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 5, Number 3—June 1999

Human Rabies Postexposure Prophylaxis during a Raccoon Rabies Epizootic in New York, 1993 and 1994

Jeffrey D. Wyatt*Comments to Author , William H. Barker*, Nancy M. Bennett†, and Cathleen A. Hanlon‡
Author affiliations: *University of Rochester School of Medicine & Dentistry, Rochester, New York, USA; †Monroe County Department of Health, Rochester, New York, USA; ‡Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA

Main Article

Table 2

Human rabies postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) in New York State, 1993-94: urban and rural settingsa

All four counties
Animal sourceN (%)N (%)N (%)
Dogb137 (18)28 (7)165 (14)
Cat130 (17)75 (18)205 (17)
Other domestic speciesc5 (<1)15 (4)20 (2)
All domestic species272 (35)118 (28)390 (33)
Raccoon41 (45)248 (59)589 (50)
Bat (all species)41 (5)13 (1)54 (5)
Striped skunk29 (4)6 (<1)35 (3)
Fox 19 (3)9 (2)28 (2)
Other wild speciesd51 (4)26 (2)77 (7)
All wild species481 (65)302 (72)783 (67)
Rate per 100,000 pop.3212343

aCharacteristics of human rabies PEP cases reported to the health departments of the two relatively urbanized counties, Onondaga and Monroe, and the two relatively rural counties Cayuga and Wayne, during 1993 and 1994.
bp < 0.00. Human PEP rates due to dog exposures were significantly higher in urban counties.
cOther domestic species include 2 and 3 PEP cases due to cow and horse exposure in the urban counties and 10 and 5 cases due to cow and domestic rabbit exposure in the rural counties, respectively.
dOther wild species includes 17, 6, 4, 2, 2, and 1 PEP cases due to an unknown animal type, wild rodent (other than woodchuck), 4 Sika deer (exotic, captive species), opossum, coyote, and mink in the urban counties and 17 and 3 PEP cases due to an unknown animal type and wild rodent (other than woodchuck) in the rural counties, respectively

Main Article

Page created: December 10, 2010
Page updated: December 10, 2010
Page reviewed: December 10, 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.