Rabies surveillance in the rural population of Cluj County, Romania.

INTRODUCTION

The rabies virus causes an acute encephalomyelitis that progresses to coma and death within 10 days of the onset of the disease. Taking into account the fatality of the disease and the absence of a specific treatment, preventive methods are of the outmost importance. The purpose of this study was to assess the exposure of the rural population from Cluj County, Romania, to rabies risk factors.

METHODS

Data regarding the exposure of the rural population from Cluj County to rabies risk factors were collected from the Vaccination Center registry at the Infectious Diseases Teaching Hospital in Cluj-Napoca. The information was treated confidentially. The data obtained were collected using an Access 2000 database and was analyzed using Epi Info. Information regarding the general population was available from the 2002 General Population and Housing Census.

RESULTS

Cluj County reported 1008 cases of human exposure to potentially rabid animals between April 1998 and December 2004. The relative contributions of the major groups of aggressor animals were as follows: 882 dogs (81.55%), 51 cats (5.06%), 30 foxes (2.98%), 28 horses (2.78%), 19 rats (1.89%), and 58 other animals (5.74%). Post-exposure prophylaxis with antirabies serum immune globulin was prescribed in 9% of the cases (n = 90). Vaccine was recommended in 72% of the cases (n = 726). Two hundred and eighty-three patients out of 726 (38.98%) underwent complete vaccine prophylaxis. Diagnoses in animals suspected of having rabies were made by direct immunofluorescent antibody staining of rabies viral antigen in brain material. The number of animals that tested positive for rabies during the period April 1998 to December 2004 was 49. More than 77% (n = 38) were wild animals. The relative contributions of the major groups of animals were as follows: 33 foxes (67.35%), 7 dogs (14.29%), 2 wolves (4.08%) and 7 other animals (14.29%).

CONCLUSIONS

The fatal risk of rabies in human beings, and the persistence of the virus in this geographic area, makes legitimate the recommendation of prophylactic procedures for persons exposed to potentially rabid animals.