A country classification system to inform rabies prevention guidelines and regulations.

BACKGROUND: Assessing the global risk of rabies exposure is a complicated task requiring individual risk assessments, knowledge of rabies epidemiology, surveillance capacity and accessibility of rabies biologics on a national and regional scale. In many parts of the world, availability of this information is limited and when available is often dispersed across multiple sources. This hinders the process of making evidence-based health and policy recommendations to prevent the introduction and spread of rabies. METHODS: CDC conducted a country-by-country qualitative assessment of risk and protective factors for rabies to develop an open-access database of core metrics consisting of the presence of lyssaviruses (specifically canine or wildlife rabies virus variants or other bat lyssaviruses), access to rabies immunoglobulins and vaccines, rabies surveillance capacity and canine rabies control capacity. Using these metrics, we developed separate risk scoring systems to inform rabies prevention guidance for travelers and regulations for the importation of dogs. Both scoring systems assigned higher risk to countries with enzootic rabies (particularly canine rabies), and the risk scoring system for travelers also considered protective factors such as the accessibility of rabies biologics for post-exposure prophylaxis. Cumulative scores were calculated across the assessed metrics to assign a risk value of low, moderate or high. RESULTS: A total of 240 countries, territories and dependencies were assessed, for travelers, 116 were identified as moderate to high risk and 124 were low or no risk; for canine rabies virus variant importation, 111 were identified as high-risk and 129 were low or no risk. CONCLUSIONS: We developed a comprehensive and easily accessible source of information for assessing the rabies risk for individual countries that included a database of rabies risk and protective factors based on enzootic status and availability of biologics, provided a resource that categorizes risk by country and provided guidance based on these risk categories for travelers and importers of dogs into the United States.

Evidence-based risk assessment and communication: a new global dengue-risk map for travellers and clinicians.

BACKGROUND: International travel can expose travellers to pathogens not commonly found in their countries of residence, like dengue virus. Travellers and the clinicians who advise and treat them have unique needs for understanding the geographic extent of risk for dengue. Specifically, they should assess the need for prevention measures before travel and ensure appropriate treatment of illness post-travel. Previous dengue-risk maps published in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Yellow Book lacked specificity, as there was a binary (risk, no risk) classification. We developed a process to compile evidence, evaluate it and apply more informative risk classifications. METHODS: We collected more than 839 observations from official reports, ProMED reports and published scientific research for the period 2005-2014. We classified each location as frequent/continuous risk if there was evidence of more than 10 dengue cases in at least three of the previous 10 years. For locations that did not fit this criterion, we classified locations as sporadic/uncertain risk if the location had evidence of at least one locally acquired dengue case during the last 10 years. We used expert opinion in limited instances to augment available data in areas where data were sparse. RESULTS: Initial categorizations classified 134 areas as frequent/continuous and 140 areas as sporadic/uncertain. CDC subject matter experts reviewed all initial frequent/continuous and sporadic/uncertain categorizations and the previously uncategorized areas. From this review, most categorizations stayed the same; however, 11 categorizations changed from the initial determinations. CONCLUSIONS: These new risk classifications enable detailed consideration of dengue risk, with clearer meaning and a direct link to the evidence that supports the specific classification. Since many infectious diseases have dynamic risk, strong geographical heterogeneities and varying data quality and availability, using this approach for other diseases can improve the accuracy, clarity and transparency of risk communication.