Abstract

Background

Travelers to countries where rabies is endemic may be at risk of rabies exposure. We assessed rabies immunization of travelers attending a travel clinic in Thailand.

Methods

The medical charts of international travelers who came for preexposure (PrEP) or postexposure (PEP) rabies prophylaxis at the Queen Saovabha Memorial Institute (QSMI), Bangkok, Thailand between 2001 and 2011 were retrospectively reviewed.

Results

A total of 782 travelers, including 188 patients who presented with mammal‐associated injuries and possible rabies exposures and 594 persons who came requesting PrEP, were studied. Of the travelers who received PEP, only 27 (14.3%) had been previously immunized against rabies and 141 (75.0%) cases experienced high‐risk WHO category III exposure. Most of the incidents were unprovoked. Although promptly seeking medical services after the injuries, 114 (60.7%) travelers did not undertake any first‐aid care for their wounds. Of these travelers, 19 (10.3%) received intradermal rabies vaccination as they could complete the series here. Rabies immunoglobulin was given to 118 of 121 (97.5%) patients. About one fourth of recipients could accomplish the full schedule at QSMI. Among visitors who requested PrEP, 454 (76.4%) persons had just started their first dose. Among all visitors, 263 (44.3%) were Japanese. The number of Japanese asking for PrEP was higher in 2006, the year when cases of imported human rabies to Japan were reported. This trend has sustained since then. Two (0.3%) travelers were bitten by suspected rabid dogs before they completed their PrEP program.

Conclusion

Rabies prophylaxis is an important decision for each traveler. It should be made before visiting endemic areas.

Travelers to countries where rabies is endemic are prone to the risks of rabies exposures. Of the 23,509 returning travelers seen at GeoSentinel clinics from six continents, 1.4% presented with animal‐related injuries.1 Most of the incidents happened in Asia and Africa. Forty‐two rabies cases had been imported to the United States, Europe, and Japan during the last two decades.2 Thailand, a well‐established tourist destination with arrivals of over 10 million annually,3 was mentioned as a common site of mammal bites (Table 1).4–9 Through the improved accessibility of postexposure prophylaxis (PEP), some canine vaccination and intensive public education, the country has succeeded in decreasing annual human rabies fatalities from hundreds in the 1960s to <25 since the 2010s.10 Nevertheless, the burden of canine rabies is still significant. Dogs are the rabies reservoir and principal source of exposures. Approximately 10 million domestic and free‐roaming dogs have low rabies vaccination coverage.11 Almost one third of submitted specimens for fluorescent antibody detection were confirmed as rabies infected.12,13 It is estimated that one million of the total Thai population of 65 million are bitten by dogs each year. Less than half of them receive PEP.12 Dog bites occupied 5.3% of injuries seen in the emergency room at a university hospital in Bangkok.14 The incidence of travelers being bitten or licked during an average stay of 1 month was 0.69 to 2.3 per 100 travelers, or 3.1 to 15.7 per 100 travelers, respectively.15,16,17 Among these, 37.1 to 66.7% of exposed patients sought medical care. Only 11.6% to 18.1% of all travelers had complete preexposure rabies prophylaxis (PrEP) before their trip.16,17 This study was conducted to assess rabies immunization of foreign travelers attending a travel clinic in an epizootic area in Thailand.

Table 1

Mammal‐associated injuries and rabies postexposure management of travelers4–9

Place of travel clinics France, Australia, New Zealand New Zealand United Kingdom Israel Switzerland Nepal 
Number of travelers 261 54 139 13 90 56 
Male : female ND 1.1 : 1 1.04 : 1 1.6 : 1 0.85 : 1 1 : 1.5 
Mean age (year) (range) ND 30.4 35 (2–84) 26 36 (median) (2–74) ND 
Age < 15 years ND 9 (16.7%) Age <10 years (7; 5.0%) ND ND 2 (3.6%) 
Main regions of injury SEA and North Africa South Asia and SEA Asia Asia Asia Asia 
Common countries Thailand (52; 19.9%) Thailand (19; 35.2%) Thailand (31; 22.3%)
Turkey (31; 22.3%) 
ND ND Nepal (56; 100%) 
Responsible dog 139 (53.3%) 36 (66.7%) 69 (49.6%) 6 (46.2%) 50 (55.0%) 32 (57.1%) 
Sites of wounds Severe facial and hand injuries (20; 7.7%) Thigh and lower limbs (26; 48.1%) Lower limbs (67; 48.2%) Upper limbs (8; 61.5%) ND Head or face (1; 1.8%) 
WHO CAT III 197 (75.4%) 46 (85.2%) ND 7 (53.8%) ND ND 
Previous PrEP 16 (6.1%) 3 (5.6%) 14 (10.1%) 1 (7.7%) 9 (10.0%) 12 (21.4%) 
Initiation PEP abroad 133 (50.9%) 54 (100%) 86 (61.9%) 4 (30.8%) 54 (60.0%) — 
Indicated for RIG 170 (65.1%) ND 78 (56.1%) ND 81 (90.0%) ND 
Received RIG abroad 19 (7.3%) 7 (12.9%) 3 (3.8%) ND 7 (7.8%) — 
Received RIG in home country 22 (8.4%) 3 (5.6%) 11 (7.9%) ND 28 (31.1%) ND 
Place of travel clinics France, Australia, New Zealand New Zealand United Kingdom Israel Switzerland Nepal 
Number of travelers 261 54 139 13 90 56 
Male : female ND 1.1 : 1 1.04 : 1 1.6 : 1 0.85 : 1 1 : 1.5 
Mean age (year) (range) ND 30.4 35 (2–84) 26 36 (median) (2–74) ND 
Age < 15 years ND 9 (16.7%) Age <10 years (7; 5.0%) ND ND 2 (3.6%) 
Main regions of injury SEA and North Africa South Asia and SEA Asia Asia Asia Asia 
Common countries Thailand (52; 19.9%) Thailand (19; 35.2%) Thailand (31; 22.3%)
Turkey (31; 22.3%) 
ND ND Nepal (56; 100%) 
Responsible dog 139 (53.3%) 36 (66.7%) 69 (49.6%) 6 (46.2%) 50 (55.0%) 32 (57.1%) 
Sites of wounds Severe facial and hand injuries (20; 7.7%) Thigh and lower limbs (26; 48.1%) Lower limbs (67; 48.2%) Upper limbs (8; 61.5%) ND Head or face (1; 1.8%) 
WHO CAT III 197 (75.4%) 46 (85.2%) ND 7 (53.8%) ND ND 
Previous PrEP 16 (6.1%) 3 (5.6%) 14 (10.1%) 1 (7.7%) 9 (10.0%) 12 (21.4%) 
Initiation PEP abroad 133 (50.9%) 54 (100%) 86 (61.9%) 4 (30.8%) 54 (60.0%) — 
Indicated for RIG 170 (65.1%) ND 78 (56.1%) ND 81 (90.0%) ND 
Received RIG abroad 19 (7.3%) 7 (12.9%) 3 (3.8%) ND 7 (7.8%) — 
Received RIG in home country 22 (8.4%) 3 (5.6%) 11 (7.9%) ND 28 (31.1%) ND 

Data are number of travelers, unless otherwise indicated.

Percentages; as compared with the total travelers in each study.

ND = not documented; SEA = Southeast Asia; PrEP = preexposure prophylaxis; PEP = postexposure prophylaxis; RIG = rabies immunoglobulin.

Methods

The Queen Saovabha Memorial Institute (QSMI) of the Thai Red Cross Society provides travelers with PrEP as well as PEP for prophylaxis or treatment of animal bites. The study was carried out retrospectively by reviewing the medical charts of all international travelers who received PrEP or PEP at the outpatient clinic of QSMI for 11 years from 2001 to 2011. Collected information included age, gender, nationality, history of antimalarial or immunosuppressive drugs used, date of exposure, interval before seeking medical attention, site of the wounds, grading of the severity of the exposures (WHO categories I to III), immediate first aid rendered, description of the responsible animals, place of accident, antirabies vaccination, and use of rabies immunoglobulin (RIG). All data were extracted from patient records, then anonymously entered and analyzed using the statistical software package spss version 21.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., New York, NY, USA). The study was approved by the institute's ethics committee.

Results

A total of 786 travelers were identified. Four individuals were excluded because of incomplete records. Of the remaining 782 travelers, 188 (median age 30 years, M : F = 2.1 : 1) came with animal‐associated injuries and possible rabies exposures and 594 (median age 28 years, M : F = 1.8 : 1) came to receive PrEP (Figure 1). During 2001 to 2011, there were 32,256 PEP recipients and 6,276 PrEP recipients. International travelers accounted for 0.6% and 9.5% of all PEP and PrEP recipients, respectively.

Figure 1

Number of travelers who received postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) and preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) at Queen Saovabha Memorial Institute during 2001 to 2011.

Figure 1

Number of travelers who received postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) and preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) at Queen Saovabha Memorial Institute during 2001 to 2011.

Among travelers who received PEP, most came from low endemicity countries in Europe and the Americas (Table 2). Only 27 (14.3%) patients were already immunized against rabies, while 157 (83.5%) cases had never received rabies vaccination. Of these patients, 141 (75.0%) experienced WHO category III exposures (wounds penetrating skin and bleeding). Although many patients promptly sought medical services, 114 (60.7%) patients did not perform any first‐aid wound care (Table 3). There was no significant difference in prehospital management of wound care between travelers who had ever received rabies immunization and those who had never done so. There were mammal‐associated injuries acquired in Bangkok, elsewhere in Thailand (especially in provinces with tourist attractions), and in other Asian countries. Most of the bites were unprovoked, occurring on roads or tourist spots from stray dogs, monkeys, or cats. Only three (2.4%) of the offending dogs were owned and annually vaccinated. Two dogs were proved to be rabid by direct fluorescent antibody test (dFAT). The vast majority of responsible dogs were not captured and examined. A few traveling patients had to attend at least two to three different hospitals during the PEP course and to do so in two to three different countries. Overall, 86 (45.7%) subjects had prior treatments from other hospitals in Thailand or abroad. The majority of patients received the conventional five‐dose Essen intramuscular regimen. The rest received varied protocols such as the 2‐1‐1 (Zagreb) schedule (WHO approved) or the original or modified Thai Red Cross intradermal (TRC‐ID) method. Suckling mouse brain vaccine was used in one traveler in Vietnam in 2007. Three (1.6%) patients, who attended different hospitals during their courses, received more than one schedule of rabies vaccination. They were initially given the Essen intramuscular regimen for PEP and later switched to TRC‐intradermal protocol at other hospitals. Before attending QSMI, 34 travelers with WHO category III exposure did not receive RIG according to WHO recommendation as a result of unavailability or misinterpretation of the severity of exposure by local health care providers. Eventually, RIG was given to 118 of 121 (97.5%) patients where it was indicated. Two travelers appeared later than 7 days after having started vaccination elsewhere and RIG was contraindicated at this late time when native antibodies were appearing. One traveler refused RIG without giving any reason. Fifty (42.4%) patients received purified equine rabies immunoglobulin (ERIG). None of these developed serum sickness or other significant complications. About one fourth of recipients could finish their PEP schedules at QSMI. At least 28 (14.9%) patients had to continue the vaccination course abroad—either at their home countries or next destinations.

Table 2

Demographic data and characteristics of mammal‐associated injuries with possible rabies exposures of 188 travelers*

 n (%) 
Sex  
Male 127 (67.6) 
Female 61 (32.4) 
Age (year) (median 30 years; range 4–64 years)  
≤15 10 (5.3) 
16–30 86 (45.7) 
31–45 59 (31.4) 
46–60 24 (12.8) 
>60 9 (4.8) 
Nationality (n = 183)  
European 90 (49.2) 
North American 43 (23.5) 
Asian 38 (20.8) 
Oceania (Australian, New Zealander) 9 (4.9) 
South American 3 (1.6) 
History of previous rabies immunization  
Preexposure prophylaxis 20 (10.6) 
Postexposure prophylaxis 7 (3.7) 
Incomplete pre‐ or postexposure prophylaxis 4 (2.1) 
Never 157 (83.5) 
Place of mammalian bite injury  
Bangkok 50 (26.6) 
Other provinces in Thailand 90 (47.9) 
Other countries 48 (25.5) 
Responsible mammals  
Dogs 126 (67.0) 
Ownerless 94 (74.6) 
Unknown status 5 (4.0) 
Owned, annually vaccinated 3 (2.4) 
Owned, not vaccinated 8 (6.3) 
Owned, unknown history of vaccination 16 (12.7) 
Monkeys 28 (14.9) 
Cats 22 (11.7) 
Other mammals 12 (6.4) 
Bite—wound location  
Extremities 172 (91.5) 
Face and head 9 (4.8) 
Trunk 7 (3.7) 
Rabies exposure according to WHO category  
Category I (touching or feeding of animals, licks on intact skin) 3 (1.6) 
Category II (nibbling of uncovered skin, minor scratches, or abrasions without bleeding) 44 (23.4) 
Category III (single or multiple transdermal bites or scratches, licks on broken skin, contamination of mucous membrane with saliva, exposure to bats) 141 (75.0) 
 n (%) 
Sex  
Male 127 (67.6) 
Female 61 (32.4) 
Age (year) (median 30 years; range 4–64 years)  
≤15 10 (5.3) 
16–30 86 (45.7) 
31–45 59 (31.4) 
46–60 24 (12.8) 
>60 9 (4.8) 
Nationality (n = 183)  
European 90 (49.2) 
North American 43 (23.5) 
Asian 38 (20.8) 
Oceania (Australian, New Zealander) 9 (4.9) 
South American 3 (1.6) 
History of previous rabies immunization  
Preexposure prophylaxis 20 (10.6) 
Postexposure prophylaxis 7 (3.7) 
Incomplete pre‐ or postexposure prophylaxis 4 (2.1) 
Never 157 (83.5) 
Place of mammalian bite injury  
Bangkok 50 (26.6) 
Other provinces in Thailand 90 (47.9) 
Other countries 48 (25.5) 
Responsible mammals  
Dogs 126 (67.0) 
Ownerless 94 (74.6) 
Unknown status 5 (4.0) 
Owned, annually vaccinated 3 (2.4) 
Owned, not vaccinated 8 (6.3) 
Owned, unknown history of vaccination 16 (12.7) 
Monkeys 28 (14.9) 
Cats 22 (11.7) 
Other mammals 12 (6.4) 
Bite—wound location  
Extremities 172 (91.5) 
Face and head 9 (4.8) 
Trunk 7 (3.7) 
Rabies exposure according to WHO category  
Category I (touching or feeding of animals, licks on intact skin) 3 (1.6) 
Category II (nibbling of uncovered skin, minor scratches, or abrasions without bleeding) 44 (23.4) 
Category III (single or multiple transdermal bites or scratches, licks on broken skin, contamination of mucous membrane with saliva, exposure to bats) 141 (75.0) 
*

Exclusive of local citizens of which there were an additional 32,256 PEP recipients.

Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Vietnam, the Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, India, Sri Lanka, Nepal, and China.

Bats, horse, otter, tiger, and gibbon.

Table 3

Postexposure rabies prophylaxis (PEP) of 188 travelers

 n (%) 
First aid (wound care) after bite  
None 114 (60.7) 
Wash with only water 19 (10.1) 
Wash with water and soap 32 (17.0) 
Wash with water, soap, and antiseptic agent 23 (12.2) 
Time to receive postexposure prophylaxis after rabies exposure  
Within 24 hours 116 (61.7) 
Within 3 days 138 (73.4) 
Within 7 days 164 (87.3) 
Regimen (n = 185)*  
Postexposure prophylaxis  
Standard five‐dose intramuscular regimen 133 (71.9) 
Thai Red Cross—intradermal regimen 19 (10.3) 
Zagreb regimen 3 (1.6) 
Booster immunization 27 (14.6) 
Others (more than one regimen) 3 (1.6) 
Rabies immunoglobulin administration for WHO category III exposure (n = 118)  
QSMI  
Human rabies immunoglobulin 54 (45.8) 
Purified equine rabies immunoglobulin 50 (42.4) 
Other hospitals 14 (11.8) 
Postexposure prophylaxis course  
Complete course at QSMI 54 (28.7) 
Continue vaccination elsewhere in Thailand 106 (56.4) 
Continue vaccination abroad 28 (14.9) 
 n (%) 
First aid (wound care) after bite  
None 114 (60.7) 
Wash with only water 19 (10.1) 
Wash with water and soap 32 (17.0) 
Wash with water, soap, and antiseptic agent 23 (12.2) 
Time to receive postexposure prophylaxis after rabies exposure  
Within 24 hours 116 (61.7) 
Within 3 days 138 (73.4) 
Within 7 days 164 (87.3) 
Regimen (n = 185)*  
Postexposure prophylaxis  
Standard five‐dose intramuscular regimen 133 (71.9) 
Thai Red Cross—intradermal regimen 19 (10.3) 
Zagreb regimen 3 (1.6) 
Booster immunization 27 (14.6) 
Others (more than one regimen) 3 (1.6) 
Rabies immunoglobulin administration for WHO category III exposure (n = 118)  
QSMI  
Human rabies immunoglobulin 54 (45.8) 
Purified equine rabies immunoglobulin 50 (42.4) 
Other hospitals 14 (11.8) 
Postexposure prophylaxis course  
Complete course at QSMI 54 (28.7) 
Continue vaccination elsewhere in Thailand 106 (56.4) 
Continue vaccination abroad 28 (14.9) 

QSMI = Queen Saovabha Memorial Institute.

*

Three cases did not receive PEP according to WHO category I exposure.

Patients who never received rabies immunization before.

Among 594 individuals who received PrEP, 454 (76.4%) persons just started their first dose and 165 (27.8%) travelers received all three injections of PrEP at QSMI (Table 4). The rest may have had their follow‐up elsewhere. Travelers from Japan (263; 44.3%), UK (51; 8.5%), the United States (49; 8.2%), Germany (33; 5.6%), and France (23; 3.9%) were the top five nationalities that received PrEP. The number of Japanese asking for PrEP was higher in 2006, the year with reported cases of imported human rabies in Japan, and this trend has sustained since then. Two (0.3%) travelers were bitten by suspected rabid dogs before their PrEP series was completed and full PEP schedule plus RIG were provided instead as <7 days since vaccination had elapsed. Forty‐one (6.9%) travelers concurrently took antimalarial drugs such as mefloquine or doxycycline, and all received intramuscular rabies vaccination.

Table 4

Demographic data and preexposure rabies vaccination (n = 594)

 n (%) 
Sex  
Male 383 (64.5) 
Female 211 (35.5) 
Age (year) (median 28 years; range 3–72 years)  
≤15 10 (1.7) 
16–30 364 (61.3) 
31–45 159 (26.7) 
46–60 51 (8.6) 
>60 10 (1.7) 
Nationality (n = 585)  
Asian 296 (50.6) 
European 179 (30.6) 
North American 87 (14.9) 
Oceania (Australian, New Zealander) 22 (3.7) 
South American 1 (0.2) 
Preexposure rabies prophylaxis course  
Started first dose 454 (76.4) 
Required to complete schedule 140 (23.6) 
Complete three‐dose of PrEP at QSMI  
Yes 165 (27.8) 
No 429 (72.2) 
 n (%) 
Sex  
Male 383 (64.5) 
Female 211 (35.5) 
Age (year) (median 28 years; range 3–72 years)  
≤15 10 (1.7) 
16–30 364 (61.3) 
31–45 159 (26.7) 
46–60 51 (8.6) 
>60 10 (1.7) 
Nationality (n = 585)  
Asian 296 (50.6) 
European 179 (30.6) 
North American 87 (14.9) 
Oceania (Australian, New Zealander) 22 (3.7) 
South American 1 (0.2) 
Preexposure rabies prophylaxis course  
Started first dose 454 (76.4) 
Required to complete schedule 140 (23.6) 
Complete three‐dose of PrEP at QSMI  
Yes 165 (27.8) 
No 429 (72.2) 

PrEP = preexposure prophylaxis; QSMI = Queen Saovabha Memorial Institute.

Discussion

As long as the rabies reservoirs in endemic regions are not controlled, travel in the affected area carries the risk of exposure. Owned and vaccinated domestic dogs in endemic zones cannot be considered entirely free of rabies. A single dose of rabies vaccine given to dogs was unable to reliably maintain protective antibody levels past 6 months, and 3% to 9% of rabid dogs had a history of rabies vaccination.18,19 In 2008 to 2011, owned dogs were responsible for over three fourths of human rabies cases in Thailand (Apirom Puanghat, personal communication, January 2013). Besides dogs and cats, various mammalian species were, although rarely, laboratory diagnosed as rabid. This included cats, monkeys, cattle, horses, one pet rabbit (bitten by a rabid rat), squirrels, bats, pigs, and sheep.11 Thus, tourists must be educated to avoid any unnecessary contact with any mammals.

In the context of travelers, many could not arrange to have the five visits over a month required for PEP at a single health care provider. Different hospitals may then switch to different rabies vaccination schedules. Currently, there are at least four postexposure schedules being used worldwide.20 The World Health Organization initiated recent efforts to simplify, standardize, and rationalize the multiple, complex, confusing, and prolonged postexposure rabies immunization schedules. WHO‐recommended postexposure treatment is not yet uniformly provided in some developing countries. The main barriers are the shortage or lack of distribution of rabies biologics, and lack of or inadequate education of health care personnel in managing rabies exposures. Not providing RIG where it is indicated is of utmost concern. Human RIG is expensive and usually not even stocked in many countries. However, highly purified ERIG is now increasingly available in almost all Asian countries. It is safe and effective, yet travelers reporting to animal bite clinics often refuse receiving it to their own detriment when the human product is not available or not affordable. Such travelers often report to a clinic after returning home, and with much delay, when administering it is then contraindicated.8 Any transdermal wound is classified by WHO as category III (severe exposure). It is neither the site nor size which determines the severity of an exposure but rather the fact that it has penetrated the skin. Another still common error is that the human or equine immunoglobulin is administered intramuscularly and not into the bite sites, the only sites where it has been shown to be effective and potentially life saving.21

Preexposure rabies vaccination for persons at increased risk by virtue of life styles and occupations has been recommended by WHO. Predicting the actual risks of exposure for a traveler is difficult. It depends on prevalence of canine and wildlife rabies, the traveler's activities, time spent in the high‐risk region, and other unknown factors. Consideration also needs to be given to the availability of WHO level postexposure prophylaxis in that particular country. The threshold for recommending preexposure vaccination must be lowered if travel is to a region where WHO‐approved rabies vaccines and immunoglobulins are not available. There are such locations which, nevertheless, attract many international tourists. When the exposed has previously received PrEP, only two booster injections within 3‐day intervals would be needed and without RIG. Otherwise, a single‐visit four‐site intradermal booster regimen, consisting of four intradermal injections of 0.1 mL of rabies vaccine over both deltoids and thighs are an effective and convenient 1‐day alternative.20,22 Even with a history of PrEP, the importance of immediate wound care and booster vaccination must be stressed. Following a PrEP schedule requires planning and time. Abbreviated PrEP schemes are now undergoing study.23

Our report has limitations inherent of a retrospective study at one center in one country with high awareness of the rabies threat. However, it represented the overview of a practice in realistic conditions of a travel clinic in canine‐rabies region.

In conclusion, this study has shown the size of the risk of rabies to travelers and what travel clinics are facing in Southeast Asia. Education of travelers before they leave is the effective method to reduce the risk.

We are grateful to Miss Nartanong Khumniphat for her secretarial support and Dr Lowell Skar for reviewing the manuscript.

Declaration of Interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest in this study.

References

1
Gautret
P
Schwartz
E
Shaw
M
, et al.
Animal‐associated injuries and related diseases among returned travellers: a review of the GeoSentinel Surveillance Network
.
Vaccine
 
2007
;
25
:
2656
2663
.
2
Malerczyk
C
Detora
L
Gniel
D
.
Imported human rabies cases in Europe, the United States, and Japan, 1990 to 2010
.
J Travel Med
 
2011
;
18
:
402
407
.
3
World Tourism Organization UNWTO. UNWTO Tourism highlights 2012 edition. Available at: http://mkt.unwto.org/en/publication/unwto-tourism-highlights-2012-edition. (Accessed 2012 Nov 1).
4
Gautret
P
Shaw
M
Gazin
P
, et al.
Rabies postexposure prophylaxis in returned injured travelers from France, Australia, and New Zealand: a retrospective study
.
J Travel Med
 
2008
;
15
:
25
30
.
5
Shaw
MT
O'Brien
B
Leggat
PA
.
Rabies postexposure management of travelers presenting to travel health clinics in Auckland and Hamilton, New Zealand
.
J Travel Med
 
2009
;
16
:
13
17
.
6
Wijaya
L
Ford
L
Lalloo
D
.
Rabies postexposure prophylaxis in a UK travel clinic: ten years' experience
.
J Travel Med
 
2011
;
18
:
257
261
.
7
Menachem
M
Grupper
M
Paz
A
Potasman
I
.
Assessment of rabies exposure risk among Israeli travelers
.
Travel Med Infect Dis
 
2008
;
6
:
12
16
.
8
Uwanyiligira
M
Landry
P
Genton
B
de Valliere
S
.
Rabies postexposure prophylaxis in routine practice in view of the new Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and World Health Organization recommendations
.
Clin Infect Dis
 
2012
;
55
:
201
205
.
9
Pandey
P
Shlim
DR
Cave
W
Springer
MF
.
Risk of possible exposure to rabies among tourists and foreign residents in Nepal
.
J Travel Med
 
2002
;
9
:
127
131
.
10
Gongal
G
Wright
AE
.
Human rabies in the WHO Southeast Asia region: forward steps for elimination
.
Adv Prev Med
 
2011
;
2011
:
383870
.
11
Wilde
H
Chutivongse
S
Tepsumethanon
W
, et al.
Rabies in Thailand: 1990
.
Rev Infect Dis
 
1991
;
13
:
644
652
.
12
Hemachudha
T
.
Rabies and dog population control in Thailand: success or failure?
J Med Assoc Thai
 
2005
;
88
:
120
123
.
13
Tepsumethanon
V
Sitprija
V
.
Laboratory diagnosis of rabies in Bangkok and the central part of Thailand, 2001–2004
.
J Med Assoc Thai
 
2005
;
88
:
282
286
.
14
Bhanganada
K
Wilde
H
Sakolsataydorn
P
Oonsombat
P
.
Dog‐bite injuries at a Bangkok teaching hospital
.
Acta Trop
 
1993
;
55
:
249
255
.
15
Phanuphak
P
Ubolyam
S
Sirivichayakul
S
.
Should travellers in rabies endemic areas receive pre‐exposure rabies immunization?
Ann Med Interne (Paris)
 
1994
;
145
:
409
411
.
16
Piyaphanee
W
Shantavasinkul
P
Phumratanaprapin
W
, et al.
Rabies exposure risk among foreign backpackers in Southeast Asia
.
Am J Trop Med Hyg
 
2010
;
82
:
1168
1171
.
17
Piyaphanee
W
Kittitrakul
C
Lawpoolsri
S
, et al.
Risk of potentially rabid animal exposure among foreign travelers in Southeast Asia
.
PLoS Negl Trop Dis
 
2012
;
6
:
e1852
.
18
Tepsumethanon
W
Polsuwan
C
Lumlertdaecha
B
, et al.
Immune response to rabies vaccine in Thai dogs: a preliminary report
.
Vaccine
 
1991
;
9
:
627
630
.
19
Sage
G
Khawplod
P
Wilde
H
, et al.
Immune response to rabies vaccine in Alaskan dogs: failure to achieve a consistently protective antibody response
.
Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg
 
1993
;
87
:
593
595
.
20
WHO
.
Rabies vaccines: WHO position paper
.
Wkly Epidemiol Rec
 
2010
;
85
:
309
320
.
21
Saesow
N
Chaiwatanarat
T
Mitmoonpitak
C
Wilde
H
.
Diffusion and fate of intramuscularly injected human rabies immune globulin
.
Acta Trop
 
2000
;
76
:
289
292
.
22
Tantawichien
T
Benjavongkulchai
M
Limsuwan
K
, et al.
Antibody response after a four‐site intradermal booster vaccination with cell‐culture rabies vaccine
.
Clin Infect Dis
 
1999
;
28
:
1100
1103
.
23
Khawplod
P
Jaijaroensup
W
Sawangvaree
A
, et al.
One clinic visit for pre‐exposure rabies vaccination (a preliminary one year study)
.
Vaccine
 
2012
;
30
:
2918
2920
.
This study was partly presented as a poster at the 8th Asia‐Pacific Travel Health Conference, Nara, Japan, October 20–23, 2010.