Human Rabies Post‐Exposure Prophylaxis and Animal Rabies in Ontario, Canada, 2001–2012

• Published in: Zoonoses and public health Vol. 62; no. 5; pp. 356 - 364
• Main Authors: Middleton, D., Johnson, K. O., Rosatte, R. C., Hobbs, J. L., Moore, S. R., Rosella, L., Crowcroft, N. S.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Germany Blackwell Verlag 01.08.2015; Blackwell Publishing Ltd
• Subjects: Animal rabies; Animals; Canada; Disease control; human rabies post-exposure prophylaxis; Humans; Ontario; Post-Exposure Prophylaxis; Rabies; Rabies - epidemiology; Rabies - prevention & control; Rabies - veterinary; Risk Factors; Zoonoses; Zoonoses - prevention & control; Ontario; Canada; human rabies post-exposure prophylaxis; Ontario; Animal rabies
• ISSN: 1863-1959; 1863-2378
• DOI: 10.1111/zph.12155

In Ontario, Canada, the implementation of an annual rabies control programme in wildlife that began in 1989 resulted in a marked, steady decrease in the number of animal rabies cases. The number of animal rabies cases decreased from 1870 in 1989 to 183 in 2000 (Nunan et al., 2002 Emerg Infect Dis 8, 214). In our study period, the number of animal rabies cases continued to decrease from 210 in 2001 to 28 in 2012. The marked decrease in animal rabies cases since 1989 has resulted in a decrease in the risk of human infection. A concomitant decrease in the number of rabies post‐exposure prophylaxis (RPEP) administered was anticipated but failed to occur. The mean rate of RPEP, 13.9 RPEP administered per 100 000 persons, from 2001–2012 was approximately the same as the rate in the 1990s. Two possible reasons that the rate of RPEP administration has not decreased include strict adherence to RPEP recommendations and administration of RPEP when it is not recommended. A reduction in the number of RPEP administered, consistent with the decrease in the animal rabies cases, would provide some financial savings for the government. Ideally, an increased use of the risk assessment approach in keeping with recent guidelines, rather than adhering to previous prescriptive recommendations for RPEP administration, coupled with a continuing low incidence of animal rabies cases will result in decreased, and yet appropriate, use of RPEP. Consideration should be given to identify how guidelines could be revised to more effectively target high‐risk exposures and reduce the administration of RPEP for instances in which the risk of rabies virus exposure is exceedingly low.