Exposure characteristics of patients presenting to an anti-rabies treatment unit
No Thumbnail Available
Date
2006
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Sri Lanka College of Microbiologists
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: With increased availability, accessibility and safety of rabies post exposure treatment (PET), costs borne by the Government in the purchase of anti-rabies vaccines have increased dramatically. This study was conducted to identify exposure characteristics of patients presenting to an anti-rabies treatment unit (ARU) and to propose measures that could minimise PET use. METHOD: A hospital based descriptive study was carried out in the ARU of the National Hospital of Sri Lanka (NHSL), An interviewer administered questionnaire assessed socio-demographic characteristics and the nature of exposure of patients. Treatment received was obtained from patient records. RESULTS: All consenting, first visit patients (n-266) presented during a period of one week to the ARU with an exposure history to a suspected rabid animal were studied. Mean age of those exposed was 36.6 years (SD 16.6). Exposure to dogs (208, 78.2%) was the commonest followed by exposure to cats (33, 12.4%). Majority were exposed to domesticated animals (172, 64.7%) which were unvaccinated or did not have reliable proof of vaccination (167, 62.8%). Of the 266, 13 (4.9%) did not need PET, 51 (19.2%) needed both anti-rabies inactivated tissue culture vaccine (ARV) and anti rabies serum and202(75.9%) needed ARV only. CONCLUSION: Majority of the exposures that needed PET was to domesticated dogs which were unvaccinated or had no reliable proof of vaccination. Importance of regular vaccination of pets and safe-keeping of animal vaccination records should be stressed to the general public and awareness of responsible pet ownership should be raised among the public.
Description
Oral Presentation (OP 07) The bulletin of the Sri Lanka College of Microbiologists, 21st-23rd September 2006, Colombo
Keywords
anti-rabies treatment
Citation
The Bulletin of the Sri Lanka College of Microbiologists. 2006; 04(1): 17