Risks related to a possible reduction of the waiting period for dogs after rabies antibody titration to 30 days compared with 90 days of the current EU legislative regime

EFSA received a mandate from the European Commission to assess the risks related to a possible reduction of the waiting period after rabies antibody titration test to 30 days compared with 90 days of the current EU legislation, for dogs moving from certain non-EU countries to the EU. This Scientific Report assessed the probability of introduction of rabies into the EU through commercial and non-commercial movements of vaccinated dogs with a positive titration test (≥ 0.5 IU/mL) if the waiting period decreases from 90 to 30 days. Assuming that all the legal requirements are complied with, the risk of transmission of rabies through the movement of a vaccinated dog is related to the risk of introducing an animal incubating rabies that was infected before the day of vaccination or shortly after vaccination but before the development of immunity (21 days post-vaccination). Using published data on the incubation period for experimental and field cases in dogs and considering the rabies incidence data in certain countries, the aggregated probability for the annual introduction of rabies through dogs was assessed. Considering the uncertainty related to the duration of the incubation period, the number of imported dogs, and the disease incidence in some countries it was concluded with a 95% certainty that the maximum number of rabies-infected imported dogs complying with the regulations in a 20-year period could increase from 5 to 20 when decreasing the waiting period from 90 to 30 days. Nevertheless, the potential impact of even a small increase in probability means the risk is increased for a region like the EU where rabies has long been a focus for eradication, to protect human and animal health.

The shift in rabies epidemiology in France: time to adjust rabies post-exposure risk assessment

The epidemiology of rabies in France and western Europe has changed during the past 22 years. In France, rabies in non-flying terrestrial mammals was declared to be eliminated in 2001, and the risk of rabies is now limited to contact with bats, rabid animals illegally imported from rabies-enzootic countries and traveller exposure in enzootic areas. We analysed the epidemiology of rabies in France from 1995 to 2016, describing and analysing data on human rabies surveillance as well as data on post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) collected from the network of French antirabies clinics. Over the study period, seven individuals were diagnosed with rabies in France, all of whom were infected outside mainland France. PEP data analysis revealed an expected overall decrease in PEP administration for individuals exposed in mainland France, but there was still overuse of anti-rabies drugs, given the very low epidemiological risk. On the other hand, a significant increase in PEP delivered to individuals exposed abroad was evidenced. These epidemiological trends indicate that clear guidelines should be provided to support physicians' efforts to adjust rabies risk assessment to the evolution of the epidemiological situation.

European pet travel: misleading information from veterinarians and government agencies

Inter-country travel of companion animals provides an opportunity for introduction of zoonotic pathogens, such as rabies virus and Echinococcus spp. Regulations are in place to control this threat, but Schengen Agreements mean that border controls between some European countries are minimal, and animals may enter countries without any checks that they have been appropriately treated. Veterinarians provide an important source of information for people intending to travel with their pets. We conducted a telephone survey to investigate provision of correct advice to someone intending to travel with their dog to Norway. Mainland Norway is considered free of both rabies and E. multilocularis and is a signatory to the Schengen Agreement. Ten randomly selected veterinary clinics were surveyed in Austria, Belgium (Wallonia), Finland, France, Germany, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and United Kingdom. The information provided was scored as correct, incorrect or incomplete. The information provided by secondary information sources (website or government agency), which the clinic had referred the caller to, was also assessed (correct, incorrect, incomplete). Whilst the majority of clinics provided appropriate information regarding rabies, many clinics did not provide correct information regarding treatment for E. multilocularis. Less than one in 10 clinics provided the correct information regarding both pathogens directly at the time of calling. The correct information was obtained, once taking into account secondary sources, just 62% of the time. Countrywise, most clinics in Finland provided correct advice, either directly or indirectly via referring the caller to another source, whilst the majority in Belgium, Germany and France did not. The apparent paucity of readily accessible, correct advice for owners intending to travel with their dogs is concerning. The compulsory treatment regulations are only as good as the checks that ensure compliance, and this is also lacking in some countries.