Post-exposure rabies prophylaxis in humans exposed to animals in Lublin province (Eastern Poland) in 2012-2015 - A retrospective study.

Rabies continues to be one of the most important viral diseases and remains a significant threat to public health across the globe. The post-exposure prophylaxis in humans can effectively prevent death after exposure to a potentially infected animal. In Poland, recommendations for rabies PEP followed the national guidelines which recommend that people should receive PEP when bitten by an animal suspected to be infected by rabies. PEP in humans includes cleansing and disinfecting the wound or point of contact, and administering anti-rabies immunization. Rabies vaccine should be given for contacts of category II and category III exposures. RIG should be given for category III contact. The vaccination schedule includes 5 doses given within a 30 day period (the Essen regimen). THE AIM: The aim of our study was to determine the frequency of post-exposure prophylaxis among patients exposed to animals and also to assess the animal species suspected as a source of rabies exposure.
METHODS: We have retrospectively analyzed medical records from the years 2012-2015 of all adult patients who were exposed to animals and consulted at the Dispensary of Rabies Prophylaxis in the Department of Infectious Diseases at the Medical University in Lublin, Poland. All consulted patients were asked to give an informed consent in case of decision to use collected data for future research work. Ethical approval was obtained from the Ethics Committee of the Medical University of Lublin, Poland, and all patients included in this study gave an informed consent during consultation after the exposure to animals.
RESULTS: During the studied 4-year period, 511 persons exposed to animals were consulted and prophylactic procedure consisting of active immunization were applied in 54.2% of the total consulted. Dogs and cats were the most common animal species suspected as the source of the rabies exposure. Anti-rabies prophylaxis was applied in 45.8% of all vaccinated patients exposed to dogs, and in 24.2% exposed to cats. All patients with bite wounds were consulted at the Department of Surgery and wound care followed surgical recommendations. In the study group, 45 patients had category III contact. There were 38 patients exposed to dogs, and 7 exposed to cats. There were no people exposed to wildlife in this group. All animals were available for veterinary observation. During and after exposure, none of the animals that serve as a potential source of infection presented with symptoms of rabies. The local epidemiological data indicated that during exposures of our patients, there were no confirmed cases of rabies among animals in Lublin province. Based on the data mentioned above, RIG was not applied. During the studied period in Lublin province, rabies was confirmed mainly in wildlife, and only in 2 dogs.
CONCLUSIONS: In Lublin province, people are still at risk of exposure to rabid animals. The majority of our patients were vaccinated after domestic animals exposure, but rabies was confirmed mainly in wildlife, and since 2013, there were no cases of rabies among domestic animals.