| Literature DB >> 19757549 |
Ray T Sterner1, Martin I Meltzer, Stephanie A Shwiff, Dennis Slate.
Abstract
Progressive elimination of rabies in wildlife has been a general strategy in Canada and the United States; common campaign tactics are trap-vaccinate-release (TVR), point infection control (PIC), and oral rabies vaccination (ORV). TVR and PIC are labor intensive and the most expensive tactics per unit area (approximately $616/km(2) [in 2008 Can$, converted from the reported $450/km(2) in 1991 Can$] and approximately $612/km(2) [$500/km(2) in 1999 Can$], respectively), but these tactics have proven crucial to elimination of raccoon rabies in Canada and to maintenance of ORV zones for preventing the spread of raccoon rabies in the United States. Economic assessments have shown that during rabies epizootics, costs of human postexposure prophylaxis, pet vaccination, public health, and animal control spike. Modeling studies, involving diverse assumptions, have shown that ORV programs can be cost-efficient and yield benefit:cost ratios >1.0.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2009 PMID: 19757549 PMCID: PMC2815952 DOI: 10.3201/eid1508.081061
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Emerg Infect Dis ISSN: 1080-6040 Impact factor: 6.883
Figure 1Expanding-wedge tactic with progressive elimination (). Numbers represent successive oral rabies vaccination (ORV) zones. Potential savings are assumed for the area of progressive elimination, southern Ontario Province. The rectangle bordering the rabies source (i.e., 5) highlights an area of enhanced surveillance, possible point infection control (PIC) activities, trap–vaccinate–release (TVR) activities, or an ORV zone intended to deter future reemergence of the virus.
Figure 2Point infection control (PIC) tactic. Concentric rings around the location of a rabid animal represent vector population reduction (PR), trap–vaccinate–release (TVR), and ORV zones (). Each new source leads to repeated, overlapping ORV, TVR, and PR rings. Potential savings are assumed within the zones and for assumed distances beyond the zones.
Figure 3Collapsed-bands tactic with progressive elimination (). Numbers represent successive oral rabies vaccination (ORV) zones that attempt to collapse the baited area, exclude virus incursion outside, and lead to a maintenance zone that prevents reintroduction of the disease after the current population matures and vaccination effects are lost. Potential savings are assumed to occur within the ORV areas and for assumed distances beyond the zone. The rectangle bordering the rabies source (i.e., 5) highlights an area of enhanced surveillance, possible point infection control (PIC) activities, trap–vaccinate–release (TVR) activities, or an ORV zone intended to deter future reemergence of the virus.
Figure 4Purse string–like tactic with progressive elimination (). Numbers represent successive oral rabies vaccination (ORV) zones that attempt to roughly encircle and shrink the baited area, exclude virus incursion from outside, and lead to a maintenance zone that prevents reintroduction of the disease after the current population matures and vaccination effects are lost. Potential savings are assumed to occur within the ORV areas and for assumed distances beyond the outer zone. The rectangle bordering the rabies source (i.e., 5) highlights an area of enhanced surveillance, possible point infection control (PIC)/trap–vaccinate–release (TVR) activities, or an ORV zone intended to deter future reemergence of the virus.
Figure 5Oral rabies vaccination (ORV) preventive spread or elimination tactic with eventual progressive elimination (). The ORV zone of vaccinated animals is intended to prevent spread of the disease beyond the ORV zone; potential elimination is assumed to result from successive baiting campaigns into the infected area. Potential savings are assumed beyond the ORV zone (or within the zone, if elimination is possible); disease spread rates, final distances of infectious impacts, and durations of ORV bait distributions ultimately determine the magnitude of potential savings. PIC, point infection control activities; TVR, trap–vaccinate–release activities.
Major oral rabies vaccination campaigns, Canada and the United States
| Country and reference | Strategy or tactic | Duration, y | Target species | Unit bait cost* | Target bait Density, no./km2 | ORV, TVR, or PIC area, km2/y† | Cost/km2‡ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Canada | |||||||
| ( | ORV progressive elimination | >7§ | Red fox | Not reported | 18–20 | 8,850–31,460 | No estimate |
| ( | TVR | 5§ | Skunk, raccoon, red fox | >$2.00 (Can$ 1991) | 20/den fox only | 60 | $450–$1,150 (Can$ in 1991) |
| ( | PIC | >1§ | Raccoon | >$2.00 (Can$) | 70 | 225 PR, 485 TVR, 1,200 ORV | $500
(Can$ in 1999) |
| United States§ | |||||||
| D. Slate, unpub. data (2007) | ORV zone (Appalachian Ridge) | >1§ | Raccoon | $1.22 (US$) | 50–75 | 28,659–84,225 | $108 (US$ in 2007) |
| ( | ORV zone (Ohio–Pennsylvania border) | 4§ | Raccoon | $1.37–$1.52 (US$) | 75 | 3,872–6,497 | $153; range $102–$262 (US$ in 1999)¶ |
| ( | ORV progressive elimination | >9§ | Coyote | Not reported | 19–27 | 38,850 | $42 (US$ in 2004)# |
| ( | ORV progressive elimination | >8§ | Gray fox | Not reported | 27–39 | 56,202 | $42 (US$ in 2004)# |
*Unless otherwise noted, costs are in Can$ or US$. No discounting for inflation was used; this article and Technical Appendix 2 provide inflation-corrected costs in 2008 Can$ or US$. †Components of reported areas differ according to tactic and strategy. Oral rabies vaccination (ORV) entails topographic areas at which baits are distributed at target densities over landscape. Trap–vaccinate–release (TVR) involves relatively limited topographic areas of intense live trapping and parenteral vaccination of captured animals. Point infection control (PIC) involves successive concentric rings of population reduction, TVR and ORV; the concentric rings become distorted if subsequent rabid animals are caught within these rings. New concentric rings are now formed according to these occurrences. Additionally, depending on habitat or location of urban centers, ORV may be used in a larger strip to create an added ORV preventive zone. ‡Most cost estimates include purchase of baits, aircraft, fuel, and equipment but often omit accurate labor charges. §Surveillance, TVR, PIC, or ORV bait distributions continue at present; therefore, current duration and areas baited differ from those reported. According to Foroutan et al. (), ORV baitings continue as part of the National ORV Program (Slate et al. [22]). ¶According to Foroutan et al. (), areas were baited twice each year. In 1997, the first baiting was conducted over a smaller area (1,780 km2), and in May 1997 (initial) and June 1999, 2 smaller emergency baitings (in response to a breach in the ORV zone) were conducted, covering <1,701 km2. Average costs include a baiting in April 1999, when several tests of bait densities (high) were conducted. #According to Sidwa et al. (), the area baited had shrunk over time because of progressive coyote-variant rabies elimination, but the purse string (gray fox) tactic and ORV-baited area were expanded in 2007 as the gray fox variant spread north along the Pecos River and into southern Texas. The area cost estimate was derived as the quotient of a reported $3.8 million/year program cost and average annual 33,669 km2 (dog and coyote) and 56,202 km2 (gray fox) bait zones (sum 89,871 km2) cited in Technical Appendix 2.
Approximate, undiscounted total costs of largest oral rabies vaccine programs, North America, 1989–2004*
| Location, target species | Years | Total undiscounted costs, million $ | Average undiscounted annual costs, million US$ | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ontario, red foxes | 1989–2000 | Can$43† | 3.5 | S.A. Shwiff, unpub. data* |
| Texas, coyotes and gray foxes | 1995–2003 | US$34 | 3.8 | ( |
| Appalachian Ridge, raccoons | 1997–2007 | US$57 | 5.2 | D. Slate, unpub. data§ |
*Costs are estimates in Can$ or US$ as reported in original publication or as cited by unpublished source. †S.A. Shwiff et al. (unpub. data) based their calculations on certain data presented in 9,32. ‡Sidwa et al. () stated that (for both programs combined) average annual costs were $3.8 million. We computed this value as follows: 9 years × $3.8 million = $34 million total (i.e., Sidwa et al. did not clarify what was included in their cost estimate). §D. Slate (2007, unpub. data) provided air, bait, fuel, and staff costs, although some staff hours and fuel costs were omitted for initial campaigns during 1997–2001; a total of 9,394 staff hours, $5,868,262 aircraft costs, $923,481 fuel costs, and $50,187,380 bait costs were reported for 58 campaigns involving the dispensing of 41,018,811 baits over 530,825 km2. The software used to determine bait distribution costs was prepared by staff of the United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Wildlife Services, National Rabies Management Program. After deselecting the bait zones, flight lines were drawn by using the topography (e.g., avoiding water and residential areas) to determine the flight lines and transects. After that had been established, the bait zones were populated with the lines and measured to determine the total length (km). Flight lines determine total flight hours: ([km × 0.539958 nautical miles]/flight speed [knots] = flight hours). Fuel usage is computed as follows: (flight hours × consumption rate [91 gallons/h] × fuel price/gallon = total fuel cost). Costs were also influenced by air transect width, distance to airports for refueling, and end-of-transect turning distance.
Comparison of selected modeling studies that examined the economics of oral rabies vaccination programs*
| Reference | Locale, tactics, target species | Type of study, model | Duration modeled, y | Cost and density of vaccine baits; distribution costs† | Results | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ( | 2 counties in New Jersey, ORV, raccoon | Benefit:cost, cost data collected from field with hypothetical baiting program | 5 | $1–$2/bait; 62–200 baits/km2; distribution $100/km2 | Net savings $13.34–$20.78/ county resident (1990 US$); $1,244/km2 – $1,939/km2 | Probably unrealistic: assumed only 2 baitings; no contingency costs; main economic benefit = reduced pet vaccinations |
| ( | Hypothetical 34,447 km2-area, expanding circle then maintained barrier zone, raccoon | Benefit:cost of hypothetical baiting program, extensive sensitivity analyses | 30 | $1.50/ bait; 100 baits/km2 (range 40–115); distribution $39/km2 (maximim $100/ km2) | Net savings of $3.1 million if reduced pet vaccinations included as benefit. Net cost ($6.2 million) if pet vaccinations excluded. | Lack of data required many assumptions; bait density, cost/ bait, and value of pet vaccinations were the most critical elements |
| ( | Appalachian Ridge area, ORV, raccoon | Benefit:cost model of program to deter westward spread of raccoon rabies | 20 | $1.30/bait, 75 baits/km2 ; aerial distribution $8.62/ km2; evaluation $15/km2 | Net savings $100–$500 million (2000 US$) | Assumed that without ORV, rabies would move 42 or 125 km/y west; distribution costs are low; animal vaccinations are critical component |
| ( | Ohio–Pennsylvania, ORV zone (400 km2), raccoon | Simulation of individual raccoons + benefit:cost model to prevent westward spread of raccoon rabies | 40 | $1.47/bait; 3 scenarios of 70, 100, 175 baits/km2. Distribution $23.23/km2 | Net costs (1999 US$; savings recouped 5 km band west of zone) | Complex model showing importance of many biological factors determining potential for success and net savings |
| ( | Texas, progressive elimination, collapsed bands, coyote | Retrospective benefit:cost model; projected population-based PEP and animal test costs for 20 southern to 232-county expansion area | 12 | $26.3 million total cost (2006 US$; Texas Department of State Health Services accumulated value) | Net savings $98–$354 million; BCRs of 3.7–13.4; range of savings for 100%, 50% and 25% of PEP and rabies tests in epizootic area. | Simple model showing wide-area expansion. ORV proved cost-efficient if projections were reduced to 7% of the PEP and tests for epizootic counties |
| S.A. Shwiff, unpub. data | Ontario, progressive elimination, expanded wedge, arctic-fox variant, red fox | Benefit:cost measured costs but had to model savings | 12 | $77.4 million (2006 Can$) for total ORV | Net savings in 3 of 4 scenarios: reductions in animal rabies testing accounted for most net savings. | Assumed multiple estimates of future rabies-related costs |
*No inflation corrections used. ORV, oral rabies vaccination; PEP, postexposure prophylaxis; BCRs, benefit:cost ratios. †Distribution costs exclude cost of bait purchases. US$ except as indicated. ‡For example, Meltzer () posited a baseline assumption with a distribution cost of $39/km2. §Kemere et al. () assumed that the “… effectiveness of vaccination programs would be validated through surveillance and testing of raccoon populations in the ORV zones … [evaluation cost] also includes educational, promotional, and overhead expenses.” ¶Although Kemere et al. () did not explicitly allow for contingency costs (to allow for breaches of ORV zones, etc.), they did sensitivity analyses assuming “… the full program costs are used for the entire period instead of dropping to 40% after 5 years.” #Foroutan et al. () only considered benefits extending up to 5 km west of the ORV zone. A simple extrapolation would suggest that net savings would occur if the calculated benefits were to extend some 100–150 km west of the ORV zone.