Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35632852›Full record

ReviewViruses2022

Time to Revise the WHO Categories for Severe Rabies Virus Exposures-Category IV?

Stephen J Scholand, Beatriz P Quiambao, Charles E Rupprecht

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Viruses, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Stephen J ScholandCollege of Medicine, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85724, USA.
Beatriz P QuiambaoResearch Institute for Tropical Medicine, Alabang, Muntinlupa City 1781, Metro Manila, Philippines.ORCID 0000-0003-2916-3199
Charles E RupprechtLYSSA LLC, Atlanta, GA 30333, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Rabies is a devastating disease and affects millions of people globally, yet it is preventable with appropriate and timely postexposure prophylaxis (PEP). The current WHO exposure categories (Categories I, II, and III) need revision, with a special Category IV for severe exposures. Rare cases of PEP failure have occurred in severe bites to the head and neck. Multiple factors, including route, wound severity, depth, contamination, viral dose, proximity to highly innervated areas and the CNS, and the number of lesions, remain unconsidered. Injuries in areas of high neural density are the most significant considering lyssavirus pathophysiology. Current recommendations do not account for these factors. A Category IV designation would acknowledge the severity and the increased risk of progression. Subsequently, patient management would be optimized with wound care and the appropriate administration of rabies-immune globulin/monoclonal antibodies (RIG/MAbs). All Category IV exposures would be infiltrated with the full dose of intact RIG (i.e., human RIG or MAbs) if the patient was previously unvaccinated. More concentrated RIG/MAb formulations would be preferred. As a world rabies community, we cannot tolerate PEP failures. A fourth WHO categorization will improve the care of these high-risk patients and highlight the global health urgency of this neglected disease.

Indexed as

RabiesRabies virusAntibodies, MonoclonalHumansPost-Exposure ProphylaxisWorld Health OrganizationAntibodies, Monoclonalimmune globulinslyssavirusneglected diseasesprophylaxisrabiesvaccineszoonosis

Identifiers

PMID35632852
PMCPMC9146666

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.