Apr 12, 2013 · Oral rabies vaccination has contributed to the elimination of the red fox rabies virus variant and the canine rabies virus variant from several European countries and the United States, respectively, and has helped to prevent any appreciable spread of the raccoon rabies virus variant in the eastern United States ( 1 ).
Feb 05, 2021 · Rabies vaccine is used in two ways. Rabies vaccine is given to persons who have been exposed (eg, by a bite, scratch, or lick) to an animal that is known, or thought, to have rabies. This is called post-exposure prophylaxis.
The Oral Rabies Vaccination (ORV) Program is for the immunization of raccoons in the wild. The purpose of the program is to create a barrier to prevent raccoon rabies from spreading further west. The ORV Program is a cooperative effort between the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Virginia Department of Health (VDH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and other …
vaccinated by the oral route higher than that established for a parenteral vaccination (e.g. US$ 1 to 1.3 with 0.35 worth of vaccine [ 18 ] ) as most savings accrue after rabies elimination. However, when oral and parenteral vaccination compete for the same dog (e.g. owned and
Jul 22, 2020 · Oral Rabies Vaccine and Bait Information. Oral rabies vaccination (ORV) has been in use in the United States since 1990, in Canada since 1985 and in Europe since 1980. Currently there are 16 states distributing oral vaccines for raccoons in the U.S., while Texas distributes baits for gray fox and coyote. The ORV baits currently being used in the United States are developed and manufactured by Merial, Inc. and consist of a sachet, or plastic packet containing the Raboral V-RG® rabies vaccine.
A great paradox exists in the field of global rabies elimination: oral rabies vaccination (ORV) is the main component of elimination of rabies from wildlife populations, which cause only modest human deaths (24–27), whereas ORV is not used to complement parenteral vaccination for elimination of rabies in dog populations , which are responsible for more human deaths than any other single zoonotic pathogen.
Dec 21, 2010 · An oral vaccine to control raccoon rabies is undergoing evaluation in New York and Massachusetts (10,11). Also, large-scale programs are using an oral vaccine against rabies in coyote and gray fox populations in Texas . Uhaa et al. examined the economics of using an oral vaccine in Hunterdon and Warren Counties, New Jersey. However, their study was limited to a 5-year period and …
Jul 27, 2020 · Since 1995, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Wildlife Services (WS) program has been working cooperatively with local, State, and Federal governments, universities, and other partners to reduce rabies in wildlife. Oral rabies vaccination (ORV) bait is distributed to wildlife in targeted areas. This edible bait consists of a sachet, or plastic packet, containing the RABORAL V-RG® rabies vaccine.
Oral Rabies Vaccine Information. USDA Rabies Brochure. USDA Bait Description Card. 2016 ORV FAQ. 2019 Oral Rabies Vaccine (ORV) Distribution Areas. Legal Authority to Conduct Oral Rabies Vaccine Bait Drop. 2016 USDA ONRAB FAQ.
Cite This Article. Domestic dogs are responsible for nearly all the »59, 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. Those disease eradication efforts have focused on pathogens that are host-restricted or affect only a single host. In , the world called for action by setting a goal of zero human dog-mediated rabies deaths by worldwide. In , the World Health Organization WHO , the World Organisation for Animal Health OIE , the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, and the Global Alliance for Rabies Control launched the Global Strategic Plan for global elimination of dog-mediated human rabies deaths by , which represents the first major effort to eliminate a classical zoonosis and poses unique challenges not encountered during prior disease elimination efforts 7 — 9. Among the various rabies reservoir species 10 , 11 , domestic dogs pose the greatest threat to global public health 12 , Despite the complexities inherent in controlling zoonotic diseases, historical experience has shown that dog-mediated rabies virus elimination is feasible and cost-effective Dog-mediated rabies has been eliminated from nearly every high-income country through the implementation of dog vaccination and population management programs 16 , Dog rabies control efforts in low- and middle-income countries are estimated to prevent 2. In recent decades, vaccination efforts have stagnated in many countries because of scarce funding for animal health sector elimination initiatives and perceived barriers to effectively vaccinating high-risk dog populations 8 , A great paradox exists in the field of global rabies elimination: oral rabies vaccination ORV is the main component of elimination of rabies from wildlife populations, which cause only modest human deaths 24 — 27 , whereas ORV is not used to complement parenteral vaccination for elimination of rabies in dog populations 28 , which are responsible for more human deaths than any other single zoonotic pathogen. At present, parenteral vaccination is the only approach used for addressing dog-mediated rabies at-scale, despite frequent publications and field reports of the inadequacies of this approach among important subpopulations of susceptible dogs Table 1 Elimination of dog-mediated rabies from high-income countries was achieved through parenteral vaccination of dogs at fixed locations e. Alternative vaccination methods that overcome these infrastructure deficits, such as capture—vaccinate—release CVR and door-to-door vaccination, have been piloted in subnational settings and have shown to be highly effective 40 — However, the feasibility of scaling up campaigns that rely upon parenterally focused alternative vaccination methods is now in doubt 44 , Parenteral vaccination by CVR techniques has led to tangible reductions in dog-mediated human rabies deaths in areas such as Bali, Indonesia, and Goa, India. To date, no example of a large-scale, national campaign that relies primarily on the labor-intensive method of CVR exists. The sheer number of vaccinators required to enact the CVR technique at-scale requires a labor pool that does not yet exist in many endemic countries 8 , A cadre of an estimated 1. Recent studies conducted in Asia and the Americas have shown that although CVR techniques applied to inaccessible dog populations are inefficient reaching only 10—20 dogs per vaccinator per day , vaccinators using ORV in these same dog populations can far exceed 50 successful vaccinations each day 42 , 45 , In settings where alternative vaccination methods are necessary to reach adequate herd immunity, scalability will likely require inclusion of ORV to effectively eliminate dog-mediated rabies. Although infrastructure is an important component of rabies vaccination, a profusion of other considerations also influence the feasibility of an approach that will be most successful. Whether a population of dogs are accessible for parenteral vaccination depends on cultural, environmental, and economic factors. In most rabies control programs, a positive association exists between dog accessibility and efficiency of vaccinations delivered, as well as cost-effectiveness, predicated on parenteral vaccination. With ORV, this fundamental relationship can change Several studies have shown that in areas with low dog accessibility, parenteral vaccination was either ineffective or inefficient, but ORV was able to achieve adequate coverage while remaining a cost-effective public health intervention 42 , 45 — Decades of debate over the potential role of ORV for dogs has left a confusing landscape of guidance and perspectives 49 — Here, we discuss the greatest deterrents to the inclusion of ORV in routine dog vaccination programs and how to encourage their safe and cost-effective use. Figure 1. Oral 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 Figure 2. Dogs 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 Unintended and long-lasting impacts on humans, as seen with the large-scale field use of oral vaccines for poliovirus and smallpox virus 54 , 55 , have not been observed with oral rabies virus vaccines 56 , Only very few sporadic adverse events in animals or humans, without any epidemiologic impact, have been reported when baits were distributed randomly in the environment 56 — Given the close proximity of free-roaming dogs to humans, particularly in urban environments, distributing vaccines through a hand-out model would effectively reduce unintended exposures to vaccine virus compared with environmental distribution of baits Figures 1 , 2. Thorough safety evaluations are essential before any consideration of field distribution of oral rabies vaccines, including safety for target and major nontarget species, virus dissemination potential, genetic stability, environmental safety, and mode of distribution Table 2. At least 5 guidelines have been developed to describe the process by which candidate oral vaccines should be evaluated for safety and efficacy i. These guidelines are highly technical and developed from a regulatory point of view. Evaluating of vaccine safety can be a complex and multifaceted process. A standardized safety assessment model was proposed in by Head et al. Increased use of such types of risk assessment tools and dissemination of plain-language safety evaluation results can provide a stronger argument for policy makers to justify the use of oral rabies vaccines. To address unfounded concerns related to safety of oral rabies virus vaccines, a few actions are recommended. First, global health agencies should provide guidance on conducting hand-out oral vaccination programs for dogs. Second, global health agencies should provide guidance to policy makers on how to interpret complex safety evaluation studies. Finally, 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. Licensure of veterinary products ensures that a national professional regulatory organization has deemed the product safe for the target animal, potential nontarget animals, and humans. Several oral rabies vaccine products are licensed for use in wildlife, yet licensure has not been obtained for these products for use in dogs despite ample studies establishing their safety and efficacy.
Cite This Article. Further, cost savings must be adjusted to match the stages of an epizootic: pre-epizootic, epizootic, and post-epizootic. A generic model, which can be adapted to different sites, illustrates the use of threshold analysis to link distribution costs, cost savings, bait density, and vaccine price. Initial results indicate the need to lower the cost of the vaccine, continue research to determine optimal bait densities, and examine distribution plans that do not require continued protection of areas in which raccoon rabies was eliminated through previous vaccination programs. Over the past 30 years, reported cases of animal rabies in the United States have increased, from fewer than 5, per year in the early s to almost 10, per year in the mids 1 , 2. Most of the increase is attributable to the spread of raccoon rabies from Florida to the northeastern states 1. The impact of this epizootic has been considerable. In addition, a raccoon rabies epizootic increases other costs, including those associated with animal control and laboratory diagnosis 5 ; Tysmans, J. Oral vaccines offer a potential solution to rabies in wildlife populations 6 , 7. An oral vaccine to control raccoon rabies 9 is undergoing evaluation in New York and Massachusetts 10 , Also, large-scale programs are using an oral vaccine against rabies in coyote and gray fox populations in Texas Uhaa et al. However, their study was limited to a 5-year period and only to costs borne by the two counties. To aid the collection of data needed to conduct a cost-benefit analysis of the use of an oral vaccine in large areas e. Since many of the necessary data for the model are still being collected, the data used in the model are illustrative rather than definitive. Any evaluation of the costs and benefits of using an oral vaccine to protect wild raccoon populations must be based on three premises: 1 Oral vaccine is distributed on a per unit area basis, calculated by using estimates of raccoon population density i. The greatest cost savings is likely to occur during the epizootic since this stage is typically associated with the highest cost of raccoon rabies control 5 ; Tysmans, J. In New Hampshire, for example, the annual number of requests for Animal Damage Control services involving raccoons went from per year in pre-epizootic years , to during an epizootic year , and then declined to in the post-epizootic years A cost-benefit model with a societal perspective was constructed on Excel 5. The costs of a raccoon rabies vaccination program include purchasing and distributing the oral vaccine in bait form. The benefits of such a program are the direct and indirect cost savings obtained by successfully halting or preventing a raccoon rabies epizootic and subsequent enzooticity. Since the vaccine technology is new, and no data exist on how the technology might change over the 30 years, it is assumed that the real costs and benefits are constant over the 30 years. Parameters and values used in the model are presented in Table 1. Figure 1. Annual and cumulative total areas baited with oral vaccine using an expanding circles scenario. Notes: Initial circle has a radius of 20 mi, expanded out by 5 mi every 2 years Since what constitutes an "ideal" plan for large-scale oral vaccine bait distribution is not known, two scenarios were constructed. The area covered and the rate of barrier movement were chosen merely for illustration. Once actual proposals are made, the area covered and the time line may be modified to suit specific geographic areas. The first scenario assumes that bait is distributed in ever-expanding circles, starting with an area covered by a radius of 20 mi area: 1, sq. This area would be baited for 2 years. In the third year, the radius of the circle would be increased to 25 mi. The area between the mi and mi radius would then be baited for 2 years, at which time the radius defining the outer boundary would be increased by another 5 mi. This process would continue for 20 years, at the end of which the radius of the circle would be 65 mi, encompassing 13, sq. At the end of the 20 years, a year period would follow during which a 5-mi wide barrier zone would be baited every year. The yearly and cumulative total areas baited are shown in Figure 1. The barrier zone is necessary because the described plan cannot guarantee elimination, and the area covered by a vaccine program is vulnerable to the reintroduction of rabid animals. The second scenario considers the entire 13, sq. In an economic analysis, opportunity costs should be used However, the vaccine is still experimental, and data concerning discount prices could not be obtained. This is the cost reported for trials of the oral vaccine in New York State C. In lieu of accurate opportunity costs, a sensitivity analysis evaluates the threshold price i. This threshold value can then be compared with actual opportunity costs when more data become available. The bait density required to successfully halt or stop raccoon rabies has not been definitively determined 10 , 11 , 16 , Raccoon density can vary enormously with local ecology and weather 16 , 18 - On the basis of densities currently under trial, for each of the two scenarios it is assumed that bait is distributed at units per sq. Bait density is also the subject of sensitivity analysis. Distribution costs for oral rabies vaccine have yet to be comprehensively documented. In current trials in New York and Massachusetts, bait was dropped by people walking and from aircraft, helicopters, and cars, depending on the terrain and available resources. The use of some vehicles has been donated, as have large amounts of personnel time; therefore, their cost is difficult to determine an economic analysis must contain such costs. This cost is also the subject of a sensitivity analysis. In the model described here, the benefits from using the oral vaccine are assumed to be the cost savings derived directly from preventing a raccoon-related rabies epizootic and post-epizootic. These cost savings are, therefore, the difference between the pre-epizootic costs of controlling rabies and the costs incurred during the epizootic and post-epizootic periods. It was assumed that a rabies epizootic lasts 2 years 1 and that the years following were defined as post-epizootic. The direct costs associated with the control of animal rabies have been listed 5 and can be broken down into four categories.