| Literature DB >> 30605446 |
Julia Murphy, Costi D Sifri, Rhonda Pruitt, Marcia Hornberger, Denise Bonds, Jesse Blanton, James Ellison, R Elaine Cagnina, Kyle B Enfield, Miriam Shiferaw, Crystal Gigante, Edgar Condori, Karen Gruszynski, Ryan M Wallace.
Abstract
On May 9, 2017, the Virginia Department of Health was notified regarding a patient with suspected rabies. The patient had sustained a dog bite 6 weeks before symptom onset while traveling in India. On May 11, CDC confirmed that the patient was infected with a rabies virus that circulates in dogs in India. Despite aggressive treatment, the patient died, becoming the ninth person exposed to rabies abroad who has died from rabies in the United States since 2008. A total of 250 health care workers were assessed for exposure to the patient, 72 (29%) of whom were advised to initiate postexposure prophylaxis (PEP). The total pharmaceutical cost for PEP (rabies immunoglobulin and rabies vaccine) was approximately $235,000. International travelers should consider a pretravel consultation with travel health specialists; rabies preexposure prophylaxis is warranted for travelers who will be in rabies endemic countries for long durations, in remote areas, or who plan activities that might put them at risk for a rabies exposures.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30605446 PMCID: PMC6334827 DOI: 10.15585/mmwr.mm675152a2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ISSN: 0149-2195 Impact factor: 17.586
Antemortem diagnostic testing* of specimens in a case of human rabies transmitted by a dog bite received in India — Virginia, 2017
| Specimen type | Testing method | Date
specimen collected | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 9 | May 12 | May 14 | May 15 | May 16 | May 17 | May 18 | May 19 | ||
|
| IFA IgG | Neg | — | Neg | — | — | Neg | Neg | — |
| IFA IgM | Neg | — | Neg | — | — | Neg | Neg | — | |
| RFFIT | Neg | — | Neg | — | — | Neg | Neg | — | |
|
| IFA IgG | Neg | Neg | — | Neg | Neg | Neg | — | — |
| IFA IgM | Neg | Neg | — | Neg | Neg | Neg | — | — | |
| RFFIT | Neg | Neg | — | Neg | Neg | Neg | — | — | |
|
| Isolation in MNA | Neg | — | — | — | Pos | Pos | Pos | Pos |
| real-time
RT-PCR† | Pos | Pos | Pos | Pos | Pos | Pos | Pos | Pos | |
|
| DFA | Pos | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| real-time RT-PCR† | Pos | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | |
Abbreviations: CSF = cerebrospinal fluid; DFA = direct fluorescent antibody; IFA = indirect fluorescent antibody; IgG = immunoglobulin G; IgM = immunoglobulin M; MNA = mouse neuroblastoma cell culture; Neg = negative; Pos = positive; RFFIT = rapid fluorescent foci inhibition test; RT-PCR = reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction.
* Positive result indicates detection of rabies virus antigen; negative result indicates no detection of antibody to rabies virus.
† RT-PCR conducted in triplicate.
FIGURESuspected and probable or confirmed rabies virus exposures among health care workers and type of precautions implemented — Virginia, 2017*
* Guidelines for precautions are available online (https://www.cdc.gov/infectioncontrol/guidelines/isolation/appendix/standard-precautions.html). Enhanced precautions were implemented in response to the patient’s urinary tract infection.
Health care worker (HCW) exposures to rabies virus while caring for a patient with rabies during three safety precaution recommendation periods — Virginia, 2017
| Period | Rabies diagnosis status | Health care precautions | No. of HCW assessed | Average no. of HCW assessed per day (95% CI*) | No. (%) of HCW exposed | Average no. of HCW exposed per day (95% CI*) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 8–10 | Suspected | Standard | 125 | 41.7 (34.8–49.5) | 47 (38) | 15.7 (11.6–20.7) |
| May 11–17 | Confirmed | Standard | 78 | 11.1 (8.9–13.8) | 15 (19) | 2.1 (1.2–3.5) |
| May 18–21 | Confirmed | Enhanced† | 14 | 3.5 (2.0–5.7) | 5 (36) | 1.3 (0.5–2.8) |
Abbreviation: CI = confidence interval.
* Confidence intervals calculated using the Mid-P exact test with Miettinen's (1974d) modification (Rothman KJ, Boice JD. Epidemiologic analysis with a programmable calculator. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health 1979).
† Enhanced precautions included both droplet and contact precautions and were implemented after the patient developed an antibiotic resistant urinary tract infection.