| Literature DB >> 26859829 |
Vianney Tricou1, Julie Bouscaillou2, Emmanuel Kamba Mebourou1, Fidèle Dieudonné Koyanongo3, Emmanuel Nakouné1,4, Mirdad Kazanji1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although rabies represents an important public health threat, it is still a neglected disease in Asia and Africa where it causes tens of thousands of deaths annually despite available human and animal vaccines. In the Central African Republic (CAR), an endemic country for rabies, this disease remains poorly investigated.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 26859829 PMCID: PMC4747513 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0004433
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS Negl Trop Dis ISSN: 1935-2727
Fig 1Weekly distribution of the 69 canine rabies cases and the 966 human exposures to suspicious rabid dogs in the CAR in 2012.
In dark blue, the weekly numbers of persons exposed to suspicious rabid dogs, and in red, the weekly numbers of rabid dogs.
Characteristics of the 82 the dogs suspected of being rabid that contributed to the samples panel analyzed at the National Rabies Laboratory during 2012.
| Variables | N (%) |
|---|---|
| Male | 37 (45.1%) |
| Female | 18 (22.0%) |
| Unknown | 27 (32.9%) |
| Known | 56 (68.3%) |
| Unknown | 26 (31.7%) |
| Bangui | 65 (79.3%) |
| Prefectures | 16 (19.5%) |
| Unknown | 1 (1.2%) |
| Killed | 54 (65.9%) |
| Already dead | 26 (31.7%) |
| Unknown | 2 (2.4%) |
| Direct IF positive | 69 (84.1%) |
| PCR positive | 67 (81.7%) |
Characteristics of the 966 persons who have visited the anti-rabies dispensary at the Institut Pasteur in Bangui in 2012 after exposure to suspicious dogs and circumstances of the exposure.
For each variable, the results concerned the individuals for whom the information is known.
| Total sample | By gender | By age group | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variables | N (%) | Female | Male | p | <10 | 10–19 | 20–39 | 40+ | p |
| Male | 520 (53.8%) | - | - | - | - | - | - | ||
| Female | 446 (46.2%) | - | - | - | - | - | - | ||
| <10 | 216 (33.8%) | 115 (38.6%) | 101 (29.5%) | - | - | - | - | ||
| 10–19 | 194 (30.3%) | 87 (29.2%) | 107 (31.3%) | - | - | - | - | ||
| 20–39 | 148 (23.1%) | 55 (18.5%) | 93 (27.2%) | - | - | - | - | ||
| 40+ | 82 (12.8%) | 41 (13.8%) | 41 (12.0%) | - | - | - | - | ||
| Bangui | 810 (84.2%) | 433 (84.7%) | 377 (83.8%) | 0.863 | 176 (81.9%) | 160 (82.5%) | 131 (88.5%) | 72 (87.8%) | 0.451 |
| Bimbo. Bégoua | 87 (9.0%) | 47 (9.0%) | 40 (9.1%) | 20 (9.3%) | 17 (8.8%) | 7 (4.7%) | 3 (3.7%) | ||
| Other | 65 (6.8%) | 37 (6.3%) | 28 (7.2%) | 19 (8.8%) | 17 (8.8%) | 10 (6.8%) | 7 (8.5%) | ||
| Nonbite (e.g. scratches and licks) | 81 (8.4%) | 28 (6.3%) | 53 (10.2%) | 14 (6.5%) | 20 (10.3%) | 15 (10.1%) | 4 (4.9%) | 0.273 | |
| Bite | 885 (91.7%) | 418 (93.7%) | 467 (89.8%) | 202 (93.5%) | 174 (89.7%) | 133 (89.9%) | 78 (95.1%) | ||
| Unique | 291 (44.0%) | 141 (44.1%) | 150 (43.9%) | 0.958 | 58 (39.7%) | 49 (36.6%) | 30 (30.9%) | 18 (30.5%) | 0.435 |
| Multiple | 371 (56.0%) | 179 (55.9%) | 192 (56.1%) | 88 (60.3%) | 85 (63.4%) | 67 (69.1%) | 41 (69.5%) | ||
| Superficial | 325 (54.2%) | 155 (54.6%) | 170 (53.8%) | 0.848 | 55 (42.0%) | 56 (49.1%) | 35 (45.5%) | 19 (35.2%) | 0.362 |
| Profound | 275 (45.8%) | 129 (45.4%) | 146 (46.2%) | 76 (58.0%) | 58 (50.9%) | 42 (54.5%) | 35 (64.8%) | ||
| Face | 33 (3.6%) | 14 (3.3%) | 19 (3.9%) | 0.621 | 17 (8.1%) | 8 (4.4%) | 1 (0.7%) | 0 | |
| Upper limb | 262 (28.4%) | 125 (29.0%) | 137 (27.8%) | 0.697 | 81 (38.2%) | 60 (33.0%) | 46 (33.3%) | 17 (21.3%) | 0.057 |
| Lower limb | 584 (63.3%) | 274 (63.6%) | 310 (63.0%) | 0.859 | 95 (44.8%) | 110 (60.4%) | 93 (67.4%) | 65 (81.3%) | |
| Trunk | 117 (12.7%) | 58 (13.4%) | 59 (12.0%) | 0.513 | 43 (20.3%) | 23 (12.6%) | 10 (7.2%) | 3 (3.8%) | |
| ≤3days | 497 (51.6%) | 228 (51.2%) | 269 (51.9%) | 0.955 | 120 (55.8%) | 101 (52.1%) | 70 (47.3%) | 45 (54.9%) | 0.332 |
| 4 to 7 days | 223 (23.2%) | 105 (23.6%) | 118 (22.8%) | 48 (22.3%) | 42 (21.6%) | 31 (20.9%) | 12 (14.6%) | ||
| >7 days | 243 (25.2%) | 112 (25.2%) | 131 (25.3%) | 47 (21.9%) | 51 (26.3%) | 47 (31.8%) | 25 (30.5%) | ||
| Unknown | 580 (60.0%) | 260 (58.3%) | 320 (61.5%) | 0.591 | 167 (77.3%) | 144 (74.2%) | 109 (73.6%) | 53 (64.6%) | 0.294 |
| Unvaccinated | 328 (34.0%) | 158 (35.4%) | 170 (32.7) | 45 (20.8%) | 47 (24.2%) | 34 (23.0%) | 25 (30.5%) | ||
| Vaccinated | 58 (6.0%) | 28 (6.3%) | 30 (5.8%) | 4 (1.9%) | 3 (1.5%) | 5 (3.4%) | 4 (4.9%) | ||
a The data concerning the site of wound were available for only 922 persons for the face, 923 persons for the (upper and lower) limbs and 924 persons for the trunk. Several sites of wound were possible for a same individual. For this variable, the p-values correspond to the significance level of having a wound versus not having a wound at the concerned site, according to the sex or the age group.
Fig 2Spatial-temporal distribution of the 69 reported rabid dog cases, the 966 human exposures to suspicious rabid dogs, and the 632 post-exposure prophylaxes in the CAR in 2012.
In A), the spatial distribution of reported rabid dogs, in B), the spatial distribution of human exposures to suspicious rabid dogs, and in C), the numbers of reported rabid dogs, persons exposed to suspicious rabid dogs and post-exposure prophylaxes by month in the 16 administrative prefectures of the CAR (BAM: Bamingui Bangoran, BKO: Basse Kotto, HKO: Haute Kotto, HMB: Haut Mbomou, KEM: Kémo, LOB: Lobaye, MAM: Mambéré Kadéï, MBO: Mbomou, NGB: Nana Grébizi, NMA: Nana Mambéré, OMB: Ombella M'Poko, OUA: Ouaka, OUH: Ouham, OUP: Ouham Pendé, SAN: Sangha Mbaéré and VAK: Vakaga). In D), the spatial distribution of reported rabid dogs, in E), the spatial distribution of human exposures to suspicious rabid dogs, and in F), the numbers of reported rabid dogs, persons exposed to suspicious rabid dogs and prophylaxes by month in the eight urban districts of Bangui (1 to 8) and in Bégoua and Bimbo. In red, the rabid dogs, in dark blue, the persons exposed to suspicious rabid dogs, and in light blue, the persons who received a prophylaxis.
Fig 3Distribution of the number of persons exposed to suspicious rabid dogs according to the presence of rabid dogs reported the same week in the same area.
In A), if no rabid dog was identified in the same area the same week, and in B), if at least one rabid dog was reported in the same area the same week.
Fig 4Molecular phylogenetic analysis of representative RABV isolated in the CAR during the year 2012 and their geographical distribution.
The neighbor-joining method was used for reconstructing the tree of the N gene sequences of reference RABV strains from Africa I, II and III clades and new sequences from the CAR identified in this study. The percentages of replicate trees in which the isolates clustered together in the bootstrap test (1000 replicates) are shown next to the branches.