One Health strategies are needed to control tick-borne disease

A new review emphasizes that tick and tick-borne disease control in the United States now requires a coordinated One Health strategy that accounts for changing tick distributions, wildlife and domestic animal hosts, environmental conditions, and human exposure patterns.Published online in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, the literature focuses on tick species of highest relevance to One Health practitioners, including Ixodes scapularis, Ixodes pacificus, Dermacentor variabilis, Dermacentor andersoni, Amblyomma americanum, Amblyomma maculatum, Rhipicephalus sanguineus sensu lato, and the invasive Haemaphysalis longicornis.¹

The review’s authors noted that endemic and emerging tick-borne diseases in humans and animals are increasing in frequency in the US and are likely influenced by land use change, human behavior, socioeconomic factors, animal trade and travel, environmental change, human-wildlife overlap, and improved pathogen detection.¹ For veterinary teams, the practical message is: tick prevention and tick-borne disease recognition can no longer rely on static geographic assumptions.

Tick ranges are shifting

The review highlights several clinically important distribution changes. I scapularis, the black-legged tick, remains distributed across the eastern US, extending west into the upper Midwest and Texas, but its range continues to expand. I pacificus, the western black-legged tick, is established along the Pacific Coast, with predicted range expansion.¹

The authors also described range expansion in A americanum, the lone star tick, across the eastern and south-central US, and A maculatum, the Gulf Coast tick, from Gulf Coast states into inland and northern areas. R sanguineus remains especially important in canine and kennel settings because it can complete its life cycle indoors and persist in homes and peridomestic environments.¹

The invasive longhorned tick, H longicornis, remains a species of growing concern. According to the review, the tick was first formally detected in North America on a domestic sheep in New Jersey in 2017, with earlier specimens retrospectively identified from West Virginia in 2010 and New Jersey in 2013. Since 2017, it has been detected in at least 21 states. Its parthenogenetic reproduction allows rapid population growth without mating, and its host range includes livestock, dogs, cats, wildlife, and humans.¹

Disease risk varies by vector, host, and region

The review organized major tick-borne disease threats into 4 clinically important groups: Lyme disease and hard tick relapsing fever, spotted fever rickettsioses, babesiosis, and anaplasmosis/ehrlichiosis.¹

Lyme disease, caused by Borrelia burgdorferi, is transmitted by I scapularis in the eastern US and I pacificus in the western US. The authors noted that white-footed mice and other small mammals and birds serve as reservoir hosts, whereas white-tailed deer support Ixodes reproduction. Dogs and horses may develop clinical signs, including lameness, swollen joints, lethargy, pyrexia, and renal or neurologic changes.¹

Spotted fever rickettsioses, including Rocky Mountain spotted fever, are associated with Rickettsia spp and transmitted by ticks such as the American dog tick, Rocky Mountain wood tick, brown dog tick, and Gulf Coast tick. The review noted that cases in humans peak in spring and summer and that dogs may show fever, lethargy, inappetence, edema, mucosal petechiae, ocular abnormalities, and potential organ damage.¹

Babesiosis is caused by intraerythrocytic Babesia protozoans. The review identified Babesia microti as the most common human agent in the US and noted species of veterinary importance in cattle, horses, and dogs. Clinical signs in animals may include fever, lethargy, pale mucous membranes, anemia, jaundice, weakness, hemoglobinuria, and reduced productivity.¹

Anaplasmosis and ehrlichiosis also are important across companion animal, equine, bovine, and human health. The review highlighted Anaplasma phagocytophilum, Anaplasma marginale, Ehrlichia chaffeensis, Ehrlichia ewingii, Ehrlichia canis, and the emerging human pathogen Ehrlichia muris eauclairensis. Clinical signs in animals may include fever, lethargy, anemia, weight loss, joint pain, edema, thrombocytopenia, icterus, labored breathing, aggressive behavior, and reduced productivity.¹

Diagnostic decisions should be clinically grounded

The authors emphasized that tick identification can help practitioners assess likely pathogen exposure and refine management recommendations. Morphologic identification remains the primary approach, although PCR-based species confirmation is becoming more common in specialized or research settings.¹

The review also cautioned against overinterpreting tick pathogen testing. Detection of a pathogen in a removed tick does not confirm infection in the bitten animal or person, and a negative result may falsely reassure clinicians or clients because another unnoticed tick bite may have occurred.¹

For animal patients, the review supports a diagnostic approach that integrates clinical signs, exposure and travel history, vector prevalence, geographic distribution, and assay results. In-clinic serologic assays can identify exposure to selected pathogens, but symptomatic patients may require confirmatory molecular testing through referral diagnostic laboratories.¹

Prevention requires integrated tick management

The review identifies integrated tick management as the most effective strategy to reduce tick bites and pathogen transmission. This approach combines chemical, cultural, and physical interventions rather than relying solely on acaricides.¹

In practice, that may include client education on habitat modification, wildlife exclusion, routine tick checks, prompt tick removal, and consistent use of species-appropriate preventives. The authors noted that management must account for tick biology. For example, treating dogs may be adequate for some American dog tick infestations, but brown dog tick infestations often require treatment and modification of the home environment because R sanguineus can infest indoor spaces.¹

The review summarized available acaricide options across species, including cattle treatments such as amidines, synthetic pyrethroids, organophosphates, and macrocyclic lactones; limited approved equine options; and multiple canine and feline products, including phenylpyrazoles, neonicotinoids, and isoxazolines. The authors specifically noted that topical pyrethroids must not be used in cats because of severe toxicity risk.¹

For tick removal, the review reinforced the standard recommendation: grasp the tick as close to the skin as possible and pull upward without twisting. Improper removal can agitate the tick or leave mouthparts embedded.¹

Takeaway

The expanding range of established vectors and the emergence of H longicornis reinforce the need for veterinarians to update tick risk assessments regularly. Practical management should combine regional vector awareness, patient-specific exposure history, judicious diagnostics, consistent preventives, environmental control, and client education.

A One Health approach is not an abstract public health concept in this setting. It is the framework veterinary teams need to connect canine, feline, equine, livestock, wildlife, environmental, and human risk—and to intervene before tick-borne disease becomes a clinical diagnosis.

Reference

1. Poh KC, Owen J, Williams L, Claude R, Eleftheriou A. Tick and tick-borne disease management requires an integrated One Health approach. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2026;264(7). doi:10.2460/javma.26.02.0153