Volume 8, Number 9—September 2002
Research
Public Health Impact of Reemergence of Rabies, New York
Hwa-Gan H. Chang*
, Millicent Eidson*†, Candace Noonan-Toly*, Charles V. Trimarchi*, Robert Rudd*, Barbara J. Wallace*†, Perry F. Smith*†, and Dale L. Morse*†
, Millicent Eidson*†, Candace Noonan-Toly*, Charles V. Trimarchi*, Robert Rudd*, Barbara J. Wallace*†, Perry F. Smith*†, and Dale L. Morse*†
Table 3
Number of humans receiving postexposure treatment, by animal status and type of exposure, New York, 1993–1998
| Type of exposure | No. (%) of humans receiving PET a |
|||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rabid animal | Suspect rabid animalb | Nonrabid animalc | Total | |
| Bite | 538 (.8) | 5,503 (47.6) | 328 (60.0) | 6,369 (34.9) |
| Scratch | 224 (3.6) | 773 (6.7) | 56 (10.2) | 1,053 (5.8) |
| Contact with saliva | 5,090 (82.9) | 2,891 (25.0) | 131 (23.9) | 8,112 (44.5) |
| Unknown exposure | 287 (4.8) | 2,385 (20.6) | 32 (5.9) | 2,704 (14.8) |
| Total | 6,139 (10) | 11,552 (100) | 547 (100) | 18,238 (100) |
aPET, postexposure treatment.
bPETs due to exposure to animals not submitted for rabies testing or specimen was not testable because of specimen condition.
cPETs due to exposure to animals that tested negative for rabies.
Page created: July 16, 2010
Page updated: July 16, 2010
Page reviewed: July 16, 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.