Human rabies post exposure prophylaxis at the Pasteur Institute of Dakar, Senegal: trends and risk factors.
Adolescent
Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Animals
Bites and Stings
Child
Child, Preschool
Cohort Studies
Costs and Cost Analysis
Developing Countries
Female
Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice
Humans
Infant
Male
Middle Aged
Patient Compliance
Post-Exposure Prophylaxis
/ methods
Prospective Studies
Rabies
/ prevention & control
Rabies Vaccines
/ economics
Risk Factors
Senegal
Young Adult
Dog bites
Knowledge
Post exposure prophylaxis
Rabies
Risk factors
Sub-saharan Africa
Journal
BMC infectious diseases
ISSN: 1471-2334
Titre abrégé: BMC Infect Dis
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968551
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 Apr 2019
11 Apr 2019
Historique:
received:
03
08
2017
accepted:
20
03
2019
entrez:
13
4
2019
pubmed:
13
4
2019
medline:
22
5
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Rabies remains a major public health problem in developing countries. Most fatal rabies cases, especially in children, result from dog bites and occur in low-income countries, such as those in Sub-Saharan Africa. Rabies can be controlled through mass dog vaccination and human deaths prevented through timely and appropriate post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP). As access to appropriate PEP remains a serious challenge for bite-victims, the aim of this study was to understand the use of PEP, to evaluate the knowledge, attitudes and practices with respect to rabies and to identify risk factors related to non-compliance with PEP to define recommendations for improving PEP in Senegal. This study included patients with suspicion of rabies exposure who sought PEP at the Pasteur Institute of Dakar from April 2013 to March 2014. Patients with rabies clinical symptoms, those who had already started PEP and those with exposure outside Senegal or for more than 3 months were excluded. Data on risk factors and propensity to seek and complete PEP were collected using questionnaires and phone interviews. The association between acceptability and compliance with PEP and other independent variables were evaluated using multivariate regression analysis. Among the 905 patients enrolled into the study, 67% were male (sex ratio M/F, 2) and 46%, children under 15 years of age. Exposures by animal bites represented 87%, whereas the remainder were due to scratches or contact; 76% were classified as WHO category III and 88% were due to dogs. Among these patients, 7% refused to start PEP and 54.5% completed the full schedule. Main factors reported by non-compliant patients were vaccine costs and affordability, and knowledge on status of biting animal. This study shows that despite the awareness about rabies dangers and prevention, only half of the patients completed the full PEP schedule. The following recommendations, such as free of charge prophylaxis or intradermal regimens as an alternative to intramuscular regimens, should be considered to increase the adherence to PEP at the Pasteur Institute of Dakar and in Senegal.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Rabies remains a major public health problem in developing countries. Most fatal rabies cases, especially in children, result from dog bites and occur in low-income countries, such as those in Sub-Saharan Africa. Rabies can be controlled through mass dog vaccination and human deaths prevented through timely and appropriate post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP). As access to appropriate PEP remains a serious challenge for bite-victims, the aim of this study was to understand the use of PEP, to evaluate the knowledge, attitudes and practices with respect to rabies and to identify risk factors related to non-compliance with PEP to define recommendations for improving PEP in Senegal.
METHODS
METHODS
This study included patients with suspicion of rabies exposure who sought PEP at the Pasteur Institute of Dakar from April 2013 to March 2014. Patients with rabies clinical symptoms, those who had already started PEP and those with exposure outside Senegal or for more than 3 months were excluded. Data on risk factors and propensity to seek and complete PEP were collected using questionnaires and phone interviews. The association between acceptability and compliance with PEP and other independent variables were evaluated using multivariate regression analysis.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Among the 905 patients enrolled into the study, 67% were male (sex ratio M/F, 2) and 46%, children under 15 years of age. Exposures by animal bites represented 87%, whereas the remainder were due to scratches or contact; 76% were classified as WHO category III and 88% were due to dogs. Among these patients, 7% refused to start PEP and 54.5% completed the full schedule. Main factors reported by non-compliant patients were vaccine costs and affordability, and knowledge on status of biting animal.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
This study shows that despite the awareness about rabies dangers and prevention, only half of the patients completed the full PEP schedule. The following recommendations, such as free of charge prophylaxis or intradermal regimens as an alternative to intramuscular regimens, should be considered to increase the adherence to PEP at the Pasteur Institute of Dakar and in Senegal.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30975098
doi: 10.1186/s12879-019-3928-0
pii: 10.1186/s12879-019-3928-0
pmc: PMC6460513
doi:
Substances chimiques
Rabies Vaccines
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
321Références
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009 Sep 1;106(35):14996-5001
pubmed: 19706492
Travel Med Infect Dis. 2012 Jan;10(1):1-15
pubmed: 22342356
Med Mal Infect. 2007 Dec;37(12):787-91
pubmed: 17583460
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2011 Mar 08;5(3):e982
pubmed: 21408121
Front Vet Sci. 2017 Mar 06;4:21
pubmed: 28321400
Curr Top Microbiol Immunol. 2012;351:139-57
pubmed: 21267707
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2008;2(11):e339
pubmed: 19030223
Vaccine. 1989 Oct;7(5):437-42
pubmed: 2815979
World Health Organ Tech Rep Ser. 2013;(982):1-139, back cover
pubmed: 24069724
Vet Res. 2013 Sep 09;44:77
pubmed: 24016204
Vaccine. 2018 Sep 5;36(37):5500-5503
pubmed: 30107991
Int J Infect Dis. 2002 Sep;6(3):210-4
pubmed: 12718837
Clin Med (Lond). 2015 Feb;15(1):78-81
pubmed: 25650205
Travel Med Infect Dis. 2005 Feb;3(1):1-7
pubmed: 17291998
Soc Sci Med. 1989;28(8):843-9
pubmed: 2705017
J Travel Med. 2015 Sep-Oct;22(5):348-52
pubmed: 26173470
Emerg Infect Dis. 2007 Jan;13(1):136-9
pubmed: 17370529
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2013 Nov 07;7(11):e2510
pubmed: 24244767
Vaccine. 2006 Apr 12;24(16):3084-6
pubmed: 16494972
Vaccine. 2008 Nov 25;26(50):6295-8
pubmed: 18617294
Vaccine. 2009 Aug 13;27(37):5027-32
pubmed: 19560430
JAMA. 2000 Aug 23-30;284(8):1001-7
pubmed: 10944646
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1998 Jun 29;353(1371):999-1010
pubmed: 9684293
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2009 Sep 08;3(9):e511
pubmed: 19907631
J Infect Public Health. 2012 Dec;5(6):374-80
pubmed: 23287607
Dakar Med. 1991;36(2):105-11
pubmed: 1842768
J Med Internet Res. 2013 Apr 16;15(4):e68
pubmed: 23591700
Lancet Glob Health. 2017 Oct;5(10):e1017-e1025
pubmed: 28911750
Wkly Epidemiol Rec. ;92(48):729-47
pubmed: 29192459
Dakar Med. 1990;35(1):99-105
pubmed: 2131203
Vaccine. 2005 Feb 25;23(14):1709-14
pubmed: 15705476
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2015 Apr 16;9(4):e0003709
pubmed: 25881058
Indian J Public Health. 2015 Jan-Mar;59(1):58-60
pubmed: 25758734
Trop Med Int Health. 2010 Nov;15(11):1326-32
pubmed: 20955496
MMWR Recomm Rep. 2008 May 23;57(RR-3):1-28
pubmed: 18496505
Lancet. 2014 Oct 11;384(9951):1389-99
pubmed: 24828901
BMC Int Health Hum Rights. 2009 Oct 14;9 Suppl 1:S7
pubmed: 19828065
Epidemiol Infect. 2018 Jan;146(2):227-235
pubmed: 29271331