• Katie Hampson, Laurent Coudeville, Tiziana Lembo, Maganga Sambo, Alexia Kieffer, Michaël Attlan, Jacques Barrat, Jesse D Blanton, Deborah J Briggs, Sarah Cleaveland, Peter Costa, Conrad M Freuling, Elly Hiby, Lea Knopf, Fernando Leanes, François-Xavier Meslin, Artem Metlin, Mary Elizabeth Miranda, Thomas Müller, Louis H Nel, Sergio Recuenco, Charles E Rupprecht, Carolin Schumacher, Louise Taylor, Marco Antonio Natal Vigilato, Jakob Zinsstag, Jonathan Dushoff, and Global Alliance for Rabies Control Partners for Rabies Prevention.
• Boyd Orr Centre for Population and Ecosystem Health, Institute for Biodiversity, Animal Health & Comparative Medicine, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom.
• PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2015 Apr 1;9(4):e0003709.

BackgroundRabies is a notoriously underreported and neglected disease of low-income countries. This study aims to estimate the public health and economic burden of rabies circulating in domestic dog populations, globally and on a country-by-country basis, allowing an objective assessment of how much this preventable disease costs endemic countries.Methodology/Principal FindingsWe established relationships between rabies mortality and rabies prevention and control measures, which we incorporated into a model framework. We used data derived from extensive literature searches and questionnaires on disease incidence, control interventions and preventative measures within this framework to estimate the disease burden. The burden of rabies impacts on public health sector budgets, local communities and livestock economies, with the highest risk of rabies in the poorest regions of the world. This study estimates that globally canine rabies causes approximately 59,000 (95% Confidence Intervals: 25-159,000) human deaths, over 3.7 million (95% CIs: 1.6-10.4 million) disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) and 8.6 billion USD (95% CIs: 2.9-21.5 billion) economic losses annually. The largest component of the economic burden is due to premature death (55%), followed by direct costs of post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP, 20%) and lost income whilst seeking PEP (15.5%), with only limited costs to the veterinary sector due to dog vaccination (1.5%), and additional costs to communities from livestock losses (6%).Conclusions/SignificanceThis study demonstrates that investment in dog vaccination, the single most effective way of reducing the disease burden, has been inadequate and that the availability and affordability of PEP needs improving. Collaborative investments by medical and veterinary sectors could dramatically reduce the current large, and unnecessary, burden of rabies on affected communities. Improved surveillance is needed to reduce uncertainty in burden estimates and to monitor the impacts of control efforts.

22 keywords...

hide…