A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

What would be the impact on the rabies risk of reducing the waiting period before dogs are imported? A modelling study based on the European Union legislation. | LitMetric

AI Article Synopsis

  • Rabies virus (RABV) is very dangerous and usually deadly once symptoms appear, especially in dogs.
  • To stop rabies from spreading to places that don't have it, there are rules like a waiting period (WP) after dogs get vaccinated to make sure they're safe.
  • A study showed that if the waiting period is shorter, like only one month instead of three, the risk of bringing in infected dogs increases a lot, which is important information for making rules about animal importation.

Article Abstract

Aims: Lyssavirus rabies (RABV) is responsible for a major zoonotic infection that is almost always lethal once clinical signs appear. Rabies can be (re)introduced into rabies-free areas through transboundary dog movements, thus compromising animal and human health. A number of measures have been implemented to prevent this happening, one of which is the waiting period (WP) after anti-rabies vaccination and serological testing. This WP ensures that antibodies assessed through the serological test are due to the vaccine, not to infection. Indeed, if antibodies are due to RABV infection, the dog should display clinical signs within this WP and would not therefore be imported.

Methods And Results: Within a framework of quantitative risk assessment, we used modelling approaches to evaluate the impact of this WP and its duration on the risk of introducing rabies via the importation of dogs into the European Union. Two types of models were used, a classical stochastic scenario tree model and an individual-based model, both parameterised using scientific literature or data specifically applicable to the EU. Results showed that, assuming perfect compliance, the current 3-month waiting period was associated with a median annual number of 0.04 infected dogs imported into the EU. When the WP was reduced, the risk increased. For example, for a 1-month WP, the median annual number of infected dogs imported was 0.17 or 0.15 depending on the model, which corresponds to a four-fold increase.

Conclusion: This in silico study, particularly suitable for evaluating rare events such as rabies infections in rabies-free areas, provided results that can directly inform policymakers in order to adapt regulations linked to rabies and animal movements.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/zph.13113DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

waiting period
12
european union
8
clinical signs
8
rabies-free areas
8
median annual
8
annual number
8
infected dogs
8
dogs imported
8
rabies
5
impact rabies
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!