Skip directly to site content Skip directly to page options Skip directly to A-Z link Skip directly to A-Z link Skip directly to A-Z link
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 1

Human rabies postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) by animal source, 4 counties, New York, 1995–2000*

Animal source Bite, n (%) Nonbite, n (%)
Unspecified§ Total, n (%)
Direct
Indirect‡
Scratch Saliva/NT†
Raccoon 48 (19) 16 (6) 65 (26) 120 (48) 1 (<1) 250 (11)
Bat (all species) 115 (17) 29 (4) 100 (15) 11 (2) 408 (62) 663 (30)
Other wild species¶ 76 (45) 6 (4) 41 (24) 44 (26) 1 (1) 168 (8)
All wild species 239 (22) 51 (5) 206 (19) 175 (16) 410 (38) 1,081 (49)
Cat 367 (70) 64 (12) 89 (17) 3 (1) 0 523 (24)
Dog 493 (99) 0 3 (1) 0 2 (<1) 498 (22)
Other domestic species# 7 (19) 0 28 (78) 0 1 (3) 36 (2)
All domestic species 867 (82) 64 (6) 120 (11) 3 (<1) 3 (<1) 1,057 (48)
Unknown 22 (28) 4 (5) 19 (24) 28 (36) 5 (7) 78 (3)
Total 1,128 (51) 119 (5) 345 (16) 206 (9) 418 (19) 2,216 (100)

*Data are from Cayuga, Monroe, Onondaga, and Wayne Counties.

†Direct contamination of an open wound or mucous membrane with potentially infectious material such as saliva or neural tissue (NT).

‡No known direct contact with a rabid or suspected rabid animal. Indirect exposure consisted of possible contact with saliva on an animal (i.e., pet dog or cat) or inanimate object from a suspected rabid animal that resulted in contamination of an open wound or mucous membrane.

§Unspecified contact indicates no exposure information was listed or exposure was indicated as unknown on data records. Unspecified exposure for bats includes being in the physical presence of a bat and not being able to rule out direct contact, particularly a bite. More people received PEP after unspecified exposure to bats than any other group of animals (p<0.001).

¶Includes beaver, coyote, chipmunk, deer, fox, mouse, opossum, otter, rat, skunk, squirrel, and woodchuck.

#Includes cow, ferret, horse, monkey, and rabbit.

Main Article

Page created: February 02, 2012
Page updated: February 02, 2012
Page reviewed: February 02, 2012
The conclusions, findings, and opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the official position of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors' affiliated institutions. Use of trade names is for identification only and does not imply endorsement by any of the groups named above.
file_external