The prevention and management of rabies
BMJ 2015; 350 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g7827 (Published 14 January 2015) Cite this as: BMJ 2015;350:g7827
All rapid responses
A decision on post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) after a bite by a rabies vaccinated dog should be based on the following Points.
1) Communication should be established if possible with the dog owner and the competent veterinary services. If the owner and the veterinary Services qualify the dog as suspected rabid, PEP should be initiatied immediately.
2) The biting dog should be put into quarantine and be observed for ten days.
3) The vaccination certificate of the dog should be checked and recorded.
4) If the biting dog is still alive after 10 days no PEP is necessary.
5) If the biting dog is dead after ten days its brain should be tested for rabies by Standard immunofluorescence and if it is tested positive PEP should be continued or initiated.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Should dog rabies vaccinations and their failures be considered in the decision of rabies post-exposure prophylaxis in humans?
Florence Ribadeau Dumas1 MD, Nadia Haddad3 DVM Professor, Philippe Gautret3,4 MD PHD
1 Paris Dauphine University, PSL Research University, Paris, France
2 ENVA – ANSES – INRA – UMR BIPAR, Ecole Nationale Vétérinaire d’Alfort, Maisons Alfort, France
3 Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Marseille, Marseille, France
4 Aix Marseille University, Marseille, France
To the Editor,
Crowcroft and Thampi’s review about prevention and management of rabies [1], reports that according to 2013 WHO recommendations, risk assessment for rabies post-exposure prophylaxis should be guided by many factors including notably, the vaccination status of the biting animal. Compared to previous WHO recommendations [2] stating that, in most situations in developing countries, the vaccination status of the animal involved should not be considered to determine whether to give or withhold rabies post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP), the 2013 WHO recommendation [3] provides a slight change which may have, in our opinion, important consequences.
Every year, worldwide, 15 million people receive a post-bite vaccination, and 55 000 are dying from rabies, in most of the cases after a dog bite in Asia or Africa without PEP [2]. According to the second WHO expert consultation on rabies in 2013 [3], PEP must be initiated immediately and “completed if the suspect animal is not available for testing or observation, but may be discontinued if the animal is proved by appropriate laboratory examination to be free of rabies. When the domestic dog, cat or ferret at the origin of human exposure is healthy, properly vaccinated (at least two documented vaccinations with a potent vaccine) and easily accessible for observation for 10 days, proper wound management should be ensured and human booster vaccination can be deferred, especially if the patient had received pre-exposure prophylaxis or previous PEP in the past 3 months”.
However, cases of rabies vaccination failure leading to clinical rabies have been reported in both developing [4] and developed countries [5–7], in dogs that have received one [6] or more [5,6] rabies vaccine injections including up-to-date vaccinations. Studies have confirmed the risk of animal vaccination failure (including both clinical failure with animal rabies cases and serological failure with rabies neutralizing antibodies that do not reach the 0.5 IU/ml recommended efficacy threshold). According to different epidemiological studies performed in the US between 1971 and 2001, 4 to 10% of rabid dogs had a history of vaccination [6]. In clinical animal studies, the proportion of vaccinated dogs with rabies neutralizing antibodies <0.5 IU/mL was 14.3-54.5% [7] 4-6 months after primary rabies vaccination.
As many risk factors are associated with vaccination failure, the probability to miss one of them when evaluating bitten patients should be considered. Among the factors affecting the probability of vaccination failure, the following reported factors can be mentioned:
- risk factors linked to dogs: age <6 month or >5 years [8], larger breeds [8], immunodeficiency or health status reported to alter the immune response [7,9] such as malnutrition, acute and chronic infection, cancer or pregnancy.
-risk factors linked with vaccine potency: vaccine brand and type [8,10], vaccine batch, vaccine storage [4] and country of delivery [7]. In some developing countries, vaccines are more likely to have been counterfeit, to have reached their expiration date or to have been stored in inappropriate conditions (compromised cold chain or stored out of direct light). In addition, in those countries, it is more likely that vaccines with low or null potency are commercialized on legal or illegal market [4]. These shortcomings, which are unacceptable for both animal and human rabies vaccines are probably more prevalent in animal vaccines than in human vaccines for which controls and pharmacovigilance are supposed to be stricter.
-factors linked with vaccine administration: number of vaccine doses administered since the primary vaccination [9,10], period of time since the last vaccination [8–10], administration route, respect of manufacturer’s recommendations regarding the route and frequency of injections, administration out of the supervision of a competent and authorized vet, fake vaccine certificates or misuse of the passport of a vaccinated dog for an unvaccinated dog (in developing countries but also in developed countries as recently reported between enzootic Eastern and Western European countries) [7].
Large scale dog vaccination can lead to canine rabies elimination in a country, especially when it is associated to appropriate complementary measures (animal identification, controlled circulation of domestic carnivores, stray dogs population control, removing of uncontrolled food sources) [3]. As rabies attack rates are drastically reduced when dogs are vaccinated, dog vaccination also has a protective effect towards owners and their relatives. However, the protection conferred by dog vaccination is not of sufficient certainty to allow in human PEP postponement in medium and high risk settings [9]. Except very specific and rare situations, delayed initiation of PEP increase PEP failures. Postponing PEP in low rabies risk settings when a biting dog is healthy, under observation and did not travel abroad, is acceptable [3] because the risk that it is contagious for rabies is extremely low. Doing this in a medium or high rabies endemic country could place patients at grave risk, whether the dog is vaccinated or not.
[1] Crowcroft NS, Thampi N. The prevention and management of rabies. BMJ 2015;350:g7827.
[2] World Health Organization. WHO Expert Consultation on Rabies. First report. World Health Organ Tech Rep Ser 2005;931:1–88.
[3] WHO expert consultation on rabies. Second report. WHO; 2013.
[4] Arya SC. Therapeutic failures with rabies vaccine and rabies immunoglobulin. Clin Infect Dis 1999;29:1605.
[5] David D, Bellaiche M, Yakobson BA. Rabies in two vaccinated dogs in Israel. Vet Rec 2010;167:907–8.
[6] Murray KO, Holmes KC, Hanlon CA. Rabies in vaccinated dogs and cats in the United States, 1997-2001. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2009;235:691–5.
[7] Klevar S, Høgåsen HR, Davidson RK, Hamnes IS, Treiberg Berndtsson L, Lund A. Cross-border transport of rescue dogs may spread rabies in Europe. Vet Rec 2015;176:672.
[8] Lorna J Kennedy ML. Factors influencing the antibody response of dogs vaccinated against rabies. Vaccine 2008;25:8500–7.
[9] Sage G, Khawplod P, Wilde H, Lobaugh C, Hemachudha T, Tepsumethanon W, et al. Immune response to rabies vaccine in Alaskan dogs: failure to achieve a consistently protective antibody response. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg 1993;87:593–5.
[10] F Cliquet YV. Neutralising antibody titration in 25,000 sera of dogs and cats vaccinated against rabies in France, in the framework of the new regulations that offer an alternative to quarantine. Rev Sci Tech Int Off Epizoot 2004;22:857–66.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Thank you to the contributors for their interest in the article on the prevention and management of rabies.
1. Response to Sabu Zacharia
The management of possible rabies exposures is based on a risk assessment, and a number of different factors need to be taken into consideration. The logic of discontinuing post exposure prophylaxis is based on whether the animal was infectious at the time of the bite given that it is healthy at the end of 10 days (or 15 days in the UK). If the animal is still healthy at the end of the observation period, it is extremely unlikely to have been infectious at the time of the bite even if it goes on subsequently to develop rabies. Although interesting, the paper by Mshelbwala et al does not follow healthy animals for 10 days to see whether they remain well. As it does not provide evidence that an animal with rabies virus antigen detected in its saliva on any particular day is infectious, or that such animals will subsequently remain well for 10 days, this appears to be insufficient evidence on which to change the current recommendation that prophylaxis may be discontinued if the animal is under observation and remains well.
2. Response to Neeru Gupta
Elimination is the correct technical terminology from a public health perspective. Elimination is defined as “Reduction of disease transmission to a predetermined very low level” (A dictionary of epidemiology by John Last, 4th Edition EIA 2001). Eradication (“termination of all transmission of infection through extermination of the infectious agent…”) would, however, not currently be feasible because of animal reservoirs including bats.
3. Response to Leopold Hamulczyk
Describing a country as rabies-free when this is only true of terrestrial rabies, but rabies-like viruses have been found in bats (the situation in both Australia and the UK) is certainly problematic. It creates challenges for communicating the risk of bat exposures to the public and health care professionals alike. This is something that the relevant authorities could consider changing.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Crowcroft and Thampy stress the importance of pre and post exposure vaccination to rabies, as it is a disease with a 100% mortality rate(1) Referring to Post exposure prophylaxis the authors are of the opinion that prophylaxis can be discontinued if the animal (dog or cat) remains well at the end of a 10 day observation period.(1) Is it wise to discontinue prophylaxis before completing the full course, as we are unsure about the concept of dogs(2) and cats in a “healthy carrier state”?
1 Natasha S Crowcroft, Nisha Thampi. The prevention and management of rabies. BMJ 2015;350:g7827. Doi:10.1136/bmj.g7827.
2 P.P. Mshelbwala, A.B.Oqunkoya, B.V. Maikai. Detection of Rabies Antigen in the Saliva and Brain of Apparently Healthy Dogs Slaughtered for Human Consumption and Its Public Health Implication in Abia State, Nigeria. ISRN Veterinary Science 2013; 2013:468043.Published online Dec12,2013. Doi :10.1155/2013/468043.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Elimination (getting rid of) word should not be used in context of Rabies as it is a zoonotic disease and reservoirs are mainly carnivores (both domestic and wild) and bats which cannot be eliminated at all. Humans and other animals are always under threat of acquiring the disease from these reservoirs. One can use the term "Control" instead of "Elimination".
Competing interests: No competing interests
Is it high time that a country's rabies status be affected by the presence of Lyssavirus or other rabies-like viruses?
We have a large number of bats in our area and in the last few months have had to provide rabies immunoglobulin and vaccine.
Maintaining Australia as rabies-free provides a false sense of security and may prevent people from seeking care if bitten or scratched by bats, by virtue of a technicality. The end result, if Lyssa Virus were contracted and if untreated, would be the same as if they been bitten by a rabid dog.
Competing interests: No competing interests
There are doubts that rabies has a healthy carrier state in dogs or other animals, which makes all animal bites potentially dangerous
We fully endorse the rapid response by Dr. Jacob as far as developed countries are concerned. In developing countries like India, there are many wandering stray dogs that are not vaccinated, so all bites are potentially dangerous.
Another fact is that Rabies is a zoonosis. It is unlikely that it won’t have carrier state among animals. Though ruled out by WHO, there are sporadic and infrequent studies (1-3) which rule out the possible myth that there is no carrier stage. If this is the case then no animal bite is potentially danger-free.
References:
1. East ML, Hofer H, Cox JH, Wulle U, Wiik H, Pitra C. Regular exposure to rabies virus and lack of symptomatic disease in Serengeti spotted hyenas.Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001 Dec 18;98(26):15026-31. Epub 2001 Dec 11.
2. Warner CK, Schurr TG, Fekadu M. Molecular characterization of carrier rabies isolates. Virus Res. 1996 Apr;41(2):133-40.
3. Fekadu M, Shaddock JH, Chandler FW, Baer GM. Rabies virus in the tonsils of a carrier dog. Arch Virol. 1983;78(1-2):37-47.
Competing interests: No competing interests