| Literature DB >> 20202438 |
Millicent Eidson1, Anissa K Bingman.
Abstract
During 1993-2002, cats accounted for 2.7% of rabid terrestrial animals in New York but for one third of human exposure incidents and treatments. Nonbite exposures and animals of undetermined rabies status accounted for 54% and 56%, respectively, of persons receiving rabies treatments.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2010 PMID: 20202438 PMCID: PMC3322005 DOI: 10.3201/eid1603.090298
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Emerg Infect Dis ISSN: 1080-6040 Impact factor: 6.883
Terrestrial rabies–associated exposure incidents and rabies PEP use, by animal test result, New York, USA, 1993–2002*
| Animal test result | No. (%) incidents | No. (%) PEP uses |
|---|---|---|
| Positive | 3,047 (23.4) | 7,032 (38.7) |
| Negative | 469 (3.6) | 551 (3.0) |
| Untestable | 340 (2.6) | 474 (2.6) |
| Not tested | 9,148 (70.3) | 10,097 (55.6) |
| Total | 13,004 (100.0) | 18,154 (100.0) |
*Each rabies exposure situation in which >1 persons underwent PEP was defined as an incident. Excludes New York, NY. PEP, postexposure prophylaxis.
Figure 1Terrestrial rabies–associated exposure incidents and postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) use, by year, New York (excluding New York City), USA, 1993–2002.
Terrestrial rabies–associated exposure incidents, number of rabid animals, and PEP use, by type of animal, New York, USA, 1993–2002*
| Animal | No. exposure incidents | Total no. rabid animals | PEP use | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total no. uses | No. related to untested animals | No. related to nonbite incidentss† | |||
| Wild | |||||
| Raccoon | 3,298 | 8,318 | 5,210 | 1,488 | 4,534 |
| Fox | 398 | 390 | 620 | 187 | 318 |
| Skunk | 637 | 1,894 | 987 | 302 | 839 |
| Other | 544 | 152 | 655 | 453 | 328 |
| Domestic | |||||
| Dog | 3,052 | 28 | 3,435 | 2,930 | 467 |
| Cat | 4,266 | 303 | 5,777 | 3,907 | 2,119 |
| Other | 187 | 143 | 668 | 63 | 625 |
| Other/unknown | 622 | 7 | 802 | 767 | 519 |
| Total | 13,004 | 11,235 | 18,154 | 10,097 | 9,749 |
*Each rabies exposure situation in which >1 persons underwent PEP was defined as an incident. Excludes New York, NY. PEP, postexposure prophylaxis. †Scratches, saliva/nervous system tissue exposure, mucous membrane exposure, indirect exposure, or unknown.
Figure 2Rate of postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) use per 100,000 persons per year, by sex and 5-year age groups, New York (excluding New York City), 1998–2002.