| Literature DB >> 19822125 |
Hsin-Yi Weng1, Pei-I Wu, Ping-Cheng Yang, Yi-Lun Tsai, Chao-Chin Chang.
Abstract
Border control is the primary method to prevent rabies emergence. This study developed a quantitative risk model incorporating stochastic processes to evaluate whether border control measures could efficiently prevent rabies introduction through importation of cats and dogs using Taiwan as an example. Both legal importation and illegal smuggling were investigated. The impacts of reduced quarantine and/or waiting period on the risk of rabies introduction were also evaluated. The results showed that Taiwan's current animal importation policy could effectively prevent rabies introduction through legal importation of cats and dogs. The median risk of a rabid animal to penetrate current border control measures and enter Taiwan was 5.33 x 10(-8) (95th percentile: 3.20 x 10(-7)). However, illegal smuggling may pose Taiwan to the great risk of rabies emergence. Reduction of quarantine and/or waiting period would affect the risk differently, depending on the applied assumptions, such as increased vaccination coverage, enforced custom checking, and/or change in number of legal importations. Although the changes in the estimated risk under the assumed alternatives were not substantial except for completely abolishing quarantine, the consequences of rabies introduction may yet be considered to be significant in a rabies-free area. Therefore, a comprehensive benefit-cost analysis needs to be conducted before recommending these alternative measures.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2009 PMID: 19822125 PMCID: PMC2775170 DOI: 10.1051/vetres/2009059
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Vet Res ISSN: 0928-4249 Impact factor: 3.683
Figure 1.The routes for a rabid dog or cat to enter Taiwan through legal importation or smuggling and the relevant variables and probabilities at each border control step.
Model variables, distributions, and information sources.
| Model variable | Distribution | Information source |
|---|---|---|
| PR Canada | Gamma(1.7, 1)/Normal(6.6 × 106, 1.68 × 105) | [ |
| PR Philippine | Gamma(331.4, 1)/Normal(1.5 × 106, 8.0 × 104) | Note3 |
| PR Thailand | Gamma(82.5, 1)/Normal(6.1 × 106, 4.0 × 104) | Note3 |
| PR USA | Gamma(40.9, 1)/Normal(1.34 × 108, 9.2 × 106) | [ |
| IM Canada | Lognormal(131.6, 17.13) | BAPHIQ |
| IM Philippine | Exponential(85.2) | BAPHIQ |
| IM Thailand | Exponential(287.2) | BAPHIQ |
| IM USA | Lognormal(371.42, 112.69) | BAPHIQ |
| PRs | Beta(1, 149) | [ |
| VC | Triangle(0.56, 0.89, 1) | [ |
| VP | (Beta(23, 4) + Beta(27, 5))/2 | [ |
| PB | Uniform(0, 1) | – |
| PR1 | (VC × PB)/Total | – |
| PR2 | (VC × (1 − VP) × (1 − PB))/Total | – |
| PR3 | (1 − VC)/Total | – |
| PT | 1−(Log-logistic(0, 3.2221, 1.2429)/SEC)/N | BAPHIQ |
| SEC | Pert(0.1, 0.5, 0.9) | Expert’s opinion |
| SPT | Beta(31, 5) | [ |
| PC | Log-logistic(0, 5.2118, 3.3618)/N | BAPHIQ |
| I | Log-logistic(14, 39.3, 2.02) | Note4 |
| PE | Pert(0.01, 0.5, 0.95) | Expert’s opinion |
| N | Uniform(100, 3075) | BAPHIQ |
| Ns | Exponential(39)/PE | BAPHIQ |
Corresponding publications are listed in the references.
Data provided by the Bureau of Animal and Plant Health Inspection and Quarantine.
Different values were examined for sensitivity analysis.
Sum of the numerators of PR1, PR2, and PR3.
Truncated to contain the value between 0 and 1.
Probability for a rabid cat or dog to penetrate border control measures and enter Taiwan (φ) and annual probability of introducing at least one rabid animal into Taiwan (P) through legal importation by time to infection.
| φ | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Median | 5th, 95th percentiles | Median | 5th, 95th percentiles | |
| Infected before vaccination | 3.68 × 10−9 | 2.89 × 10−10, 2.59 × 10−8 | 2.64 × 10−6 | 5.26 × 10−8, 3.03 × 10−5 |
| Infected after vaccination | 4.97 × 10−9 | 1.81 × 10−10, 5.93 × 10−8 | 5.43 × 10−7 | 1.62 × 10−9, 2.57 × 10−5 |
| Infected without vaccination | 3.89 × 10−8 | 3.79 × 10−9, 2.63 × 10−7 | 1.33 × 10−5 | 4.20 × 10−7, 1.93 × 10−4 |
| Total | 5.33 × 10−8 | 6.79 × 10−9, 3.20 × 10−7 | 6.96 × 10−5 | 5.72 × 10−6, 5.71 × 10−4 |
Difference (×10−5) in the medain annual probability of introducing at least one rabid cat or dog through legal importation under different reduced quarantine and/or waiting periods, after comparing to the probability under the current policy (i.e. a 21-day quarantine and 180-day waiting periods).
| Quarantine period | Model | Waiting period | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 21 | 60 | 90 | 180 | ||
| 0 | Model (1) | 112.61 | 92.37 | 83.61 | 71.19 |
| Model (2) | 99.23 | 76.41 | 67.77 | 55.63 | |
| Model (3) | 223.49 | 162.52 | 140.28 | 111.29 | |
| Model (4) | 199.41 | 138.19 | 115.24 | 86.40 | |
| 7 | Model (1) | 6.47 | 4.35 | 3.27 | 1.96 |
| Model (2) | 5.22 | 2.52 | 1.60 | 0.36 | |
| Model (3) | 15.96 | 9.68 | 7.50 | 4.31 | |
| Model (4) | 13.48 | 7.28 | 5.11 | 1.97 | |
| 14 | Model (1) | 5.03 | 3.03 | 2.23 | 1.18 |
| Model (2) | 3.46 | 1.77 | 0.53 | −0.36 | |
| Model (3) | 12.41 | 6.73 | 4.89 | 2.39 | |
| Model (4) | 10.15 | 5.06 | 2.82 | 0.59 | |
| 21 | Model (1) | 3.53 | 1.98 | 1.11 | 0 |
| Model (3) | 8.32 | 3.88 | 2.27 | 0 | |
Model (1) assumed no other changes except for the quarantine/waiting period; Model (2) assumed an increase in the probability of successfully identifying forgery documentation through port checking and in vaccination coverage; Model (3) assumed an increase in the number of legal importation; and Model (4) included both assumptions of Model (2) and Model (3).