| Literature DB >> 33219786 |
Ryan M Wallace, Florence Cliquet, Christine Fehlner-Gardiner, Anthony R Fooks, Claude T Sabeta, Alvaro Aguilar Setién, Changchun Tu, Vlad Vuta, Boris Yakobson, Dong-Kun Yang, Gideon Brückner, Conrad M Freuling, Lea Knopf, Artem Metlin, Patricia Pozzetti, Pebi Purwo Suseno, Sean V Shadomy, Gregorio Torres, Marco Antonio Natal Vigilato, Bernadette Abela-Ridder, Thomas Müller.
Abstract
Domestic dogs are responsible for nearly all the »59,000 global human rabies deaths that occur annually. Numerous control measures have been successful at eliminating dog-mediated human rabies deaths in upper-income countries, including dog population management, parenteral dog vaccination programs, access to human rabies vaccines, and education programs for bite prevention and wound treatment. Implementing these techniques in resource-poor settings can be challenging; perhaps the greatest challenge is maintaining adequate herd immunity in free-roaming dog populations. Oral rabies vaccines have been a cornerstone in rabies virus elimination from wildlife populations; however, oral vaccines have never been effectively used to control dog-mediated rabies. Here, we convey the perspectives of the World Organisation for Animal Health Rabies Reference Laboratory Directors, the World Organisation for Animal Health expert committee on dog rabies control, and World Health Organization regarding the role of oral vaccines for dogs. We also issue recommendations for overcoming hesitations to expedited field use of appropriate oral vaccines.Entities:
Keywords: disease control; dogs; rabies; vaccine-preventable diseases; viruses; zoonoses; zoonotic
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33219786 PMCID: PMC7706920 DOI: 10.3201/eid2612.201266
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Emerg Infect Dis ISSN: 1080-6040 Impact factor: 16.126
Examples from the published literature of vaccination campaigns that have met or failed to meet vaccination targets
| Successful vaccination programs | Unsuccessful vaccination programs | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Country | Vaccination coverage, % | Reference | Country | Vaccination coverage, % | Reference | |
| Zambia | 80 | ( | Chad | 19 | ( | |
| Mexico | >90 | ( | Chad | 24 | ( | |
| Chad | 74 | ( | Kenya | 29 | ( | |
| Thailand | 70 | ( | Nigeria | 17 | ( | |
| Bolivia | 85 | ( | South Africa | 56 | ( | |
| Tanzania | 68 | ( | Tanzania | 9 | ( | |
Figure 1Oral rabies vaccines can be helpful in vaccinating dog populations where traditional parenteral methods have failed to reach adequate vaccination coverages, Haiti. A) A dog hiding behind 2 buildings is vaccinated with an oral rabies vaccine. B) A family with 4 free-roaming dogs watches as they ingest an oral rabies vaccine bait. C) Dogs can be protective of puppies, so oral rabies vaccines provide a safer method to vaccinators and reduce the risk of bites during parenteral vaccination. D) Fences and other barriers can make difficult tasks for parenteral vaccinators. A dog is vaccinated through a barbed wire fence with an oral rabies vaccine.
Figure 2Dogs receiving oral rabies vaccines have the potential to expose community members, particularly children, Haiti. Oral rabies vaccines must be safe for dogs as well as the humans and animals that live near dogs. Children particularly are at risk for exposure to oral rabies vaccines through bites and licks from recently vaccinated dogs or when vaccines are left in the community. The unintended contact with the vaccine can be effectively reduced when a hand-out model (removal of unconsumed or partly ingested baits) is used.
Summary of recommendations for the evaluation of oral rabies vaccines for vaccine candidates before use in the field
| No. | Major categories for assessment of an oral rabies vaccine candidate* |
|---|---|
| 1 | Description of the manufacturer |
| 2 | Description of the vaccine construct |
| 3 | Is the vaccine safe for the target animal? |
| 4 | Has safety been assessed for potential non-target animals? |
| 5 | Has safety been assessed in nonhuman primates? |
| 6 | Does the vaccine elicit an immune response in target animals? |
| 7 | Have virulent challenge studies been conducted to assess duration of immunity? |
| 8 | Does the vaccine replicate in host tissues and is replicating virus excreted from animals? |
| 9 | Is the bait composition attractive to the target animal, and does it convey delivery of the vaccine to the target host-anatomy? |
| 10 | Have bait contact rates been described for the bait distribution method you are considering? |
| 11 | Has the vaccine been evaluated under field conditions and are storage requirements known? |
| 12 | Has an economic cost-benefit assessment been conducted? |
| 13 | Is the product currently acknowledged by an international public health agency for field use? |
| 14 | Is the product currently licensed in any countries for field use? |
| 15 | Is the community supportive of oral rabies vaccination of dogs? |
| 16 | Can the responsible authority conduct postvaccination monitoring for persons potentially exposed to the vaccine? |
| 17 | Can the responsible authority conduct postvaccination monitoring for vaccine exposures from contact with recently vaccinated dogs? |
| 18 | Is there an effective postexposure prophylaxis for humans exposed to the oral rabies vaccine? |
| 19 | Can the responsible health authority provide postexposure prophylaxis for persons potentially exposed to the vaccine? |
*Adapted from World Health Organization 2007 recommendation on oral rabies vaccine assessment ().
Landscape analysis of potential oral rabies vaccine candidates
| Vaccine name | Manufacturer | Construct | Review status* | Licensure status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| V-RG | Boehringer Ingelheim, Germany | Recombinant vaccinia virus | Safe and efficacious | Licensed for wildlife in Europe and USA |
| ONRAB | Artemis, Canada | Recombinant adenovirus | Safe and efficacious | Licensed for wildlife in Canada |
| SPBN GASGAS | Ceva, France | Recombinant rabies virus | Safe and efficacious | Licensed for wildlife in Europe |
| ERA G333 | Prokov, Russia | Recombinant rabies virus | Not assessed | Licensed for wildlife in Russia |
| SAG2 | VIRBAC, France | Attenuated rabies virus | Safe and efficacious | Licensed for wildlife in Europe |
| SAD B19 | Ceva, France | Attenuated rabies virus | Low residual pathogenicity | Licensed for wildlife in Europe |
| SAD Bern | Bioveta, Czech Republic | Attenuated rabies virus | Low residual pathogenicity | Licensed for wildlife in Europe |
| SAD Clone | Bioveta, Czech Republic | Attenuated rabies virus | Low residual pathogenicity | Licensed for wildlife in Europe |
| RV-97 | FGBI ARRAIH, Russia | Attenuated rabies virus | Low residual pathogenicity | Licensed for wildlife in Russia |
| KMIEV-94 | Institute of Experimental Veterinary, Belarus | Attenuated rabies virus | Not assessed | Licensed for wildlife in Belarus |
| VRC-RZ2 | Kazakhstan | Attenuated rabies virus | Not assessed | Licensed for wildlife in Kazakhstan |
*Review status refers to safety and efficacy in the target species based on published data.
Considerations for rabies vaccination methods applied to dog populations
| Accessibility of the dog population | Central point | Door-to-door | Capture–vaccinate–release | Oral vaccination |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Owned, confined dogs | Good coverage | Good coverage | Moderate coverage | Rarely applicable* |
| Owned, roaming dogs | Moderate coverage | Moderate coverage | Good coverage | Good coverage |
| Unowned dogs | Poor coverage | Poor coverage | Good coverage | Good coverage |
| Advantage | Inexpensive | Owners do not have to transport dogs | Expensive and requires trained staff | Easy and targets free roaming dogs |
| Disadvantage | Low free-roaming dog coverage | Low free-roaming dog coverage | Cost and scalability concerns | Cost, safety, and efficacy concerns |
*Parenteral vaccination should be the preferred method when the dog can be brought for vaccination by an owner.
Summary of recommendations to promote the safe and effective use of oral rabies vaccine in dogs*
| Short-term activities (activities to be accomplished by 2021) |
|---|
| Global health agencies should provide guidance on conducting hand-out vaccination programs for dogs |
| Global health agencies should provide guidance to policy makers on how to interpret complex safety evaluation studies |
| Policy makers should be encouraged to evaluate the animal and human health impacts (beneficial and harmful) from use of ORV as a complement to injectable vaccines in dog vaccination programs |
| International organizations, such as United Against Rabies, should acknowledge the need, role, and acceptability of ORV to further promote safe and cost-effective ORV of dogs |
| Vaccination programs should be designed using fit-for-purpose methodology, where appropriate methods (or mixed methods) and vaccine constructs are chosen based on characteristics of the dog population and capacities of the vaccination staff |
| International organizations should advocate for the use of tools that assess the role of ORV in mixed-method vaccination
campaigns to increase awareness of the benefits of ORV |
| Medium-term activities (activities to be accomplished by 2023) |
| OIE should continue its efforts to promote the concept of vaccine regulatory convergence to OIE member countries. |
| Although OIE and WHO do recognize the need for use of animal vaccines off-label, a prospective approach to validating oral rabies vaccines, like the WHO vaccine pre-qualification process, should be developed to provide more confidence in the use of oral rabies vaccines, both in field-trials and integration into mass parenteral vaccination programs |
| Prequalification should be a future requirement for any oral rabies vaccine to be used for dogs in projects funded or supervised by the United Against Rabies initiative, thereby creating an incentive for manufacturers to invest into this area. |
| Benchmark immunogenicity studies and field trials should be conducted in several countries representative of regions where dog-mediated rabies is endemic as they are considered crucial to demonstrate the fitness for purpose of oral rabies vaccination as a supplementary tool. |
| OIE and PAHO should offer these vaccines through their vaccine bank (OIE) and Revolving Fund (PAHO) |
| Long-term activities (activities to be accomplished by 2025) |
| Although licensure can be a long, arduous, and expensive process, manufacturers should continue to seek central licensure for use of their products in dogs. |
| OIE and WHO should consider developing a global regulatory science agenda for oral rabies vaccines, similar to what is recommended for human vaccines |
*OIE, World Organisation for Animal Health; ORV, oral rabies vaccination; WHO, World Health Organization; PAHO, Pan American Health Organization.