Search

The direct fluorescent antibody test (dFAT) using brain sample after opening the skull is the standard rabies diagnostic test in animal rabies. However, it is not feasible in many resource-limited settings. Lateral flow devices (LFD) combined with a simple sampling methodology is quicker, simpler, and less hazardous than the standard test and can be a useful tool. We conducted a prospective on-site study to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the LFD with the straw sampling method compared with that of the dFAT with the skull opening procedure for post-mortem canine rabies diagnosis. We collected 97 rabies-suspected animals between December 1, 2020 and March 31, 2021. Among the 97 samples, 53 and 50 cases were positive tests for dFAT and LFD, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of LFD with straw sampling method were 94.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 84.3–98.8%) and 100% (95% CI, 92.0–100%), respectively. The performance of LFD by the straw sampling method showed relatively high sensitivity and 100% specificity compared with that of dFAT performed on samples collected after opening the skull. This methodology can be beneficial and is a strong tool to overcome limited animal surveillance in remote areas. However, because of our limited sample size, more data using fresh samples on-site and the optimizations are urgently needed for the further implementation in endemic areas.

Background Despite the effort to eradicate rabies in the Philippines, human rabies cases have not decreased in the past decade. Rabid dogs pose the most significant hazard in the countries with the highest burden of rabies, and 70% rabies vaccine coverage is recommended for dogs in high-risk areas. Ascertaining the owned dog population and community knowledge on rabies can help improve vaccine coverage and information campaigns. Methodology/Principal findings We conducted a cross-sectional survey in six randomly selected communities (five urban, one rural) in Central Luzon, Philippines. We first conducted the complete mapping of 9,173 households and then randomly selected 727 households. More than half (54.1%) of the households owned dogs (1.21 dogs/household). In the 727 households, we identified 878 owned dogs and 3256 humans. According to these results, the dog-to-human ratio was approximately 1:3.7. Only 8.8% of households reported a history of dog bite in 2019. Among dog-owning households, 31% reported that they allow their dogs to roam freely. Of the recorded dogs, 35.9% have never been vaccinated, and only 3.5% were spayed or castrated. Factors associated with lower rabies knowledge include (1) no education aOR: 0.30 (0.16–0.59), and (2) only primary school education aOR: 0.33 (0.22–0.49). In contrast, factors associated with higher knowledge include (1) owning a dog and not allowing them to roam freely aOR: 2.01 (1.41–2.87) and (2) owning a dog and allowing them to roam freely aOR: 1.84 (1.17–2.92), when compared to those with no dogs. Conclusions/Significance We identified a larger dog population in the community than the usual estimates (1:10), suggesting that annual vaccine needs in the Philippines must be reassessed. Our survey shows a relatively good understanding of rabies; however, awareness of the concept of rabies as a disease, and how animals and humans can acquire it, is lacking., Author summary Rabies is a fatal disease primarily transmitted by rabid dogs. It is estimated that 59 000 human deaths occur worldwide annually because of rabies. Prevention is possible using pre-exposure prophylaxis or post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP). Despite this, rabies remains a neglected disease and a burden, particularly in developing countries. In this study, we found that the current estimated dog to human ratio of 1:10 may be incorrect. Our data show that the ratio of 1:3.7 may more closely reflect real-world figures. This finding is supported by previous studies on dog populations. We provide compelling evidence that there is a need to revise the current guidelines for estimating the dog population to provide adequate vaccine coverage. Our findings on community knowledge about rabies show that there is relatively good understanding regarding rabies; however, awareness of the concept of rabies as a disease and how animals and humans can acquire it is lacking. This should be a point of focus for future education campaigns.