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 16, Number 3—March 2010
Dispatch

Terrestrial Rabies and Human Postexposure Prophylaxis, New York, USA

Millicent EidsonComments to Author  and Anissa K. Bingman
Author affiliations: University at Albany School of Public Health, Rensselaer, New York, USA (M. Eidson, A. Bingman); New York State Department of Health, Albany, New York, USA (M. Eidson)

Main Article

Table 2

Terrestrial rabies–associated exposure incidents, number of rabid animals, and PEP use, by type of animal, New York, USA, 1993–2002*

Animal No. exposure incidents Total no. rabid animals PEP use
Total no. uses No. related to untested animals No. related to nonbite incidentss†
Wild
Raccoon 3,298 8,318 5,210 1,488 4,534
Fox 398 390 620 187 318
Skunk 637 1,894 987 302 839
Other
 544
 152
 655
 453
 328
Domestic
Dog 3,052 28 3,435 2,930 467
Cat 4,266 303 5,777 3,907 2,119
Other
 187
 143
 668
 63
 625
Other/unknown
 622
 7
 802
 767
 519
Total 13,004 11,235 18,154 10,097 9,749

*Each rabies exposure situation in which >1 persons underwent PEP was defined as an incident. Excludes New York, NY. PEP, postexposure prophylaxis.
†Scratches, saliva/nervous system tissue exposure, mucous membrane exposure, indirect exposure, or unknown.

Main Article

Page created: December 14, 2010
Page updated: December 14, 2010
Page reviewed: December 14, 2010
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