Subject(s)
Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Child , Child, Preschool , Drug Hypersensitivity/etiology , Female , Humans , Immunoglobulins , Infant , Intradermal Tests , Male , Middle Aged , Prospective Studies , Rabies/drug therapy , Rabies Vaccines/administration & dosage , Registries , Risk Factors , Skin Tests , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: To determine the prevalence of rabies in free roaming mongooses and domestic rats in the Southern Province of Sri Lanka, and determine the different species of mongooses and domestic rats that could be reservoirs of rabies infection. DESIGN: A descriptive cross-sectional study during the period July-September 1999. SETTING: The Southern Province of Sri Lanka. STUDY POPULATION: Fifty mongooses roaming in gardens (excluding the wildlife protected zones), and 100 domestic rats found inside houses from the Divisional Secretariats in Galle, Matara and Hambantota districts. SAMPLE COLLECTION AND TESTING: The animals were trapped and speciated. After decapitation, the head was cooled immediately and brought to the Medical Research Institute (MRI) with minimum delay. The fluorescent antibody test (FAT) was done on the dissected brains at the Department of Rabies, MRI. RESULTS: Of the mongooses caught, 32 were brown mongooses and 18 ruddy mongooses. Eleven mongooses were found to be positive for rabies antigen. All domestic rats examined (common Sri Lankan house rats 76, Indian house mice 17, brown rats 7) were found to be negative for rabies antigen. CONCLUSIONS: Rabies exists in mongooses in the Southern Province. Both brown and ruddy mongooses were found to be reservoirs. The domestic rats were unlikely to be reservoirs of rabies infection in this province.
Subject(s)
Animals , Animals, Domestic , Cross-Sectional Studies , Fluorescent Antibody Technique , Herpestidae , Rabies/veterinary , Rats , Sri LankaABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To test the feasibility of introducing oral rabies vaccine (vaccinia recombinant rabies glycoprotein) to improve domestic dog immunisation coverage in a selected area. DESIGN: A prospective field trial. SETTING: Panadura, an area relatively isolated by waterways, making it a suitable field laboratory. METHODS: A routine parenteral vaccination program was carried out. A house to house survey identified the residual non-vaccinated dogs in the selected area. Oral vaccine was offered to the non-vaccinated domestic dogs. RESULTS: Of 4322 dogs in the households, 1242 dogs (28.7%) were eligible for oral vaccine. 659 (53%) were considered to have accepted the oral vaccine with release of the vaccine in the oral cavity. CONCLUSION: It is feasible to use oral rabies vaccine to enhance immunisation coverage.