4.1 Review

Post-Exposure Prophylactic Vaccination against Rabies: A Systematic Review

Journal

IRANIAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH
Volume 51, Issue 5, Pages 967-977

Publisher

IRANIAN SCIENTIFIC SOCIETY MEDICAL ENTOMOLOGY

Keywords

Rabies; Post-exposure prophylaxis; Human; Vaccine

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This systematic review aimed to compare the effectiveness of different PEP vaccines, regimens, and routes of administration among Asian populations, and it provided valuable conclusions.
Background: Post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) is an effective method for preventing rabies, a highly fatal infection in exposed persons. Malaysia is currently using the purified Vero cell rabies vaccine (PVRV). Nonetheless, there are other commercially available vaccine types and regimens. This systematic review aimed at comparing the effectiveness of the different PEP vaccines, regimens and routes of administration among Asian populations. Methods: We systematically reviewed the PubMed and Web of Science databases for articles reporting on the effectiveness of PEP vaccination against rabies among Asian populations between 2015 and 2019. Results: Our search identified 11 relevant studies. Majority of study either used PCECV or PVRV type of vaccine, with different regimes and method. All are non-inferior to the other. Most of the studies recorded adequate response by Day 14 of vaccination. Nonetheless, the intradermal (ID) vaccination used minimal volume of vaccine used in all settings, thus cost less and the concurrent administration of RIG to the wound(s) doesn't affect the RVNA GMT response. Conclusion: PCECV, using either the Essen or Zagreb regimen, might be a useful alternative for the healthy population in the context of PVRV shortage, especially during an outbreak. Use of the Zagreb or Thai Red Cross (TRC) regimens can be considered (either PVRV or PCECV), as both demonstrate good immunogenic outcomes in Asian populations.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available