Eliminating Rabies in Estonia

The compulsory vaccination of pets, the recommended vaccination of farm animals in grazing areas and the extermination of stray animals did not succeed in eliminating rabies in Estonia because the virus was maintained in two main wildlife reservoirs, foxes and raccoon dogs. These two species became a priority target therefore in order to control rabies. Supported by the European Community, successive oral vaccination (OV) campaigns were conducted twice a year using Rabigen® SAG2 baits, beginning in autumn 2005 in North Estonia. They were then extended to the whole territory from spring 2006. Following the vaccination campaigns, the incidence of rabies cases dramatically decreased, with 266 cases in 2005, 114 in 2006, four in 2007 and three in 2008. Since March 2008, no rabies cases have been detected in Estonia other than three cases reported in summer 2009 and one case in January 2011, all in areas close to the South-Eastern border with Russia. The bait uptake was satisfactory, with tetracycline positivity rates ranging from 85% to 93% in foxes and from 82% to 88% in raccoon dogs. Immunisation rates evaluated by ELISA ranged from 34% to 55% in foxes and from 38% to 55% in raccoon dogs. The rabies situation in Estonia was compared to that of the other two Baltic States, Latvia and Lithuania. Despite regular OV campaigns conducted throughout their territory since 2006, and an improvement in the epidemiological situation, rabies has still not been eradicated in these countries. An analysis of the number of baits distributed and the funding allocated by the European Commission showed that the strategy for rabies control is more cost-effective in Estonia than in Latvia and Lithuania

Potential cost savings with terrestrial rabies control

BACKGROUND: The cost-benefit of raccoon rabies control strategies such as oral rabies vaccination (ORV) are under evaluation. As an initial quantification of the potential cost savings for a control program, the collection of selected rabies cost data was pilot tested for five counties in New York State (NYS) in a three-year period. METHODS: Rabies costs reported to NYS from the study counties were computerized and linked to a human rabies exposure database. Consolidated costs by county and year were averaged and compared. RESULTS: Reported rabies-associated costs for all rabies variants totalled $2.1 million, for human rabies postexposure prophylaxes (PEP) (90.9$784,529). Average costs associated with the raccoon variant varied across counties from $440 to$1,885 per PEP, $14 to$44 per specimen, and $0.33 to$15 per pet vaccinated. CONCLUSION: Rabies costs vary widely by county in New York State, and were associated with human population size and methods used by counties to estimate costs. Rabies cost variability must be considered in developing estimates of possible ORV-related cost savings. Costs of PEPs and specimen preparation/shipments, as well as the costs of pet vaccination provided by this study may be valuable for development of more realistic scenarios in economic modelling of ORV costs versus benefits

Emergency vaccination of rabies under limited resources – combating or containing?

BACKGROUND: Rabies is the most important viral zoonosis from a global perspective. Worldwide efforts to combat the disease by oral vaccination of reservoirs have managed to eradicate wildlife rabies in large areas of central Europe and North-America. Thus, repeated vaccination has been discontinued recently on a geographical scale. However, as rabies has not yet been eradicated globally, a serious risk of re-introduction remains. What is the best spatial design for an emergency vaccination program – particularly if resources are limited? Either, we treat a circular area around the detected case and run the risk of infected hosts leaving the limited control area, because a sufficient immunisation level has not yet been built up. Or, initially concentrate the SAME resources in order to establish a protective ring which is more distant from the infected local area, and which then holds out against the challenge of the approaching epidemic. METHODS: We developed a simulation model to contrast the two strategies for emergency vaccination. The spatial-explicit model is based on fox group home-ranges, which facilitates the simulation of rabies spread to larger areas relevant to management. We used individual-based fox groups to follow up the effects of vaccination in a detailed manner. Thus, regionally – bait distribution orientates itself to standard schemes of oral immunisation programs and locally – baits are assigned to individual foxes. RESULTS: Surprisingly, putting the controlled area ring-like around the outbreak does not outperform the circular area of the same size centred on the outbreak. Only during the very first baitings, does the ring area result in fewer breakouts. But then as rabies is eliminated within the circle area, the respective ring area fails, due to the non-controlled inner part. We attempt to take advantage of the initially fewer breakouts beyond the ring when applying a mixed strategy. Therefore, after a certain number of baitings, the area under control was increased for both strategies towards the same larger circular area. The circle-circle strategy still outperforms the ring-circle strategy and analysis of the spatial-temporal disease spread reveals why: improving control efficacy by means of a mixed strategy is impossible in the field, due to the build-up time of population immunity. CONCLUSION: For practical emergency management of a new outbreak of rabies, the ring-like application of oral vaccination is not a favourable strategy at all. Even if initial resources are substantially low and there is a serious risk of rabies cases outside the limited control area, our results suggest circular application instead of ring vaccination

Commerson's Leaf-Nosed Bat ( Hipposideros commersoni

In this study we attempted to identify whether Commerson’s leaf-nosed bat (Hipposideros commersoni) is the reservoir of Shimoni bat virus (SHIBV), which was isolated from a bat of this species in 2009. An alternative explanation is that the isolation of SHIBV from H. commersoni was a result of spill-over infection from other species, particularly from the Egyptian fruit bats (Rousettus aegyptiacus), which frequently sympatrically roost with H. commersoni and are known as the reservoir of the phylogenetically related Lagos bat virus (LBV). To evaluate these hypotheses, 769 bats of at least 17 species were sampled from 18 locations across Kenya during 2009–2010. Serum samples were subjected to virus neutralization tests against SHIBV and LBV. A limited amount of cross-neutralization between LBV and SHIBV was detected. However, H. commersoni bats demonstrated greater seroprevalence to SHIBV than to LBV, and greater virus-neutralizing titers to SHIBV than to LBV, with a mean difference of 1.16 log10 (95% confidence intervals [CI]: 0.94–1.40; p < 0.001). The opposite pattern was observed for sera of R. aegyptiacus bats, with a mean titer difference of 1.06 log10 (95% CI: 0.83–1.30; p < 0.001). Moreover, the seroprevalence in H. commersoni to SHIBV in the cave where these bats sympatrically roosted with R. aegyptiacus (and where SHIBV was isolated in 2009) was similar to their seroprevalence to SHIBV in a distant cave where no R. aegyptiacus were present (18.9% and 25.0%, respectively). These findings suggest that H. commersoni is the host species of SHIBV. Additional surveillance is needed to better understand the ecology of this virus and the potential risks of infection to humans and other mammalian species.http://www.liebertpub.com/publication.aspx?pub_id=67nf201

Titulação de anticorpos contra o vírus da raiva em cães, em Campo Grande, MS, na Campanha Anti-Rábica de 2003 Rabies virus antibody titers in dogs in Campo Grande, Mato Grosso do Sul State, during the anti-rabies campaign, 2003

Para avaliar a resposta imune em cães, que compareceram a Campanha de Vacinação Anti-Rábica Animal de 2003, foram analisados 333 soros caninos, coletados nos diversos postos de vacinação. Verificou-se que 51,1% dos animais não possuíam títulos protetores. Não foi encontrada associação entre aplicação de vacina e maior número de vacinações, com maior título imunitário.<br>To assess the immune response in dogs attended during the 2003 anti-rabies animal vaccination campaign, 333 serum samples collected at different vaccination posts were analyzed. It was found that 51.1% of the animals did not have protective titers. No correlation was found between vaccine application or multiple vaccinations and higher immune titers