Assessing anti-rabies baiting – what happens on the ground?

BACKGROUND: Rabies is one of the most hazardous zoonoses in the world. Oral mass vaccination has developed into the most effective management method to control fox rabies. The future need to control the disease in large countries (i.e. Eastern Europe and the Americas) forces cost-benefit discussions. The 'Increase bait density' option refers to the usual management assumption that more baits per km(2 )could compensate for high fox abundance and override the imperfect supply of bait pieces to the individual fox. METHODS: We use a spatial simulation, which combines explicitly fox space use (tessellation polygons) and aeroplane flight lines (straight lines). The number of baits actually falling into each polygon is measured. The manager's strategic options are converted into changes of the resulting bait distribution on the ground. The comparison enables the rating of the options with respect to the management aim (i.e. accessibility of baits). RESULTS: Above 5% (approx. 10%) of all fox groups without any bait (at most 5 baits) relate to the baiting strategy applied in the field (1 km spaced parallel flight lines, 20 baits per km(2 )distributed) under habitat conditions comparable to middle and western Europe (fox group home-range 1 km(2), 2.5 adults; reference strategy). Increasing the bait density on the same flight-line pattern neither reduces the number of under-baited fox group home-ranges, nor improves the management outcome and hence wastes resources. However, reducing the flight line distance provides a more even bait distribution and thus compensates for missed fox groups or extra high fox density. The reference strategy's bait density can be reduced when accounting for the missed fox groups. The management result with the proper strategy is likely the same but with reduced costs. CONCLUSION: There is no overall optimal strategy for the bait distribution in large areas. For major parts of the landscape, the reference strategy will be more competitive. In situations where set backs are attributed to non-homogeneous bait accessibility the distribution scheme has to be refined zone-based (i.e. increase of the flight line length per unit area). However, increase in bait density above the reference strategy appears inappropriate at least for non-urban abundance conditions of the red fox

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