Skip directly to search Skip directly to A to Z list Skip directly to page options Skip directly to site content

Volume 11, Number 12—December 2005

Research

Rabies Postexposure Prophylaxis, New York, 1995–2000

Jesse D. Blanton*Comments to Author , Nadine Y. Bowden*, Millicent Eidson†, Jeffrey D. Wyatt‡, and Cathleen A. Hanlon*
Author affiliations: *Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA; †New York State Department of Health, Albany, New York, USA; ‡University of Rochester School of Medicine & Dentistry, Rochester, New York, USA

Main Article

Table 3

Human rabies postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) by group size, 4 counties, New York, 1995–2000

Characteristic Group size, n (%)
1 2 3 4 5 >6
No. 1,336 (60) 284 (13) 159 (7) 192 (9) 55 (2) 190 (9)
No. sources 1,336 (83) 142 (9) 53 (3) 48 (3) 11 (1) 18 (1)
Route of exposure*
Bite† 1,008 (75) 69 (24) 18 (11) 6 (3) 1 (2) 26 (14)
Nonbite 316 (24) 205 (72) 132 (83) 170 (89) 49 (89) 163 (86)
Unknown 12 (1) 10 (4) 9 (6) 16 (8) 5 (9) 1 (<1)
Source of exposure*
Dog or cat 845 (63) 50 (18) 27 (17) 4 (2) 5 (9) 90 (47)
Other domestic species 5 (<1) 12 (4) 0 4 (2) 0 15 (8)
Raccoon 111 (8) 44 (16) 21 (13) 32 (17) 2 (4) 40 (21)
Bat 241 (18) 132 (46) 96 (60) 147 (76) 43 (78) 4 (2)
Other wild species 97 (7) 36 (13) 9 (6) 5 (3) 0 21 (11)
Unknown source animal 37 (3) 10 (3) 6 (4) 0 5 (9) 20 (11)
Mean age (y) 30.9 31.6 23.8 22.5 16.2 26.6

*Route of exposure and source of exposure percentages calculated within group size to accommodate comparison.

†Bite exposure was significantly associated with single-person exposures vs. group exposures (p<0.001).

Main Article

TOP