparation

The authors confirm that there was no use of AI-assisted technology for assisting in the writing of the manuscript and no images were manipulated using AI.

References

de la Fuente J, Antunes S, Bonnet S, Cabezas-Cruz A, Domingos AG, Estrada-Peña A, et al. Tick-pathogen interactions and vector competence: Identification of molecular drivers for tick-borne diseases. Front Cell Infect Microbiol.. 2017;7:114.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central] [Google Scholar]
Shah SZ, Jabbar B, Ahmed N, Rehman A, Nasir H, Nadeem S, et al. Epidemiology, pathogenesis, and control of a tick-borne disease- Kyasanur forest disease: Current status and future directions. Front Cell Infect Microbiol.. 2018;8:149.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central] [Google Scholar]
Dantas-Torres F, Chomel BB, Otranto D. Ticks and tick-borne diseases: A one health perspective. Trends Parasitol.. 2012;28:437-46.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Kumar B, Manjunathachar HV, Ghosh S. A review on Hyalomma species infestations on human and animals and progress on management strategies. Heliyon.. 2020;6:e05675.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central] [Google Scholar]
Ghosh S, Nagar G. Problem of ticks and tick-borne diseases in India with special emphasis on progress in tick control research: A review. J Vector Borne Dis.. 2014;51:259-70.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Negi T, Kandari LS, Arunachalam K. Update on prevalence and distribution pattern of tick-borne diseases among humans in India: A review. Parasitol Res.. 2021;120:1523-39.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central] [Google Scholar]
ncdc.mohfw.gov.in [homepage on Internet]. New Delhi: National Centre for Disease Control. Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India [updated 2026 April 7]. Available from: https://ncdc.mohfw.gov.in/, accessed on December 31, 2025.
Mourya DT, Yadav PD, Patil DY, Sahay RR, Rahi M. Experiences of Indian Council of Medical Research with tick-borne zoonotic infections: Kyasanur Forest disease Crimean-Congo haemorrhagic fever in India with one health focus. Indian J Med Res.. 2021;153:339-47.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central] [Google Scholar]
Manjunathachar HV, Raut CG, Tiwari P, Chouksey V, Barde PV, Yadav PD, et al. Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever virus prevalence in livestock of Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh, Central India and its implications for public health. Res Vet Sci.. 2024;171:105243.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Praharaj AK, Jetley S, Kalghatgi AT. Seroprevalence of borrelia burgdorferi in North Eastern India. Med J Armed Forces India.. 2008;64:26-8.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central] [Google Scholar]
Babu K, Murthy KR, Bhagya M, Murthy PR, Puttamallesh VN, Ravi V. Seroprevalence of Lyme disease in the Nagarahole and Bandipur forest areas of South India. Indian J Ophthalmol.. 2020;68:100-5.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central] [Google Scholar]
Eisen RJ, Kugeler KJ, Eisen L, Beard CB, Paddock CD. Tick-borne zoonoses in the United States: Persistent and emerging threats to human health. ILAR J.. 2017;58:319-35.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central] [Google Scholar]
Keesing F, Ostfeld RS. Impacts of biodiversity and biodiversity loss on zoonotic diseases. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A.. 2021;118:e2023540118.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central] [Google Scholar]
Ghosh S, Azhahianambi P, de la Fuente Jé. Control of ticks of ruminants, with special emphasis on livestock farming systems in India: Present and future possibilities for integrated control—a review. Exp Appl Acarol.. 2006;40:49-66.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Kumar R, Sharma AK, Ghosh S. Menace of acaricide resistance in cattle tick, Rhipicephalus microplus, in India: status and possible mitigation strategies. Vet Parasitol.. 2020;278:108993.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Deuschle C, Ehtesham Z, Garcia CA, Thomson C, Walsh MC, Berger J, et al. A baseline survey of funding and activity for tick-borne diseases and associated illnesses in the United States. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4622541.
de la Fuente J, Estrada-Peña A, Rafael M, Almazán C, Bermúdez S, Abdelbaset AE, et al. Perception of ticks and tick-borne diseases worldwide. Pathogens.2023. ;12:1258.
[Google Scholar]
Estrada-Peña A, Mallón AR, Bermúdez S, de la Fuente J, Domingos A, García MPE, et al. One health approach to identify research needs on rhipicephalus microplus ticks in the Americas. Pathogens.. 2022;11:1180.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central] [Google Scholar]
Balakrishnan N. Emerging and re-emerging tick-borne diseases of public health importance in India. J Vector Borne Dis.. 2020;52:27-32.
[Google Scholar]
Johnson N, Phipps LP, Hansford KM, Folly AJ, Fooks AR, Medlock JM, et al. One health approach to tick and tick-borne disease surveillance in the United Kingdom. Int J Environ Res Public Health.. 2022;19:5833.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central] [Google Scholar]
Ghosh S, Kumar B, Tripathi AK, Jha A, Singh SK, Sharma A, et al. Tick management with a one health approach. Indian J Comp Microbiol Immunol Infect Dis.. 2023;44:1-10.
[Google Scholar]
Minjauw B, McLeod A. Tick-borne diseases and poverty: The impact of ticks and tick-borne diseases on the livelihood of small-scale and marginal livestock owners in India and eastern and southern Africa. Research report. DFID Animal Health Programme.. 2003;124
[Google Scholar]
Singh K, Kumar S, Sharma AK, Jacob SS, RamVerma M, Singh NK, et al. Economic impact of predominant ticks and tick-borne diseases on Indian dairy production systems. Exp Parasitol.. 2022;243:108408.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Perumalsamy N, Sharma R, Subramanian M, Nagarajan SA. Hard ticks as vectors: The emerging threat of tick-borne diseases in India. Pathogens.. 2024;13:556.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central] [Google Scholar]
Hook SA, Jeon S, Niesobecki SA, Hansen AP, Meek JI, Bjork JKH, et al. Economic burden of reported lyme disease in high-incidence areas, United States, 2014-2016. Emerg Infect Dis.. 2022;28:1170-9.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central] [Google Scholar]
Mitcham JR, Barrett AW, Gruntmeir JM, Holland T, Martin JE, Johnson EM, et al. Active surveillance to update county scale distribution of four tick species of medical and veterinary importance in Oklahoma. J Vector Ecol.. 2017;42:60-73.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Mourya DT, Yadav PD, Patil DY. Expediency of dengue illness classification: The Sri Lankan perspective Highly infectious tick-borne viral diseases: Kyasanur forest disease and Crimean-Congo haemorrhagic fever in India. WHO South-East Asia J Public Health.. 2014;3:8.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
ASTHO (Association of State and Territorial Health Officials). Case studies in tick surveillance and tick-borne disease prevention. Available from: https://www.astho.org/globalassets/report/case-studies-in-tick-surveillance-and-tick-borne-disease, accessed on December 30, 2025.
Nchu F, Nyangiwe N, Muhanguzi D, Nzalawahe J, Nagagi YP, Msalya G, et al. Development of a practical framework for sustainable surveillance and control of ticks and tick-borne diseases in Africa. Vet World.. 2020;13:1910-21.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central] [Google Scholar]
Gray JS, Dautel H, Estrada-Pena A, Kahl O, Lindgren E. Effects of climate change on ticks and tick‐borne diseases in Europe. Interdiscip Perspect Infect Dis.. 2009;1:593232.
[Google Scholar]
Singh NK, Rath SS. Epidemiology of ixodid ticks in cattle population of various agro-climatic zones of Punjab, India. Asian Pac J Trop Med.. 2013;6:947-51.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Sharma K, Sharma D, Moudgil AD, Kumar P, Thakur D. Spatial surveillance and risk factor assessment of ixodid ticks in cattle population of Himachal Shivalik hill zone of North-Western Himalayas. Int J Acarology.. 2021;47:284-8.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Debbarma A, Pandit S, Jas R, Baidya S, Mandal SC, Jana PS. Prevalence of hard tick infestations in cattle of West Bengal, India. Biological Rhythm Research.. 2018;49:655-62.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Elango A, Shriram AN, Raju HK, Kumar A. Study on the Ixodid ticks-species diversity (Acari: Ixodidae) on domestic ruminants in different agro-climatic regions of Tamil Nadu. Trop Anim Health Prod.. 2024;56:73.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Kandi S, Chennuru S, Chitichoti J, Metta M, Krovvidi S. Morphological and molecular characterization of ticks infesting cattle and buffaloes in different agro-climatic zones in Andhra Pradesh, India, and factors associated with high tick prevalence. International Journal of Acarology.. 2022;48:192-200.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Balasubramanian R, Yadav PD, Sahina S, Nadh VA. The species distribution of ticks the prevalence of Kyasanur forest disease virus in questing nymphal ticks from Western Ghats of Kerala, South India. Indian J Med Res.. 2021;154:743-9.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central] [Google Scholar]
Cissé G, McLeman R, Adams H, Aldunce P, Bowen K, Campbell-Lendrum D, et al. Chapter 7: Health, wellbeing and the changing structure of communities. In: Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability.. Cambridge University Press; 2022. p. :1041-170.
[Google Scholar]
Bhangale TJ, Narladkar JN. Predicting the potential distribution of the cattle tick Rhipicephalus microplus (Acari: Ixodidae) under current and future climate change scenarios in India using ecological niche modelling. Vet Parasitol Reg Stud Reports.. 2023;43:100567.
[Google Scholar]
Waltner-Toews D. Zoonoses, One Health and complexity: Wicked problems and constructive conflict. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol. 2017;372:20160171.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Kumar B, Brahmbhatt NN, Thakre B, Maharana BR, Parmar VL, Kumar M. Molecular identification of haemoparasites in animals using blood lysate PCR: A quick and inexpensive alternative to purified whole genomic DNA. Anim Biotechnol.. 2024;35:2390935.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central] [Google Scholar]
Contreras-Ferro R, Trueba JM, Sánchez-Mora P, Escudero R, Sánchez-Seco MP, Montero E, et al. Why an integrated approach to tick-borne pathogens (Bacterial, Viral, and Parasitic) is important in the diagnosis of clinical cases. Trop Med Infect Dis.. 2024;9:272.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central] [Google Scholar]
Mohmad A, Saravanan BC, Manjunathachar HV, Chandra D, Ahmad SF, Malla WA, et al. A multi-copy nucleic acid-based diagnostic test for bovine tropical theileriosis. Acta Parasitol.. 2022;67:504-10.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central] [Google Scholar]
Cardenas-Cadena SA, Castañeda-Lopez ME, Mollinedo-Montaño FE, Vazquez-Reyes S, Lara-Arias J, Marino-Martinez IA, et al. Tick-borne pathogens screening using a multiplex real-time polymerase chain reaction-based method. Acta Parasitol.. 2023;68:705-10.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central] [Google Scholar]
Polechová J, Johnson KD, Payne P, Crozier A, Beiglböck M, Plevka P, et al. SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen tests provide benefits for epidemic control - observations from Austrian schools. J Clin Epidemiol.. 2022;145:14-9.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central] [Google Scholar]
Sondhiya G, Manjunathachar HV, Singh P, Kumar R. Unveiling the burden of scrub typhus in acute febrile illness cases across India: A systematic review meta-analysis. Indian J Med Res.. 2024;159:601-18.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central] [Google Scholar]
Branda JA, Body BA, Boyle J, Branson BM, Dattwyler RJ, Fikrig E, et al. Advances in serodiagnostic testing for Lyme disease are at hand. Clin Infect Dis.. 2018;66:1133-9.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central] [Google Scholar]
Verma R, Das G, Manjunathachar H.V, Muwel N. Advances in diagnostics of parasitic diseases: Current trends and future prospects. Int J Curr Microbiol App Sci.. 2018;7:3261-77.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Bhatia R. National framework for one health. New Delhi: FAO;2021.
Purse B, Burthe S, Narayanswamy D, Vanak A, Oomen M, Rahman M, et al. A one health ecosystem approach for understanding and mitigating spill-over of tick-borne diseases in India’s degraded forests. One Health Cases 2023:ohcs20230011. doi: 10.1079/onehealthcases.2023.0011.
[Google Scholar]
Dasgupta R, Tomley F, Alders R, Barbuddhe SB, Kotwani A. Adopting an intersectoral One Health approach in India: Time for one health committees. Indian J Med. 2021;153:281-6.
[Google Scholar]
Strupat C, Yasobant S, Srigiri SR, Subramanian SV. Overcoming silos for one health: Key determinants of One Health governance platforms in low- and lower-middle-income countries. IDOS Discussion Paper 13/2025. Bonn: German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS) 2025 doi: 10.23661/idp13.2025
[Google Scholar]
Zortman I, de Garine-Wichatitsky M, Arsevska E, Dub T, Van Bortel W, Lefrançois E, et al. A social-ecological systems approach to tick bite and tick-borne disease risk management: Exploring collective action in the Occitanie region in southern France. One Health.. 2023;17:100630.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central] [Google Scholar]
Sidhik S, Santhosh S, Rathinam B. Knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding ticks, tick-borne diseases and ethnomedicine among an at-risk population in Kerala. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis.. 2024;24:86-94.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Jamra S, Shakya M, Jayraw AK, Agrawal V, Singh M, Sharma AK, et al. Assessment of farmers’ knowledge, attitudes and control practices (KAP) to mitigate acaricide resistance and tick-borne diseases. Parasitology.. 2024;151:971-82.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central] [Google Scholar]
Githaka NW, Kanduma EG, Wieland B, Darghouth MA, Bishop RP. Acaricide resistance in livestock ticks infesting cattle in Africa: Current status and potential mitigation strategies. Curr Res Parasitol Vector Borne Dis.. 2022;2:100090.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central] [Google Scholar]
Rojas-Cabeza JF, Moreno-Cordova EN, Ayala-Zavala JF, Ochoa-Teran A, Sonenshine DE, Valenzuela JG, et al. A review of acaricides and their resistance mechanisms in hard ticks and control alternatives with synergistic agents. Acta Trop.. 2025;261:107519.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central] [Google Scholar]
Dzemo WD, Thekisoe O, Vudriko P. Development of acaricide resistance in tick populations of cattle: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Heliyon.. 2022;8:e08718.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central] [Google Scholar]
de Oliveira Souza Higa L, Garcia MV, Barros JC, Koller WW, Andreotti R. Acaricide resistance status of the Rhipicephalus microplus in Brazil: a literature overview. Med Chem.. 2015;5:326-33.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
de la FuenteJ, ContrerasM. Tick vaccines: Current status and future directions. Expert Rev Vaccines.. 2015;14:1367-76.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
de la Fuente J, Almazán C, Canales M, Pérez de la Lastra JM, Kocan KM, Willadsen P. A ten-year review of commercial vaccine performance for control of tick infestations on cattle. Anim Health Res Rev.. 2007;8:23-8.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Muhanguzi D, Ndekezi C, Nkamwesiga J, Kalayou S, Ochwo S, Vuyani M, et al. Anti-tick vaccines: Current advances and future prospects. Methods Mol Biol.. 2022;2411:253-67.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central] [Google Scholar]
Sankar M, Kumar B, Manjunathachar HV, Parthasarathi BC, Nandi A, Neethu CKS, et al. Genetic diversity of Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus for a global scenario: A comprehensive review. Pathogens.. 2024;13:516.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central] [Google Scholar]
Parthasarathi BC, Kumar B, Nagar G, Manjunathachar HV, de la Fuente J, Ghosh S. Analysis of genetic diversity in Indian isolates of rhipicephalus microplus based on Bm86 gene sequence. Vaccines (Basel).. 2021;9:194.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central] [Google Scholar]
Kumar B, Murugan K, Ray DD, Ghosh S. Efficacy of rBm86 against Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus (IVRI-I line) and Hyalomma anatolicum anatolicum (IVRI-II line) infestations on bovine calves. Parasitol Res.. 2012;111:629-35.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Manjunathachar HV, Kumar B, Parthasarathi BC, Chigure GM, Saravanan BC, Sankar M, et al. Cocktail vaccine for the management of Hyalomma anatolicum and rhipicephalus microplus. Front Immunol.. 2024;15:1471317.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central] [Google Scholar]
Kumar B, Manjunathachar HV, Nagar G, Ravikumar G, de la Fuente J, Saravanan BC, et al. Functional characterization of candidate antigens of Hyalomma anatolicum and evaluation of its cross-protective efficacy against Rhipicephalus microplus. Vaccine.. 2017;35:5682-9.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Manjunathachar HV, Saravanan BC, Kumar B, Paramasivam T, Sharma AK, Shinde S, et al. Expression and determination of immunization dose of recombinant tropomyosin protein of Hyalomma anatolicum for the development of anti-tick vaccine. Indian J of Anim Sci.. 2017;87
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Manjunathachar HV, Kumar B, Saravanan BC, Choudhary S, Mohanty AK, Nagar G, et al. Identification and characterization of vaccine candidates against Hyalomma anatolicum-Vector of Crimean-Congo haemorrhagic fever virus. Transbound Emerg Dis.. 2019;66:422-34.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Parthasarathi BC, Kumar B, Bhure SK, Sharma AK, Manisha N, Nagar G, et al. Co-immunization efficacy of recombinant antigens against rhipicephalus microplus and hyalomma anatolicum tick infestations. Pathogens.. 2023;12:433.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central] [Google Scholar]
Nandi A, Manisha, Solanki V, Tiwari V, Sajjanar B, Sankar M, et al. Protective efficacy of multiple epitope-based vaccine against Hyalomma anatolicum, vector of theileria annulata and crimean congo haemorrhagic fever virus. Vaccines.. 2023;11:881.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central] [Google Scholar]
Hills SL, Poehling KA, Chen WH, Staples JE. Tick-borne encephalitis vaccine: Recommendations of the advisory committee on immunization practices, United States, 2023. MMWR Recomm Rep.. 2023;72:1-29.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central] [Google Scholar]
Kasabi GS, Murhekar MV, Yadav PD, Raghunandan R, Kiran SK, Sandhya VK, et al. Kyasanur forest disease, India, 2011-2012. Emerg Infect Dis.. 2013;19:278-81.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central] [Google Scholar]
Kim D, Lai CJ, Cha I, Jung JU. Current progress of severe fever with thrombocytopenia syndrome virus (SFTSV) vaccine development. Viruses.. 2024;16:128.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central] [Google Scholar]
González-Cueto E, de la Fuente J, López-Camacho C. Potential of mRNA-based vaccines for the control of tick-borne pathogens in one health perspective. Front Immunol.. 2024;15:1384442.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central] [Google Scholar]
Kumar S, Sharma AK, Kumar B, Shakya M, Patel JA, Kumar B, et al. Characterization of deltamethrin, cypermethrin, coumaphos and ivermectin resistance in populations of Rhipicephalus microplus in India and efficacy of an antitick natural formulation prepared from Ageratum conyzoides. Ticks Tick Borne Dis.. 2021;12:101818.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Ghosh S, Kumar R, Nagar G, Kumar S, Sharma AK, Srivastava A, et al. Survey of acaricides resistance status of Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus collected from selected places of Bihar, an eastern state of India. Ticks Tick-Borne Dis.. 2015;6:668-75.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Obaid MK, Islam N, Alouffi A, Khan AZ, da Silva Vaz I, Tanaka T, et al. Acaricides resistance in ticks: Selection, diagnosis, mechanisms, and mitigation. Front Cell Infect Microbiol.. 2022;12:941831.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central] [Google Scholar]
Fular A, Sharma AK, Kumar S, Nagar G, Chigure G, Ray DD, et al. Establishment of a multi-acaricide resistant reference tick strain (IVRI-v) of Rhipicephalus microplus. Ticks Tick Borne Dis.. 2018;9:1184-91.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Ghosh S, Gupta S, Ajith Kumar KG, Sharma AK, Kumar S, Nagar G, et al. Characterization and establishment of a reference deltamethrin and cypermethrin resistant tick line (IVRI-IV) of Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus. Pestic Biochem Physiol.. 2017;138:66-70.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Wint GRW, Balenghien T, Berriatua E, Braks M, Marsboom C, Medlock J, et al. VectorNet: Collaborative mapping of arthropod disease vectors in Europe and surrounding areas since 2010. Euro Surveill.. 2023;28:2200666.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central] [Google Scholar]
Garcia-Vozmediano A, De Meneghi D, Sprong H, Portillo A, Oteo JA, Tomassone L. A one health evaluation of the surveillance systems on tick-borne diseases in the Netherlands, Spain and Italy. Vet Sci.. 2022;9:504.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central] [Google Scholar]
Laaksonen M, Sajanti E, Sormunen JJ, Penttinen R, Hänninen J, Ruohomäki K, et al. Crowdsourcing-based nationwide tick collection reveals the distribution of Ixodes ricinus and i. persulcatus and associated pathogens in Finland. Emerg Microbes Infect.. 2017;6:e31.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central] [Google Scholar]
Hay J, Yeh KB, Dasgupta D, Shapieva Z, Omasheva G, Deryabin P, et al. Biosurveillance in central Asia: Successes and challenges of tick-borne disease research in Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan. Front Public Health.. 2016;4:4.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central] [Google Scholar]
Centres for Disease Control and Prevention. Tick-borne disease surveillance data summary. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/ticks/data-research/facts-stats/tickborne-disease-surveillance-data-summary.html, accessed on December 31, 2025.
Gasmi S, Koffi JK, Nelder MP, Russell C, Graham-Derham S, Lachance L, et al. Surveillance for Lyme disease in Canada, 2009-2019. Can Commun Dis Rep.. 2022;48:219-27.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central] [Google Scholar]
Angulo FJ, Halsby K, Davidson A, Ravikumar S, Pilz A, Stark JH, et al. Publicly available surveillance data on tick-borne encephalitis in Europe, 2023. Ticks Tick Borne Dis.. 2024;15:102388.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Wu YF, Zhang MZ, Su XL, Wang YF, Du LF, Cui XM, et al. Emerging tick-borne diseases in mainland China over the past decade: A systematic review and mapping analysis. Lancet Reg Health West Pac.. 2025;59:101599.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central] [Google Scholar]
Mader EM, Ganser C, Geiger A, Harrington LC, Foley J, Smith RL, et al. A survey of tick surveillance and control practices in the United States. J Med Entomol.. 2021;58:1503-12.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central] [Google Scholar]
Stidham RA, Cole R, Mabila SL. The four most frequently diagnosed vector-borne diseases among service member and non-service member beneficiaries in the geographic combatant commands, 2010-2022. MSMR.. 2024;31:14-6.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central] [Google Scholar]
Government of Canada. Public Health Agency of Canada. Lyme disease surveillance in Canada. Available from: https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/diseases/lyme-disease/surveillance-lyme-disease.html, accessed on December 31, 2025.
Australian Centre for Disease Control. National notifiable diseases surveillance system (NNDSS). Available from: https://www.health.gov.au/our-work/nndss, accessed on December 31, 2025.
Norwegian Institute of Public Health. Norwegian surveillance system for communicable diseases (MSIS). Available from: https://www.fhi.no/en/hn/health-registries/msis/, accessed on December 31, 2025.
Zhao GP, Wang YX, Fan ZW, Ji Y, Liu MJ, Zhang WH, et al. Mapping ticks and tick-borne pathogens in China. Nat Commun.. 2021;12:1075.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central] [Google Scholar]
Manjunathachar HV, Saravanan BC, Kesavan M, Karthik K, Rathod P, Gopi M, et al. Economic importance of ticks and their effective control strategies. Asian Pacific J Trop Dis.. 2014;4:S770-9.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Rathod P, Hiremath S, Manjunathachar HV, Balaraj BL, Bangar Y. Adoption status of livestock innovations and factors affecting their adoption in Bidar district of Karnataka. Indian J Field Vet.. 2014;9:62-5.
[Google Scholar]
Kumar B, Manjunathachar HV, Ghosh S. A review on Hyalomma species infestations on human and animals and progress on management strategies. Heliyon.. 2020;6:e05675.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central] [Google Scholar]
Asaaga FA, Rahman M, Kalegowda SD, Mathapati J, Savanur I, Srinivas PN, et al. None of my ancestors ever discussed this disease before! How disease information shapes adaptive capacity of marginalised rural populations in India. PLoS Negl Trop Dis.. 2021;15:e0009265.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central] [Google Scholar]

Economic losses attributed to TTBDs in India

Current status of monitoring and surveillance of TTBDs in India

Challenges pertaining to TTBDs in India

1. Climate and environment
2. Diagnostic complexity of TBDs
3. Lack of transdisciplinary one-health system approaches
4. Limited awareness about TTBDs
5. Emergence of acaricide resistance in ticks
6. Non-availability of an effective and commercial anti-tick and pathogen vaccine

Setting up a national surveillance system for TTBDs

Objective 1. Creation of a national TTBDs surveillance task force
Objective 2. Development and collaboration between consortium of stakeholders
Objective -3. Identification and strengthening of laboratories
Objective-4. Establishment of a national acaricide resistance-monitoring system and policy
Objective-5. International collaboration and knowledge sharing
Objective-6. Data communication strategies and data sharing practices

The existing surveillance systems for TTBDs in various countries

United States
Canada
European Union
Australia
Norway
China

How India can be benefitted from establishing TTBDs surveillance system

Conclusions

Fulltext Views
5,312

PDF downloads
815

View/Download PDF
Download Citations

BibTeX
RIS

Show Sections

[1] de la Fuente J, Antunes S, Bonnet S, Cabezas-Cruz A, Domingos AG, Estrada-Peña A, et al. Tick-pathogen interactions and vector competence: Identification of molecular drivers for tick-borne diseases. Front Cell Infect Microbiol.. 2017;7:114.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central] [Google Scholar]

[2] Shah SZ, Jabbar B, Ahmed N, Rehman A, Nasir H, Nadeem S, et al. Epidemiology, pathogenesis, and control of a tick-borne disease- Kyasanur forest disease: Current status and future directions. Front Cell Infect Microbiol.. 2018;8:149.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central] [Google Scholar]

[3] Dantas-Torres F, Chomel BB, Otranto D. Ticks and tick-borne diseases: A one health perspective. Trends Parasitol.. 2012;28:437-46.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[4] Kumar B, Manjunathachar HV, Ghosh S. A review on Hyalomma species infestations on human and animals and progress on management strategies. Heliyon.. 2020;6:e05675.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central] [Google Scholar]

[5] Ghosh S, Nagar G. Problem of ticks and tick-borne diseases in India with special emphasis on progress in tick control research: A review. J Vector Borne Dis.. 2014;51:259-70.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[6] Negi T, Kandari LS, Arunachalam K. Update on prevalence and distribution pattern of tick-borne diseases among humans in India: A review. Parasitol Res.. 2021;120:1523-39.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central] [Google Scholar]

[7] ncdc.mohfw.gov.in [homepage on Internet]. New Delhi: National Centre for Disease Control. Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India [updated 2026 April 7]. Available from: https://ncdc.mohfw.gov.in/, accessed on December 31, 2025.

[8] Mourya DT, Yadav PD, Patil DY, Sahay RR, Rahi M. Experiences of Indian Council of Medical Research with tick-borne zoonotic infections: Kyasanur Forest disease Crimean-Congo haemorrhagic fever in India with one health focus. Indian J Med Res.. 2021;153:339-47.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central] [Google Scholar]

[9] Manjunathachar HV, Raut CG, Tiwari P, Chouksey V, Barde PV, Yadav PD, et al. Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever virus prevalence in livestock of Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh, Central India and its implications for public health. Res Vet Sci.. 2024;171:105243.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[10] Praharaj AK, Jetley S, Kalghatgi AT. Seroprevalence of borrelia burgdorferi in North Eastern India. Med J Armed Forces India.. 2008;64:26-8.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central] [Google Scholar]

[11] Babu K, Murthy KR, Bhagya M, Murthy PR, Puttamallesh VN, Ravi V. Seroprevalence of Lyme disease in the Nagarahole and Bandipur forest areas of South India. Indian J Ophthalmol.. 2020;68:100-5.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central] [Google Scholar]

[12] Eisen RJ, Kugeler KJ, Eisen L, Beard CB, Paddock CD. Tick-borne zoonoses in the United States: Persistent and emerging threats to human health. ILAR J.. 2017;58:319-35.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central] [Google Scholar]

[13] Keesing F, Ostfeld RS. Impacts of biodiversity and biodiversity loss on zoonotic diseases. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A.. 2021;118:e2023540118.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central] [Google Scholar]

[14] Ghosh S, Azhahianambi P, de la Fuente Jé. Control of ticks of ruminants, with special emphasis on livestock farming systems in India: Present and future possibilities for integrated control—a review. Exp Appl Acarol.. 2006;40:49-66.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[15] Kumar R, Sharma AK, Ghosh S. Menace of acaricide resistance in cattle tick, Rhipicephalus microplus, in India: status and possible mitigation strategies. Vet Parasitol.. 2020;278:108993.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[16] Deuschle C, Ehtesham Z, Garcia CA, Thomson C, Walsh MC, Berger J, et al. A baseline survey of funding and activity for tick-borne diseases and associated illnesses in the United States. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4622541.

[17] de la Fuente J, Estrada-Peña A, Rafael M, Almazán C, Bermúdez S, Abdelbaset AE, et al. Perception of ticks and tick-borne diseases worldwide. Pathogens.2023. ;12:1258.
[Google Scholar]

[18] Estrada-Peña A, Mallón AR, Bermúdez S, de la Fuente J, Domingos A, García MPE, et al. One health approach to identify research needs on rhipicephalus microplus ticks in the Americas. Pathogens.. 2022;11:1180.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central] [Google Scholar]

[19] Balakrishnan N. Emerging and re-emerging tick-borne diseases of public health importance in India. J Vector Borne Dis.. 2020;52:27-32.
[Google Scholar]

[20] Johnson N, Phipps LP, Hansford KM, Folly AJ, Fooks AR, Medlock JM, et al. One health approach to tick and tick-borne disease surveillance in the United Kingdom. Int J Environ Res Public Health.. 2022;19:5833.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central] [Google Scholar]

[21] Ghosh S, Kumar B, Tripathi AK, Jha A, Singh SK, Sharma A, et al. Tick management with a one health approach. Indian J Comp Microbiol Immunol Infect Dis.. 2023;44:1-10.
[Google Scholar]

[22] Minjauw B, McLeod A. Tick-borne diseases and poverty: The impact of ticks and tick-borne diseases on the livelihood of small-scale and marginal livestock owners in India and eastern and southern Africa. Research report. DFID Animal Health Programme.. 2003;124
[Google Scholar]

[23] Singh K, Kumar S, Sharma AK, Jacob SS, RamVerma M, Singh NK, et al. Economic impact of predominant ticks and tick-borne diseases on Indian dairy production systems. Exp Parasitol.. 2022;243:108408.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[24] Perumalsamy N, Sharma R, Subramanian M, Nagarajan SA. Hard ticks as vectors: The emerging threat of tick-borne diseases in India. Pathogens.. 2024;13:556.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central] [Google Scholar]

[25] Hook SA, Jeon S, Niesobecki SA, Hansen AP, Meek JI, Bjork JKH, et al. Economic burden of reported lyme disease in high-incidence areas, United States, 2014-2016. Emerg Infect Dis.. 2022;28:1170-9.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central] [Google Scholar]

[26] Mitcham JR, Barrett AW, Gruntmeir JM, Holland T, Martin JE, Johnson EM, et al. Active surveillance to update county scale distribution of four tick species of medical and veterinary importance in Oklahoma. J Vector Ecol.. 2017;42:60-73.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[27] Mourya DT, Yadav PD, Patil DY. Expediency of dengue illness classification: The Sri Lankan perspective Highly infectious tick-borne viral diseases: Kyasanur forest disease and Crimean-Congo haemorrhagic fever in India. WHO South-East Asia J Public Health.. 2014;3:8.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[28] ASTHO (Association of State and Territorial Health Officials). Case studies in tick surveillance and tick-borne disease prevention. Available from: https://www.astho.org/globalassets/report/case-studies-in-tick-surveillance-and-tick-borne-disease, accessed on December 30, 2025.

[29] Nchu F, Nyangiwe N, Muhanguzi D, Nzalawahe J, Nagagi YP, Msalya G, et al. Development of a practical framework for sustainable surveillance and control of ticks and tick-borne diseases in Africa. Vet World.. 2020;13:1910-21.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central] [Google Scholar]

[30] Gray JS, Dautel H, Estrada-Pena A, Kahl O, Lindgren E. Effects of climate change on ticks and tick‐borne diseases in Europe. Interdiscip Perspect Infect Dis.. 2009;1:593232.
[Google Scholar]

[31] Singh NK, Rath SS. Epidemiology of ixodid ticks in cattle population of various agro-climatic zones of Punjab, India. Asian Pac J Trop Med.. 2013;6:947-51.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[32] Sharma K, Sharma D, Moudgil AD, Kumar P, Thakur D. Spatial surveillance and risk factor assessment of ixodid ticks in cattle population of Himachal Shivalik hill zone of North-Western Himalayas. Int J Acarology.. 2021;47:284-8.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

[33] Debbarma A, Pandit S, Jas R, Baidya S, Mandal SC, Jana PS. Prevalence of hard tick infestations in cattle of West Bengal, India. Biological Rhythm Research.. 2018;49:655-62.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

[34] Elango A, Shriram AN, Raju HK, Kumar A. Study on the Ixodid ticks-species diversity (Acari: Ixodidae) on domestic ruminants in different agro-climatic regions of Tamil Nadu. Trop Anim Health Prod.. 2024;56:73.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[35] Kandi S, Chennuru S, Chitichoti J, Metta M, Krovvidi S. Morphological and molecular characterization of ticks infesting cattle and buffaloes in different agro-climatic zones in Andhra Pradesh, India, and factors associated with high tick prevalence. International Journal of Acarology.. 2022;48:192-200.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

[36] Balasubramanian R, Yadav PD, Sahina S, Nadh VA. The species distribution of ticks the prevalence of Kyasanur forest disease virus in questing nymphal ticks from Western Ghats of Kerala, South India. Indian J Med Res.. 2021;154:743-9.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central] [Google Scholar]

[37] Cissé G, McLeman R, Adams H, Aldunce P, Bowen K, Campbell-Lendrum D, et al. Chapter 7: Health, wellbeing and the changing structure of communities. In: Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability.. Cambridge University Press; 2022. p. :1041-170.
[Google Scholar]

[38] Bhangale TJ, Narladkar JN. Predicting the potential distribution of the cattle tick Rhipicephalus microplus (Acari: Ixodidae) under current and future climate change scenarios in India using ecological niche modelling. Vet Parasitol Reg Stud Reports.. 2023;43:100567.
[Google Scholar]

[39] Waltner-Toews D. Zoonoses, One Health and complexity: Wicked problems and constructive conflict. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol. 2017;372:20160171.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

[40] Kumar B, Brahmbhatt NN, Thakre B, Maharana BR, Parmar VL, Kumar M. Molecular identification of haemoparasites in animals using blood lysate PCR: A quick and inexpensive alternative to purified whole genomic DNA. Anim Biotechnol.. 2024;35:2390935.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central] [Google Scholar]

[41] Contreras-Ferro R, Trueba JM, Sánchez-Mora P, Escudero R, Sánchez-Seco MP, Montero E, et al. Why an integrated approach to tick-borne pathogens (Bacterial, Viral, and Parasitic) is important in the diagnosis of clinical cases. Trop Med Infect Dis.. 2024;9:272.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central] [Google Scholar]

[42] Mohmad A, Saravanan BC, Manjunathachar HV, Chandra D, Ahmad SF, Malla WA, et al. A multi-copy nucleic acid-based diagnostic test for bovine tropical theileriosis. Acta Parasitol.. 2022;67:504-10.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central] [Google Scholar]

[43] Cardenas-Cadena SA, Castañeda-Lopez ME, Mollinedo-Montaño FE, Vazquez-Reyes S, Lara-Arias J, Marino-Martinez IA, et al. Tick-borne pathogens screening using a multiplex real-time polymerase chain reaction-based method. Acta Parasitol.. 2023;68:705-10.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central] [Google Scholar]

[44] Polechová J, Johnson KD, Payne P, Crozier A, Beiglböck M, Plevka P, et al. SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen tests provide benefits for epidemic control - observations from Austrian schools. J Clin Epidemiol.. 2022;145:14-9.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central] [Google Scholar]

[45] Sondhiya G, Manjunathachar HV, Singh P, Kumar R. Unveiling the burden of scrub typhus in acute febrile illness cases across India: A systematic review meta-analysis. Indian J Med Res.. 2024;159:601-18.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central] [Google Scholar]

[46] Branda JA, Body BA, Boyle J, Branson BM, Dattwyler RJ, Fikrig E, et al. Advances in serodiagnostic testing for Lyme disease are at hand. Clin Infect Dis.. 2018;66:1133-9.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central] [Google Scholar]

[47] Verma R, Das G, Manjunathachar H.V, Muwel N. Advances in diagnostics of parasitic diseases: Current trends and future prospects. Int J Curr Microbiol App Sci.. 2018;7:3261-77.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

[48] Bhatia R. National framework for one health. New Delhi: FAO;2021.

[49] Purse B, Burthe S, Narayanswamy D, Vanak A, Oomen M, Rahman M, et al. A one health ecosystem approach for understanding and mitigating spill-over of tick-borne diseases in India’s degraded forests. One Health Cases 2023:ohcs20230011. doi: 10.1079/onehealthcases.2023.0011.
[Google Scholar]

[50] Dasgupta R, Tomley F, Alders R, Barbuddhe SB, Kotwani A. Adopting an intersectoral One Health approach in India: Time for one health committees. Indian J Med. 2021;153:281-6.
[Google Scholar]

[51] Strupat C, Yasobant S, Srigiri SR, Subramanian SV. Overcoming silos for one health: Key determinants of One Health governance platforms in low- and lower-middle-income countries. IDOS Discussion Paper 13/2025. Bonn: German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS) 2025 doi: 10.23661/idp13.2025
[Google Scholar]

[52] Zortman I, de Garine-Wichatitsky M, Arsevska E, Dub T, Van Bortel W, Lefrançois E, et al. A social-ecological systems approach to tick bite and tick-borne disease risk management: Exploring collective action in the Occitanie region in southern France. One Health.. 2023;17:100630.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central] [Google Scholar]

[53] Sidhik S, Santhosh S, Rathinam B. Knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding ticks, tick-borne diseases and ethnomedicine among an at-risk population in Kerala. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis.. 2024;24:86-94.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[54] Jamra S, Shakya M, Jayraw AK, Agrawal V, Singh M, Sharma AK, et al. Assessment of farmers’ knowledge, attitudes and control practices (KAP) to mitigate acaricide resistance and tick-borne diseases. Parasitology.. 2024;151:971-82.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central] [Google Scholar]

[55] Githaka NW, Kanduma EG, Wieland B, Darghouth MA, Bishop RP. Acaricide resistance in livestock ticks infesting cattle in Africa: Current status and potential mitigation strategies. Curr Res Parasitol Vector Borne Dis.. 2022;2:100090.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central] [Google Scholar]

[56] Rojas-Cabeza JF, Moreno-Cordova EN, Ayala-Zavala JF, Ochoa-Teran A, Sonenshine DE, Valenzuela JG, et al. A review of acaricides and their resistance mechanisms in hard ticks and control alternatives with synergistic agents. Acta Trop.. 2025;261:107519.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central] [Google Scholar]

[57] Dzemo WD, Thekisoe O, Vudriko P. Development of acaricide resistance in tick populations of cattle: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Heliyon.. 2022;8:e08718.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central] [Google Scholar]

[58] de Oliveira Souza Higa L, Garcia MV, Barros JC, Koller WW, Andreotti R. Acaricide resistance status of the Rhipicephalus microplus in Brazil: a literature overview. Med Chem.. 2015;5:326-33.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

[59] de la FuenteJ, ContrerasM. Tick vaccines: Current status and future directions. Expert Rev Vaccines.. 2015;14:1367-76.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[60] de la Fuente J, Almazán C, Canales M, Pérez de la Lastra JM, Kocan KM, Willadsen P. A ten-year review of commercial vaccine performance for control of tick infestations on cattle. Anim Health Res Rev.. 2007;8:23-8.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[61] Muhanguzi D, Ndekezi C, Nkamwesiga J, Kalayou S, Ochwo S, Vuyani M, et al. Anti-tick vaccines: Current advances and future prospects. Methods Mol Biol.. 2022;2411:253-67.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central] [Google Scholar]

[62] Sankar M, Kumar B, Manjunathachar HV, Parthasarathi BC, Nandi A, Neethu CKS, et al. Genetic diversity of Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus for a global scenario: A comprehensive review. Pathogens.. 2024;13:516.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central] [Google Scholar]

[63] Parthasarathi BC, Kumar B, Nagar G, Manjunathachar HV, de la Fuente J, Ghosh S. Analysis of genetic diversity in Indian isolates of rhipicephalus microplus based on Bm86 gene sequence. Vaccines (Basel).. 2021;9:194.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central] [Google Scholar]

[64] Kumar B, Murugan K, Ray DD, Ghosh S. Efficacy of rBm86 against Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus (IVRI-I line) and Hyalomma anatolicum anatolicum (IVRI-II line) infestations on bovine calves. Parasitol Res.. 2012;111:629-35.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[65] Manjunathachar HV, Kumar B, Parthasarathi BC, Chigure GM, Saravanan BC, Sankar M, et al. Cocktail vaccine for the management of Hyalomma anatolicum and rhipicephalus microplus. Front Immunol.. 2024;15:1471317.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central] [Google Scholar]

[66] Kumar B, Manjunathachar HV, Nagar G, Ravikumar G, de la Fuente J, Saravanan BC, et al. Functional characterization of candidate antigens of Hyalomma anatolicum and evaluation of its cross-protective efficacy against Rhipicephalus microplus. Vaccine.. 2017;35:5682-9.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[67] Manjunathachar HV, Saravanan BC, Kumar B, Paramasivam T, Sharma AK, Shinde S, et al. Expression and determination of immunization dose of recombinant tropomyosin protein of Hyalomma anatolicum for the development of anti-tick vaccine. Indian J of Anim Sci.. 2017;87
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

[68] Manjunathachar HV, Kumar B, Saravanan BC, Choudhary S, Mohanty AK, Nagar G, et al. Identification and characterization of vaccine candidates against Hyalomma anatolicum-Vector of Crimean-Congo haemorrhagic fever virus. Transbound Emerg Dis.. 2019;66:422-34.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[69] Parthasarathi BC, Kumar B, Bhure SK, Sharma AK, Manisha N, Nagar G, et al. Co-immunization efficacy of recombinant antigens against rhipicephalus microplus and hyalomma anatolicum tick infestations. Pathogens.. 2023;12:433.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central] [Google Scholar]

[70] Nandi A, Manisha, Solanki V, Tiwari V, Sajjanar B, Sankar M, et al. Protective efficacy of multiple epitope-based vaccine against Hyalomma anatolicum, vector of theileria annulata and crimean congo haemorrhagic fever virus. Vaccines.. 2023;11:881.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central] [Google Scholar]

[71] Hills SL, Poehling KA, Chen WH, Staples JE. Tick-borne encephalitis vaccine: Recommendations of the advisory committee on immunization practices, United States, 2023. MMWR Recomm Rep.. 2023;72:1-29.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central] [Google Scholar]

[72] Kasabi GS, Murhekar MV, Yadav PD, Raghunandan R, Kiran SK, Sandhya VK, et al. Kyasanur forest disease, India, 2011-2012. Emerg Infect Dis.. 2013;19:278-81.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central] [Google Scholar]

[73] Kim D, Lai CJ, Cha I, Jung JU. Current progress of severe fever with thrombocytopenia syndrome virus (SFTSV) vaccine development. Viruses.. 2024;16:128.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central] [Google Scholar]

[74] González-Cueto E, de la Fuente J, López-Camacho C. Potential of mRNA-based vaccines for the control of tick-borne pathogens in one health perspective. Front Immunol.. 2024;15:1384442.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central] [Google Scholar]

[75] Kumar S, Sharma AK, Kumar B, Shakya M, Patel JA, Kumar B, et al. Characterization of deltamethrin, cypermethrin, coumaphos and ivermectin resistance in populations of Rhipicephalus microplus in India and efficacy of an antitick natural formulation prepared from Ageratum conyzoides. Ticks Tick Borne Dis.. 2021;12:101818.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[76] Ghosh S, Kumar R, Nagar G, Kumar S, Sharma AK, Srivastava A, et al. Survey of acaricides resistance status of Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus collected from selected places of Bihar, an eastern state of India. Ticks Tick-Borne Dis.. 2015;6:668-75.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[77] Obaid MK, Islam N, Alouffi A, Khan AZ, da Silva Vaz I, Tanaka T, et al. Acaricides resistance in ticks: Selection, diagnosis, mechanisms, and mitigation. Front Cell Infect Microbiol.. 2022;12:941831.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central] [Google Scholar]

[78] Fular A, Sharma AK, Kumar S, Nagar G, Chigure G, Ray DD, et al. Establishment of a multi-acaricide resistant reference tick strain (IVRI-v) of Rhipicephalus microplus. Ticks Tick Borne Dis.. 2018;9:1184-91.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[79] Ghosh S, Gupta S, Ajith Kumar KG, Sharma AK, Kumar S, Nagar G, et al. Characterization and establishment of a reference deltamethrin and cypermethrin resistant tick line (IVRI-IV) of Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus. Pestic Biochem Physiol.. 2017;138:66-70.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[80] Wint GRW, Balenghien T, Berriatua E, Braks M, Marsboom C, Medlock J, et al. VectorNet: Collaborative mapping of arthropod disease vectors in Europe and surrounding areas since 2010. Euro Surveill.. 2023;28:2200666.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central] [Google Scholar]

[81] Garcia-Vozmediano A, De Meneghi D, Sprong H, Portillo A, Oteo JA, Tomassone L. A one health evaluation of the surveillance systems on tick-borne diseases in the Netherlands, Spain and Italy. Vet Sci.. 2022;9:504.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central] [Google Scholar]

[82] Laaksonen M, Sajanti E, Sormunen JJ, Penttinen R, Hänninen J, Ruohomäki K, et al. Crowdsourcing-based nationwide tick collection reveals the distribution of Ixodes ricinus and i. persulcatus and associated pathogens in Finland. Emerg Microbes Infect.. 2017;6:e31.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central] [Google Scholar]

[83] Hay J, Yeh KB, Dasgupta D, Shapieva Z, Omasheva G, Deryabin P, et al. Biosurveillance in central Asia: Successes and challenges of tick-borne disease research in Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan. Front Public Health.. 2016;4:4.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central] [Google Scholar]

[84] Centres for Disease Control and Prevention. Tick-borne disease surveillance data summary. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/ticks/data-research/facts-stats/tickborne-disease-surveillance-data-summary.html, accessed on December 31, 2025.

[85] Gasmi S, Koffi JK, Nelder MP, Russell C, Graham-Derham S, Lachance L, et al. Surveillance for Lyme disease in Canada, 2009-2019. Can Commun Dis Rep.. 2022;48:219-27.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central] [Google Scholar]

[86] Angulo FJ, Halsby K, Davidson A, Ravikumar S, Pilz A, Stark JH, et al. Publicly available surveillance data on tick-borne encephalitis in Europe, 2023. Ticks Tick Borne Dis.. 2024;15:102388.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[87] Wu YF, Zhang MZ, Su XL, Wang YF, Du LF, Cui XM, et al. Emerging tick-borne diseases in mainland China over the past decade: A systematic review and mapping analysis. Lancet Reg Health West Pac.. 2025;59:101599.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central] [Google Scholar]

[88] Mader EM, Ganser C, Geiger A, Harrington LC, Foley J, Smith RL, et al. A survey of tick surveillance and control practices in the United States. J Med Entomol.. 2021;58:1503-12.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central] [Google Scholar]

[89] Stidham RA, Cole R, Mabila SL. The four most frequently diagnosed vector-borne diseases among service member and non-service member beneficiaries in the geographic combatant commands, 2010-2022. MSMR.. 2024;31:14-6.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central] [Google Scholar]

[90] Government of Canada. Public Health Agency of Canada. Lyme disease surveillance in Canada. Available from: https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/diseases/lyme-disease/surveillance-lyme-disease.html, accessed on December 31, 2025.

[91] Australian Centre for Disease Control. National notifiable diseases surveillance system (NNDSS). Available from: https://www.health.gov.au/our-work/nndss, accessed on December 31, 2025.

[92] Norwegian Institute of Public Health. Norwegian surveillance system for communicable diseases (MSIS). Available from: https://www.fhi.no/en/hn/health-registries/msis/, accessed on December 31, 2025.

[93] Zhao GP, Wang YX, Fan ZW, Ji Y, Liu MJ, Zhang WH, et al. Mapping ticks and tick-borne pathogens in China. Nat Commun.. 2021;12:1075.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central] [Google Scholar]

[94] Manjunathachar HV, Saravanan BC, Kesavan M, Karthik K, Rathod P, Gopi M, et al. Economic importance of ticks and their effective control strategies. Asian Pacific J Trop Dis.. 2014;4:S770-9.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

[95] Rathod P, Hiremath S, Manjunathachar HV, Balaraj BL, Bangar Y. Adoption status of livestock innovations and factors affecting their adoption in Bidar district of Karnataka. Indian J Field Vet.. 2014;9:62-5.
[Google Scholar]

[96] Kumar B, Manjunathachar HV, Ghosh S. A review on Hyalomma species infestations on human and animals and progress on management strategies. Heliyon.. 2020;6:e05675.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central] [Google Scholar]

[97] Asaaga FA, Rahman M, Kalegowda SD, Mathapati J, Savanur I, Srinivas PN, et al. None of my ancestors ever discussed this disease before! How disease information shapes adaptive capacity of marginalised rural populations in India. PLoS Negl Trop Dis.. 2021;15:e0009265.
[CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central] [Google Scholar]

Ticks and tick-borne diseases: A call for comprehensive tick surveillance in India under One Health approach

Abstract

Keywords

Acaricides

India

One health

Surveillance system

Tick and tick-borne diseases

Zoonoses

Economic losses attributed to TTBDs in India

Current status of monitoring and surveillance of TTBDs in India

Challenges pertaining to TTBDs in India

1. Climate and environment

2. Diagnostic complexity of TBDs

3. Lack of transdisciplinary one-health system approaches

4. Limited awareness about TTBDs

5. Emergence of acaricide resistance in ticks

6. Non-availability of an effective and commercial anti-tick and pathogen vaccine

Setting up a national surveillance system for TTBDs

Objective 1. Creation of a national TTBDs surveillance task force

Objective 2. Development and collaboration between consortium of stakeholders

Objective -3. Identification and strengthening of laboratories

Objective-4. Establishment of a national acaricide resistance-monitoring system and policy

Objective-5. International collaboration and knowledge sharing

Objective-6. Data communication strategies and data sharing practices

The existing surveillance systems for TTBDs in various countries

United States

Canada

European Union

Australia

Norway

China

How India can be benefitted from establishing TTBDs surveillance system

Conclusions

Acknowledgement

Author contributions

Financial support and sponsorship

Conflicts of Interest

Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)-Assisted Technology for manuscript preparation

References

Suggested read for related articles: